Talk: Namaste

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Namaste article. General discussion about the article's subject is permitted as a way to aid improvement of the article. Theories about the article subject should not be discussed here. (Instead, post your theory to this article's theory page or discuss it on this article's theory talk page.)
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.	Be polite, don't bite, have fun! Admins are here to help More discussion at the Forum	Article policies Canonicity Spoiler policy Theory policy

Two Weeks?

Anyone have an idea as to why the ABC "overlords" are postponing Lost by a whole week? It was my understanding that the reason that Lost starts in February as opposed to September was to avoid exactly what is happening now. Lost should have a new episode every week, so I ask again, why postpone it?--Countdown 03:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Channel 15 over in Arizona had difficulties reading the ABC Signal, that might have had something to do with it. *shrugs* Avlok

I believe it is so the LOST finale will air during sweeps in May. There is suppose to be another break at the end of April/beginning of May.

Proposed rename

Episodes should have precedent for titles over other smaller articles. I propose renaming this article to simply "Namaste" and the other article to "Namaste (phrase)." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ShadowUltra (talk • contribs) .

• disagree: there's the precedent of Dave --LOST-Hunter61 22:01, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
• Agree: While character names should have priority over episode titles, the later should have priority over phrases. -User:DesmondFaraday
• Agree: Episode before phrase.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 01:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
• Agree: Glossary#N has it and links it to the article about the phrase. That should be good enough to allow a NAMASTE article to flourish as an episode page, without the (episode), no disambig needed. You could even have several links on this NAMASTE page that will link to the (phrase) page. –DocH– my edits

• Agree: It has been renamed. -- CTS  Talk   Contribs 01:39, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

2 episodes on the 18th?

IMDB has episodes 9 and 10 listed as being aired on the 18 March. [1]

But I guess they might be wrong. Has anyone heard whether this is true? Thanks. --JimBobbo 12:05, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The ABC/Lost press releases only have one for 5x09 on 18 March; I would think if 5x10 were also being aired, a press release would be out long before now for it. IMDB information is added by users. I'm sure it's incorrect. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 13:20, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

My interactive cable guide says one hour of Lost, boxed by "Better OffTed" and Life on Mars. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gaarmyvet (talk • contribs) .

According to ABC Medianet, 5x10 will air on 3/25/2009.--Eyeful Tower 21:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the 1th will be on 25th

--Darth Stefan 20:39, 18 March 2009 (UTC)Darth Stefan

Centricity?

For who the episode is centric to, I'm debating between Sawyer, Jack, or Various. -- Sam McPherson  T  C  E  02:09, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

• Ajira Centric is a very very good idea!!! it's Like Oceanic Six. User:themobymartin
  • Thanks, themobymartin! Only, better than O6, it also explains the Teaser, which was from the POV of Frank and the co-pilot, who flew Ajira down to the Island. Every scene in this episode had to do with Ajira, whether it was a scene with the Ajira survivors, or scenes with DHARMA folk who were stressed with integrating the Ajira folk. Marc604 08:59, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
• I thought it was obviously AJIRA-centric. All of the stories have to do with the Ajira folk reintigrating into the Island way of life. The Teaser was Ajira-centric, all of the present-day stuff was Ajira-centric, and the past stuff was all about Jack, Kate, Hurley, and Sayid causing havoc for DHARMA. Sawyer got a lot to do, but everything he did in this episode was for the purpose of making sure the Ajira folk fit in. Jin got a lot to do, but the reason he was at the Flame in the first place was to find... the Ajira plane! I'm a bit late to the discussion party, but I'm frankly shocked I'm the first one who thought this was Ajira-centric. Anyone? Bueller? Marc604 02:39, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
• I say Sun and Jin. We got the flashback noise at times when transitioning between their two scenes.--Ranat 23 02:11, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
• I was also thinking Sun and Jin --LeoChris 02:11, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
• None. No character was featured with any more prominence than anyone else. This episode focused equally on all the survivors of Flight 316, as well as Sawyer.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  02:14, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
• This episode was centric to absolutely nobody. Sawyer probably had the most face time, but this episode was most definitely not focused on him.--Jacobking 02:18, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
• Agreed, this was a non-centric episode, most main characters got some screen time, and the storyline had a comprehensive focus.(MaxMoney37 02:21, 19 March 2009 (UTC))
• I'd say either Various or None. I support trying to determine one or two centric characters if it's at all possible, but I really don't think there is one for this episode. -- COMPOSSIBLE  Talk  Contribs  02:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
• I'd say that the episode focuses mostly on the Oceanic Six (minus Aaron) and how they react to returning to the Island, therefore it should be an Oceanic Six centric. --Sawyerfan08 02:38, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm going with Various for now; however, this is susceptible to change. -- Sam McPherson  T  C  E  02:40, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd agree with "Various". The beginning focused alot on Frank, since we saw the crash of Flight 316 from his perspective. dposse 02:49, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

My opinion is that, like "Because You Left" this is an episode without clear centricity, and also like "Because You Left" we have different clues to whose centricity it is:

1. The flashback was Frank-centric (the same way the opening flashback from "Because You Left" is Pierre-centric, even though the episode wasn't);
2. The 1977 storyline focused on Jin, Sawyer and Jack (the same way the Island story focused on Daniel in "Because You Left");
3. The 2007/2008 storyline focused on Sun (the same way "Because You Left"'s off island story focused on Jack and Ben, more than anyone else).
   I agree with Various and/or None, and I think that the only discussion needed is whether the opening flashback was Frank-centric, because IMO that the 2007/08 storyline begins with Frank's awakening from the crash. --Orhan94 11:26, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

• I know I'm late for the discussion, but I doubt if it will go away. The episode is Sawyer-centric because everything that worked was his doing.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 02:50, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd respectfully argue that this episode was Frank-centric, since we saw the crash from his perspective. But "various" works to stop revert wars.dposse 02:52, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

• I think the simple fact that everyone is arguing about who it should be centric to tells us the answer.--Tricksterson 03:13, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
• I'd say either "various" or "Oceanic 6" simply because while there was no real flashback scene this week, the episode was definitely about Jack, Kate, Hurley and Sun than anyone else. But I could live with various. And I say that thinking that BEFORE I came to see this discussion.--Jeff 03:43, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
• We're missing the point of centricity... It's meant to pick out a select few characters whom the episode specifically focuses on. If it doesn't focus on one person any more than another, then the centricity is "None", not "Various".  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  04:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
• None per Jimbo. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 04:41, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
• If we go with "Various", does that mean that every character to who could be one of the "varied" gets credited for having a flash? ESachs 05:20, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
• It's not that hard to see that it is "None" rather than "Various." I don't know why somebody keeps putting down "Various" when it's literally impossible to list who is among these "various" people. --Pyramidhead 05:53, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
• None it wasn't a "centric" style ep in any way. --Blueeagleislander 06:45, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
• Frank Wow, really people? The scenes with the plane passengers all took place before the Hydra scenes with Locke - clearly they were a flashback. And the flashback sure seemed like it was heavily focused on Frank.
• None Tranquility 11:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
• Frank. Between the crash at the beginning and the fact that just about every non-Dharma scene involved him. --michael_is_NOT_in_the_coffin 13:14, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
• I really think it's gotta be either various or the O6. Lost is never "no one"-centric. It's certainly not Frank, just because the first 5 minutes focused on him. In the other episodes this season where the centricity was determined by the first 5 minutes of activity, there was some significant flashback scene -- the Desmond, Kate and Hurley episodes. In others -- the Jack, Locke, Jin/Sun and Sawyer episodes, there may not have been a true flashback, but there was a definitive focus. While Sawyer, and to a MINOR extent Frank, were heavily involved in this episode, the true "focus" of the episode was the predicaments of Kate, Jack, Hurley Sayid and Sun. As I was wacthing the episode, I thought "Oh, this is an Oceanic 6 episode." I still think that. I could concede to "various," but certainly not "none."--Jeff 15:22, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
• Oceanic 6 includes Aaron so that's out. I think "various" is paradoxical and should be changed to none ESachs 21:28, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
• None if anything this might be Frank centric but hes not a main character so thats unlikely and if we didn't give b.c.l. to daniel then we can't give this one to anyone, also i would argue against various because no one is really the focus, it is spread out pretty evenly so id say none instead of various. --Czygan84 21:59, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
• Frank. It is true that most of the episode took place from his perspective, as well as the fact that he probably had the most character development because he was completely denied a leadership position among the 316 survivors. Also, Sun, Jin, Jack and Sawyer just had centric episodes not too long ago. I say that Lapidus would be the best bet because it's so weird to have a no one centric in the middle of the season. --Driveshaft316 19:07, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
• If I had to choose I'd have to say Sun and Jin. The 2007 storyline is told from Sun's point of view, and a significant part of the 1977 storyline is from Jin's point of view. However, I'd have to agree that two centric episodes on the same characters so close to each other sounds weird, to say the least. However, if this episode was Jack-centric or Sawyer-centric it would be even more absurd. Also, I think it's defnitely not Frank-centric (not any more that "Dave" was Libby-centric or "Because You Left" was Pierre-centric, at least). --kristbg 02:02, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this episode is Sun and Jin centric. Their scenes connected the 2008/1977 scenes, with a flashing noise, even! If there is concern about two Sun/Jin episodes so close together... the previous episode, "This Place Is Death" technically featured the main story off-island, with the on-island episode being Jin-centric, whereas except for the rehash of "316" (not a proper flash, just stringing out the reveal that Sun's still in 2008), all the 2008 story is Sun-centric. So, we have the main action off the Island in "This Place is Death" and in 1977 in "Namaste", but Sun and Jin both act as a conduit for the episode being centered around their partner. So, I'd propose either: A), Make "Namaste" Jin/Sun centric, or B) Make "This Place Is Death" Jin-Centric and "Namaste" Sun-Centric. As I recall, these two always raise questions about centricity. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ImFoxed (talk • contribs) 2009-03-23T10:30:54.

Some examples of other episodes centered on the same character that were aired close to each other: "Pilot, Part 1" and "White Rabbit" (Jack-centric - three episodes apart); "Pilot, Part 2" and "Tabula Rasa" (Kate-centric - no episodes apart, although "Pilot, Part 2" was shared with Charlie); "Do No Harm" and "Man of Science, Man of Faith" (Jack-centric - four episodes apart, albeit in different seasons); and, if we stretch a bit, "The Other 48 Days" and "Collision" (the first is centered on the Tailies, the second, on Ana Lucia). Just pointing out that it may be possible. --kristbg 18:49, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

There just isn't enough in the episode to confirm it as Frank-centric. It doesn't matter if you feel personally that the episode focused on Frank, there's nothing in there that specifically calls the episode out as his episode. Lostpedia isn't meant to express fan opinion, but rather the facts. In the absence of centric flashbacks/forwards, we can't call the episode Frank-centric, much like Libby being in a flashback in Dave or Daniel in "Because You Left" doesn't make them Libby- or Daniel-centric.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  02:24, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

• True, but I think there's just as much justification for labeling Jughead or The Lie as Desmond and Hurley-centric (respectively) as there is for labeling this episode Frank-centric. All three started with a flashback focused on that character, and all featured that character heavily in their respective time and place. I know it's not quite as clear as LaFleur or The Life and Death of Jeremy Bentham, which explicitly mention a character in the title, but I have no doubt that this episode was meant to be Frank-centric. --michael_is_NOT_in_the_coffin 15:21, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
• Frank. The opening scene focused on Frank landing the plane. --phoenixautumn 18:20, 25 March 2009
• Sun and Jin, definitely. Frank was shown in the beginning just to answer the questions left about the crash of Ajira 316 -his unique point of view allowed us to see clearly the change of night to day, the landing strip and what the survivors first did when they left the plane. After that, the episode was driven by Sun (following and betraying Ben, recruiting Frank, meeting Christian and learning the shocking truth about the fate of the other O5s) in 2008, and Jin (introducing Radzinski, learning that Ajira 316 didn't land in the Island and meeting and capturing Sayid) in 1977. The parallel of the quests of the stranded couple in two different times was unequivocally the conducting thread of the episode.Maokun 03:16, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
• Just wannted to make the same point I made on the "This Place Is Death" and "Follow the Leader" talk pages: We should watch the transitions (with the "whoosh" sound), not the flashbacks. Every transition in this episode focuses either on Sun or Jin. It's not as obvious here as it is on "This Place Is Death", but it's still there:

4:57 - Sun to the 1977 group (which includes Jin, of course)

13:00 - Jin to Sun

23:09 - Jin to Sun/Ben

31:06 - Sawyer/Jin/Radzinsky to Sun/Frank

34:21 - Sun to the 1977 group ("Namaste" photograph)

Like I said, not as obvious, but I defnitely still see a trend. --kristbg 13:42, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

• I propose we do an actual tally like was done for Follow the Leader because this discussion keeps going on. I tried counting up the votes from this but right now it's a mess and it's hard to count up everything. A new category with just a one word answer. --Driveshaft316 3:14, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
• None "Because You Left" and "Namaste" are more like follow up episodes as in "this is what happened after this event." They're more like filler/informational episodes than centric episodes. Marko14126 02:42, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Weekly glitch is back

Please fix it guys. :( Bloodbath 87 03:01, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I've protected it temporarily to restore all lost edits. -- Sam McPherson  T  C  E  03:12, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Glitch has been fixed in the past by deleting and re-creating, but I'm sure you know that...  Robert K S   tell me  06:19, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Person behind Sun in Otherville a blooper?

Picture here: http://s5.tinypic.com/szc0ux.jpg

It can be clearly seen right after Chrsitian says, "Sorry to say, but you have a long journey ahead of you." Or something along those lines.

The person clearly moves. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Super Nick (talk • contribs) .

• Is it Claire? J.nc 03:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Can't believe I missed that! I could be intended to be Claire!--Jeff 03:45, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Wow, good Call I totally missed it to, will definitely be looking for that tomorrow!--Loco4LOST 03:50, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
• It looks like a fat man to me... Weaver55 03:57, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
• Video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUV3DeaF0To --<BauerUK> tlk | cnt | www | irc 05:26, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
  • [Note: the following judgment is from reviewing my HD recording, not the crummy YouTube clip linked above.] It doesn't look like Claire to me. It looks like a long-haired blond man wearing some kind of bug-eyed goggles. He appears to be leaning over a desk, as if working on a computer. His motion seems to indicate he's looking up, startled, while monitoring the scene. I'm tempted to say it's a crew member. If so, this has to be one of the biggest bloopers yet. It's a not a blooper, this is terribly mysterious--what in the hell could be going on?  Robert K S   tell me  06:25, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I disagree that it is a blooper. The opening door and Smokey moving in that direction seem too coincidental. On top of that, the sheer amount of fubar it would take for a crew member to be that obvious right over the shoulder of a main character in a shot? Someone would have caught it during production. And we know the gang likes to put in things to tease the HD viewers. I'm betting we'll get a repeat of that shot in a future episode, with a reveal. EleriTMLH 06:42, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I agree that this is not Claire. My vote is it's a crew member, as it seems to be completely out of place. Clearly, the person cannot be easily seen without an HDTV with the brightness turned up. DesmondHumeWillBeMyConstant 06:33, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
  • The shot of Sun before Christian says "you've got a bit of a journey ahead of you" shows no one standing behind her. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Simo9852 (talk • contribs) .
  • New guess: it's the best boy grip or somebody in the lighting department wearing neutral density goggles.  Robert K S   tell me  06:58, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

The person behind Sun, shown with graphic enhancement

In "Cabin Fever", Claire was seen sitting in Jacob's cabin

The door suddenly opens and smoke enters the room behind Frank and Sun, and we then see a flash of blonde. It's a reference to Claire, even if it's a double playing her. I can't see why anyone would think this is a blooper! ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 07:08, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

'Cause of the behavior. It's not just somebody posed there. It's the classic "crewmember in background" behavior. Person looks up as if caught in frame and knows it. "Somebody tell the steadicam guy I'm standing here doing my job. I'm not supposed to be in the shot. We're going to get another take, right?"  Robert K S   tell me  07:11, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

• I might agree, if not for the door and the smoke! It's just as plausible, and more likely in context, that it's a Claire reference (regardless of whether it's actress or double), and she's turning her head toward the discussion taking place. If it were a blooper, and it were not refilmed to remove it, the smoke and door opening have no purpose. The door noise, door opening, smoke, background noise as smoke enters room, all provide context that someone or something has just joined them, and behold, we see a flash of blonde in the background. To me, it's a no-brainer. (Is Claire holding a rabbit?) ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 07:16, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the smoke entering the door was very subtle but definitely intentional.. we haven't really seen people lurking in the background like this before on the show, they usuall make it clear you know who is present in any scene. So could be blooper. Wait and see. --Integrated (User / Talk) 15:34, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

We haven't seen anyone lurking? Jacob? ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 16:18, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

• The person seems to have red hair. It could be a blooper, it's just too hard to spot. And another thing: I can't see smoke entering the room after the door open, it looks like rain to me--Kemot from Poland 16:32, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

• Declaring this "not a blooper" is really premature. While I STILL think it's a crew member caught in frame, there's no concrete evidence to suggest its either intentional or a gaffe. What we DO know is that it's almost impossible to see on an SDTV and only somewhat visible on an HDTV with the brightness turned up. As for the "door" and "smoke" argument... yes, the door opens... but I don't see any "smoke" other than some mist. It's certainly not pointing to something. I hope Darlton clears this up for us sometime. DesmondHumeWillBeMyConstant 16:54, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Smokey joins the party

Holding a rabbit 15?

• I think declaring this "not a blooper" OR "a blooper" are both really premature. Let's face facts- we don't know. No-one here is going to know conclusively until Darlton discuss it. To me, it appears SO difficult to see that it seems like a blooper. But who knows.--Chocky 17:26, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
• Declaring (de-Claire-ing?) it a blooper would be premature, jumping the gun saying it must be a mistake before we are even shown follow-up episodes. The point here is not to positively identify the person, but to show it's not a blooper. Furthermore, and I hope this comes out on other monitors (click for bigger image), I played with some graphic enhancements on the image a bit based on what people were saying in the forum, and it really does look like a rabbit the woman is holding, including two dark spots on its arse that look like they could be numbers, possibly it's 15. Also, the only black "mist" I know of on the Island that suddenly appears from nowhere is Smokey ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 17:09, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

• Looking at that image (which does come out on my monitor) I don't see anything. Some blobs. Plus, "I played with some graphic enhancements on the image a bit based on what people were saying in the forum" = I'm adjusting the picture to make it what people want it to be. I think people are seeing things that really just aren't there. --Chocky 17:28, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

• There is no call for being nasty about it. All I did was use a graphics program to duplicate the layers (i.e, make exact copies of what was already there), high-pass enhance the top layers to overlay the ones below them which allow edge enhancement (i.e., which only sharpens and highlights the edges for clarity), and lightened the picture a bit. Your "plus" comment is insulting, no different than accusing me of adding elements to the picture which were not there already. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 18:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

If you're saying there's not a person in the background, then stop looking at still images and look at the video. There's a person there. It's not clear whether it's a man or a woman, or what color hair they have, but he or she does appear to be wearing something dark on his/her eyes, and his or her attention is initially in front and below him/her, and then he/she looks up at Sun.  Robert K S   tell me  18:01, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

• That's why I didn't "declare" (or de-Claire... whatever) a blooper. I just THINK it's a blooper. The mist doesn't look black to me... it looks... misty (as in foggy and somewhat transparent... not the same BLACK smoke as Smokie). As for the "rabbit," that honestly looks like the design on someone's shirt to me. I know you're sold to this theory, but please don't assume that those of us who think it might just be an unintentional gaffes are a bunch of dumbasses. We just don't know. DesmondHumeWillBeMyConstant 17:19, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

• No one accused you of that. The point made was to not add it to the article as a blooper or error because there's no reason to think it's not something to be shown in a future episode, especially how they highlighted the entrance of the smoke beforehand. Frank and Sun are in an odd stance just as the door is opening, allowing for a huge gap between them, so the viewer doesn't miss the door open or the black "mist" that enters. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 18:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

When the door opened, I immediately thought that it was for a reason. And while saying that it was the Monster might be a bit of a stretch, the producers have said that anytime we see Smokey, we will learn something new about it. Its my opinion that that woman IS holding a rabbit, even if its all just a Smoke Monster figment. I'm just not buying the blooper thing. They obviously had Frank and Sun see the monster for a reason. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dr. McPhearson (talk • contribs) 2009-03-19T12:56:40.

The door obviously opened for a reason; we just saw the trees shaking as the monster does, and there was smoke coming into the cabin when the door opened. And there is obviously someone behind Sun, whethere it's Claire or not. This had to all be intentional, but it was subtle. My main point, however, is that these points should be added to the wiki page for this episode in some form. I think they should go under unanswered questions. Leaving these points out wouldn't serve any good purpose.DetectiveFork 18:29, 19 March 2009 (UTC)DetectiveFork

Just a statement of the basic facts, pretty much how you just outlined them, could be placed under trivia. If we find out later who it was, we can change it then. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 18:37, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm willing to eat crow if it turns out to be a part of the story (and, Lostonthisdarnisland, I hope you'll be willing to reciprocate, should we learn it's merely a production gaffe) -- and yes, there is OBVIOUSLY someone behind Sun -- but we don't know that it was intentional. We don't know that said person is holding a rabbit or if they happen to have a white design on their shirt. For me, it looks like someone got caught in frame and the director either didn't notice it right then (because of the darkness), or just decided, "Eh... no one will see that... it's too dark! They'd have to turn the brightness all the way up on their f%#@ing TV to see it." I'm just saying we need to be practical folks. It's not like Frank and Sun look over and acknowledge this "personage." People on standard-def TVs have said they can't even see it. Saying that "it had to be intentional" is really pushing it. The last time Claire showed up, she was RIGHT THERE! DesmondHumeWillBeMyConstant 19:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

There's two problems with that. Firstly, as Robert points out, the head looks directly at Sun in the frames of the video. To me, this screams intentional. Secondly, even if there were the smallest possiblity that this was in error, TPTB would certainly attempt now to write it into the show, given the fan-based notice of the person. There were no less than 4 threads started on the forum, this discussion, and that's only LP. Finally, as I referenced above, the first encounter with Jacob involved only the briefest of glimpses that involved all manner of HD screenies and photo enhancements to make out, and a single eye seen for a split second that had to be freeze-framed to make out clearly. I'm sure there are other examples, but that's the first that springs to mind, and it's enough to show there's a history of teasers for HD screencapers and fan-atic detail mongers. :) ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 19:18, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

But, those brief glimpses of Jacob weren't just BLOBS... you could make out the eye and the outline of Jacob's face quite clearly. So, this little bit here is not even in the same category... c'mon. Even people with standard-def TVs could see those. This is akin to seeing Jesus on a piece of toast... it could very well be intentional. But, at the moment, all we know is that someone looks at Sun when she talks. We don't know who and we don't know why. To suggest that there is even "the smallest possibility that this was in error" is such an obnoxiously snide comment, I'm almost hoping Darlton proves you wrong and admits that, yeah, it's just a sound guy or grip who got caught in frame (albeit it in almost complete darkness). I mean, I WHOLEHEARTEDLY admit that, sure, this could be intentional... but, it bugs me that you seem to think those of us who see it as possible production gaffe are somehow misguided. Even if you don't say it implicitly, you're certainly implying it. DesmondHumeWillBeMyConstant 19:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

If by misguided, you mean (2) poorly thought-out, then you are mistaken. If you mean misguided = (2) wrong, then, yes, I said as much and stated my reasons. 100% committed to truth can still be 100% wrong, myself included. Pointing out someone is wrong does not imply anyone is misguided (2). I was responsing to "should we learn it's merely a production gaffe" with sincere doubt it will be admitted as such, but rather written in, leaving the debate unresolved. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 20:09, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

How about this. I added the following to the Bloopers/Continuity Errors section:

• After Christian Shephard shows Sun the photo of Jin in 1977, an obscured individual appears to be present in the fog entering the room. It is unclear if the individual is just a production assistent caught in the shot, or an actual character; similarly, it is unknown if the fog is intended to be related to the Monster, which is heard as Sun and Frank enter the Barracks. ShadowUltra 20:28, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes, regardless of whether it's an error or intentional, the information ought to be presented in the article somewhere. So let's place it somewhere. --Cornprone 21:32, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

• That's not badly worded, but it should not be in bloopers and errors unless confirmed a blooper or error. General Trivia would be more appropriate. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 21:35, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

• The individual is not obscured but is rather in plain sight (if a good deal of focus). The door and smoke(?) are separate issues altogether and should not be treated in the same line. Also check spelling on "assistant".  Robert K S   tell me  06:21, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

• Red hair!? Female figure!? Could this be...the Red-haired Casualty!? Heh heh, well she did live at the Barracks with Locke's group and her fate was not depicted on screen =P --Mistertrouble189 21:53, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
• This is a bit Spooky. Some people closely watching the HDTV versions cannot see it and I'm here, watching an horribly compressed and artifact-y .avi and it's really, really clear. It looks like a young woman with long hair in a black t-shirt, staring at something she has in her hand (for the way she holds it, looks like a notepad) and then she suddenly looks up towards the camera. Her reaction followed by an immediate tilt of the camera towards the left until she's out of frame suggests a blooper, but then again, the smoke entering the place just before that was too ominous. My theory is that they wanted to hint someone was there (possibly Claire)and just told a crew person to stand there but in their edition the shadows looked darker than it would show in some TVs, so what for them (and some of the posters here) was a barely discernible shape, for some of us is unmistakeably a person, that clearly is NOT Claire. Maokun 12:50, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
• I followed this debate over the past few days, and didn't get to rewatch the episode until this morning. After watching it several times, I'm 99% convinced it is a blooper. The shot of Sun before Christian's line, "I'm sorry, you've got a bit of a journey ahead of you", is a profile shot with a window and a tipped-over bookcase clearly visible in the background over Sun's LEFT shoulder. When they cut back to Sun after the line from Christian (the shot with the figure in the background), it is a full-face shot of Sun, and the window and bookcase are now visible over Sun's RIGHT shoulder. This indicates that they changed the angle of the shot, probably at the last minute to get a better shot of Sun's reaction, and the crew member just got caught in the backgound.--Eyeful Tower 16:51, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
• From the enhanced picture it looks a lot like Charlotte. I don't think it's a blooper, they would reshoot if there was someone in the shot. Sometimes we see the smoke as small wisps, and sometimes the large cloud. What if it's two different things. I think the smoke is spirits. We've seen it with Ecko. What if the large smoke monster is the spirits of the Darma Initiative members after they were murdered by ben, protecting the island Jamiegs 18:12, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

break

Image 1

Image 2

My opinion is that it's a blooper. Perhaps the nastiest blooper to date. My take:

• There is NO significance to the place itself. It's just DHARMA Processing Center. Jacob's cabin was a significant place. This one is not.
• On occasions when producers wanted to entice viewers into some plot, a specific character is clearly (though hideously) is shown. There were no doubts about Christian in Jacob's cabin, or Jacob's himself when Ben & Locke visited him. The shadow of the girl behind Sun is too much ambiguous to hold any importance.
• If the girl is a real actor who is intentionally standing there, then there's no doubt Sun and/or Frank is going to see her in an upcoming scene, because otherwise there would no point in being in this scene. If that is the case, then what is the reason she's introduced in Namaste episode if she is barely seen after considerable amount of HDTV imagery enhancements?
• From checking the scene from the Processing Center (Image 1), the red circle points to the possible place the girl would be standing (or sitting). I think she was in the far left corner on a desk behind that partition. That's why some people suggested she is writing on a computer or something. My theory is that because of the partitions over there, whoever that woman might be (cast or staff), she was thinking the partition is hiding her from the camera.
• This maybe stretching, but the shape, hair color & style of the woman behind Sun has a striking resemblance to one of Flight 316 survivors redshirts (Image 2). I don't have a better image than that, but she is wearing a black shirt with white figures on it, that is so similar to that of Sun's girl.

I don't care actually if it's a blooper or not; but if it's not, it would be really a badly depicted hint about some character or event. —Iimitk 19:47, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

• I actually agree with the last point of Iimitk, the figure does look like redshirt of 316. Same hair, body weight and the white on her shirt is like the curve on the redshirt's shirt (a giant white peace sign). But dunno why she'd be there. My opinion, either a blooper, Claire or someone new/we least expect.--Mistertrouble189 05:05, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Here is my theory:

I think that the thing behind sun is the picture of the Dog with a human body which is seen in Jacobs Cabin when Locke visits Christian about how to save the island i.e. moving it. (Season 4) Mickey9T 22:18, 22 March 2009 (UTC) 22:18, 22 March 2009

I am sorry that I didn't sift through the extensive discussion about this before leaving this comment, BUT, I watched the ep in good old fashioned 4x3 standard definition (GASP! - How could I! - I know). This mysterious figure is COMPLETELY cut out of the frame. How this be meant to be seen if on millions of TVs in the US/World couldn't see it to start with? I only figure that if the figure was meant to be seen, we will DEFINITELY see it later. Don't y'all think?--  jdnosilla    talk    contribs    email   02:19, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm sold it's the black-shirted redshirt. Nice detective work. ETA: Not only that, but I spot at least two other redshirts hanging out behind her in the enhanced image. They must have all just been watching the work, and the steadicam guy wasn't watching what he was doing.  Robert K S   tell me  03:46, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

That's very interesting, Robert. Could you get us an enhanced image that shows those extra redshirts? I think if they were just extras, i.e. not professional actors, they will have poor knowledge about filming & camera angles, and they may have thought the camera wouldn't catch them at that position. It's surely the cameraman & production team's responsibility in this case. — Iimitk  T  C  09:22, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Enhanced picture found in this thread.  Robert K S   tell me  03:30, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Full shot from scene

Shamelessly self-serving enhancement

I am going to wait and see if there’s anything in the enhanced episode before advocating that this goes one way or another. I offer up the following only as discussion, not advocacy for how it should be on the page. On the one hand, obscured people in the background have certainly been shown before, and it seems too obvious to be a gaffe. That said, the fact that it isn’t visible on regular TV sets makes me less confident. In looking at this, also, it seemed to me that the person in the background might be holding cue cards. Often a person showing cue cards will drop the cards as the lines are completed. It looks to me like the person has both cards in her hands, and cards that have been dropped. I have the original image, plus a version I’ve modified to do what User:Chocky scathingly described as “adjusting the picture to make it what [I] want it to be.” <hiero>O34:O4-G17-D58-A1</hiero> zholmboe 05:47, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

You might be waiting a while on that Enhanced episode. I agree that those don't look like the dividers shown in Image:Dharma-processing-center-blooper-check.jpg, but it's difficult to imagine them being cue cards. First, I've never seen cue cards used on Lost before in any of the behind-the-scenes footage. Second, those objects (whatever they are) remain perfectly still during the scene, whereas cue cards would tend to move at least a little bit.  Robert K S   tell me  18:49, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

• As I said before, it looks to me like a Blooper, too. But then again, the smoke is always used as an omen of something —usually supernatural— to happen immediately (that's it, when it is not just attacking). Why would they specifically introduce the shoot of the door breaking open and smoke entering if nothing extraordinary was about to happen? Note also that it was the last shoot of the episode. You know, the one they oftenly use to enter a major twist or cliffhangerMaokun 03:15, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
• In case anyone wants to put it on a page, I've created an enhanced animated GIF and uploaded it to Image:5x09 Woman behind Sun.gif.  Robert K S   tell me  02:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

• Very nice, Robert. Pretty much the most enhanced image of the woman. She doesn't look like the black-shirted redshirt though. This one is slim and has an oval face. And yes, there's someone standing next to her too. — Iimitk  T  C  14:00, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

• Um, really? Because after I made the GIF, I had to take back what I said about seeing other people next to her. What I thought was another guy's head was just her hair. But I agree, it's not the Ajira extra. This woman is slimmer. Crew member?  Robert K S   tell me  06:59, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, I think he's a male. His face is clearly seen when she turns her head to the camera. Try to brighten the display more on your screen. About whom she might be, I think Jorge Garcia once claimed he's pretty sure it's a crew member (see the link in the next section "Jorge's comment"). Maybe if someone posted the link to this GIF image on that forum or send it to him he might recognize her. — Iimitk  T  C  11:01, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

The conversation is both about the person in the background and the smoke. The smoke is without a doubt intentional. There's no way they framed that scene and foley'ed that creeeeeeak so loudly by accident. --Riddley 20:57, April 11, 2010 (UTC)

Jorge's Comment

Based on Jorge Garcia's comment that the person behind Sun seems to be a blooper, I think that the best evidence right now supports that conclusion, and as such I moved the trivia point down into the blooper section. If you'd like to see Jorge's comment for yourself check this link. [2] <hiero>O34:O4-G17-D58-A1</hiero> zholmboe 00:27, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine that you moved it to the blooper section, but I don't think you should have erased the sentence that said it could be intentional. Because Jorge said he thought it might be a crew member, but clearly he did not know for sure. --Cornprone 11:19, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

• Well, "I'm pretty sure" ≠ "thought", right? Anyway, Jorge has edited his previous post which was a shady answer rather than this new "definitive" answer, so I "think" they might have finally settled on it being a blooper. Someone please tell Jorge it's the black-shirted redshirt. Lostpedians know better. ;-) (j/k) — Iimitk  T  C  11:27, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Book and Painting

Anyone notice what book Sawyer was reading when Jack camein or any details about the painting in the background of the Flame Station? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tricksterson (talk • contribs) .

• Can't read the text, but maybe someone can tell from the jacket screencaps [3] --Jackdavinci 11:01, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

The book vaguely puts me in mind of a popular edition of Descartes "Meditations on the First Philosophy" (ISBN 0023671602), which was published around 1956, and was ironically translated by...wait for it...Laurence J. LaFleur! Too bad the "J" stands for Julien. LaFleur also published a volume of Jeremy Betham's philosophy. If anyone has a copy of the Descartes text from the 70s, see if they match up. Could be a stretch though...I found a recent copy (1988) and although the front puts me in mind of what Sawyer's book looks like, the back of it is all white...Lorite 13:25, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

• Ok so I found several old copies of the book I suggested above (gotta love librarians) and they don't seem to match the back cover of Sawyer's book here. Another dead end! Has anyone else followed up on this? Lorite 18:11, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

77

The Flame was featured in another episode too. Enter 77. 1977. Hmm? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jeffd1830 (talk • contribs) .

2008: Are we sure?

Where in the episode was it indicated that the Ajira flight crashed in 2008? When Sun visits New Otherton all of the DHARMA paraphernalia is still there, plus welcome signs and labelled buildings. Did we see that this stuff was still around during the hostile era (~1980 - now)? I think they were thrown in time a little, since it clearly switched from day to night, and we did see the flash--as per time jumping. Maybe we should relabel the section to 'Present Time' or 'Ajira-crash Time', until we know for certain when they are? --<BauerUK> tlk | cnt | www | irc 04:23, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually it switched from night to day. I noticed that too. I think it's just the island's normal movement in time that Eloise referred to. The same thing that made the doctor's body wash up on shore before he was killed.--NotAnOther 07:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

There was a time card for 1977 that said thirty years ago or earlier, or something like that. We know it's 2008 instead of 2007 because Locke's passport was dated Dec 2007, and Jack said over Locke's casket that Locke came to see him a month ago, making it Jan 2008, or about 30 years difference. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 04:39, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

We know that it took off in 2008, but the date of the crash is uncertain, because the plane and other passengers also experienced a flash before the crash. Considering the state of disarray of both the barracks and the 815 camp, I think it's possible that it could have crashed some time later. (Though, admittedly, this would be limited somewhat by the "30 years earlier tag.")--PRbuick 06:41, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

• I'm assuming the disarray will be addressed in a later episode; my guess is that it was a result of Ben, then Locke, turning the wheel. As for the date, we are pretty set in stone by the other events that take place, as well as that time card. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 07:11, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Didn't the 316 enhanced episode say 316 landed in 2008? --Jackdavinci 11:03, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

{merge duplicate conversation)

This episode finally answered a time mystery: when the present day is. The time cards clearly said "thirty years earlier," meaning 1977 and 2007 are our years. There's no reason to continue assuming 2008 is the "present day." ShadowUltra 12:16, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

See the conversation above ^^^ and Timeline. Present day is the beginning of 2008. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 12:32, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

We know at least this: AFTER the 316 crash, it must be 2007, as the screen tag indicates "30 Years Earlier" and they go to 1977. What's not clear is if present day, i.e. when Flight 316 actually took off, is 2008 or 2007. It could be 2008, as the in-flight flash could have sent them back a year. This would match up with the date on Locke's passport being Dec 2007. However, the obituary of Jeremy Bentham, taking place AFTER he gets his passport, is dated April 2007. After Locke/ Bentham dies, it is just a matter of days later that they board Flight 316. So, either Bentham's obituary date was a blooper, and the present is 2008, but the flash transported the 316ers back a year, or the passport date is a mistake, and the present is Spring 2007 and the 316 flash caused either no time travel or only a brief travel (days or weeks). The change from night to day does not necessarily mean time travel, it could have been 316 getting caught in a location move of the island (as Hawking mentioned). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jeffcutt72 (talk • contribs) .

• The newspaper clipping is not canon; it also says he was found in the loft of The Towers, when it was The Westerfield Hotel. The passport is most likely correct given the other events on the timeline that happen beforehand. It's plausible the plane went back a year, but it's more likely they arrived the same month and year they left, and the 30 years earlier is actually a rounded 30 years, x months, x days, x hours, etc. There is too much other evidence for it to be 2007 with + time travel. It should be kept 2008, IMO, until shown otherwise in canon, based on that evidence. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 20:57, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

• I agree there is evidence to support both positions, but I don't see why one is more compelling than the other. What other evidence (aside from ARod's box score, which I doubt is canon) is there that establishes the off-island events as being post-April 2007? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jeffcutt72 (talk • contribs) .

• (Don't forget to sign your posts with --~~~~) (1) IMO the score is not a bad reference, because Jack references it aloud as well as showing the paper; (2) Locke's passport is dated Dec 2007; (3) The O6 got back to civilisation Jan 2005, Sayid married Nadia shortly thereafter, she was killed days before Ben arrived 24 October 2005, Sayid worked for Ben for 2 years (Sayid tells Hurley this outside the safehouse), making it around Oct 2007 when he finishes working for Ben, and then he builds houses until Locke visits him in Dec; (4) Jan 2006 Hurley is committed for 2 years before he is broken out by Sayid in Jan 2008. I'm sure there's more, but those come to mind. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 21:32, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I can't remember .. is the call sheet for TPID considered a spoiler? It has dates for the off-island events right before Flight 316, and after that on the Island (raided beach camp). It also has a date for when the Nigerian plane crashed. --Hugo815 21:41, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I think since that episode has aired, as long as it didn't reference a future unaired episode, it shouldn't be a spoiler. That would be very helpful! Link? ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 21:48, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

It's actually for The Little Prince but that doesn't matter. Here is the link [4] <----- Possible Spoilers (dates). --Hugo815 22:23, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, but since some of the dates are obviously incorrect, we can't take this as canon. Claire didn't give birth in 2007, as listed on that sheet. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 05:47, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

• I had assumed it was 2007, but I don't think 2008 is out of the question: say the plane crashed in January or February of 2008...30 years earlier doesn't necessarily mean EXACTLY 30 years, it could be 30 years and a few months...making it 1977...Thelordnyax 22:42, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
• Alright, I'm convinced. 2008 sounds more likely than 2007. The Bentham obituary will just have to be taken as a mistake. --Jeffcutt72

I'm thinking that the 316ers (Sun, Ben, et al) are not in 2007-land. When the plane is crash landing, you can hear the numbers over the plane's radio. The numbers were replaced by Danielle in 1988. So it stands to reason that they had to have landed in a time before 1988. OhMyNumbers 12:56, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you, they are not in the "old" present (2007-2008, whatever). 1) the flash and night to day. Clearly a time travel. 2) the pre-Danielle radio record 3) It could explain why Locke is alive. They are BEFORE the time of its death (but this is just a speculation, while 1 and 2 are facts). Or maybe this is somehow telling us that despite what Faraday says, events can be changed. We should not forget the Sawyer,Juliette and co. met the new castaways in one of their time travels (the people that shot them from the other pirogue) Vide 22:46, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Revisited on 4/22/09

I know this has been talked about to death, but I really think it needs to be re-visited. There is overwhelming evidence that Ajira 316 departed in 2008. I get that, but I also think there is overwhelming evidence that Frank, Sun, Ben, Bram, etc are now in 2007. This has to be supported by the "Thirty Years Earlier" flash we saw. I don't think you can just write it off as an "approximate" time differential between 1977 & where Frank, Sun, Ben, etc are now. If that were the case, they would have put "Around Thrity Years Earlier" or something like that. Or, you just don't show anything about it & use those stuck in 1977 to show the date some other way. They did that specifically to show the exact time difference between where Jack, Kate, Hurley, & Sayid went as opposed to where the Ajira flight is now. Even though the flight took off in 2008, they MUST be in the year 2007 on the island. Reason unknown.... probably just a matter of the heading the took to the island through off the date & time by 1-13 months, but it IS NOT a coincidence. We should know by now the things we can consider cannon & not cannon. The "Thirty Years Earlier" has to be considered cannon until proven otherwise. Not the other way around. We must go with what we're given, until it is shown incorrect. That is why we can't say as fact that Elle(the Other) is also Eloise Hawking, even though everyting we are given points that way.  NEVERGIVEUP  Contribs  Talk  19:11, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

• Lost: The Story of the Oceanic 6 just confirmed that those that crashed with Ajira 316 are in 2007. I vote that this be updated.  NEVERGIVEUP  Contribs  Talk  02:13, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Yep, you rule.  Robert K S   tell me  05:20, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
  • However, please keep in mind that it was 2008 in Los Angeles when they left!--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 12:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
    • 100% agree, that is why whoever changed the main Namaste page to say 2007 shouldn't have done so without separating the events of 2008. They didn't enter 2007 until after the flash. This needs to be updated & all like pages need to be updated with the 2008 & 2007 timeline differential.  NEVERGIVEUP  Contribs  Talk  13:30, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Should we split up events of 2008 & 2007?

Now that 2007 has been confirmed as when Ajira 316 arrived on Hydra Island, should we now split up the actions described on the main page as some of them did happen in 2008. Everything up until the flash was in 2008. There are only a few things described on the main page that should be in 2008, so maybe it's not a big deal. What do you think?  NEVERGIVEUP  Contribs  Talk  14:52, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Screencap of blueprints

Can someone get a good HD screencap of the blue prints of the stations upon which Rad. was building the geodome for the Swan? It looks like it would be helpful to match to the blast door map, especially as it seemed to have writing on it. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 04:41, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Here ya go.

Congested 05:56, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

• Saw it. Thanks!! ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 05:58, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

np Congested 06:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Black Smoke.

Did anyone else see the Black Smoke enter the building where Frank, Sun and Christian are talking? It enter after the door mysteriously opened and it sort of seeped through. There was a sound effect like an hour glass. Also as Frank and Sun are on the dock the thing they here and see is the black smoke. It kind of hard to tell because it is dark. If anyone has pics of that it would be great to post them on the main article page Yakaria 04:47, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

• Yes. See above where it is mentioned. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 07:12, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

• It just looks like dust to me. -JamesyWamesy 16:21, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Is "Others" a Theme?

"* Sayid is presumed to be a hostile. (Others)"

Doesn't really make sense to me. ESachs 06:46, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

• No, "Others" is not a theme.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 22:52, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

• Not yet, anyways. The idea of the unknown Other is a central theme to the show, as we see different factions as unknown people first, and the groups we do know tend to band together against the Other. I dunno, it's not currently a theme, but it probably could be turned into one.ImFoxed 15:55, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The Island's time

When Frank and the co-pilot were arguing inside the cockpit, the plane was traveling at night. Immediately after the white flash engulfed, it was midday and they clearly became in the Island. No one seemed to notice that or comment about it among the crew and survivors! —Iimitk 07:18, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

• That's not quite true. Notice the co-pilot's reaction as soon as they clear the spin, and he sees it is light out. He says "what? WHat???" ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 07:29, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Unanswered Questions

1. Is Horace and Amy's son Ethan Rom? Can we assume that it is? I doubt the writers would throw that in there for no reason. It doesn't seem like it should be a major mystery.

• • Carlton Cuse and Damon Lindelof confirmed during the latest podcast that it is infact the real Ethan seemoe 07:36, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

1. If so, why is his last name "Rom" instead of "Goodspeed"? Do we even know Amy's last name? It could be Rom. Either way, still not a major mystery.
2. If so, where/when did he become a surgeon? Really REALLY not a major mystery.
3. When Oceanic 815 crashed, did the adult Ben recognize Sayid from his past? Since you can't change what's already happened, it doesn't seem like Ben will recognize Sayid from his past. If he does, then he hides it which kinda makes it not matter imo.
4. Did he also recognize Jack, Hurley, Kate, Juliet, Sawyer or Jin? Likewise. I'm getting really tired of the "will so-and-so remember meeting so-and-so" questions, because so far we have no indication that time travel can affect the characters' pasts (in fact, we have the writers' and Faraday's assertions that it can't).

 Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  07:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

• (1) I completely agree. It gets so annoying when Darlton have to spell out every little reveal to the point of hammering it home; (2) I'm guessing Rom is the alias he assumed when he met with the Losties to hide his real name, but I agree that it would be better served on Ethan; (3) agree; (4) this might be a valid UQ; it's something I question myself, whether the future people remember the past people (Ben, Juliet, etc.) My vote is no, but the UQ is valid, IMO; (5) not relevant to this episode. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 07:34, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
• Maybe Ben recogzinzed Sayid (or maybe not). But he would definately know if he's a hostile or not since he was probably associating with the "hostiles" by this time. ("The Man Behind the Curtain") --Scribble72 15:47, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

• 1. It obviously is. It's questions like this that result in Darlton "sledgehammering" the answers :( 2. Could be an alias, easily. 3. agree 4. I think it can stay 5. Almost verging on spoilers. --Blueeagleislander 07:38, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

• I think even if it is a valid UQ to ask whether people remember characters who are time traveling, it's not a question we can keep asking every time it happens, that's just redundant. It's like the people who post the "where are Bernard and Rose?" question for every single episode. (Incidently, my vote is also no based on the Desmond/Charlie thing from season 3.)  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  07:40, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

• Good point. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 07:44, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

• Given the way the writer's have explained it, and corroborated it several times during the show, we must assume that time travel does not affect the timeline in any way until evidence against that is presented. So Ben probably forgot Sayid. And Lafleur. And Miles etc. --Integrated (User / Talk) 15:44, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

  

  Michael's list

  • someone should have noticed Kate, Jack , etc in the photos at least, over the years...My take is that some people do 'know' (remember) but given the purpose s for which they are working, do not indicate that. A lot of things aren't going to be said, anymore than, just for example, Sawyer is going to tell Dharma people who his friends are, at least , so far. As far as what is a valid UQ..I am not particularly worried about validity of UQs.. I'm personally interested in things people write that may be of interest, period.JEMJEM 18:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Perhaps they DID notice them...and that is why they were 'on the list' (Michael's 'to get' list). The only Neo-Dharma person not on the list was Jin. Is there a correlation? Just pondering.... Belle42 18:34, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
      • Good point. The only one missing from "the list" then would be Jin. But I do like it!--Scribble72 21:08, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
        • What??? There were plenty of those new dharma pictures. Who could be stuffed to look through every one, remember all their faces, and match them up with the 815ers. Just seems dumb (no offence of course, im just saying what I think).Seb456zig 09:53, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

THANK YOU finally someone who doesnt need it spoon fed to them from darlton, i mean god why would they put that in there for no reason it seems like whenever a mystery is solved on lost if its not solved to the point then we cant add info on here , (by the way if you still don't think its really Ethan listen to the audio podcast)--Czygan84 22:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

• There is no reason to be insulting. This has nothing to do with people wanting to be spoon fed. What I intended to say was I do think the pictures were noticed. 30 years is a long time for them to go unnoticed by the hostiles. . There was a plan in place given knowledge of those in the past of the 815. All its details we do not know yet. Whether or not people say they 'remember' something, or say to someone, hey I remember you from 1977, has nothing to do with whether people do remember. And it is unlikely such things would be said. It also has nothing to do with a timeline change. Remembering or not and saying you remember or not has nothing to do with the time line. 'We' the viewers are being shown the pictures just as Sun and Frank are, by way of showing what has transpired. And inparticular, the photos are useful evidence to those in the past 30 years and also in the present of what has transpired. Of course, Sun and Frank may believe the pictures are fake. The point that has become obvious is that telling the truth about where you are from doesn't mean people will believe you. Because the island is a place that doesn't make a lot of sense in terms of our usual reality.JEMJEM 18:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC):::Charlotte remembered Faraday as a child before she died and told him this

So obviously some people did remember some characters from the future, in this case he was the "crazy man" who told her never to return.--Nzoomed 22:32, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Totally agree with JEMJEM here. Gohlkus 15:45, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

• Hurley's position in the DI? It's chef, seeing his junpsuit.--Asian_Dawn 22:29, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

There's two questions listed I'd like to suggest be removed:

1. "Who finished the Runway and when?" Who says it was finished? It looked pretty rough to me, and it certainly wasn't long enough for a plane to make a safe landing!

2. "What made the noise and rustling that Sun and Frank saw in the trees" It was the smoke monster, obviously. You could very clearly hear it's distinctive 'rattle' sound effect, and you could tell from Sun's reaction and her little fib to Frank that she knew what it was, which left the viewer with little doubt that it was old smokey.--Cunningmunki 23:12, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

• Agree on both. Runway is a poor term to begin with. Landing strip would be much better. It's either unfinished or poorly maintained.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 22:55, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
• I removed the runway question. --MacCutcheon – Talk? 16:50, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

• I would like to point out that Charlotte DID recognize just before her death that Faraday was on the island in 1977 and that they even talked together. So it's not impossible that Ben may have recognized Sayid in the "future" Vide 22:51, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
• I think the question should be rephrased and re-added. "Is the runway [or landing strip, whatever] that Flight 316 crash-landed on the same one that Kate and Sawyer helped construct when they were prisoners of the Others?" is an important question, because a "yes" answer would suggest Ben knew that Flight 316 was coming as well. Gohlkus 15:45, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

• I suggest this question be removed:

Why are The Numbers still being broadcast in 2008? They are not being broadcast in 2008, as Rousseau turned off the transmitter broadcasting the numbers almost 16 years ago, instead, it transmitted her distress call.--Nzoomed 21:56, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

• I removed the word "still", but the rest is valid. They were broadcast in some fashion, as they are heard in the cockpit. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 00:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
  • OK, thats interesting, i never noticed that, i will watch it again and listen more carefully. Perhaps the plane breifly flew through the event window into 1977 until the flash? That would explain why they heard the old broadcast - because they were breifly in 1977 even though they did not know it.--Nzoomed 03:30, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

• Several theories abound, but regardless, it remains a mystery right now. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 14:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
• Nzoomed's theory seems likely. Gohlkus 15:45, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

• I removed "How did Ethan survive the Purge?" In Dead is Dead, Ethan was shown in 1988 with Ben, while Ben was kidnapping Alex. That would mean he joined the Others even before the purge, which means that he survived it just like Ben did -- he was "smart enough", or simply put -- he put on a gas mask. --Dungodung 16:49, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

New DHARMA Stations

1. Can anyone take a screen cap from the door to the Security Station before Sawyer opens it when he takes Sayid in? I think it may state the Station's name.
2. Also can we make an article about the Shed, which seems to be the Janitor's station, for which unlike the Security station we do not have a logo? --Orhan94 10:09, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Unless I'm missing something, it's the The Flame. I just rewatched the scene and there's no DHARMA logo in the door, however, the logo on Radzinsky's jumpsuit is visibly the Flame's. —Iimitk 10:30, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

No, when they enter the Security Station at the Barracks, right after Jack and Kate see Sawyer taking Sayid in the Station. --Orhan94 10:47, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

That's what I mean. There's the outside door and there's Sayid's cell door, neither of them have any DHARMA logos on them. —Iimitk 11:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, maybe a name for that station. I said that we do not have a logo for the Shed, which is the station where Jack is assigned. --Orhan94 11:16, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

There you go! —Iimitk 11:09, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a screencap but the door is marked with "DHARMA SECURITY", with DHARMA on the left door wing and SECURITY on the right, both capitalised. --SteUeRunG! 20:46, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. --Orhan94 10:03, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I would imagine the security station would have the same logo that our friends, the security officers, wear: the sheriff's star. The shed doesn't need a logo. Roger's jumpsuit has the Swan logo on it (probably a production oversight), Ben's doesn't have any logo, and Jack's spiffy new suit has the standard "DHARMA" logo. In fact, the "shed" is probably not a station as we think of it. And the security station is probably also not a station as we think of the word on Lost. It's just a building with cells and security monitors. The Arrow was once supposed to be the station for security. Whatever happened to that? --Cobblepot 11:32, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Star Wars

Didn't exactly know where to put it, but it's 1977. The year the first Star Wars was released. We know TPTB are huge fans, so is anyone else hoping, this will be addressed? I'm sure I am.. Smullie 10:19, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

• Woohoo! Some like it Hoth for the win! --Smullie 08:15, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Nerd Blooper

In the background at the 1977 Flame station we see an Apple Lisa sitting on a desk. Development of the Lisa computer began in 1978, and it wasn't released to the public until 1983. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bigdaddyhame (talk • contribs) 2009-03-19T09:36:49.

• It's nerdy but it's valid, put it in! --Cunningmunki 23:15, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
  • What if it's just a box built by Dan or someone that looks like an Apple Lisa. (then it could inspire them to build an Apple Lisa.

Weird thing

Might not be worth a UQ but anyone wonder how Illana thought Lapidus and Sun left together even though they both left at different times? And how did Caesar think Ben was injured in the plane when they must've seen him ok after the crash and then found him unconcious some distance away..? --Integrated (User / Talk) 15:48, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm still wondering how she knew there were three boats? I can only assume it's in a to-be-seen, when they find Ben knocked out on the ground. He must tell her about the boats and about them leaving together. It's the only thing that would make sense. As for Caesar, he didn't specify to Locke "on the plane" or "by the crash"; he only said "except for the people who got hurt". Ben was hurt; Caesar was just stingy with the details (which is a good thing, or the scene where Sun hit Ben wouldn't have been as effective). Are they UQs? I don't think so. I think they are just wait-&-sees. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 16:09, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

If there had not been a high tide, Ilana would be able to see marks in the sand where one outrigger had been pushed into the water.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 00:27, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, of course. Thanks Jim ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 05:44, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Yea ok that pretty much makes sense --Integrated (User / Talk) 13:04, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

There is still something here that doesn't completely add up. I guess Ben was just asleep when Caesar showed him to Locke in the makeshift infirmary rather than unconcious. Because if Ben was the only way for the Ajira survivors to learn about Frank and Sun leaving, then he would have had to regain conciousness before being moved to the infirmary.--Eyeful Tower 14:39, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not sure but I think you guys missed the boat (so to speak) on this one. To answer the 1st poster, Illiana was refering to when Frank and Sun left in the middle of the night to go to the Dock, not when they left to follow Ben(Which was in the middle of the day). So far my only explenation for Ben is that Sun and Frank drag him back to camp and tell the other survivors they've found an injured passanger in the bush. As to how they knew about the other outriggers I'm guessing that someone (like Ceaser) follows them or their tracks to the outriggers when Sun and Frank are noticed to be missing.--WhyDidntUKnow 15:11, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Error?

Someone added this as an error, "In the Barracks video that Jack and Kate watch while waiting to be processed, Pierre Chang is wearing a lab coat with a Swan logo, though it would seem that the Swan station has not been built yet". Is this an error? He said he's been pulled away from his work, which would possibly involve recording the tape for the upcoming Swan station, to help with the new recruits. Any objections to removal? ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 16:17, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

The exact quote is "I got pulled away from my lab", which I assumed to be the Orchid. But in LaFleur, we saw a bottle of Swan wine, so I don't think it's a blooper. The Swan could constructed in phases, with Rad working on the design of the final phase, while part of it is already either in some form of training or operation.--Eyeful Tower 19:20, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

• Initially I thought that also, that the Swan was being constructed in phases and Radinsky was working on the design for the wing with the dome. But when he said of Sayid "He saw the plans and knows where we are going to build it", it sounded to me like it was not even started yet. Also, in "Namaste", the part of the Barracks video that shows Chang is a cropped closer shot so that you can only see the top of the Dharma logo as opposed to when you see the video in "The Man Behind the Curtain" Chang is seen from the waist up. I thought this might have been the producers way of trying to cover a continuity mistake. Iburnedthemuffins 19:34, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
  • But why would the producers go to the trouble to "cover up" this "continuity error" from two seasons ago when they had just committed the same error (with the wine bottle) in the previous episode? That's why I don't think it's an error.--Eyeful Tower 14:33, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
• I don't think it's an error. The swan logo is widely spread so it's quite possible its origin wasn't the swan station but the swan station was named after the logos origin. Aulusagerius 19:46, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

IMO, the reason it is and has been seen so much is that it was the first station the audience saw, so it was the first to have a name, a logo and an identity. I think initially the production put that logo on a lot of things (like all the food in the pallet drop, for example, even thought that would have been a lot of food for two people in the Swan station) because they didn't want to start identifying other stations yet. Now that they are going back and putting a specific timeline on different stations being built, they may regret using the Swan logo so freely. Again, just my opinion. Iburnedthemuffins 19:50, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

• I agree with Iburnedthemuffins about the use of the Swan logo, however I don't think it's at all correct to list Chang's lab coat as a blooper, since we do not yet know the meaning behind or the historical usage of the Swan logo (however convoluted this turns out to be). I'm sure the production team were well aware that Chang was wearing a logo apparently for a station that has not yet been built, so let's credit them with some intelligence and remove this being listed as a blooper. --Cunningmunki 22:56, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

• Watching the episode again, Radinsky said of Sayid about the Swan "He saw where we're building it" which could mean either "where we will be building it" or "where we are currently building it." So, I admit it may not be a blooper. Iburnedthemuffins 15:22, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

• In the Orientation video for the Swan, Dr. "Marvin Candle" says that the stations was initially built as a place for scientists to experiment with the electromagnetics, but there was an incident, and new...blah blah...this, i presume, is when they added the domed area that Radzinsky was building, so it appears the Swan already exists, it IS after all "Station 3"...so the third one built...(we know for sure that the Looking Glass and The Flame are already in existence)...Thelordnyax 07:04, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Now we know (as of "He's Our You") that the Swan station has not been built. I guess there is still some chance that Dharma would have another reason to put the Swan logo on things, but I think the evidence points to the Swan logo showing up before the station, such as in the Barracks video, being a continuity error. Iburnedthemuffins 19:02, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Processing Center NOT the same as Barracks

Ok, it is clear that the processing center is not a part of the barracks, but a separate location. When Frank and Sun meet Christian, they arrive at the processing center shortly after coming off the dock, and do not have to pass through the sonar fence. The processing center is located near the dock and is used to process people before they are even taken to the barracks. This is clear because in 2008, we can still see broken and falling apart dharma signs all over it and the pictures of the recruits are still hung up inside. After the purge, the others take over the barracks and remove all the dharma stuff, so this is clearly not the barracks. A new page should be created for the processing center and it should replace the barracks in this article when talking about the events that took place there in 77/2008--Mattfarley1008 16:36, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. --Managerpants 16:38, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

• I think it is near what we call the barracks, but I agree with you that it's a separate building. There was another close by the center when Sawyer pulls up before the O3 are processed. Also, I saw short white fencing behind Sawyer when he's talking to Hurley about it not being a game show. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 18:35, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

• Remember the scene from Atale of Two Cities? The barracks is shown in the middle of the jungle. I also think that there is another center for the new recruits. It was also mentioned that the recruits were shuttled to the barracks from the dock. --Asian_Dawn 21:21, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

• Processing Center ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 20:58, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

• What is the logo on the door of the building that Christian opens? I was trying to see if anyone else noticed that I looked new, but maybe I just didn't get a good look at it. --arthurakay 8:44, 20 March 2009

Please see deletion discussion regarding the newly created Processing Center. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 05:42, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

However, isn't the blue sign that says "welcome new recruits" located near the barracks? It's clearly near the processing center. Isn't this where the photo is taken? Shortly after, Phil is saying head to your homes, and Sawyer shows up with Sayid and takes him into the security center, which is located in the Barracks, right? I guess there could be two welcome signs. Anyone else have thoughts on this? --LOSTinDC 15:20, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

• Actually it is two different signs: "Welcome new recruits" and "Namaste new recruits" --LOSTinDC 15:32, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, I think you answered your own question. Welcome is outside the Processing Center, while Namaste is outside the Barracks; this is another good point for why they are separate places in need of two banners. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 16:20, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Man on bicycle

Did anyone notice the opening to the Dharma processing video was a man on a bicycle, and it happens to be the same clip (thought flipped upside down) that pops up randomly in the Orchid orientation outtake (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4bTvAUVPyLI at about 1:43)? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Theadam (talk • contribs) 2009-03-19T11:39:36.

You mean this one? --LOST-Hunter61 19:25, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

• Yeah I noticed that last night and left a message on the talk page for the Man on Bike. I also got a new/clearer pic for it.--Mistertrouble189 19:56, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
  • The Dharma processing video was originally seen in "The Man Behind the Curtain". The scene from the Orchid outtake was obviously taken from there.--Nevermore 07:54, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Young Ben: before or after recruitment by Richard?

I'm pretty sure it's after he met Richard, and he was trying to help Sayid because he heard somewhere that a hostile is captured. Evidence is:

• He closed the door behind him when entered the cell's zone.
• Was very friendly to Sayid, despite the DI people obsession against them.
  • The way he started the conversation pointing remarkedly the ingredients of the sandwich, made me think that he actually slid something else in that bag to help Sayid escape, may be the keys or a gun.Maokun 13:01, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
• Asked Sayid if he's a hostile, and about his name, possibly to report him back to the Others so they could free Sayid.

I just want to note that this should not depend on the actor's apparent aging than when first filmed in The Man Behind the Curtain as it might not be intentional, since boys' physical growth in such age is usually fast (Walt aging was a drama :)). —Iimitk 21:15, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

In terms of writing, I think it'd be Ben after meeting Richard, just so that there's a way to explain his growth.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  21:35, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

You're right. But I don't think his growth was problematic; at least not like Walt's. TMBTC aired on May 2007 so it is nearly two years since then, not a long time. The boy just seems a little fatter. —Iimitk 21:42, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I would say it's after his first encounter with the scalawag Richard Alpert, but not necessarily after he starts "working" with him. Richard told Ben that he may or may not be able to join them, so Ben might try to use Sayid to gain trust with the Hostiles. Of course, Richard will not know who Sayid is, so that will be interesting to see played out. --Cobblepot 08:23, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I imagine this is after. Ben must've met Sawyer etc by now surely also? I expect we'll see Annie again soon. --Integrated (User / Talk) 13:16, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I would also agree that it is after he met Richard, since as I recall, Ben was rather mute until he saw his Mother in the woods and then Richard. Harrisondisc 16:40, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

The last words we heard Richard say to young Ben in "The Man Behind the Curtain" were "And you're gonna have to be very, very patient." That doesn't mean they were the last words spoken. Try, "In the meantime, here's how you can help me..."--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 13:43, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

ALso the way little Ben said "I'm Ben" it's almost as if he expected it to mean something to Sayid...like he was telling him "I'm the one".Thelordnyax 07:10, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Jack's Red Shoes

did anyone else notice Jack's Red shoes right after he asked Phil where James La Fleur lived? could this be a hint, since it's so similar to the man in red shoes in "flashes before your eyes"? --Captainertmer 17:13, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

• Or maybe they're just red shoes. I don't think they were made obvious enough to justify them being a hint. -- Sam McPherson  T  C  E  18:25, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
• They looked to be the brown boots he was issued with the jumpsuit, not red. Lolobey 18:40, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
• All they look like are ordinary brown leather work boots. That's all!! --LOST-Frink 02:29, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

• I think the OP means the red tennis shoes Jack is wearing when he goes to visit Sawyer to complain about leadership styles. However, sometimes shoes are just shoes. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 10:40, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

• Jack was clearly wearing brown workboots when he walked away from Phil after getting directions to LaFleur's house and clearly wearing brown workboots as he was knocking on the door of the house. We don't get another clear shot of his footwear in that sequence. If at any time in that scene he was wearing red shoes (which I don't believe he was) it is a continuity error.--Eyeful Tower 14:47, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Roger/Ben's jumpsuits

I'm going to erase this as a production error. Roger's jumpsuit obviously did not say "Work Man," it said "Workman." That's why Hurley thought his full name was Roger Workman. -- Crazy Bearded Jack 02:44, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

That's not true. Check the image. —Iimitk 06:54, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I stand corrected, and I apologize. -- Crazy Bearded Jack 15:54, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

That's the one that he was given at the Processing Center, but what about the one he was wearing when he died? Same? or no?Thelordnyax 07:08, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

When I was in the Army, our nametapes were stitched by a machine that simply wrote whatever the operater punched in. It may be likely that there are more than one stitch-machine operators, and they just have different styles in how they think Workman/Work Man should be written.Sithboy 21:03, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

When they found Roger's body, the Dharma logo shown on his uniform is the Swan logo. I think it leads credence to the theory that the prop folks used the Swan logo in the early season, and now we see the Dharma logo instead. -CountryMom27 19:52, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

South Pacific Blooper?

The co-pilot mentions that they are flying over south Pacific when talking about Hurley. But the route from LA to Guam is rather over North Pacific. Should this be added under bloopers section?--Kemot from Poland 12:24, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

• You bet!--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 13:31, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
• Not sure, but I know that airplanes don't travel in a straight line, they follow wind currents and such...so does the wind current for the LA => Guam flights go over the south pacific?Thelordnyax 07:07, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
  • West-bound flights will typically follow a great circle. In this case, the flight should come nowhere near the South Pacific.--Eyeful Tower 13:41, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
• Yes. It was a very odd thing to say. I'm assuming it should have been over the Pacific, without the specificity. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 10:30, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

New Character?

About fourteen minutes into the episode, Frank gathers people around and begins explaining their situation. Now as he does they focus on a large white male with a bit of facial stubble for quite a while. Even for Lost. That's why I became interested, because 1) The camera focused on this no-name, redshirt character for too long to not be important, and 2) The man looked very familiar, like the actor himself looked recognizable. Any thoughts on this? The-room 22:16, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a screenshot of this man for reference? I'll check it out on the episode. ♥meggie ~ Talk & contribs 22:20, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I checked it out, and I think I know who you are talking about. Really they only focus on him for maybe a second a most. I don't think it was too long of a time period. It was just part of the span shot of the survivors and their reactions to Frank's speech. And the man doesn't look familiar to me, not to say that we haven't seen him before.♥meggie ~ Talk & contribs 22:26, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, see, now I'm doubting myself. I checked into it, his name is Bram. There's a photo and article about him already. The-room 22:29, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

He was focused on just long enough to be credited and have an official character name but he will probably end up being a redshirt. ♥meggie ~ Talk & contribs 22:42, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

He is, in fact, a recognizable actor, since he is the leading actor of a recent movie called “Choke”, which will have its premiere in my country this week.

• He will probably appear in an episode later on or something, or merely have a small speaking role in the future if he's credited and given a name. Woohoo, named redshirts! --Mistertrouble189 22:57, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Possible flaw: Plane cockpit

The crashed aircraft is a two engine jet, looking like a Boeing 737. But the cockpit does not seem that of a 737 and instead has three thrust levers (in the lower center), as if it was a 727, DC-10 or other tri-jet. The flaps lever also seems to be incorrectly deployed while cruising, though this is less clear.

Maybe I'm wrong... can someone confirm this?

And also, when on touchdown they say "reverse thrusters!" and a hand quickly grabs the thrust levers to set reverse, the image is horizontally flipped!. We see the landing gear lever on the left (when it is on the right in all other shots), and we see the flaps lever on the left and seemingly not deployed!.

--Asegura 21:44, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Their glide angle is also way too steep for a power loss event, but that's television... ∇ϕ 04:43, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

When the co-pilot says, "We're too steep!" they're not.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 14:32, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Steep or not can change fast in an airliner. They could go from too steep to about right or even too shallow in a couple of seconds. The First Officer would have certainly been more concerned about how fast they were going instead of being too steep though. 190 knots on short final in a 737 is bad, bad, bad. It would have almost certainly led to over running anything but a very long runway though. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sdaniels7114 (talk • contribs) 2009-05-07T18:22:06.

As one of the geeks who is trying to figure out the island map, I scrutinized over 50 HD screencaps of that cockpit, in a hopes that the directional indicator would give me a clue about the orientation of Hydra Island. Unfortunately, it seems like they only took the time to move one guage (the altimeter). £乚ב○艹Ю Zholmboe Talk 14:25, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The TVs

Modern Flame TVs

Flame TVs in 1977

I don't know if this is trivia, a blooper, or nothing, but I thought it was at least worth discussion. The TVs in the Flame appear to be the same in 1977, as they are in modern times. The wikipedia article on the history of color television indicates that all major networks were broadcasting in color by 1967, and that a majority of households had color televisions by 1972. Would it be trivia if the televisions were changed between 1977 and modern times? Can anyone see any evidence to support this? Or is it a blooper since the TVs didn’t change, but weren’t displaying the shows in color? Or is there something else that someone can see that makes this discussion moot? <hiero>O34:O4-G17-D58-A1</hiero> zholmboe 00:47, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what leads you to believe the sets weren't switched out at some point. There are clearly access panels that allow them to replace the CRTs in the console.  Robert K S   tell me  03:23, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure they weren't switched out, but the screens are all the same shapes (see the rounded vs. square edges, and the flat screens). Obviously, they could be switched out based on the panels. If that's true, then that brings up the question whether or not there is any worth to a trivia point or episode reference that makes note of the change from black and white to color.

<hiero>O34:O4-G17-D58-A1</hiero> zholmboe 03:58, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

• It looks to me like the panels are determining the shape, not the screens. Trivia about b&w to colour should be fine. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 06:45, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Just a note about the wiki article - yes, many homes had color TVs in the early 70's, but many were still B&W. We didn't get our color TV until 1979, and many of our friends had B&Ws then. Also if the TVs were primarily used for security, there wouldn't be much of a need to have color screens unless the security cameras could broadcast in color. -CountryMom27 19:57, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

DI Stations and Other Locations on the Flame Computer Screens.

Someone over at DarkUFO's message boards posted a thread, with images, that show some of the DHARMA stations (Including some possible new ones) and other places listed on the computer screens. Here is the link: http://forum.spoilertv.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=8308

I think we can glean quite a bit of info about the DI thanks to this guy's hard work.

Also it isn't in the spoiler section so you anal antispoiler people won't have anything ruined for you. --LOST-The Cartographer 01:21, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Boeing 737

Since the Ajira flight was LAX to Honolulu and Guam, does that impact on the discussion of bloopers?--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 03:04, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Sun's Absence and the Other 1977'ers Seeming Lack of Interest

Don't know where the perfect place for this topic would be, but since this is the first and last episode that this is addressed, I figured why not. Sun is very conspicuously missing. The only time Sun's absence has been addressed is when Jin runs into Sayid in the jungle, and its cut short. It bothers me that in the 5 or so episodes showing events in 1977 since 316 crashed, nobody ( not Jack, Kate, Hurley, Jin or Sawyer) has asked one another where Sun could possibly be. They all have EVERY reason to believe that Sun is in 1977 as well, and most likely out in the jungle somewhere. How could they not have shown us even one scene of Jin or Kate or Jack or Hurley asking about Sun's whereabouts? The most outrageous one is Jin. He knows she was on the plane and we haven't seen him ask where she could be or searching for her at all. This seems crazy to me.--Jaywallin 03:11, 26 April 2009 (UTC)Jaywallin

Yeah, and we didn't even see Jin in "Some Like It Hoth"!  Robert K S   tell me  03:15, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

This is just one of those things that irks me. It feels just as annoying as when Charlie dies and we saw Claire sad and grieving in one scene, and then it was like he never existed after that. We have had many many scenes now with Jack and crew in the D.I., and it's as though they forgot Sun was on the plane with them.--Jaywallin 03:29, 26 April 2009 (UTC)Jaywallin

DVD Version?

The Bloopers and Continuity Errors section states: "After Christian Shephard shows Sun the photo from 1977, a background cast member or crew member is visible in the darkness behind Sun. In the DVD version and broadcast in countries outside the US, this error not did not appear."

The DVD version? Doesn't that not come out until next December...?

Co-pilot's comment- Line 115

• I don't think that this is a blooper. Either way Hurley(i.e. Flt. 815) had to fly over the South Pacific. Regardless of the crash allegations, coming from Australia they left out over the Pacific. So the co-pilot is somewhat correct and only Hurley, for obvious reasons, caught his eye.- MRMIKE T  C  E  14:37, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Isn't this Ajira-centric?

Hate to bring up the topic of centricity again, but I really think this episode is Ajira-centric, as opposed to None, which is how it's currently listed. Just a reminder: the S4 finale episodes were listed as Oceanic Six centric because they dealt mostly with them. Well, "Namaste" deals exclusively with the Ajira folk. All of the stories have to do with the Ajira passengers reintigrating into the Island way of life: 1) The Teaser was completely Ajira-centric, as we see the plane crash-land on the Island for the first time. 2) All of the present-day stuff was Ajira-centric, as Ben and Sun and Frank find themselves on the Island again. 3) All of the past stuff was about Jack, Kate, Hurley, and Sayid (Ajira passengers) causing havoc for DHARMA. Sawyer got a lot to do, but everything he did in this episode was for the purpose of making sure the Ajira folk fit in. Jin got a lot to do, but the reason he was at the Flame in the first place was to find... the Ajira plane! I'm a bit late to the discussion party, but I'm frankly shocked I'm the first one who thought this was Ajira-centric. Anyone? Bueller? Marc604 01:40, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

The season 4 finale is O6-centric because it features flashbacks from them. Furthermore, almost all the episodes after the crash deal with (in the present) the Ajira survivors and (in the past) the Ajira time-travellers, so your argument really holds for any episode. I'm also not sure that you could have a centricity that holds for all but, like, four of the main characters. We need to be careful with group-centrics, especially with how subjective the whole notion has become in the 5th season.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  20:57, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

• I suppose the difference is that "Namaste" shows the actual crash of how they got to the Island. And almost every episode after "Namaste" has an obvious centric character ("Follow the Leader" aside). Marc604 23:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

If it's going to be labeled with any centricity I think it should be Frank because the beginning shows his perspective of the crash. Though the episode isn't really about him, however neither was "Jughead" about Desmond all that much. Sure it had some of his stuff, but it was most focused in 1954. "Namaste" shows how Frank tried to be the leader of the Ajirians (pretty good nickname, eh?), but it didn't work so he went with Sun to the island. --Joshtopher27 21:08, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

How could 1 Island being in 1977 and 2007 ? I don't get that, someone maybe understand it. Please tell me you best theory. I want answers or at least theories.--Station7 17:15, September 11, 2009 (UTC)

New recruits in 1978?

From the General section: "New DHARMA Initiative recruits were still arriving on the Island in 1978."

Why is this statement even there? I don't understand why this fact is significant. --Celebok 07:43, February 16, 2010 (UTC)

It shows that the DHARMA Initiative continued uninterrupted even after the Incident in 1977.  Robert K S   tell me  14:47, February 16, 2010 (UTC)

Ah. Then I think that should be mentioned as part of that point, so that it doesn't sound like such a confusing off-the-wall comment. --Celebok 08:06, February 17, 2010 (UTC)

Jumpsuit names

If Kate,Jack and Hurley were not originally on the list to join DHARMA how come that already have jump suits with their names on? As soon as Cheng sees what duty Jack is on he hands him a workman jumpsuit that we later see has "Jack" on it. it possible they would have it becuase Jack is a common name but I doubt they'd have Hurley. --Devane1835 18:13, June 29, 2010 (UTC)