FANDOM


Clean up this page?????

This page has lots of discussion about "April 2007" which was based on the newspaper clipping in Through the Looking Glass, but the information on that clipping has been identified as not necessarily canon. Also, the stuff about Find 815 isn't necessary, because we've been told that Find 815 was not canon and even putting that aside, it's obvious that Find 815 took place in the fall of 2004, not when we actually played the game. Crash815 03:14, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Date of Funeral the meeting with Kate

They give the date of the funeral and the meeting with Kate as April 6th, 2007. I'm not sure that we can be that specific. Jack tries to kill himself not earlier than the night of April 5th, but that's assuming that the paper and the flight took place on the same day (not an unreasonable assumption bt an assumption). Then we're assuming that all the action post bridge attempt takes place in one day.

  • It's not possible that the events could have occured on the 5th and 6th of April. If you want to use the date of the paper that's fine but you also have to use the actual dialogue from the episode (and facts about flight) to get the dates. To begin with April 5, 2007 was a Thursday. Jack specifically told Kate that he flies out every Friday night. For all of it to be correct it would mean that the paper was left behind by somebody (or even picked up at the moment the stewardess was talking to everyone) and given to Jack on his return flight. Due to his usual flight destinations and time of flight for each one the earliest he would have been back to L.A. would be just before or just after midnight of Sat/Sun. This would make the flashforward (funeral at least) take place on Sunday April 8th. With that being a Sunday, Jack would not have been able to visit a pharmacy that day so the rest of the events would have taken place on Monday the 9th. This is also evidenced by the fact that the surgery was not going to take place until the morning after the accident. This would then place the meeting between Jack and Kate either on the night of the 9th or the post midnight hours of the 10th.Veridicum 17:25, 1 June 2007 (PDT)
You make some good points, except that pharmacies, not being government institutions, are indeed open on Sunday. --Jackdavinci 22:54, 1 June 2007 (PDT)
Must be because I'm used to pharmacies being closed on Sunday's as I grew up. Other than that, the pharmacy visit doesn't happen on the same day as the funeral anyway.Veridicum 08:42, 3 June 2007 (PDT)

Okay I nitpicked earlier but I'm not that happy with the new timeline. I don't buy the April 8th timeline. Jack clearly says "I have a drink and I fly home." So he's not spending a lot of time in wherever. That fits with his intention. He wants the plane to crash and get back to the Island. So Jack says that he flies out "every friday night". So the scene on the plane presumably takes place sometime on Saturday. This would put the suicide attempt at no earlier than Saturday night. It could be later but I'll repeat that given the textual evidence of the show the plane ride is on Saturday the 7th. There's some SLIGHT evidence that the suicide attempt takes place on the 7th as well. Jack says to Kate "Hey... I JUST read" [emphasis mine]. This would seem to indicate that he read about the death fairly recently and hadnt taken a day or so to mull it over. Of course Jacks definition of just might be different from mine, or it might just be a turn of phrase.

He flies out Friday nights, let's say between 5 and 7. The flight to Sydney alone takes over 13 hours. Anywhere North and East of there will take appx. the same amount of time if not longer. That puts total fight time at over 26 hours. If he gets a drink it's not like he will immediately be boarding the next plane within 5 minutes of getting off the other one so even if that takes no more than an hour between flights that puts total time at a minimum of 28 hours. 28 hours from the time he left LAX would be between 9 and 11 Saturday night. Since it is specifically said that Jack was out on the bridge at around 2 in the morning, how is there a problem with the April 8 timeline. The only way any of this is wrong is if the date in the paper doesn't mean anything. Also, there have been numerous times (specifically the last two president's deaths) where a person dies one day and the memorial takes place a few days after.Veridicum 19:09, 9 June 2007 (PDT)
I had a problem with putting seeing the paper on April 8th. Assuming the surgery chiefs statement was accurate and not just an aproximation, then the bridge thing could clearly be in the early morning of April 8th. But it seems to me that Jack probably saw the paper on the 7th.
  • Quick point from an Australian who has flown that leg several times: Even if the special pass was first class, meaning he'd be one of the first off the plane, there has to be an allowance for Security and Immigration (multiple times), which even if he had no bags, would take some time. He would have to go through these regardless of his intent to have a drink while remaining in the airport, and turn right around back to LAX. The shortest direct international leg I ever took between those two points was just over 12.5 hours. So, even with the shortest flight possible, as pointed out above, you'd have 25 hours of flight, departure and arrival, security, immigration on both ends, etc. I can't see the process itself being under 30 hours, not counting the time he took in the SYD lounge. That means a Friday night, 6 April 2007, departure would have him in SYD on Sat late morning/early afternoon Saturday. Minimum 3 hours at the airport to land, taxi, deplane, immigration, drink, immigration, security, replane, taxi, take-off, landing, deplane, immigration, then driving. It is feasible and probably that the 2am was Sunday morning, 8 April. I think it is absolutely impossible for 7 April 2 am if the paper date is correct. It just can't be done. I too think he saw the paper on 7 April on the return leg. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 14:50, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Adding Lost Experience post-2005 events to the timeline?

Any opinions on adding the Lost Experience post-2005 events with dates into the timeline? The initial example I'm thinking of is the spider protocol email dated June 2006 which seems to announce the Island as the new target for the Spider Protocol. Dharmatel4 20:39, 23 June 2007 (PDT)

Find815?

Should we be adding the big plotnotes to the Lost timeline like we did with TLE? --   Dee4leeds  talk  contribs  all  12:33, 1 January 2008 (PST)

We should take a few days to see if we can properly identify a date for it. The story seems to take place in the past, and not in the present as TLE does. The day i believe is early 2006 as has been indicated by the stocks on the tv in Sam's house. I have the exact date written down but we should give it some time to confirms. -Mr.Leaf 12:48, 1 January 2008 (PST)
Thats sounds like some impressive usage of details. --   Dee4leeds  talk  contribs  all  04:42, 2 January 2008 (PST)
But doesn't the Oceanic Press Release say: December 28th, 2007? That puts FIND815, here and now I would say. --Gluphokquen Gunih 07:53, 2 January 2008 (PST)
Find815 has to take place in the past because it ends with the discovery of the other Flight 815, which we know from the Freighter people is in the past. --Morris729 13:38, 18 March 2008 (PDT)

Inconsistency with Find815 and 3x22 dates

There is an inconsistency between the Find815 ARG dates and the (presumed) dates of the flash forward in 3x22. If Oceanic recommenced their activities on December 31 2007, then how could Jack have used his Golden Pass prior to to that date (April 5 2007).--ferd 07:47, 2 January 2008 (PST)

My guess is we jumped to a conclusion with the April 07 date. The article was inserted into an actual newspaper from April 07 (roughly when they should have been filming the episode). It may very well have been intended for no one to pick out the date of the paper. But I think we'll find out soon. --Gluphokquen Gunih 07:51, 2 January 2008 (PST)

I read elsewhere on the site (Coffin Theories; sorry can't figure out how to link the theories) that the newspaper was to be disregarded as the producers are going to redo it. There's no source for that, but if that's the case then the whole April 07 Timeline might be obsolete, although definitely some nice logical deductions made by the Lostpedians!  Liveweak  23:03, 6 January 2008 (PST)

There are even bigger inconsistancies as to find815. For example, we know that Anthony Cooper has to have reached the Island after the airliner was found at the bottom of the ocean. But that doesn't seem to have happened by the start of find815. The events of find815 also seem strange to place in 2008 (four years after the crash). We are to believe that Oceaniac ceased operations for at least three years but people (like the character in find815) are still normal employees. I think we should leave things as much as possible as they are in the timeline until the show itself offers a correction or an explanation. Dharmatel4 08:16, 7 January 2008 (PST)
Regarding Anthony Cooper's statement, although he says that the plane John was on crashed in the Pacific, it's possible that this was just an assumption that he made. Perhaps at the time the search for Oceanic Flight 815 was still underway and it was still reported as "missing". When a commercial airliner is reported as "missing", the only possible explanations that I can think of would be that it was either hijacked or it crashed, the latter being the more likely of the two.

Now I don't know if there's ever been any instances in airline history where a commercial plane crashed in the middle of the ocean and was later recovered along with survivors of the crash, but my guess if this has ever happened, it probably is a very rare occurrence. Furthermore, even if it is plausible for someone to survive a plane crash in the middle of the ocean, the odds of said plane crashing onto an island are almost nonexistent. So with this in mind, the idea of surviving a plane crash in the middle ocean would require one to somehow find a way out of the plane as it crashes into the ocean and then staying adrift in the ocean waiting to be rescued, a task which would most likely prove to be very difficult for a paraplegic like John. But supposing that someone could survive such a plane crash, the issue of sustenance would also come into play, as circumstances would likely provide any survivors with little or no sources of sustenance, and the average human can live thirty days without having any food and three days without any water. Assuming that only a short amount of time has passed between when Cooper first arrived to the Island and when Ben first showed him to John, this would mean that close to three months had passed since he had first heard about the disappearance of the plane that his son was on.

So with this in mind, I would think that coming to the conclusion that Oceanic Flight 815 did crash and that John Locke died in the crash (and if not in the crash then certainly sometime within the three-month period after the crash) would be perfectly sound. This would probably be especially true for someone like Cooper who would rather have John dead so that he'd never have to worry about dealing with him again and would therefore want to believe that he is dead (unlike Sam Thomas, who would hold onto any glimmer of hope that Sonya is still somehow alive). The only thing that I can think of that would discredit this all is what Naomi said about Oceanic Flight 815 being found and there being no survivors. But from judging from what we've seen in the Season 4 trailers, I think that it's safe to say that neither Naomi nor the people she that she is with can be trusted. Although I honestly cannot say what purpose lying to them about this would have other than to confuse and demoralize by giving them all the impression that no one is looking for them, thus diminishing any hope of being rescued. –Nahald 16:57, 7 January 2008 (PST)
I think that Find815 will conclude with Flight 815 being "found" in the ocean and that it may provide information about how the crash was faked. But they could go in another direction. I really don't think we should change the timeline radically until they make their intentions more clear. Dharmatel4 13:30, 9 January 2008 (PST)

"However, due to the nature of the Find 815 story, the validity of this date is in question. It is likely used as a marketing tool to make the Find 815 story feel like it is happening as it is being played. It is more likely this event occurs in the Fall of 2004, and it is also possible that the airline never went out of business and that this aspect of the Find 815 story is simply a marketing tool to draw players into the rest of the story." I'm of the opinion that the above italicized should be removed. I want feed back before i do though because i know people have strong opinions about the Find815 timeline. However i think the above is mostly speculation and should not be on the main article. Thoughts? --Gluphokquen Gunih 14:08, 13 January 2008 (PST)

  • I agree. The less said overall about the whole thing the better. Dharmatel4 14:15, 13 January 2008 (PST)
    • I think we should, in general, use a way to separate ARG dates from show dates. The ARGs are always set to happen in the "present day" for the player, possibly because it would cause confusion to have a press release about Oceanic resuming operations dated to 2004 released in late 2007.--Nevermore 02:38, 30 January 2008 (PST)

timeline and find:815

The timeline of find815 is fall 2004. The ending has to be prior to December 11th because Anthony Cooper is aware of the events. The Oceanic press releases can be considered not to be part of the ARG and not part of the timeline. Dharmatel4 10:52, 31 January 2008 (PST)

2007 dates for flashforwards

Should we consider the 2007 dates from the end of season 3 to be authoritative? I think the only date reference comes from the newspaper which I think production sources have said to disregard. Matthew Fox gave an estimate to TV Week recently that the flashfowards are a year to 18 months ahead. While his comments are not authoritative, they do undermine the idea that the 2007 dates are absolute. Dharmatel4 12:04, 14 February 2008 (PST)

There is a significant timeline clue in "Eggtown". Kate's Mom states that she has had "6 months to live for four years". The pre-crash timeline puts "Born to Run", and Kate's first visit with her gravely ill Mother, in 2002. That would make Kate's trial no later than 2006.--Eyeful Tower 16:03, 22 February 2008 (PST)
Also, wasn't Aaron credited as "two year-old boy"? This would place Eggtown's events in late 2006, two years after Aaron's birth in November 2004. --Bohrok Awakener 08:05, 24 February 2008 (PST)
The problem with that is Walt's post-Island growth. Until we know how that happened, we don't know that Aaron might not look two but not be two. Dharmatel4 10:18, 24 February 2008 (PST)
Why is Walt's post-Island growth significant? Isn't that just something we should ignore like you mentioned ignore filming restrictions on sets? I think that's attributing too much to the fact that the actors grow, akin to someone noticing Brent Spiner on STTNG aged when his character Data was not supposed to, or Adrian Paul, who was around 40 when HighlanderTV ended, showing his age when his character Duncan MacLeod was supposed to be immortally stuck at 30-years old. People age; kids grow. I think it might be as simple as that. -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 19:51, 7 April 2008 (PDT) Edit: this comment is also enforced by them using "fake-Walt", an obviously younger looking actor. 20:01, 7 April 2008 (PDT)
The producers specifically called out Walt's post-Island growth as something significant in one of the podcasts (I don't remember which). They seemed to be alluding to something but not saying it. It seemed at the time (February) to introduce enough uncertainity so as not to make timeline assumptions based on Aaron's appearance. Dharmatel4 20:41, 7 April 2008 (PDT)
Ah. Okay, thanks :) -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 21:46, 7 April 2008 (PDT)
Even ignoring Aaron's listed age of two, Kate's mom's statement that she was diagnosed with terminal cancer four years ago, places Eggtown no earlier than 2006, as she was diagnosed in 2002 around the time of Born to Run. Born to Run occurred in Spring 2002 (when Iowa ground would be soft enough to dig up a time capsule). Kate's Mom would have been diagnosed in early 2002. Seems to me that Eggtown has to occur in 2006, regardless of Aaron's apparent age.--Marksman 10:07, 21 May 2008 (PDT)
I think we have to stop looking at statements people make about elapsed time or distances as absolutes. Kate's mom wasn't reading from a calendar; she was holding a conversation.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 08:42, 3 June 2008 (PDT)

Economist before April 5th?

Why is The Economist listed as occurring before April 5th? I see no evidence in the episode that could allow us to place it at any particular time.

  • Because it was said in a podcast that it happened prior to Jack's Flashforward. Although the April 5th date is wrong anyway since they also said in an interview that the newspaper article will be rewritten, and the date comes from that. --Hugo815 19:26, 10 March 2008 (PDT)
    • Just curious, which podcast was it that they confirmed this? Thanks--Sentient nebula 11:36, 21 April 2008 (PDT)

Why do we believe that Ben's visit to Widmore (from The Shape of Things to Come) occurs before the events in Sayid's flashforward in The Economist? At the end of The Economist, Sayid says "they know I’m after them now." To which Ben says "Good". Doesn't it make more sense for Ben to visit Widmore and threaten Penny after Sayid's cover is blown, rather than before? Is there any reason Ben's visit to Widmore has to occur before the events shown in the Economist?--Marksman 10:33, 15 May 2008 (PDT)

  • Having helped organized "The Shape of Things to Come" events myself, I will say that the only reason it was listed where it was is because it was placed directly following other events in that episode. You'll notice that both the Ben/Widmore visit and the "Economist" events were titled "Unknown dates" - there was no precedent for either one to be first, so it just made sense to, until we know for certain, keep episode flashforward events together. I'm totally fine with moving it to where you have - I agree your logic is reasonable. HOWEVER, I want to ask though - why are we assuming that the "they" in Ben's statement is referring to Widmore? Considering the turn of events we're seen just in REALtime on the island, I think that Widmore and Ben are pretty established enemies (even with their own "rules"). Not to turn this into a theory page or anything, but personally I don't think Elsa's employer was Widmore - why would Ben put him on the mission if that were so? And why would Sayid and Elsa both be trying to find out the name of each others employers if it was Ben and Widmore? Anyway, long story short, keep it how you've changed it if you want to, but I am far from confident in the organization of "Unknown dates."--Overworkedirish 14:06, 15 May 2008 (PDT)
    • I doubt Elsa works directly for Widmore. But we don't have any evidence that Ben is going after anybody but the many people who work for Widmore. The "Economist" could be a Widmore lackey. But it's all unknonw dates. Maybe we'll learn more tonight.--Marksman 16:37, 15 May 2008 (PDT)

TLE should not be included

Ok, recently we have a seperate timeline for the lost experience which I thought was good, but now it is back in the post timeline section. This should not be included with the events of the show, since the real world rachel blake stuff can not really be considered cannon. The producers have stated the only real information we should take from TLE is the history stuff about the hanso foundation and dharma. The Lost experience itself has made references to the show lost itself, such as when Hugh was interviewed on the jimmy kimmel show and when he talked about lost being propoganda made up by abc. The rachel blake stuff does not take place in the same universe as the lost story and should not be included in the same timeline. its pointless to have it there now when there will be many updates to the post island section with the new flashforwards, it will just be confusing and unnecessary for people.

Birth of Ji Yeon

It's not necessarily nine months after the actual date of conception. Due to the time-traveling associated with the Island's borders, Ji Yeon could be born much later than 2005. It is probably the most recent flashforward we've had yet, but all bets are off concerning time. Boloboffin 17:03, 15 March 2008 (PDT)

  • Until we know more though, we should just assume its normal, since we have no way of knowing for sure if there are time differences yet and how drastic they are

--Mattfarley1008 18:33, 15 March 2008 (PDT)

  • I'm not so sure it's the most recent FF yet either. My guess is that it's before Hurley started seeing Charlie which puts it before "The Beginning of the End" and "Through the Looking Glass, Part 2" --Gluphokquen Gunih 18:50, 15 March 2008 (PDT)
    • right, which would make it the most recent..right?--Mattfarley1008 19:09, 15 March 2008 (PDT)
      • do you mean recent as closest to the island, or closest to 2008? --Gluphokquen Gunih 19:15, 15 March 2008 (PDT)
        • Recent is a bad term. I should have said "earliest" flashforward. I mean it's the closest in time so far to the actual rescue Boloboffin 21:58, 16 March 2008 (PDT)
          • Well in that case, I would say possably. Kate's trial probably would have happened fairly soon after rescue, and since Sayid's FF doesn't feature and of the rest of the O6, it's kind of hard to place in the timeline. --Gluphokquen Gunih 04:48, 17 March 2008 (PDT)

I read on Dark UFO's site that Darlton has said the FFs have been shown in reverse order so far (in their latest podcast, perhaps?). Thus, suicidal Jack with the beard is the latest one in the timeline, and Ji Yeon would be the first one off the island so far. I apologize for not having the exact citation handy, but that timeline makes the most sense to me. First comes Ji Yeon, then Hurley goes back home and lands in the mental hospital where he starts having 2nd thoughts about going back to the island. Jpgwriter 03:11, 19 March 2008 (PDT)

Sarah preggers twice?

Whats with Sarah having a kid in 2006? She's pregnant in TTLK in 2007. I'm going to remove the reference because I'm pretty sure that's wrong. --Piscez 16:05, 17 March 2008 (PDT)

Whatever the wording, I think it was meant to be a guess at when she became pregnant made by backtracking from TTLG. Dharmatel4 19:01, 17 March 2008 (PDT)

recent changes

  • Sarah's date of conception is in the timeline based on her pregnancy in TTLG.
  • The dates for TTLG were derived from observations of the episode. I see no reason why they should be removed.
  • The word "rescue" should not be used to describe dates in the timeline.
  • The current timeline is consistant in giving information about what dates are known and what dates are not known.
  • Given that Jin's marker has a date on it, its relivant to the timeline.

Dharmatel4 19:00, 17 March 2008 (PDT)

Edits

  • Given Hurley is in Santa Rosa at the end of "The Beginning of the End"it is safe to assume the events of "Ji Yeon" take place before (how many institutes would let a patient fly to Korea to see a friend's child?) I place the events of "The Beginning of the End" in Summer 2005 - April 9 2007 based on Hurley and Jack's appearances in "The Beginning of the End" and "Ji Yeon"
  • Points made above make it almost certain that Kate's trial takes place in late 2006 (Diane's testimony and Aaron's age)

(Jamster 15:19, 7 April 2008 (PDT))

Newspaper clipping

Did the writers say "Through the Looking Glass, Part 2" newspaper clipping was a prop that would be replaced, rather than canon? If so, why are entries from that prop included on the timeline as canon? (e.g., Thursday, April 5th, 2007 The man in the newspaper clipping dies at 4:00 AM.) ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 19:39, 7 April 2008 (PDT)

Yes. They have said that the clipping is not necessarly canon but there is some ambiguity about the whole thing. This has been discussed before and I think there is general agreement that the date is not canon, but nobody has ever removed the dates. Dharmatel4 19:54, 7 April 2008 (PDT)
So there would be no problem if I removed them? -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 19:59, 7 April 2008 (PDT)
As long as you invent enough terminology to preserve the information in the article. In the words, if you don't call it April 5, 2007, you are going to have to come up with something else to call that day to tie up all the dates relative to that day. Dharmatel4 20:37, 7 April 2008 (PDT)
I don't have a problem with the date, just the clipping that I was fairly certain had been dismissed as a prop, rather than viewers taking the writing as canon. I'm just suggesting removing the bullet points related to dating the clipping. Oh, I see the concern, as all the subsequent dating relies on the date of the clipping. That's an even bigger worry. -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 21:48, 7 April 2008 (PDT) Edit: I've added a footnote that the obit might not be canon. I think it's important to note that, especially now that I see so much of this post-Island timeline is using that date as gospel. 21:54, 7 April 2008 (PDT)

Ben In Tunisia

  • I edited the article based on the following information. We see Ben arrive in the Sahara Desert (as subtitled in the show). The writers verified in the 4/25/08 podcast that this was in fact in Tunisia. The Sahara extends a good bit into Tunisia, so there is no conflict here. Now, when Ben first gets up, you can see the sun shining brightly at him from a side-angle. The best explanation for this would be that it is morning (or late afternoon, but I'll get to that). Documented from Tunis, Tunisia on Oct 24, 2005 Sunrise was at 6:35 AM, and sunset was at 5:31 PM. Once he attacks the Bedouins, he uses a red cloth to cover his arm wound (from which he is clearly in pain). IMO, it's quite clear that he then arrives in Tozeur on the same day, and here is why: his arm is still wrapped in the same red cloth (so he has not had time to clean it properly, nor has his arm become infected); his shirt and his face are dirtied up - covered in dust/sand from riding across the desert (he's just arrived in Tozeur); he asks Najiss what the date is (clearly, he has not had a chance to ask anyone else since his "transport"); and he has no water, food, or place to sleep (if you want to argue that his Tozeur arrival is on another day. PLUS, I don't think he would risk sleeping in the middle of the Desert and getting mugged by Bedouins again). When Ben arrives in Tozeur, it looks to be about mid-afternoon. This would correlate to the travel time if it were morning when he meets the Bedouins. Now, to account for travel time. Tunisia's not a very large country. However, it's clear Ben traveled a decent distance. The Sahara is south of Tozeur. Just south and southeast of Tozeur is the Chott el Djerid - an enormous flat, desert, salt pan. Ben doesn't wake up in this, as he is on uneven ground with a mountain not too far off. I'll come back later today to add info as to the estimated distance (~100 miles?) and the speed of his horse (~15-20mph?) through the desert.--Overworkedirish 10:27, 28 April 2008 (PDT)
    • While these are good points to make on the discussion page, I don't think they are sufficient to prove what date he arrived in the desert. I agree that his appearance suggests that he went straight to the hotel from the desert, but I don't think we can be sure that he was able to make it there on the same day. I don't think we can count any information gleaned from the angle of the sun or the appearance of the desert as the writers don't put that much thought into the angle of the sun (other than it being night, day, sunrise, or sunset) and the desert scene was filmed in Hawaii with all the limitations thereof. Also, do we have evidence that the two other scenes were each a day apart? I don't think we should be putting dates on the timeline that are guesswork. --Jackdavinci 14:02, 21 May 2008 (PDT)

Date of Yankees sweep over Red Sox

According to Something Nice Back Home#Cultural references, the Yankees sweep over the Red Sox could refer to either a series in August 2006 or August 2007. Obviously, the dating makes a difference for the timeline of flash-forward events (most notably, whether the flash-forward of "Something Nice Back Home" takes place before or after the flash-forward of "Through the Looking Glass"). Someone added the date August 30, 2007 to the article, but I don't think we've got enough evidence to be sure of that (and indeed, a 2006 date seems more likely to me). Should the 2007 date be removed? —Josiah Rowe 21:00, 1 May 2008 (PDT)

  • It would be August 2006. According to the current post-island timeline, August 2007 wouldn't make sense because Jack is focused on getting back to the island by that time. SNBH would have to take place not too long after Eggtown. Gutsdozer 23:25, 1 May 2008 (PDT)
  • The August 18-21, 2006 series seems to fit better with the use of the word "Bludgeon" as the Yankees swept a five game series by a score of 49-26. However, if you read the actual article from the episode it states, "Cano hit two home runs as the Yankees complete a three-game sweep of the Red Sox with a 5-0 victory." In actuality, the Yankees beat the Red Sox 5-0 on August 30, 2007 to complete a three game sweep. Robinson Cano homered twice in the game. This seems pretty definitive to me. --Flash 23:34, 1 May 2008 (PDT)
  • However the "A Rod" comment does lend itself more to the 2006 series where he had 7 hits and 5 RBIs over five games. (Although considering the Yankees scored 49 runs over those games he didn't contribute that much.) He only had 2 hits in the 2007 series. Either way, Rodriguez didn't do that great in either of those two series. --Flash 23:50, 1 May 2008 (PDT)
It's definitely the August 30, 2007 game. The article also mentions Chien-Ming Wang and Curt Schilling as the pitchers of record. http://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/NYA/NYA200708300.shtml
  • Then this contradicts Jack being obsessed with getting back to the island in early 2007. I've changed the page to reflect that the obituary in 'Through the Looking Glass' is no longer reliable as an April 2007 date. However only the first flash-forward scene in 'Something Nice Back Home' would be August 31, 2007 (the date of the newspaper publication). Other scenes happen on different days, meaning this episode occurs well into September 2007. Gutsdozer 23:51, 1 May 2008 (PDT)
  • Here is a thought: If it is a fact that the producers said to disregard the newspaper date from the obituary clipping in "Through the Looking Glass" then maybe they are paying more attention to those props at this point meaning the Yankees/Red Sox clip is accurate to the timeline. HOWEVER, the prop/page is not entirely accurate though. It has a box score for an Angels vs. Astros game. The Astros did face the Angels in 2007 but it was in late June. The teams did not face each other at all in 2006. --Flash 00:04, 2 May 2008 (PDT)
Furthermore, the prop article starts, "The sweep was more emphatic last August...", so it's pretty clear that the it is August 2007 in the flash forward.--Eyeful Tower 12:57, 3 May 2008 (PDT)
  • Another clue is Jack's beard. He's completely clean-shaven with the first visit to Hurley (who does not see Charlie until after Jack leaves) when he mentions thinking of growing a beard to avoid the media, stubble which Kate complains about while they are living together and Jack visits Hurley the second time (when H tells J about Charlie's visits) "last Friday" (compared to when Kate and Jack fight about the Sawyer favour), full-on in TTLG when Kate and Jack are obviously no longer living together because Jack's in his own messy apartment obsessing about getting back. I think they are working toward bringing the show into 2008. -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 01:42, 2 May 2008 (PDT)

4x10 details confirm flash-forward order

Jack tells Hurley that he reconsidered about Aaron after the trial, implying that he hasn't seen Hurley since the trial occurred. This would make 'The Beginning of the End' occur before 'Eggtown'. Gutsdozer 23:25, 1 May 2008 (PDT)

I think the dialog between Hurley and Jack reflects familiarity with Jack and Kate's situation. And Hurley's question is more reflective than confrontational. I think it is a leap to deduce from the dialogue that Hurley and Jack haven't spoken since the trial, and the order of the flash-forwards is therefore not confirmed. I think there is other evidence, such as Jack's daytime drinking of hard liquor in 401, plus the likelihood that Kate's trial would be within a year of her return, that make it possible that Eggtown occurred prior to 'The Beginning of the End".--Eyeful Tower 07:23, 5 May 2008 (PDT)

"Something Nice Back Home" timeline

Jack wakes up and he's in a towel while it's daylight (not necessarily morning, if he's working a late shift). Next he's in a t-shirt reading to Aaron, presumably at night, but it might be naptime. Then he's in a striped shirt with a grey tie at the hospital, where he tells his consult (daylight) to have a good evening; later, he's in the same outfit talking to Hurley, and when he wakes Kate and proposes to her. With the beeping smoke detector, he's wearing a solid blue-grey tie with a blue-grey shirt, while in the final Kate/Jack scene, he's in a dotted grey tie with a grey shirt and suit (I don't think the last two are the same day, because the tie is very different looking as well as dots showing on it while he is home). The towel/t-shirt/striped shirt could be the same day, and I tend to think it might be if Jack was working a later shift. However, if the consult was at 11 a.m., why was Aaron in bed? Was that just a very early nap? Either way, we have at least three different days. -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 04:40, 2 May 2008 (PDT)

It is morning. He says "Good Morning" to the woman in the shower, who responds, "Good Morning yourself." Jack repeats "Good Morning" when the woman is revealed as Kate. It is nightime when Jack is reading to Aaron: 1) the lamps are on in the hallway, as contrasted with the all of the natural light in the house seen during the "morning" scene in the bedroom, bathroom, and kitchen and 2) when Jack proposes later in the episode he states, "The other night, when I was reading to Aaron, you said... that I was a natural." There are at least four different days represented in the flashforward: 1) Morning shower plus evening bedtime story, 2) Clearly daytime outside St. Sebastian's when Hurley's doctor calls, Jack's visit to Hurley plus later marriage proposal clearly nightime, 3) Clearly nightime at St. Sebastian's when Jack sees his dad, gets prescription and overhears Kate on the phone with "Noreen," and 4) Jack comes home early to confront Kate "I heard you on the phone last night." It could perhaps as much as a week of total elapsed time by virtue of Jack's comment that he visited Hurley, "Last Friday." --Eyeful Tower 13:26, 3 May 2008 (PDT)
  • I think we are looking at a span of parts of at least three different weeks, then.
  • Part of week 1: If the newspaper is to be believed (unlike the obit), the game was 30 Aug 2007, a Friday, and the sports page was 31 Aug.
  • Part of week 2: The Hurley visit is interrupted by Aaron's bedtime story, so it has to be a different, following Friday, at least a week later (if not more).
  • And finally, part of week 3: at least another part of a week has passed with the Jack/Kate fight for the Hurley visit to be referred to as "last Friday" (rather than yesterday, or the day before yesterday) to come into play. I'd go so far as to say it's a weeknight, with Jack home earlier than usual. -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 00:17, 4 May 2008 (PDT)

"There's No Place Like Home, Part 1" timeline

  • There's no "cover story section" yet on the Oceanic 6 page. I'm hoping that once there is, we can just link to it and remove factually inaccurate timeline events that are currently categorized under "The Oceanic Six's acclaimed cover story..."
  • Sayid and Nadia married??? Yessir!
  • Sayid is seen with a wedding band at Hurley's b'day party!
  • Hurley seems to have gotten to know Nadia a bit considering his greeting "you guys are here!" - also betrays that he thinks of them as a unit - a married couple.
  • Christian's funeral: "about 10 months ago I wrote" blah blah blah on a napkin "in the Sydney airport."
  • 22 Sept 2004 + 10 months = 22 July 2005.

--Overworkedirish 04:59, 16 May 2008 (PDT)

Where's Michael in the post-island timeline?

Nothing from the "Meet Kevin Johnson" episode is listed in the post-island timeline. Can we figure out dates or at least time frames for his return to New York, meeting Tom , getting on the freighter, etc?

  • Meet Kevin Johnson doesn't take place during the post-Island timeline. It takes place in November and December 2004 and you will find those events in the November and December timelines.--Marksman 04:07, 19 May 2008 (PDT)
    • Perhaps "post-island" is no longer the best title for this section of the timeline. We know that it's post-island from the Oceanic Six's perspective, but not everyone's. At some point it seems likely that there will be on-island scenes that coincide with the off-island flashforwards that we have already seen or will see. Either way, even though this question seems to have been asked out of confusion, it may raise a good point.--Jdb 06:11, 21 May 2008 (PDT)
      • Good point. See below --Marksman 09:40, 21 May 2008 (PDT)

Eggtown in 2006?

  • Why is Eggtown in 2006? Is it based on the age given to Aaron during the credits? If yes, has it been confirmed as canon? I'm asking that as thanks to this video ( [1] ) I was able to see the FFs in order according to LP, and it was really strange to see Hurley seing Charlie and going crazy and then a lot of time later Kate's trial (who I'ld think would be pretty earlier than that) as well as Jack, again a lot later on, going to see Hurley in the mental hospital (and by later I mean like over a year later!). That seems too much for me. - TheAma1 05:42, 25 May 2008 (PDT)
    • No. It is based on how long Kate's mom says she has had cancer (four years). Also, Charlie's visit to Hurley could occur any time between his visit to Sun in 2005 and shortly before Jack's visit to him in 2007 during Something Nice Back Home. So for all we know, Hurley's arrest occurs during, before or after the trial. --Marksman 06:54, 25 May 2008 (PDT)

Season 4 Finale

  • Some events are listed in "September 2007 or later" which may in fact occur before September 2007:
    • For example, Sun's visit to London merely has to take place some time after Ji Yeon is able to speak, which could be as early as the Summer of 2006.
    • Kate's dream about Claire could take place at any time; as far as I can tell, nothing indicates a date, except the fact that Aaron is about the age he appeared in Something Nice Back Home, but could have occurred before she and Jack got together or after they broke up.

--Marksman 06:39, 30 May 2008 (PDT)

  • All flashforwards we've seen so far have been chronological, in terms of events occuring. Ji Yeon was an exception as Jin's flashes were flashbacks (note, however, that both the flashforward and flashback were presented chronologically).--Overworkedirish 12:20, 30 May 2008 (PDT)
  • With the subtitles from the enhanced version of "There's No Place Like Home pt. 1", we can set up nearly the time of the press conference ("Aaron is actually over eight weeks old.") and the FF of Sun talking to her father ("This is a flash forward. / Sun is off the island and six months pregnant/").--Daftshadow 17:08, 30 May 2008 (PDT)
    • That puts Sun's confrontation with her father in April 2005. Since Aaron turned eight weeks on 01/01/05, and we already know that the press conference occurred after that date, the enhanced subtitles are no help there.--Marksman 04:24, 31 May 2008 (PDT)
    • I agree with the timeline for Sun's confrontation with her father, should it be changed to April/May

Assuming that the flash forwards happened in sequence, it would mean that Jack meets Kate at the airport one night; the next morning, Walt visits Hurley; that night, Sayid visits Hurley, telling him Bentham has been dead for two days (complicating Jack's possession of the obituary for two days in the opening scene). Sun, in London (nine hours ahead of L.A.), meets with Widmore during the day (plausible if it is night time in L.A. that the same time would be daylight in London. Meanwhile, Kate has the Claire dream and Jack breaks back into the funeral parlor the night after he meets with Kate. One heck of a day! The alternative theory is that the Jack flashbacks at the beginning and the end occur on the same night, and are thus out of order from the other flashbacks. A big question would be, would Kate's dream about Claire likely have occurred before or after her meeting with Jack at the airport? There's no way to know at this point. --LOSTinDC 06:14, 3 June 2008 (PDT) I think a better theory is the "There's No Place Like Home, Part 2" flash forwards occur around the same time, but not necessarily day after day. For example, they all occur around 2007, but possibly it is safe to say that there is no evidence that Walt visited Hurley the day after Jack and Kate's run-way chat.

Rename

  • We know that the "Post-Island" period is only post-island for the Oceanic 6. Perhaps this page should be renamed "2005 and Later."--Marksman 09:40, 21 May 2008 (PDT)
I was going to wait until the finale aired to say this, but I agree. Though I think Post Rescue would be best. --Gluphokquen Gunih 10:34, 21 May 2008 (PDT)
Good point. What happens if/when they return to the Island like Jack wants? Post-Island assumes only a single time period spent on the Island. Post-Rescue seems the best alternative. Unless there is another rescue in the future...then it will have to be changed again. Jacob's Lather 07:27, 22 May 2008 (PDT)
  • Rename to "Timeline:Post-Rescue" - based on the Season 4 finale, there are characters on and off the island at present. Right now we have an on island and post island timeline, but events on island will be taking place at the same times as events "Post-Island". --Gluphokquen Gunih 22:32, 30 May 2008 (PDT)
  • Rename: sounds better to me. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 23:00, 30 May 2008 (PDT)
  • Agree (mostly). Rename to Post-rescue ("rescue" NOT CAPITALIZED). Are we to begin the timeline at the 06's rescue by Penny?--Overworkedirish 00:03, 31 May 2008 (PDT)
  • Another vote here for rename to Post-rescue --Dharma Pharma 11:46, 8 June 2008 (PDT)
  • I've combined the discussions of renaming the page. Also, I think the page should simply be renamed "2005 and Later". That way we can include on-island and off-island events without being confusing.--Marksman 04:24, 31 May 2008 (PDT)
  • Personally I think that the best name would be Timeline:Post 2004, Timeline:2005 and on, Timeline:2005- or similar, which avoids the problems of the actual status of the survivor. Generally I also think that the most logical way to name timelines is by using actual times, when possible. Pierre80 10:50, 31 May 2008 (PDT)
  • I agree, rename to Post-rescue, and start on the day they find the Searcher, all future events for the show should be able to be listed in this section if the name is Post-Rescue unless they went back to the island and were for some reason "rescued" again
  • I think "2005 and later" is better than "Post-Rescue". According to the series, the survivors thought rescue came on Day 91 when the freighter arrived. Since the Island portion of the series effective ends as of December 31, 2004 (at least as of right now), I think 2005 is a better alternative. I agree with Pierre too that naming timelines with actual times is a pretty logical choice. --JoeyBags1138 11:27, 31 May 2008 (PDT)
  • Rename to 2005 and later. Malachi 08:54, 1 June 2008 (PDT)
  • Throwing out another name idea Post Island move -Gluphokquen Gunih 09:30, 1 June 2008 (PDT)
  • Rename to Post-rescue because the rescue is a significant milestone.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 13:48, 1 June 2008 (PDT)
  • "2005 and later" is best for now. Naming after milestones will only work until the next milestone, then you have to use an awkward "post-rescue pre-whatever" naming scheme.--Jonnylawless 22:53, 1 June 2008 (PDT)
  • I think that from now on there should be "two timelines" so to speak. One which is the Post-Island timeline (basically all off-island events happening after the O6 are rescued) and the other which is the continuation of the "normal island timeline" like january 2005 day 102-day whatever the number is. - TheAma1 18:39, 1 June 2008 (PDT)
    • right now every month on island has its own timeline, are you saying continue that for the on island stuff? --Gluphokquen Gunih 19:05, 1 June 2008 (PDT)
    • If "real time" will continue to be the Island's time, which I think it should, then it might work to page the time by calendar quarters, because more action will occur in fastforwards. In framing this, BTW, I worked under the assumption that Island jumped forward the amount of time as Ben did,--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 19:16, 1 June 2008 (PDT)
  • Yes Gluphokquen gunih that is what I'm saying, in parallel to a dedicated "post-island/o6 timeline" if you will (that includes Ben and coe of course by extension). As for the quarters, I think we should wait and see if we get much present-Island-stuff in s5. - TheAma1 19:22, 1 June 2008 (PDT)

2005 and beyond will work for me. If we find that we erred, we can correct the name.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 07:34, 3 June 2008 (PDT)

New Idea Since all precrash is done on one page, Post crash is a page per month, and all post rescue is this page, why not keep pre crash, combine late sept-dec2004 into a 2004 timeline page, and split this into three pages for 2005, 2006, 2007? --Gluphokquen Gunih 20:17, 3 June 2008 (PDT)

Strongly Agree with above --Hostile108 11:38, 4 June 2008 (PDT)

Split to 2005 and 2006' and 2007 and beyond. Reasons: the 05 and 06 dates are Canon and we have a section that encompasses 05 and 06 here already (this would thereby avoid trying to decide what in that section is 05 and 06). The dates of 2007 and beyond may not be canon, so having any scramble to retool those dates confined to one page and talk page might be a good idea.--  SacValleyDweller    talk    contribs   21:05, 5 June 2008 (PDT)

I also agree with combining sept-dec2004 into a 2004 timeline page, and split this into three pages for 2005, 2006, 2007. Pre Crash is all on one page, so I agree that post-crash to rescue should be on one page.

IMHO, it's time for the sysops to render a decision and let the rest of us live with it!<grin>--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 08:41, 6 June 2008 (PDT)

I dropped lines on 4 SysOps talk pages about 2-3 days ago, so I'm sure someone will stop by. --Gluphokquen Gunih 09:27, 6 June 2008 (PDT)

I've started discussion at Talk:Timeline#Big Change about splitting this article, and merging 04, please weigh in there and help get the discussion moving. --Gluphokquen Gunih 09:23, 9 June 2008 (PDT)

We could call this section of the timeline 'Post Oceanic 6'? - Kiedis1984

That would mean after the Oceanic Six. After the Oceanic 6 what? get rescues? go back to the Island? it's a little vauge. --Gluphokquen Gunih 13:13, 9 June 2008 (PDT)
  • AGREE to Rename to Post-rescue. The Post-rescue timeline would begin (I imagine) with Penny's rescue. Right now, we have two major events that demarcate the timeline: the crash in Sept (hence the pre-crash timeline and post-crash timeline) and the rescue/moving the island. We don't know how the timeline will pan out in Season 5, but we can cross that bridge when we come to it. --LOSTinDC 07:38, 11 June 2008 (PDT)
  • Rename to Post-rescue. That is a far more accurate term than Post-Island since a) there are still people on the Island, b) not everyone was rescued, c) Post-Island doesn't work since it is likely that the O6 will return to the Island. -- CTS  Talk   Contribs 17:09, 14 June 2008 (PDT)
  • Rename, since producers said Oceanic 6 will get back to the Island, there will be two periods on the island so this will sound better. -- EXCALIBUR
  • Rename it to Timeline: Oceanic 6 or Timeline Rescued focusing on the characters involved

Date of Nadia's Funeral

How are we certain of the date of Nadia's funeral?--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 13:52, 1 June 2008 (PDT)

  • Pretty certain. At the funeral, Ben tells Sayid that Nadia's murderer was photographed fleeing form the murder scene "five days ago". That puts the funeral five days after her death--Marksman 15:27, 1 June 2008 (PDT)
  • Thanks. I looked but couldn't find a reference.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 16:41, 1 June 2008 (PDT)

Why do we care about Aaron's monthly birthday?

Someone keeps adding in the fact that Aaron is two months old on New Year's Day. Why? It's not referenced in the show and is not particularly important to the plot. --Marksman 06:21, 3 June 2008 (PDT)

  • I'm not the user who keeps adding the birthday, however, at the press conference, (a week or so later) Kate claims that Aaron is five weeks old, which causes a reporter to challenge it. It doesn't necessarily make Aaron's birthday crucial, but knowing that at that point, Aaron is closer to nine weeks old (rather than five weeks) is somewhat relevant. --LOSTinDC 06:53, 3 June 2008 (PDT)
  • Because it's a timeline. If a character's date of birth is known, and that day occurs during the course of the show, we include it. --Pyramidhead 20:38, 3 June 2008 (PDT)
    • Aaron wasn't born on January 1. It's a monthly birthday, not an annual one. It seems like a lot of unnecessary clutter. We don't remark on other characters' monthly ages. Just because Aarom is a baby doesn't mean we should either. Heck, the Oceanic 6 conference was measuring Aaron's age in weeks. Should we under that theory be marking every weekly milestone that Aaron has been alive?--Marksman 03:57, 4 June 2008 (PDT)

Formatting Question

Why are we breaking things that happen in a single scene into separate bullet points? This is a timeline, not a scene-by-scene breakdown of an episode. I suggest that if several events happen in the same place and the same day, they should be grouped in a single bullet point. For example, the reunions at the press conference (Hurley and parents, Sayid and Nadia, Jack and his mom) can all be described in a single bullet point.--Marksman 07:03, 22 May 2008 (PDT)

Agree. Where its clear that the events happened on the same date (or unknown date as the case may be) it should be a single bullet point with narrative. --LOSTinDC 07:25, 22 May 2008 (PDT)
  • Then why did you just edit the press conference into separate bullet points?--Marksman 08:32, 3 June 2008 (PDT)
  • Fair enough. Just changed it back. --LOSTinDC 08:56, 3 June 2008 (PDT)
  • No problem. I know I find it hard to resist the temptation to restate every episode word for word in the timeline! --Marksman 09:01, 3 June 2008 (PDT)
  • Good. I'm going to make some edits to clean stuff up. I hope this notice will be seen by people. I think the pages read better when they are compact.--Marksman 11:26, 22 May 2008 (PDT)
  • I agree - admittedly, I was the one who inadvertently initiated this when I did a detailed brake down fixing up dates.--Overworkedirish 13:13, 28 May 2008 (PDT)
  • Should the Jack/Kate airport scene be part of one bullet then even though it is split over two episodes? --LOSTinDC 06:55, 5 June 2008 (PDT)

What about:
"Through the Looking Glass, Part 1"

  • Two days after reading about Locke's death, Jack, surrounded by maps and alcohol at home, calls Kate to meet her that night at the airport.

"Through the Looking Glass, Part 1" / "There's No Place Like Home, Part 2"

  • At the Airport, Jack and Kate meet. Jack tries to convince her that it was a mistake for them to have ever left the Island and that they need to go back. He also comments that he has been using his golden pass from Oceanic to fly over the Pacific every weekend hoping it crashes. As Kate attempts to leave, Jack yells that they have to go back to the island. Kate stops and berates him for even thinking of asking that before returning to Aaron.

"There's No Place Like Home, Part 2"

  • Jack breaks into the Funeral Home, and Benjamin Linus finds him there. Ben convinces Jack that the Oceanic Six need to go back to the island together, and bring Locke's body with them.

--LOSTinDC 10:12, 6 June 2008 (PDT)

  • I like this better. I think using one Ep for the title, and a different Ep at the end can be confusing to people who don't follow the show as regularly as some of us. --Gluphokquen Gunih 10:15, 6 June 2008 (PDT)
    • I agree. I've withdrawn my suggestion (literally!). Make it so, LostinDC!--Marksman 15:10, 6 June 2008 (PDT)

Through the Looking Glass/There's No Place Like Home, Parts 2 & 3 Flashforward Dates

  • There's a slight contradiction between what Kate says in "There's No Place Like Home, Parts 2 & 3" and what the obituary says. Kate says that she spent the past 3 years of her life trying to forget what happened the day that they left. She could have been using that as an approximate amount of time, so that puts the events of those flashforwards at the end of 2007 or the beginning of 2008 (I suppose September 2007 could count as approximately 3 years after they left, but all I'm saying is that the flashforward could be as far as about 3 months ahead (although none of the flashforwards seemed to be decorated for Christmas, which they probably would have been if it was end of 2007 or even teh beginning of 2008)
  • They're April 2007. I don't see the problem. It was 2004 when they crashed, now its 2007, so thats "3 years" even if its a few months off it being exact. We know its April due to Jeremy Benthams' obituary in the paper, and the fact that he hadn't been buried yet.  Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  08:09, 30 June 2008 (PDT)
We now know they were not April, but rather Dec 2007-Jan 2008 because Locke's fake passport wasn't issued until Dec. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 17:49, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
  • The obituary is irrelevant. I don't know where it was said, but the info on the obituary have been declared non-canon. While parts of it have been confirmed as canon (i.e. Locke's alias) the clipping as a whole isn't necessarily true. --Crash815 23:24, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
  • The obituary is definitely incorrect. Locke is given a passport a few days before he dies that was issued December 2007. ("The Life and Death of Jeremy Bentham") JamesyWamesy 00:46, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
^^^I just said that :) ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 12:38, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Ya, I noticed that right after I posted it, but I didn't bother removing it. Just see it as extra affirmation! -JamesyWamesy 18:29, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Ben / Widmore Meeting

Why is "Ben visits Charles Widmore in London and informs him that he is going to kill Penny in revenge for Alex's execution." Listed "After Wednesday, 26 October 2005?" He says in the episode that he had just gotten back from Tikrit or Iraq, startling Whidmore, and indicating that he had something to do with Ishmael Bakir's death. It seems to me that without proof of it being where it is, it belongs in October-November, 2005.

  • All Ben says is "Iraq is lovely this time of year." We have no idea is Ben hung around in Iraq after meeting Sayid, or even if Ben is trying to throw Widmore a line to keep him guessing as to how long he's been off-island. All we know is it has to be after his meeting with Sayid. We don't know how much after.
    • Based on this line of thinking, we have no way to know that it even occured after Ben met Sayid, except that we have to ASSume there wasn't time to visit Widmore before visiting Sayid. The way the conversation went, Widmore knew that Ben would show up, but not when (unpredictable time travel), then he comments on the tan. Ben remarks on Iraq to notify Widmore that he was responsible (at least in part) for killing Widmore's man there. Sure, Ben could have hung around for a while, but the way the dialog played out, it was implied to me that the visit was very soon after that killing. More importantly to me, if there was this dialog, with Ben informing Whidmore of his role in the murder, who is the economist and his group? Whidmore obviously knew about both Ben and Sayid by the time that was going on.

Hurley's Birthday

At Hurley's birthday, Kate encouraged little Aaron to say "Hi." Since it would be a rare kid to say Hi before the age of, say, 10 months (most don't speak until 12 to 15), it's probably no earlier than September 2005. Nadia is shot and killed in October 2005. I think that means Hurley's birthday is in September 2005. This also means that Kate is a free woman at least through then. I wonder why she waited until she and Jack were living together to do Sawyer's favor.--Marksman 10:18, 7 July 2008 (PDT)

Rename again

The last discussion has little real consensus, with ideas changing on what to call the page. Please re-discuss. The winner right now seems to be "Post-Rescue" - though personally I'm not a fan but whatever. Please vote for this proposal here. --Nickb123 (Talk) 07:02, 11 August 2008 (PDT)

  • Whatever is decided, Post-Island is simply wrong at this point. My preference is simply "2005 and Later" "Post Rescue" seems limited to events occurring off-island and that is likely to be rendered inaccurate itself during the next season.--Marksman 10:01, 11 August 2008 (PDT)
  • How about "Post O6 Rescue" or "Post Oceanic 6 Rescue", or something that will point out that these are the events after the Island was moved ("Post Island move").--Orhan94 05:23, 16 August 2008 (PDT)
  • I think it's fine as it is, and very well written. Let's break it into separate pages, when needed in the future.--Mc peko 18:55, 27 September 2008 (PDT)
  • The current name is fine for now. We need to re-evaluate the situation when we know more about the events to be seen to season five.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 07:05, 15 December 2008 (PST)
  • I think the core problem here is that there are currently 2 timeline naming conventions being used on Lostpedia. At a high level, there is Pre-crash, Post-crash, and Post-crash,Post-Island. Within Post-crash, there are divisions of the timeline into months. So at one level, we have a pre-/post- convention in use, but at another level, we have a convention based on actual units of time.
We could put aside the naming convention issue for now and just vote on "Post-Island", "Post-rescue", and something like "2005 and beyond". If we do that, "Post-Island" is, in my opinion, most definitely not fine. There are a number of characters still on the Island and we will undoubtedly see their stories in future episodes. I would prefer "2005 and beyond" as it is more generic and better fits the ideas that there are things happening off-Island to the people who were rescued, but there are other things happening to the people still on the Island.
If we want to address the naming convention mismatch, I agree with SacValleyDweller's idea from the last renaming: make separate articles for 2005, 2006, and 2007 and beyond. If this article is going to contain everything that happens post-rescue, it will quickly become too big and will need to be broken up anyway. "Post-rescue" could be a way to group those three articles, just like "Post-crash" is a way to group the four 2004 timeline articles in Timeline.-- slugless   talk  18:59, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I think we could call it 2005-2008 -  Rasmus Ni  Talk  Contributions  16:46, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

  • After watching 316 I can't imagine them going past 2008, but you can't be sure. I'd say leave it how it is for now, because with Desmond still off the Island we could see 2009, 2010, 2011, etc. The reason being because he said he would never set foot on the Island again and we don't know how far his off-island story will go. --Crash815 17:12, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
I would suggest renaming this 2005-2008. It was early 2008 when the 06 returned, and I can't imagine that Desmond will stay away for long. The island's not done with him yet. :) -Rawr? 02:10, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I think "Post-rescue" or "Post-rescue off-island" is the best name.--Kemot from Poland 19:48, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Time markers

To sort out the dates yet unmatched:

  1. Hurley lived in the Santa Rosa facility for 2 years (according to the news report Ben and Jack watch in the hotel room ("Because You Left")) before Sayid killed the watcher, and broke Hurley out in Jan 2008, 2 days after Locke was killed.
  2. On the same day, Widmore had Sun held at the airport before her flight the evening of the day she confronted him. ("Because You Left"))

-- LOSTonthisdarnisland 01:22, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Chronological viewing order -- external link appropriate?

Would it be appropriate to include the following link in an "External links" section of the Timeline:2005 and beyond page? http://www.chronology.org/lost/

The web site in question is my own, so I'm not permitted to add it myself. I think it is appropriate and would be helpful to readers of this page -- but of course I'm disqualifed from judging that issue neutrally! — Lawrence King (talk) 23:13, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

That's a very well put together guide, I don't see any problem in adding it.--Baker1000 23:54, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I went ahead and added it. If anyone objects, please speak up! — Lawrence King (talk) 20:20, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't object to the site, but is the 2005-2008 timeline the best place to put it? It's not really a timeline, and most of the stuff takes place in 2004. Maybe you could make some sort of episode viewing guide page, and put the stuff from that link there? --Hugo815 20:45, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Hmmm.... I wasn't sure where to put it either. The reason I thought of this "Timeline:2005 and beyond" page is that, despite its name, this page focuses on the story of the Oceanic Six from the time they left the island until the time they flew on Flight 316. And it's precisely that history that I think the viewing order is most useful for, since that's where all the scenes in the show are totally scrambled. Whereas Season Four on the island, and Season Five on the island, have each been broadcast in a roughly logical order.
In terms of copying all the material from the external link to Lostpedia somewhere, I'm not sure. Here are my first reactions to the idea: First, I don't even know where it would go on Lostpedia; is there a logical place for it? Creating a brand new Lostpedia page with no internal links pointing to it is obviously pointless, so it would have to logically fit in the overall Lostpedia structure, which I still don't fully understand. Second, I plan to update the page every week (to incorporate the new episode), and in theory, people may print out the page and then watch the scenes in order. That makes a wiki problematical -- if someone vandalizes the page before they print it out, they will end up watching garbage. It seems potentially unfair. Third, the page is itself built from non-wiki sources, so the conversion itself would take some effort. And the formatting requires control of horizontal spacing, which is not supported very well on wikia's formatting codes. Anyway, those are my initial thoughts on the idea. — Lawrence King (talk) 00:19, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Explanation needed

Hi, I'm from LP-FR and I'd like to know how you managed to determine the date of Jack et Kate's discussion on the Searcher (or to determine the date of the O6's discussion). Thank you in advance.  Nico  16:30, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Jack and Kate's discussion (from The Little Prince) is said to have happened 2 days after the rescue in the subtitles of the enhanced episode. Also Kate said "It's gonna take more than two nights for me to get used to sleeping in a normal bed." In the same scene, Jack said, "...tomorrow morning, I'm gonna have to convince everyone to lie." So I guess it can be assumed that is when the discussion from The Lie happened. -JamesyWamesy 21:25, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank you very much! I had forgotten this detail from the enhanced episode. :)  Nico  22:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I noticed something that made me think that your timeline was actually wrong. The rescue takes place during the night between December 30th and December 31st. Hence, the Jack and Kate's discussion on the Searcher takes place during the night between January 1st and January 2nd. As a result, whatever the day it is, the O6's discussion takes place on the 2nd January, after that night.  Nico  12:40, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

According to the Dec 2004 timeline, the rescue takes place before the evening of the 31st, so that evening, and the evening of New Year's Day, are the two days mentioned by Kate regarding sleeping in a regular bed. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 16:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
  • It's hard to tell, they were rescued early in the morning of the 31st. The enhanced episode says, "two days after" which would make you think sometime on the 2nd, unless they wanted you to think that since they hadn't yet slept it was still basically the 30th. The question would therefore be decided upon the answer to this: did they sleep in a bed the morning of the 31st or only night of the 31st and 1st? It's kinda up in the air... -JamesyWamesy 21:20, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
  • There's No Place Like Home, Part 1 tells us that the Oceanic 6 reached Sumba on Day 108. There was a "One week later" thing on There's No Place Like Home, Parts 2 & 3 after the Oceanic 6 were rescued. According to Frank, the O6 would reach land that day, so we know the "One week later" brought us to day 108. Therefore, we know that the Oceanic 6 + Desmond + Frank were found by Penny on day 101 (108-7=101). --Crash815 05:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry, but I guess I'm just not seeing the problem. They are rescuded day 101 in the morning hours. They sleep 31 Dec and 1 Jan nights in a bed, and they are talking on 2 Jan, before they go to bed for the third night, about what they will discuss with everyone about lying on 3 Dec. That's two nights in a bed when they have the conversation. Even if they had a nap after being rescued by Penny, and talking with her (Jack immediately after meeting her said they needed to talk) it's still day 1 for the purposes of the conversation Jack and Kate had. And I believe Kate said two 'nights' in a bed, which wouldn't be a nap anyway. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 14:56, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

2008

  • I've found what seems to be an inconsistency I hope someone can help me with. Apparently when Sayid broke Hurley out of Santa Rosa, he said it was 2 days after Locke died. Sayid was taken to see Jack the next day. Jack was clean shaven when Sayid came to him, but he shaved the morning of the 4th day. Any suggestions?
    By the way, the days of the week I've included in 2008 are based on the fact that Jack said in Through the Looking Glass, "Every Friday night I, I fly from LA to Tokyo or, Singapore, Sydney. And then I, I get off and I, have a drink, and then I fly home." Thus Locke would have died that Friday night for Jack to have read his obit Saturday night. As far as I've figured, 7 days occur between Locke's death and Flight 316, placing them on the Island on a Friday as well (or I suppose it would be Saturday if they're on the other side of the International Date Line.) -JamesyWamesy 05:58, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
    • I believe you are misremembering things. Jack flies out every Friday, but a direct flight to Sydney would take 13 hours. He then has a drink (an hour?), and turns around and flies back (direct flight, another 13 hours). Ignoring the dateline and just adding travel time together, at least 27 hours will have passed (assuming there is a return flight available right away). This places him nearly in LA getting the newspaper on Saturday night. Distraught, and I believe on the way home from the airport, Jack attempts suicide. This happened at 2 am, so it's technically Sunday. Fast-forward through the crash, hospital, drugs, Kate, etc. Jack was furry when he broke into the funeral home and met up with Ben who had already met with Eloise and was told they had 70 hours. That first off-Island meeting between Ben and Jack happened two days after Locke died, the same night Sayid was breaking Hurley out. Jack and Ben moved Locke's body, and then went to a motel, where Jack shaved. There is no indication that they slept. It appeared that Jack and Ben simply continued their very long night. There was no way, based on half the remaining time according to Eloise, that this all took place over 7 days. Then again, I might be wrong. I am going to make some minor changes though, like Ben and Jack don't spend the night in the motel; Jack just cleans up there, etc. (which is really odd, since Ben sends Jack home to pack anyway!) ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 06:17, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
  • For the first half of what you said, you have the same as I have up to "technically Sunday." I have Jack getting the paper Saturday night and his suicide on Sunday. So we agree on that much. How do we know Ben already met Eloise before he talked with Jack at the funeral home (Monday night?)? When he talks to her he tells her he's having difficulty gathering the Six. This means he's already talked at least to Hurley which happened earlier in the episode. At the same time Ben is talking to Hurley, Sayid is with clean shaven Jack, thus happening after the funeral parlor. Anyway, that aside, I figured out what's wrong: Mrs. Arlen came to the hospital and was operated on the same day (less than 4 hours apart) while I had them 2 separate days. Sunrise must happen before 6am in LA in January (???) and Jack is talking to Dr. Hamill between 2 and 6 am.... That would put the breakout on Sunday night, 2 days after Locke's death.-JamesyWamesy 23:19, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I was really tired with that last post; sorry if it was confusing. Hopefully this will be less so, but I'm not holding out much hope because there is a lot to process over many episodes to get this correct. Ok, to the first point about Ben and Eloise. I said there has to have been an off-camera (or one I've forgotten) meeting between them before The Lie based on the conversation they have at the end of that episode (see The Lie transcript). Ben doesn't introduce himself, or any sort of introduction. He walks in, and they start right into "BEN: Any luck?" and "SHROUDED WOMAN: Really. What about you?". Ben says he's having difficulties. Difficulties at what??? Well, getting the O6 as we know now. So there had to have been a conversation not shown, or not shown yet, where Hawkings stresses them needing every one of the O6 to return to the Island. I've made a rough workup of 2008 on my sandbox so I can get a better picture of events as I edit them. So far, I have 6 days, not 7. This comes from the fact that Sun still had Aaron in her car, so it had to be the night Kate left him with her, which I believe started with the breakfast surprise of the attorney at Kate's door. That means all the way through the showdown with Ben that night is the same day. There is no indication that Kate spent the night at Sun's hotel room, and every indication she borrowed the suit to visit Dan on the same day because Aaron is shown eating lunch (or an early dinner) with ketchup. Anyway, let me know what you think about my sandbox edits. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 15:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I've made some changes that shouldn't be a problem, including moving all the events of that one day together, as we know Aaron was still with Sun, and after confronting Ben, they all went off that same night to Eloise. That's when we know half the deadline had passed. Let's not get into the fact that there hasn't been enough time in this entire thing for Desmond and Penny to boat from where they were to London, and then to LA, but maybe they flew from Oxford <rolls eyes>. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 15:10, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Sound good. I'll comment on the sandbox's discussion page. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 03:49, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Season 4 DVD extras

Have you seen the season 4 DVD extras? There is one which shows the flashforward scenes in order. For example, it shows that Sun's meeting with Widmore is after Kate's dream about Claire. We'll need to reorganise a few of the scenes and dates based on that information.

1. Walt visits Hurley at Santa Rosa
2. Sayid kills a man keeping watch on Hurley [TIMESTAMP: Two days after Locke's death]
3. Kate has a dream in which Claire appears, telling her not to take Aaron back to the Island.
4. In London, Sun confronts Charles Widmore and proposes they help each other, giving him her card whenever he was ready to talk.
5. Prior to landing in Los Angeles on his return flight, Jack is handed a newspaper which contains an article about Locke's death.
6. On his drive home from the airport at 2:00am, Jack pulls his vehicle over on a bridge and gets out with the intention of committing suicide by jumping off the bridge. Before he jumps, there is a car crash behind him and he ends up saving Mrs. Arlen and her son from the flaming wreckage.
7. Jack attends the viewing for Jeremy Bentham at the Hoffs/Drawlar Funeral Parlor
8. Jack goes back to the hospital two hours after Mrs. Arlen wakes up to steal some oxycodone and is confronted by Dr. Hamill.
9. Jack, surrounded by maps and alcohol at home, calls Kate and begs her to meet him that night at the airport.
10. Late that night, Jack breaks into the funeral home, and Ben finds him there. Ben convinces Jack that the Oceanic Six need to go back to the island together, and bring Locke's body with them.

It goes in the above order. I think this is over three days, with new days beginning before #4 and before #6. So this would cover Days 2, 3, and 4 after Locke died. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 08:32, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Three days is way too long especially when we used to think most of this happened in one day with #6 happening first. If it is this order it must be 2 days with the second day happening before #6. So now the question is, where was Jack for that extra day? -JamesyWamesy 16:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Extra day? If you make it 2 instead of 3, that would be one less day, not one extra one, no? Or am I missing your point? ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 17:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
  • We used to have that all as 1 day, now it's 2 (or 3) days. We have Jack arriving the same night as the breakout rather than the night before. That's the extra day. Did that make better sense? -JamesyWamesy 17:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Why do you assume that the sequence of scenes in that extra feature is a canonical statement about the chronological order? Why not assume, on the contrary, that the sequence of flash-forward scenes in 4.13 is canon? An actual broadcast episode is at least as canonical as an extra feature.
Also, the purpose of that extra feature is so that viewers can remind themselves of the flash-forwards before seeing season five, so it has the same function as the "Previously on Lost" segments. Those don't always show scenes in chronological order. — Lawrence King (talk) 03:26, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I haven't seen the "Course of the Future: The Definitive Interactive Flash-Forwards" myself, but from reading about them in different places online, they are supposedly in chronological order. Also the flashforwards in 4x13 is definitely not in chronological order since Jack talks to Kate then goes to the funeral home the same night while there are daylight scenes (Walt and Hurley) in between in the episode.-JamesyWamesy 03:41, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Dharma Special Access has Darlton talking about the FF in chronological order on the DVD. It's not an assumption; it's canon. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 05:25, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Is it Lostpedia policy that statements made by the producers take precedence over what is actually said on the show? According to "Course of the Future" (which Lostonthisdarnisland accurately summarized in his numbered list above) Sayid's rescue of Hurley from the asylum was prior to Jack reading Bentham's obituary on the plane. After that point, Jack has a night and a day and another night. So that puts at least a day and a half (two calendar days) between Hurley's escape and Jack meeting Ben at the mortuary. Yet in episode 5.01 (at 22:55 on my clock), when Ben and Jack are in the motel room, the television reporter says that Hurley "escaped earlier this evening". So you are declaring her statement non-canon because of this interview. If that's Lostpedia's canon policy, I won't argue against it, but I wanted to be sure. — Lawrence King (talk) 06:20, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
  • (Her <smile). Extras are not normally considered canon; however, the rules cannot be so rigid as to disallow Darlton to override that policy by supporting a specific extra, like this one, saying it is chronological. "Earlier this evening" cannot be exactly evening, because Sayid shot the man after asking the time ("eight-fif... <bang>"), which is night, not evening. I'm still working out the specifics. It's confusing, and taking time. I just wanted to point out the chronological extra. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 07:20, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Looking over this a bit more, putting Sayid being shot on Day 2 after Locke dies seems to work with the 42 hours he was out and wakes up while Jack is working on him. Those 42 hours allow for the rest of day 2 (approx 2 hours) after Locke died, all the events day 3 (24 hours, ending with the newscast Ben and Jack watch), and approximately 16 hours of day 4, when Sayid comes out of it. We see Sayid with an IV in his arm, so Jack continues treatment for a while after Sayid wakes up. The clock on the wall above the head of Tony before he attacks Sayid reads 5:35(pm), which would be just over an hour and a half after Sayid woke up. That works well so far, I think. All I can think is that the newscast should have said last night rather than this evening. It just doesn't work in any fashion with evening, since Sayid doesn't even show up until after 8 at night. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 15:26, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Footnotes for date justifications?

This would be a huge undertaking, but might it be worthwhile to have footnotes explaining the reasoning behind each date?

For example, the timeline gives Nadia and Sayid's marriage as February 2005. A footnote could say something like this:

Based on the date of Nadia's murder (20 October 2005, per "The Shape of Things to Come"), minus the nine months she was married to Sayid (per "The Life and Death of Jeremy Bentham").

In those cases where there is contradictory data, that could be mentioned in the footnote as well. Of course, the footnotes would not need to include obvious things, and if the timeline includes several items in a row from the same show they wouldn't have to all be footnoted.

The only notes I see on this page are manually constructed (using manual superscripts). It would be easier to use <ref>...</ref> and <references /> tags, which work on this wiki the same way they to on Wikipedia. (The {{reflist}} template doesn't, but we could add that if it was desired.)

Does this sound worthwhile? That way, when new information about an event arrives, it can be combined with the old information in a logical way. As it stands now, the new information seems to usually overwrite the old data. — Lawrence King (talk) 00:35, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I just noticed that date justifications are often given in the editing summary, like this one: [2]. These could perhaps be pulled into footnotes.... — Lawrence King (talk) 03:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

  • I believe standard practice is to place both references and a short bit of clarifying text in-line. So, in your example, the text would read something similar to what you wrote, with the crossrefs in-line: "Based on the date of Nadia's murder ("The Shape of Things to Come") minus the ten months she was married to Sayid ("The Life and Death of Jeremy Bentham"), ...". This eleviates the need for extensive footnoting, and leaves the footnotes to the odd note of why the dating might be incorrect (e.g., bad prop) or why there is an abnormality (e.g., one bad date or timestamp reference in an episode). Extensive footnoting would hide those important notes. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 04:50, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Des's Magical Mystery Tour

Are we sure Desmond's scenes in the end of this timeline are presented when they actually happened? It just seems like one day to sail from Oxford to LA is a bit of a stretch. Perhaps what we're shown of his actions aren't meant to sync up with what's going on with the O6, but are just placed in a narratively convenient spot. SenorCrunchy 12:06, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Sailing isn't very fast. There must be a gap between Desmond waking up with the memory of Daniel in 5.01 (location unknown, but certainly much further south than England considering the weather) and his adventures in Oxford in 5.03. Assuming that he sailed from England to Los Angeles, there is another sizeable gap between Desmond's adventures in 5.03 and his arrival at the church at the end of 5.05. How long does it take to sail from Oxford to Los Angeles? That means going through the Panama Canal, etc. This must put the Desmond scenes in 5.01 and 5.03 prior to Locke's death and the events that followed it.
However, it's possible that Desmond flew from England to Los Angeles, which would change the timeline. When we saw Desmond in L.A., it was not stated how he got there (or whether Penny was with him). I suspect we'll learn more about that question at some point in the future, but for now I don't think we have any real evidence. Assuming Penny has lots of money, flying probably makes more sense... if Desmond has a passport. (And if the writers are paying attention to such things. Does Kate have a passport? Think about it....) — Lawrence King (talk) 21:45, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
  • For lack of evidence, I too assume they flew to LA. We don't know where they were before Oxford, though, so guessing the timeframe isn't going to be possible. I'd just go with what's been stated. Oh, and Kate must have had a fake passport, because she was in Australia. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 22:15, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Kate certainly had a fake passport when she was in Australia in Summer 2004, but that would have been seized. (They should have kept it as evidence, but it wasn't in the marshal's box on the plane for some reason.) I'm thinking of later on, in 2005/06, when the plea bargain she agrees to says she must not leave California. At that point, the court would have required that she surrender her (legitimate) American passport. She would not have that passport in January 2008, so how can she board a plane? Guam is a U.S. territory, but does that really mean that American citizens can fly there with just a driver's licence and no passport? Maybe it does, I dunno. Lawrence King (talk) 22:25, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Oh, aye. This was a blooper, because a passport is required even of US citizens. So, you are correct that the seized passport couldn't be used and she should not have been allowed to board the plane. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 06:14, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Of course the bigger question is, what is Ajira Airways doing flying planes to Guam on a regular basis, if 48 hours before the flight only about ten seats on the plane have been booked? *grin* — Lawrence King (talk) 22:25, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Ha. I guess it's the last minute sales that count. Even after Hurley bought the 78 unfilled seats, there were people on standby who were going to miss out. I guess we are just supposed to suspend disbelief and move on. ;) ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 06:14, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
After seeing the events of "Dead is Dead" we now know that Our Mutual Friend is docked at Long Beach, CA and so Desmond did quite in fact sail from England to LA. Being that it takes weeks to do this, we can now assume that Desmond's off-island journey in "Jughead" DID NOT occur in sync with the rest of the off-island events of the O6 after the death of John Locke. If not one disagrees with this, I will update the page 24 hours from now. LEHLegacy 20:15, January 20, 2010 (UTC)LEHLegacy

Are we sure it's 2008?

Just wondering if anyone has any facts to back up the timeline when it states that Locke's death and the return of the castaways to the Island took place in 2008. The on-screen legend clearly says that they landed in 2007 (because "Thirty Years Earlier" from 2007 makes the past 1977, which is correct). And I don't recall ever hearing 2008 mentioned as a date. So unless someone has some hard evidence to prove it's actually 2008, then we need to go with what the timeline said -- that Locke's death and Ajira Airways Flight 316 both took place in 2007. Marc604 08:34, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

  • It would be silly to have a card that said 30 years, 2 months, 11 days, 5 hours, etc. 30 years can be approximately 30 years, just as 6 days ago is loosely said to have happened a week ago. From canon, as case in point, Ben comes to Sayid in Santa Domingo, saying a man has been perched outside Santa Rosa Mental Health Institute for a week, but Sayid says the same thing when he arrives there to get Hurley out, even though at least a day has passed to allow Sayid time to schedule a flight and fly to LA. The proof is that the passport stamps Locke's arrival as no earlier than 12 Dec 2007, and Jack tells Ben over the coffin that Locke came to see him a month ago, meaning a month passed into Jan 2008 while Locke was there.---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 08:46, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Locke came to see him a month ago -- that's absolutely correct. I just went to the transcript to find out what he said exactly, and it's "About a month ago." So since Locke landed in Dec 2007, and spoke to Ben and the O6 here, then a month later would absolutely be January 2008. Great episode reference too, by the way. Looks like you guys were right after all. Carry on. Marc604 11:25, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
  • No worries. It's always good to double and triple check. I like using references where I can, because it makes for familar analogy, and conversely, I can understand if someone shows I am wrong. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 11:33, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
One more thing. Widmore tells Locke in 5x07 that his friends left the Island three years ago. Since we know they left on December 30, 2004, add three years to that and we're in December 2007, which matches up to Locke's passport. I'm really pretty confident that the Island present is December 2007, so I'm curious to see if anyone objects to changing the 2008 timeline to December 2007. Marc604 08:39, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Exactly. See above Dec 2007 plus one month ago speaking to Jack before Locke died, plus the days before they get on the plane is Jan 2008. You answered your own question, and yes, I object. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 08:46, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Lostonthisdarnisland. Another piece of evidence: Locke talks to Jack in December 2007, and it is after this that Jack begins flying on airplanes hoping to return to the island. When he meets Kate at night near the airport, he tells her that he has been flying "every Friday". Clearly that phrasing only makes sense if he has flown several times. That means that several weeks have elapsed since December 2007. — Lawrence King (talk) 21:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

"LOST: The story of the Oceanic Six" again claimed that Ajira 316 landed on the island in "2007".This was stated not merely as math, i.e. thirty years later, but specifically mentioned as a date. That makes two official but questionably cannon sources that believe they are in 2007, not yet 2008. If "every Friday" is the only evidence we have for time passing, then maybe Jack only meant it as intent or that its just wrong. As far as "three years ago" goes, if the date "2004" is stuck in your head as the day rescue occured, then even early into 2007, most people would start saying "three years ago". Sorry, I have to agree that its still 2007. Amber1713 02:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

    • Very good points. Looks like I was right to question this in the first place. And seeing as how all of the 2008's have been changing to 2007's in the past few days, it's too bad people didn't consider this beforehand! I kid, of course. Marc604 11:11, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
    • The finale proved that "thirty years" does not necessarily have to be literal. Kate referred to stiching Jack up in September 2004 as being 30 years from 1977. The strongest evidence for 2008 is Jack saying that he saw Locke a month before he died, meaning it must have been no earlier than mid-January. Next point: rescue happened in January of 2005, not 2004, so 3 years later if you want to be literal is January 2008, just as has been outlined to now. -JamesyWamesy 21:17, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
    • The above post from James is the strongest evidence that on island stuff is happening in 2008. LEHLegacy 15:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC) LEHLegacy
  • It was meant to be evidence for off-Island to be 2008. We have no in-show reference to time on-Island yet. Extras have claimed on-Island to be 2007. -JamesyWamesy 22:53, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes that was a typo on my part. Can someone from the Lostpedia exec staff get in touch with the producers and get a deperature date for Ajira 316 and a date on the on-island stuff ? (I know they said 2007 in the recap shows, but then if they give us a 2008 deperature date for 316, then that would confirm a < 12 month time flash occured for the non O6 passengers (which is kinda silly, IMO))LEHLegacy 14:49, 21 May 2009 (UTC) LEHLegacy
    • Can someone briefly provide the 2008 OFF ISLAND date evidence. I'm just curious to see if we are really all just holding on to the date on Locke's passport being the only concrete evidence.
1. Dec 2007 date on Locke's passport plus at least one month till his death
2. First few eps of the season had "Three Years Earlier/Later" tag when showing scenes b/w the off-island story and the O6's days on the Searcher.  If you agree that they were rescued on jan 1 2005, then 3+ years is 2008 (which coincides with point #1)
3. In "Namaste" Sawyer asks the O6 how long its been since the chopper and Kate's response is 3 years.
4. In Tunisia, Widmore tells Locke it's been 3 years since the O6 has returned LEHLegacy 19:17, 3 June 2009 (UTC) LEHLegacy

How did a newspaper story about Bentham's death get in the paper so fast?

In order for a story to appear in a paper that was on a flight from Sydney to LAX arriving early morning on Sunday, it had to have appeared in the Los Angeles newspaper on Friday at the latest, which is the same day he died, supposedly. Namastizzay 00:54, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

  • There is still some ify bits in the timeline; this is one of them. The flashforwards in order have Sayid seeing Hurley on day 2 after Locke's death before Jack gets the paper. Therefore, I think he flew back on Sunday; the paper article is another clue to this being true, IMO. However, I can't get the timeline sussed out properly to get everything else in order. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 07:49, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Time of Day when Jack is told Dr. Nadler will perform surgery

The clock on the wall says 4:50. There is sunlight hitting the window. At no point on any day in any year is there sunlight at 4:50am. Therefore, it must be 4:50pm, and therefore it can't be between 2am and 6am on the same day Jack saved the woman and her son after arriving from Sydney and getting ready to commit suicide. There has to be an additional day in the timeline. I think Sayid saying Locke had died 2 days before is a guess or guesstimate on his part.Namastizzay 00:52, 5 April 2009 (UTC)Namastizzay 00:52, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

  • I think sometimes reality has to be suspended for the purpose of the story. I'm not saying you're absolutely wrong, but I doubt the writers expect their viewers to be looking that meticulously at such details. -JamesyWamesy 03:48, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
    • And yet we're basing our entire view of what YEAR it is based on just such a small detail-- Locke's passport.
    • I don't think that I am looking too close at the details. I think it is stretching it to force that scene between 2am and 6am, and think that they're talking about a surgery in a little over an hour and calling it "first thing in the morning." Scenes are lit very specifically. Sets are dressed very specifically. The writers obviously set that scene as day, not middle of the night. I think the scene takes place just like it looks in the story. I'm just not buying the timeline here that says that it's in the middle of the night. It doesn't make sense. Namastizzay 04:56, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I put words and same outfits over day/night scenes usually, because we've seen from experience with the timeline that the day/night has more to do with the shooting schedules and availability in Hawaii, than actual proper timeline considerations. There have been many instances throughout Lost where it's day then night then day, and it's said to be the same day. In fact, there have been instances where that's happened in progressive scenes, and we know it's the same day due to context. Performing the surgery right after the car crash makes sense, and the other context clues lead us to it being the same day. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 07:49, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Another problem with an extra day in there is the newscast is supposed to be the night Sayid broke Hurley out and took him to the safehouse. We need less time in that area, not more time. ETA: but I can see where you are coming from with a re-watch. Jack is in a new shirt and everything. Also, when he talks with Kate outside LAX, she says he's been calling her for two days. The timeline for these events are a major SNAFU, and adding more time makes it worse. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 16:59, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

MAJOR CHANGE: The Story of the Oceanic Six

With the confirmation that the on-island events are happening in 2007 rather than 2008, we can establish a more concrete timeline. Locke's passport was issued/fabricated on December 12, 2007 - he then killed himself on a Friday, and a week or so later (the day of the Ajira flight), it was still 2007. Since it's unlikely that it only took him two days to visit all the O6, it's likely that his day of death was December 21, 2007. So the day of Flight 316 would be the next Friday, December 28, and the latest on-island events - "Day 4" post-return - would be on December 31, 2007. Of course, this could be completely dismissed at some point by a specific reference on the show, but for now, I think this is our best option based on the info we have. --Pyramidhead 06:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

  • This is DEFINITELY better than the 2008 theories, despite the fact that some things don't match up, I'm pretty happy with this one. Its weird that the characters have never noted the passing of Christmas or a new year. Its also really weird that LA really didn't look very wintery. I mean, the scene where Ben shoots Desmond at least looks like its in the middle of summer. But I'm just rambling now. Amber1713 08:37, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
  • But that doesn't make sense. Why is Dan Norton's office open on Christmas Day? And Amber, LA doesn't get very "wintery". A Dec/Jan average temperature is 58F (14C). But I will say it doesn't look very Christmas-y for sure. Jack's comment that Locke came to him a month ago and the fact that he's been flying for several Fridays rather than one or two forces us to think January. Have the recap shows always been taken as definite canon before? -JamesyWamesy 15:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
    • You're right, I spoke too soon. I guess we have to assume the 2007 date is non-canon. --Pyramidhead 15:46, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I think what happened is that the flight departed in January of 2008, but with the flash of light and the surroundings going from night to daylight, the plane may have time shifted into 2007. -JamesyWamesy 04:36, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

If Locke's passport is the only evidence placing things in December (and if his passport was only visible for a moment) I'm going to say the writers might believe we're still in fall of 2007, and the prop managers just did their own thing. Trees have leaves, there are zero Christmas decorations or Christmas music on the radio (almost impossible in the month of December)... but I guess if we have to point to evidence, a brief glimpse of a passport is more cannon than a clips show. Just... don't be surprised if its disproved in a few episodes when they say "2007". I smell another thing like Charlotte's age coming on. Amber1713 03:19, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

  • As "brief" of a glimpse the passport was, it was still a close-up meaning they want us to read it. Unless as you say, the producers later discredit it, we'll have to take it as canon. -JamesyWamesy 04:36, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
I like the 2008 date. But if we do adopt the 2007 date for the take-off of Ajira 316, then we have to push Locke's arrival back to November. Jack clearly stated that he had been flying "every weekend" hoping to crash, and these flights didn't begin until after Locke told him that he had met his dad. If Locke arrived in Tunisia on or after December 12, there's no way that Ajira Airways 316 took off by December 31.
JamesyWamesy is right that the plane must have timeshifted at least a little, since it jumped from night to day. But a shift from Jan 2008 to Dec 2007 seems bizarre; when the freighter was near the island the time displacement didn't ever exceed 48 hours. More generally, it seems hard to believe the writers would have intended this explanation. The much more obvious explanation is that we have kept track of the timeline better than they have. So the only question is whether Locke's passport outranks a statement in a clip show as canon. — Lawrence King (talk) 06:27, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't think it has anything to do with the time displacement between the Island and the outside world, but a time flash/shift. Some time travelled over 30 years, some between 1-13 months. It didn't say December 2007, could have been any month. -JamesyWamesy 17:13, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I agree, I think there is enough evidence to support the plane departing in 2008. It now is clear that it arrived on The Hydra island in 2007. Whether it was a time displacement issue due to approaching the island on the wrong heading, OR a time flash issue where they time traveled to 2007 like Jack, Kate, Sayid & Hurley traveled to 1977...... that doesn't really seem to matter when it comes to fixing Timeline:2005 and beyond. Can't we leave the Ajira 316 pre-crash info as 2008 (until given a concreate reason not to) & just change the events after the crash to 2007?  NEVERGIVEUP  Contribs  Talk  18:03, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
    • PLEASE correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Ajira 316 go from flying in the middle of the night to -flash- and then mid-day? Or did I completely fabricate that memory? IF that is the case, its a pretty strong argument for time displacement having occured, and the recap show would be a pretty good indicator that the displacement brought them to 2007. I don't know if thats strong enough to change it though. While I HATE to say it and think that the 2007 WILL be proved in cannon, I say, based on the info we have, just keep it all as 2008. Amber1713 08:17, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
  • They did go from night to day proving there was some sort of time flash. Since we have no other information, 2007 seems just as credible as any. We had just assumed they jumped half a day, but why not months? There's no reason at the moment to refuse 2007, so leaving off-Island events at 2008 and on-Island events at 2007 is just fine for now in my opinion. -JamesyWamesy 14:26, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, I disagree, since they made such a big deal about the time-shifts on the island, but nobody on the plane got headaches and nosebleeds. And plot-wise I can't imagine why the writers would bother to time-travel the plane (slightly) and never mention it in the show. But until someone in 2007/2008 on the Island gets in communication with the outside world, their date really doesn't matter. Most importantly, I appear to be outvoted. So go ahead, but it would be nice to explain the (hypothetical) time-displacement on the page, at least in a footnote, or the next newbie is likely to "fix" it! — Lawrence King (talk) 23:09, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I really don't understand why people are saying there is no evidence that they are in 2007. Even if the recap show Lost: The Story of the Oceanic 6 didn't exist, there was a clear statement in Namaste that after the crash the story narration said "30 years earlier". It didn't say "approx., about, or almost 30 years earlier", it said "30 years earlier". Once we found out that 30 years earlier meant 1977 then it is a GIVEN that they are in 2007. This is even suppored by the night to day flash as well. How can this not be treated as cannon, even with the recap show?? I don't understand. They departed in 2008 & arrived on the island in 2007. Given all that we know about the island, it's not even a reach to think this.  NEVERGIVEUP  Contribs  Talk  13:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Official_Lost_Podcast/May_11,_2009 confirms yet again that on-Island events occur in 2007. Unfortunately we're still waiting on an off-Island date. -JamesyWamesy 00:33, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Four possible chronologies

Nevergiveup, there are exactly four possibilities here.

  1. Locke visited the Oceanic Six in December 2007, the plane took off in January 2008, and when the plane reached the island it time-flashed to 2007. This is the only explanation that is consistent with all the data -- my objection is merely that it is silly.
  2. All of these events took place in 2007. Locke arrived in Tunisia no later than November 2007. The date of his passport is not canon.
  3. All of these events took place in 2007. Locke arrived in Tunisia in December, and the plane took off in December. (In this case, the writers didn't think the timeline through as carefully as us.)
  4. Locke visited the Oceanic Six in December 2007, the plane took off in January 2008, and it is still January 2008 on the island for Sun, Ben, and Lapidus.

You argued that the "30 years earlier" subtitle is meant to be precise. If that's true, it rules out option 4. But it does not rule out options 1, 2, and 3. In other words, even if everyone agrees that it is 2007 on the island, that still leaves 1, 2, and 3 as valid options. We are all agreed that 3 is not acceptable. So the question is: Do we violate the general rule that on-screen text is canon and abandon the passport date? Or do we violate Occam's Razor and suppose that an entire airplane and its passengers were time-travelled from 2008 to 2007 even though no such event has ever been mentioned on the show or off the show?

As mentioned earlier, I think that the time-travel makes very little sense. On the island, the time flashes always sent all the characters to the same time; it never separated them. Even when Locke or Jin was separated from Sawyer's gang, the flashes took them to the same time. When the plane was over the island, the flashes worked the same way: Jack, Kate, Hurley, and Sayid were transported to the time that Sawyer's gang was currently in. (Although it's odd that it put them in 1977 instead of 1974.) If Sun, Ben, and Lapidus were flashed, they should have been in 1977 too, by this logic. But they were not. Therefore I see no reason to suppose they got time-flashed at all. Whatever happened to them must have been the normal very mild time-displacement that the freighter experienced, which was never more than 48 hours. (Remember the time-flashes were over by the time Ajira 316 arrived. The only reason that Jack and gang were caught in them is that the Island "remembered" that they were part of Sawyer's group.)

That's my explanation. I think it makes the most sense. Perhaps someday we will have definitive answers. Until then, I am happy to let majority vote determine how the timeline article is edited -- I'm not writing to continue the debate about what this article should say, but merely to answer the question you asked in your comment. — Lawrence King (talk) 17:54, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Lawrence King, thank you for the thought you put into that. I appreciate your passion. The only thing I am fighting for on this topic is that it be cannon (until proven otherwise) that the on-island events we are seeing now (since the crash of Ajira 316) are in the year 2007. You are correct that due to the other not so blatant facts we have been given (ie: Locke's passport), it seems as though Ajira 316 also departed in 2008. Until just before the most recent recap show (Lost: The Story of the Oceanic 6), it was all but conceided that the flight landed on the island in 2008, even though we got the "30 years earlier" tag. That is were I had the problem. I believe that the flight departed in 2008 because that is the evidence we have up to now, but you could be right, as some of that evidence hasn't been cannonized yet. I also believe that they landed in 2007 due to a time dispacement of between 1-12 months. Just because a displacement of over 48 hours hasn't happened yet, doesn't mean it can't. There's always a 1st time.  NEVERGIVEUP  Contribs  Talk  18:48, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
    • I think that until this issue with the specific year is sorted out (hopefully, Damon & Carlton will address this in a podcast or something), we should edit the Season 5 pages accordingly to just read "2007/2008" so as to at least be consistent in the inconsistency. Does anyone agree? Dman176 16:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Makes sense to me. — Lawrence King (talk) 05:43, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree. In fact, I was changing it as I edited as I was considering it a decision already made. --Metalpotato - Talk - Contributions - 15:09, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Here's a major major possible discrepency I'm shocked no one has discussed yet. I am of the camp that it is 2008 on the Island right now where Ben, Faux-Locke and Sun reside. So my question for the pro 2007 crowd; particuraly those who believe Ajira timeflashed from 2008 to 2007, how do you explain Jacob persuading Hurley to go back to the Island on Ajira 316 in 2008, but be killed by Ben on the island in what you are calling 2007 ? LEHLegacy, 16:37, 15 May 2009

I've got no opinion, I just don't know if it's 2007 or 2008, if there was time shift or not... But I can answer that. First, we don't know if Jacob is completely dead after that (yeah, ok, stabbing, burning, but... This is LOST, remember?). Second, we don't know anything about what Jacob is able to do (out of not aging, travelling out of the island and having some critical way to speak to future survivors at special moments of their lives...). Jacob could yet be alive after that, or could time travel, or even the Jacob that burned could be a different Jacob that the one that spoke to Hurley... I'm just saying this is just speculation. We are not going to be sure until the show, or the writers in an official podcast or convention or whatever tell us. --Metalpotato - Talk - Contributions - 00:35, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Brilliant! That never occurred to me. Does anyone in the Ajira timeflash camp have an answer? — Lawrence King (talk) 09:58, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
In order for Jacob to know to visit Kate, Sawyer, Jack, Sun/Jin, Locke, and Sayid, he must be able to time travel. Thus, he may have time travelled to a few months in the future to get Hurley to come back. I have a feeling this isn't the last we'll see of Jacob. -JamesyWamesy 14:24, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, we don't know the extent of Jacob's powers yet. It is possible he can time travel, or maybe he simply cannot die. Saying he can't do something, in this particular case, is just as speculative as saying he can do it. --LeoChris 14:25, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

James, instead of attributing time travel powers to Jacob, isn't it just easier to say that in the time b/w the cab ride with Hurley to the time he was killed by Ben (4-5 days), Jacob simply returned to the island no non-supernatural means ? I think at this point I see this sitatuon being closer to a gross continuity error than a Jacob time travel. I would much rather give Jacob the gift of foresight to explain his ability to meet the 815 survivors in his youth rather then being a flip of a switch quantum leaper. I just think that the Locke passport date is more of a piece of concrete evidence then the 30 years caption to support the on island time is 2008 and not 2007 LEHLegacy 15:15, 18 May 2009 (UTC) LEHLegacy

A recent podcast confirmed again that the on-Island events take place in 2007. So taking everything into account, this is my best answer as Lawrence King requested. -JamesyWamesy 16:31, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
I still lean to # 2 on the "four chronologies" list above. Any chance that someone could ask the Writers about the passport date?
In the meantime, we have seven months to figure out how this timeline should be modified if in fact the atomic bomb does change history! (Green for Season 1-5 Continuity, Blue for Season 6 Continuity maybe?) *grin* — Lawrence King (talk) 18:13, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
  1. 2 is the most convienant outcome, but that would reprsent a pretty big error on the Darlton's behalf. I don't think we can dismiss the passport as non-canon b/c the date does work (3 years since the rescue as Widmore explained) up until the 30 year title card started popping up in "Namaste". For example, if the date on the passport was say June 5th, 2006 we could easily dismiss as non-canon, but because it does work with the timeline on the show, it would be a very oddly convienant error if ulitmately proved to be wrong. LEHLegacy 21:23, 18 May 2009 (UTC) LEHLegacy

Timing of Ben shooting Desmond, and Widmore arrival

Jack, Sun, Desmond, and Ben visit Eloise in the church late Tuesday night, the 4th day after Locke's death (or if it's past midnight, early Wednesday morning). Desmond leaves soon afterward, and presumably returns to Penny and their boat (where else would he go in the middle of the night?). Later, but still well before dawn, Ben leaves.

At some point in time, when the sun is out, Desmond goes shopping for groceries. As he is returning from shopping, Ben is walking on the marina. After phoning Widmore (who is in London), Ben shoots Desmond and then gets tossed in the water. Penny rushes Desmond to the hospital; presumably they arrive very soon after the shooting.

On Thursday morning, before Jack has left the house but after the sun is up, Ben phones Jack, and says Jack has to pick up Locke's body. In this scene, Ben is wounded and wearing the same shirt, and wet.

Can we be certain that Ben's attack on Penny and Desmond was therefore Thursday morning, and not Wednesday morning? It seems to me that it must be (as indeed this timeline topic indicates), since Ben might still be wounded 24 hours after the attack but he wouldn't still be wet. It's not bizarre that Penny and Desmond would stay in L.A. another day or two after his mission to find Eloise. But can we be certain that it wasn't Wednesday morning?

It makes a great difference. Eloise visits the hospital, talks to Penny, and then walks outside the hospital, where it is now nighttime -- and she speaks to Charles outside the hospital. If we can be certain that the attack was Thursday morning, then the Charles-Eloise meeting is Thursday night, which means that there is ZERO chance that Charles was on Ajira 316. On the other hand, if the attack was Wednesday morning, then Charles is in Los Angeles the evening of Wednesday, speaking to the expert on Flight 316... and if she tells him about the plane, it seems almost certain that he would be on it! And we never saw the faces of the passengers in the back section of the plane.... — Lawrence King (talk) 06:03, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

That's an interesenting point... Really interesting... He could be himself or send someone in the plane (yes, I'm thinking of Caesar, or maybe Ilana, Bram and friends...). --Metalpotato - Talk - Contributions - 15:02, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Ben most certainly is at the Marina and shoots Desmond on a Thursday not Wednesday. When he leaves the Lamp Post on Tuesday late night or Wednesday early morning he is wearing his all black pans and jacket combo, but when he shoots Desmond he is dressed in his purple button down he is seen wearing for the rest of the season. I think we should just assume that we are unaware of what Ben did during the day and night of said Wednesday. What I think the more pressing matter is questioning how Widmore got to LA from Thursday afternoon LDN time (it was still daylight out when Ben called him (perhaps he's leaving work)) and be at the hospital in LA that same night (assuming Penny rushes Des to hospital and has say a couple hours of emergency surgery). LEHLegacy 19:51, 19 May 2009 (UTC) LEHLegacy

  • Widmore has a lot of time. Ben called him in the morning (Jack and Kate are having breakfast when Ben calls him after the incident), and Widmore arrives after nightfall. 8am in LA is 4pm in London. Widmore has over half a day to fly, and a flight from Heathrow to LAX takes less than 11.5 hours. Surely a man of his position would have a private plane that could take him wherever whenever. It looks like it could fit to me. -JamesyWamesy 20:31, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Locke´s death date and season 5 events in the same week???

Hi, at first sorry if my english is not good (i´m spanish). I really don´t understand why Locke´s death date and the events we see in "Throug the looking glass", "There´s no place like home" and season 5 can be in the same week. I think between those events have to pass at least a month, o several weeks. It make sense:

- Someone finds Locke's corpse, call the police. A police investigation is made, autopsy, police looks for Locke's family... it takes a time. - Meanwhile, Ben looks for Eloise and she explain him if he wants to go back the island, he have to recreate the 815 flight. Ben go to Santo Domingo to say Sayid Hugo is in danger etc. Sayid says no, so I asume he took some days to make his choice and travel back to USA... - Jack traveled several weeks and his 1st traves was in Locke´s death night!!! And his beard grows too. Also, in "The story of the Oceanic 6" is said "Jack began taking frequent trips across the Pacific and during one flight home, he learned that locke was dead" just after wee see Locke's death. - Walt discovered Locke's death and convence his grandma to croos all the country to see Hugo... it's not impossible make it in a day but...

Because all of this, I think Locke's death night and season 5 events... are not the same week!!! Locke may die in december 2007/january 2008 and Jack see the newspaper several weeks later. If I'm mistaken I'd like an explanation :) ----Victormo.

Well, I'm afraid he's right... What do you think? Compañero, para cualquier duda, cuenta conmigo. --Metalpotato - Talk - Contributions - 17:13, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
I've also thought about a lot of these inconsistencies, but somehow I thought there was an established reason to claim Locke's death date as the day before Jack sees the obituary -- despite Jack saying he's "been flying a lot", "every Friday", and despite Jack telling Ben that he saw Locke "about a month ago" -- but I can't remember what that reason might've been. That's also a really good point about the time needed for Ben to go to Santo Domingo to talk to Sayid and for Sayid to return to the states. Can somebody refresh my memory of why the timeline says Locke's death was the same week as all those events? --Celebok 18:04, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
When Sayid busts Hurley out of Santa Rosa in the S4 finale, he tells Hurley that Locke has been dead for 2 days. Locke dies on a Friday; that night Ben goes to see Hawking and gets the info concerning the O6 returning to the Island. The next morning, Ben flies to Santo Domingo to tell Sayid that a man is stalking Hugo, which promts Sayid into immediate action and returns him to the states to bust Hugo out on a Sunday night. What I think alot of the confusion can come from is that when Ben tells Locke that Jack booked a ticket to Sydney many believe that it's the FIRST flight that Jack has taken in his attempt to go back to the Island, when it is in fact (I hope, haha) his 3rd or 4th which justifies him telling Ben that Locke came to see him a month ago (as depicted in TLADOJB where his beard is not as full as it is in the S3 and s4 finale - he starts his flying the wknd following that mtg I presume) LEHLegacy 19:04, 8 June 2009 (UTC)LEHLegacy
Oh, okay, Sayid telling Hurley "2 days ago" was the piece I was missing. I still think it's a stretch to think that Jack buying a plane ticket after Locke's visit was something he'd been doing for a while. Jack's reaction to Locke seemed like he had absolutely no desire to go back to the Island, and it was only after Locke mentioned Jack's dad that Jack started to change his mind. When Ben told Locke that Jack booked a ticket, it sure seemed like it was a surprising turn of events, triggered by Locke's conversation with Jack. If it wasn't for Sayid telling Hurley that Locke died "two days ago", I'd be pretty convinced that it had to have been a lot longer. --Celebok 08:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Actually, Celebok, I am missing the most critical piece of evidence to that proves Locke's death and the events of S3/S4 finale and Season 5 all happen in the same week. In the S3 finale, when Jack sees Kate at LAX, his reasoning for meeting her is to ask her if she had heard about Locke's death and if she would go to the funeral (which he himself had attended earlier in the day). When she says no, he goes on to tell her that he's been flying alot - to at least 3 mentioned destinations of Tokyo, Singapore, and Sydney. This proves that Jack has been flying in the time b/w Locke's visit and his death (at least 3 weekends is consistent with what Jack later tells Ben that he had seen him last 'about a month ago') and that it was in fact Locke's visit that propelled him to start trying to get back to the Island. I know that during the meeting Jack and Locke had, it appears Jack did not have any desire to return, BUT you can tell that he was on the mental breaking point and that his pill abuse was pretty much in full swing and Locke's mention of seeing his father alive (something Jack can believe considering he saw him himself in some delussions on the island) was the final push he needed. LEHLegacy 13:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)LEHLegacy
These are some good points. But I just think that no matter how you try to place these events, there will be at least one inconsistency or logical flaw somewhere, and for the purposes of determining what's canon, we just need to go with what contains the least contradictory facts and have to live with minor logic issues (which I think this Timeline article currently does). Sure, it's quite possible the way you described these events -- Locke spoke with Jack in the hospital, which inspired Jack to try to get back to the island, Jack flew across the Pacific for the next three weekends, and Locke died on the night of Jack's third trip. It just makes me wonder why it took Locke three weeks to try to kill himself and for Ben to find him, and why Ben told Locke that "Jack booked a ticket", as opposed to "Jack has been taking plane trips every weekend since your conversation with him." --Celebok 21:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

The One inaccuracy I see is that if the events of the TTLG flash forward take place on a sunday, with Jack getting back from his flight on Saturday night. He told Kate that he flew on a friday night, Thus making it impossible for Locke to have died the same night because of the simple fact that the newspaper with his obit could not have been on the plane. InflatableBombshelter 22:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

That's a great point. I agree this is a continutiy error, but all other evidence points to the timeline Lostpedia has up as being the most "correct". Maybe Jack is on a connecting flight, for example the flight was from Sydney to San Fran and he got the newspaper on the San Fran to LAX flight (although that still dosen't answer the question how Locke's death on a Fri night would have an obit in the next day's paper. No show is perfect I suppose :) LEHLegacy 15:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC)LEHLegacy

OK, then I was mistaken (and there is a continuity error). Thanks everybody!--- Victormo.

"Thirty Years Earlier" Timecard Discrepency

More on the 2007/2008 Date Debate. I am pro 2008 crowd for all off-island events from the death of Locke and forward but have been going back and forth on weather or not it is 2007/2008 back on the Island for Ajira surivors. Now, from what has been discussed on this page, the main piece of evidence for the PRO 2007 crowd was that in the episode "Namaste", when the events on the Island with Ajira survivors were being depicted (after the plane experienced a TIME FLASH), the title card flashed "30 Years Earlier" to what we all know to be 1977.

Now, I just happened to be watching "The Variable" and the opening scene depicts Desmond being rushed to the ER and the subsequent convo b/w Penny and Hawking. Obviously, these events occur right around the time the Ajira flight departs (argued as 2008), but at the end of this converations, the "30 Years Earlier" tab once again appeared.

Therefore, the "30 Years Earlier" title card is NOT an exact reference to what year specifically the Ajira/Off-Island events occur in since it's been used across two different ends of a time flash (the one experienced on the Ajira flight). This is by no means an arguement to change the off or on island dates (being that Lindolf said on island is 2007), but just to point out that the title card is not an exact instrument of measure. Does this mean that the 2008 date is then wrong ? Who knows - this is a big mess though, haha LEHLegacy 19:23, 8 June 2009 (UTC) LEHLegacy

The endless debate: 2007 or January 2008?

Here we are again! In the 5x01 commentary (from the season 5 DVDs), Darlton said that the scene in which Jack is shaving his beard happens in 2007. As a consequence, that puts all the current January 2008 events in 2007. That would make sense as they declared the post-return events also happen in 2007 (I've never believed flight 316 went back in time). It also means that Bentham's passport is not canon, but it doesn't really matter… So I guess we should move all the events from January 2008 to 2007. (Sorry if my English is bad, I'm French…)  Nico  18:32, November 8, 2009 (UTC)

Well that throws a spanner in the works! I haven't listened to the commentary yet but if they say it's in 2007, it's in 2007. Still doesn't explain why Ajira 316 went from night to day though.--Baker1000 23:41, November 8, 2009 (UTC)
The night to day thing is just an expected side effect of approaching or leaving the Island on an incorrect bearing. The time shift is normally just a couple of days, not months. The only inconsistency we're stuck with now (if we assume the off-island events are in 2007) is the date on Locke's passport, which, as I mentioned in a blog, was an easy mistake for the prop department to make. --Celebok 08:08, November 9, 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Celebok concerning the "side effect". We've already seen that with the rocket, the helicopter, the Morse code message and Ray's corpse (it would even be surprising if there wasn't a time shift for the plane too…).  Nico  12:20, November 9, 2009 (UTC)
So are we changing the date to 2008? This debate has gone on way too long. We have several references from Darlton and the show itself that island and off-island events take place in 2007. Our proof for 2008 is a pair of props, one of which is from an episode that aired two and a half years ago. ShadowUltra 20:49, December 17, 2009 (UTC)
I think we should change everything from 2008 to 2007. I was completely for the whole 2008 thing and the plane going back in time slightly, but if Damon and Carlton have confirmed that the off-island events take place in 2007 that means our timeline is inaccurate. And being accurate is the entire point of Lostpedia's existence.--Baker1000 21:36, December 17, 2009 (UTC)
I agree. I was also very pro 2008 (see my posts above), but after viewing the commentary myself in 'Because You Left' that was referenced above, I am now convinced it is all 2007. Forgetting Locke's passport and 1-month Jack/Ben funeral convo for a sec, I find it MORE believable to forget the passport date than believe a short time shift from Jan 2008 to late 2007 occured for the Ajira passengers. Even though it turned night to day as the pro time shift people have claimed I think it was not a significant shift that moved the plane months/years in time. Therefore the Ajira people did NOT go through a time shift, but rather I believe just passed through the window referenced in "316". Bottom line, if Damon says it's 2007, Lostpedia SHOULD update.LEHLegacy 18:17, December 29, 2009 (UTC)LEHLegacy
More fuel for the flames lol..although the prop Ajira ticketswere notably missing any date/time info http://www.originalprop.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/San-Diego-Comic-Con-Profiles-In-History-Lost-Auction-Prop-59-x1200.JPG the Ajira ARG pegged the date as January 21 at 11:30am, although they likely picked that date simply to coincide with the season premiere date http://www.sl-lost.com/2008/12/31/ajira-airways-site-unlocked/ --Jackdavinci 02:16, April 16, 2010 (UTC)


October-November 2007 dates

We now have proof that the events in Season 5 and Season 6 do not take place in December 2007. [3] This storyboard says Locke was in Tunisia in October and with Jack saying that Locke visited him A month prior to the Ajira flight, then it landed in November. This makes more sense because if the Landing took place in late December then it would mean Season 6 is in 2008 which contradicts with what the Producers have said. Also, Aaron turns 3 on November 1 so it has to be November.--Oceanic777200 09:12, July 5, 2010 (UTC)

  • That definitely sounds reasonable, but we can't consider that canon for sure. Notice the same board calls the Ajira flight #154 instead of #316, and the board beside it says Alex was born in late April, but we know she was born in January. But on another note, this picture also indicates the Nigerian plane crashed after April of 2001. JamesyWamesy 17:15, July 5, 2010 (UTC)
  • It also says that Locke is captured by Widmore and rescued by Sayid. This must have been pretty early on in the Season 5 story-building process. --Jf518 17:43, July 5, 2010 (UTC)
  • Jeremey Benthan's death certificate was an auction item. Perhaps if we can obtain a high res scan of it his death of death can be seen. Should clear up A LOT of issues.LEHLegacy 13:23, August 23, 2010 (UTC)LEHLegacy

Hurley's surprise birthday party

How comes the surprise birthday party took place in June, while Hurley's birthday was in December? It didn't make sense. Sroczynski 03:53, January 27, 2012 (UTC)

  • Can anyone tell me where the month "June" came from? Sroczynski 02:19, January 28, 2012 (UTC)

I don't know. Also, where did we get his December from? --- Balk Of Fametalk 02:33, January 28, 2012 (UTC)

    • That's what listed on Hurley's page, and it said the "December" was from The Incident, Part 1, looks like it's from Hurley's prison release form.Sroczynski 04:25, January 28, 2012 (UTC)
    • I just go and checked, the "29 December 1978" date is from his passport prop in season 1, but I don't know is that prop ever shown the date onscreen. Then, Hurley's prison release form listed the date "23 Feburary 1983" as his date of birth, which doesn't make sense with his father left him 17 years' storyline. So, I guess they just consider the "23 Feburary 1983" date is non canon, and just picked the "29 December 1978" date as the canon one. However, neither "29 December 1978" nor "23 Feburary 1983" match with the date of the surprise birthday party. Sroczynski 04:58, January 28, 2012 (UTC)
    • Well, the 1978 date makes more sense with Hurley's dad leaving him for 17 years. But the December part doesn't, since it doesn't look anywhere near winter in that scene. Perhaps they were celebrating his birthday from 2004 late, because he was on the Island on 29th December. It still doesn't give us much of a clue about when the party is though. Although, just looking in the Lost Encyclopedia, they seem to think he was 10 when his father left, which would mean 1988 and doesn't match the 17 years storyline. The passport with the 1978 date is featured, the inside of which was featured on screen in "Exodus, Part 1" when Hurley gives it to the woman at the airport. I would assume Hurley being 10 is wrong and just an estimate.--Baker1000 13:21, January 28, 2012 (UTC)

Rename using en dash

See Wikipedia Manual of Style. You're supposed to use en dashes for date ranges, not hyphens. It should be Timeline:2005–2007.  Graft   talk   contributions  03:45, July 10, 2014 (UTC)

Done.--Baker1000 (talk) 16:25, July 12, 2014 (UTC)

Jacob's meeting with Ilana

In "The Incident" and "Ab Aeterno", Jacob meets with Ilana, during which he tells her that there are six remaining candidates and asks her to help him. This must be after Locke's death and significantly before she gets on the plane. It must therefore occur between Saturday (1 day after Locke's death) and Tuesday (4 days after Locke's death), Tuesday being the day before Sayid meets Ilana. This meeting is not currently shown on this 2005-2007 timeline. Where should it go? Rtozier (talk) 15:54, November 9, 2014 (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.