In many places on Lostpedia, people are aggressively putting forward the theory that A fracture in timelines occurred around the 1950s or earlier. This theory is in direct conntention with an opposing theory that contends that the timelines split between 1970 and 2004. However, nowhere have I seen the fully worked out consequences of such a split. This blog issues a challenge to those who contend that the theory is correct:
Theory: The fracture in timelines between the FST & the OT occurred prior to Dharma times, possibly as early as the 1950s.
This island must have had two distinct histories of Dharma, and none of the Dharma events of Seasons 1-5 does apply.
However, the events of Dharma Seasons 1-5 must belong entirely to the Original timeline. Reason: We have a continuity of events:
- In 2007 OT Sun finds Charlie's ring at the camp, connecting 2004 crash to 2007 return scenario
- In 2007 Sun finds a picture of Jack, Kate & Hugo as 1977 recruits, tying 1977 Dharma to 2007 return scenario.
- In 2007 Sawyer recovers a ring from under the floorboards, tying pre-1977 events with 2007 return scenario
This means that the events of the time-travelling Losties, would not have been in the history of the FST. If this is not correct, we has two time travelling Jacks, Kates etc. How did this occur, and what what happened to the other version of Jack, Kate etc?
The FST island history would need to provide a separate and completely different back story for the following:
- What event caused the split prior to 1970? This needs to be an 'identifiable event', which has some significance in the storyline.
- A clarification as to whether Jacob/MiB existed at this split, and whether or not either or both of these ceased to be or was duplicated during the split. i.e. do we now have two Jacobs? If not, what was the effect of this on the FST?
- Given that we have seen differences in the two timelines (Nadia alive with children/Nadia dead, no children), then if such divergences occurred as early as 1950, anyone born in 1960s in one timeline and not the other, would, in 2004 be 45+, plenty of time to have an appreciable effect on their timeline, to have children and possibly grandchildren. How was it that events in the two distinct 'outside world' timelines are still 'coinciding', even to the fact that the losties are still on the plane, Sayid is still in love with Nadia etc.
- In particular, since ALL the losties would have been born post-split, a clear rationale must be provided as to how exactly their lives paralleled each other s closely in the two timelines, even down to 'random' events such as Hurley winning the lotter, but with entirely different numbers.
- If the answer to the above is "whatever happened, happened", why are there differences in timelines at all? If the answer is "course correction", then correction to what? In one timeline the island has sunk, in the other it has not. If the answer is something else entirely, then this must account for both the similarities and the differences.
- Given that we are led to believe that people are "brought" to the island (Dogen), why were Dharma "brought" in the FST, and who brought them and why, if the ultimate fate of the island is its sinking? If they were not "brought", how did they find the island in the FST twhen they needed to be "brought" in the OT?
- Did the Dharma in both timelines pursue similar objectives (such as Building New Otherton, branding sharks), drilling into pockets of electromagnetic energy in the same way? If so, why is that, given that this was a completely independent develolpment. If not, then what exactly did FS Dharma do?
- What was the event which caused the sinking of the island in the FST, and why, if the Dharma objectives and events are parallel, did this event NOT occur in the OT? Note that this event must necessarily occur later than the fracture.
- How it was that the experiences of the Island inhabitants apparently was similar in both timelines (Ben, Roger Goodspeed is on the island, Ethan Goodspeed exists); in other words, given that different events in the outside world were occurring from 1960s onwards, how is it that the same people (e.g. Ben) were still born in both timelines. We have clear instances in Season 6 of children being born in one timeline and not the other. Why did this not appear to apply to Dharma personnel?
- What events led to the birth of Ethan Goodspeed which did not require the intervention of the time-travelling losties?
- How it is that even though Ben and Roger were on the island, they left before the island's demise; why did this not occur in the OT?
- Why has Jack got an appendix scar (aged 7-8) in the FST and not in the OT?
- Since the theory now places the fracture in timelines prior to 1970s, and the demise of the island in the FST, then an explanation of what happened at the detonation of Jughead in 1977 OT is required. Did it go off or not? How was it that the losties ended up back in 1977 with apparently no side effects? Why does this run counter to Faraday's advice, and the whole raison d'etre of exploding the bomb?
It is not impossible that there events occurred, but they certainly do require explanation and a coherent theory to sustain them.
In Seasons 1-5, there has been no hint of a separate Dharma timeline; if the split did occur prior to Dharma, an entire slice of Lost history is missing, and will need to be filled in at some point. The producers of the series declared that "the time travelling season is over", so this would have to be through character talk or inference.
The 'alternative theory here', which does not require answers to any of these questions is that the timeline we have seen for Dharma is the same timeline for both the FST & OT. If this explanation is not correct, then the producers have been pulling the wool over our eyes, and deliberately keeping from us all mention of an alternative Dharma History.
While such a proposition cannot be discounted, Occam's razor suggests that when two alternative theories are put forward, the one adopted as a 'working hypothesis' should be the one which needs fewer additional explanations in order to support it. In other words, "simpler is better". This is a good rule of thumb. On the basis of all these questions, none of which appear to have answers even hinted at in the show so far, the evidence MUST surely be against this theory.