# LOST: Ji Yeon 3/13/08 (Spoilers)



## HDTivoUser (May 2, 2005)

So, according to Jin's tombstone....he died on the day of the crash. Interesting!


----------



## MitchO (Nov 7, 2003)

And there was no indication of hiding a secret between her and Hurley, as if they believed he died on that day.

I call shenanigans on the flashback/forward mix tho~


----------



## jehma (Jan 22, 2003)

They totally got me on the flashback/flashforward.


----------



## thudtrain (Sep 29, 2005)

Heh. That was devious.

They got me too


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

MitchO said:


> I call shenanigans on the flashback/forward mix tho~


I agree. It was a beautiful fake, but kind of a cheat since the ONLY purpose of Jin's flashbacks were to fake us out. That seems a little beneath this show.

(Which only shows how highly I regard this show!)


----------



## Turtleboy (Mar 24, 2001)

So Sun is obviously one of the 6, but Jin is not.

All of the spoiler sites had the six as Jack, Kate, Hurley, Sayid, Sun and Jin.

But if they are sticking to the story that 8 survived the crash, two died on the island, and only 6 got off, then we still don't know who the 6th is.

Possibly, but doubtfully Michael.


----------



## Shakhari (Jan 2, 2005)

Flashback and flash forward in the same episode ... it's almost enough to cause an aneurysm.


----------



## Turtleboy (Mar 24, 2001)

Maybe Aaron does count.


----------



## Mike Farrington (Nov 16, 2000)

I'm glad Jin's was a flashback. I thought for a bit that he had turned back into an ass****.

So I guess the big mystery is: Is Jin alive and well on the island, or really dead (with an obviously fudged date of death). If Sun knew he was still alive, would she visit his grave marker to speak with him? Tough call.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Turtleboy said:


> Maybe Aaron does count.


I've always thought he counted. They haven't given any explanation for why he wouldn't.


----------



## unicorngoddess (Nov 20, 2005)

I called the back/foward flashes. It became blindingly obvious when Jin dropped his cell phone after his cab got hijacked and it was like REALLY old. No way if Jack is using a Razr in present day post-island time is Jin using that kind of agent technology. Not in Korea.


----------



## nrrhgreg (Aug 30, 2003)

Spoiler



Cuse and Lindeloff in their podcast has said that Aaron is NOT one of the six. I think.


----------



## thudtrain (Sep 29, 2005)

Turtleboy said:


> Maybe Aaron does count.


The ambiguity of Aaron counting is what helped make the fake work. I think even during last week's preview of this episode, the narrator said that we'd meet 'the last of the Oceanic six' and not 'the last survivor' or something like that. It could have been one or two.

I can't decide if I'm pissed or I admire them for committing half the episode on an audience fake out.


----------



## DirecTiVoTexas (Aug 26, 2003)

The "year of the dragon" comment by the cashier in the store where Jin was shopping for the Panda tipped it off for me. So, his flashback may have been in 2000, that last year of the dragon. I can't find anywhere that says when Jin and Sun got married. In his flashback he says they've been married 2 months.


----------



## MegaHertz67 (Apr 18, 2005)

Turtleboy said:


> Maybe Aaron does count.


My wife and I were debating and counting to see if Aaron counted. Technically he wasn't a passenger on the flight, but if only six came back and he was one...then we have our six. Jack, Kate, Hurley, Sayid, Sun and Aaron.

I didn't think it was a cheat to have the flash back and flash forward together anymore than how the producers have been manipulating us all along.

I kinda had my doubts he was with her in the hospital when he said to her on the island that he would _never_ leave her. That's right up there with the cop about to retire is the one that gets shot kind of obvious plotline.


----------



## philw1776 (Jan 19, 2002)

Is Jin dead? Or is he back on the island? It's LOST.


----------



## unicorngoddess (Nov 20, 2005)

But if Aaron doesn't count, then they would have to either explain his appearance when the rest were rescued or they had to somehow sneak him off.


----------



## jehma (Jan 22, 2003)

philw1776 said:


> Is Jin dead? Or is he back on the island? It's LOST.


I think they left that ambiguous. I can't remember Sun or Hurley saying anything about his being dead, other than Hurley's "should we go see him"?


----------



## Mike Farrington (Nov 16, 2000)

Did anyone else see the short clip of Nikki starring in Expos&#233; on Sun's TV?

Razzle Dazzle!


----------



## thudtrain (Sep 29, 2005)

philw1776 said:


> Is Jin dead? Or is he back on the island? It's LOST.


It looked like there were two birthdates on the tombstone, and only one death date. So I guess the tombstone could have been put up when the fake victims were found in the fake salvage, and been for both Sun and Jin. So Jin could still be on the island.

Or he could have been one of the Oceanic 6 and died since.


----------



## jehma (Jan 22, 2003)

I thought I saw 2 toothbrushes in Sun's bathroom before she went to the hospital ...


----------



## unicorngoddess (Nov 20, 2005)

thudtrain said:


> Or he could have been one of the Oceanic 6 and died since.


Remember we have the Oceanic 6 + 2. Jack said 8 people survived the crash but 2 died later on. So it seems like Jin is one of the +2. So the question is, who is the other one...


----------



## Mike Farrington (Nov 16, 2000)

unicorngoddess said:


> Remember we have the Oceanic 6 + 2. Jack said 8 people survived the crash but 2 died later on. So it seems like Jin is one of the +2. So the question is, who is the other one...


The date on Jin's tombstone is 9/22/2004, the date of the crash. I don't think he is one of the +2 (assuming the +2 survived at least one day beyond the crash).


----------



## nrrhgreg (Aug 30, 2003)

The death date on Jin's tombstone was 9/22/04, the date of the crash. So he is definitely NOT one of the Six.


----------



## unicorngoddess (Nov 20, 2005)

Mike Farrington said:


> The date on Jin's tombstone is 9/22/2004, the date of the crash. I don't think he is one of the +2 (assuming the +2 survived at least one day beyond the crash).


Well, like someone said, it could be that the tombstone was put there BEFORE the Oceanic Six were rescued. Remember, ALL passengers were suppose to be confirmed dead, so it wouldn't be far fetched that the tombstone was already put up for him.


----------



## getbak (Oct 8, 2004)

Mike Farrington said:


> Did anyone else see the short clip of Nikki starring in Exposé on Sun's TV?
> 
> Razzle Dazzle!


Yes. Funny.



thudtrain said:


> It looked like there were two birthdates on the tombstone, and only one death date. So I guess the tombstone could have been put up when the fake victims were found in the fake salvage, and been for both Sun and Jin. So Jin could still be on the island.
> 
> Or he could have been one of the Oceanic 6 and died since.


Typically, when one half of a married couple dies, the surviving spouse will buy a joint burial plot and a single gravestone. Both names and birth dates are usually added, with a blank spot for the surviving spouse's death date. Presumably, the 1980 birth date was Sun's. Jin's death date matched the date of the crash, so it's possible that he's still alive (and well?) on the island and visiting the grave site was the only way they could "visit" him.


----------



## jeff125va (Mar 15, 2001)

thudtrain said:


> It looked like there were two birthdates on the tombstone, and only one death date. So I guess the tombstone could have been put up when the fake victims were found in the fake salvage, and been for both Sun and Jin. So Jin could still be on the island.
> 
> Or he could have been one of the Oceanic 6 and died since.


Then his grave wouldn't say 9-22-04.

It's possible though that they put it up when the fake wreckage was found, but they would have presumably put 9-22-04 there for Sun as well. I wasn't thinking about it at the time - anyone notice if it looked like the dates were scraped off the other side? I guess with Sun's dad's money they could easily afford a new one.

Or what getbak said.


----------



## Mike Farrington (Nov 16, 2000)

unicorngoddess said:


> Well, like someone said, it could be that the tombstone was put there BEFORE the Oceanic Six were rescued. Remember, ALL passengers were suppose to be confirmed dead, so it wouldn't be far fetched that the tombstone was already put up for him.


I didn't see it, but someone else said that there were two DOBs (yet only one date of death). If so, this was a shared-tombstone erected after Sun got off the island.


----------



## TiVotion (Dec 6, 2002)

Did anyone else think that Sun was about to give birth to a baby smoke monster?


----------



## Mike Farrington (Nov 16, 2000)

My Gymboree obsessed wife noticed an anachronism. Ji Yeon was wearing Gymboree clothing from a 2007 product line.

Either it was a production mistake, or they were all transported into the future when they got of the island!!!


----------



## MitchO (Nov 7, 2003)

No one's commenting .. wasn't that Cynthia Waltros who jumped off the ship?


----------



## Mike Farrington (Nov 16, 2000)

MitchO said:


> No one's commenting .. wasn't that Cynthia Waltros who jumped off the ship?


No, that was Regina (played by Zoë Bell).

http://www.lostpedia.com/wiki/Regina


----------



## jeff125va (Mar 15, 2001)

So we finally have some clue as to a time frame as to when they get rescued. Not too specific, though. We know Sun's about 9 weeks along in this episode. She definitely appeared to have been pretty well settled in at home. Unless the baby was really early, it was probably about 31 weeks between the present on-island events and her giving birth.

Did they say something in the previews last week about revealing the last of the Oceanic Six? We definitely only found out about one this week.

It was interesting that Desmond found out so soon about Widmore. Usually that's the kind of thing that we keep saying "if only these people would communicate with each other" about. The Captain seems trustworthy so far. Not sure what to think at this point.

It was nice how they filled in a few blanks about the staged wreckage. Confirmed that there actually were bodies there, etc. I wasn't sure whether the Captain was implying that they actually _suspect_ Ben or what. Maybe implying something about the resources (financial and otherwise) that Ben has access to. He would certainly have motive to stage the crash if he didn't want anyone looking for the plane anywhere near where it was supposed to be and stumbling upon the island.


----------



## Turtleboy (Mar 24, 2001)

Ok, I'm sticking with my earlier belief that Aaron doesn't count and we only know 5 of the Oceanic 6.


----------



## Todd (Oct 7, 1999)

Mike Farrington said:


> No, that was Regina (played by Zoë Bell).
> 
> http://www.lostpedia.com/wiki/Regina


Cool site!


----------



## Mike Farrington (Nov 16, 2000)

jeff125va said:


> It was nice how they filled in a few blanks about the staged wreckage. Confirmed that there actually were bodies there, etc. I wasn't sure whether the Captain was implying that they actually _suspect_ Ben or what. Maybe implying something about the resources (financial and otherwise) that Ben has access to. He would certainly have motive to stage the crash if he didn't want anyone looking for the plane anywhere near where it was supposed to be and stumbling upon the island.


I don't know. I think the captain/crew know a lot more about the weirdness of the island and are just feeding Sayid/Desmond the staged airliner story so they don't have to explain the freaky stuff.


----------



## jeff125va (Mar 15, 2001)

Mike Farrington said:


> Did anyone else see the short clip of Nikki starring in Exposé on Sun's TV?
> 
> Razzle Dazzle!


Yes! For some reason I was just assuming it was a flashback (I temporarily forgot all about flashforwards I guess) but once I saw that and knew it was the one we saw in "Expose" then I remembered.


----------



## ToddNeedsTiVo (Sep 2, 2003)

How many people died in The Purge? Maybe Ben stored all their bodies in a cryogenic state for 25 years or so just in case he someday needed a bunch of bodies to submerge in a staged plane crash?


----------



## jeff125va (Mar 15, 2001)

Mike Farrington said:


> I don't know. I think the captain/crew know a lot more about the weirdness of the island and are just feeding Sayid/Desmond the staged airliner story so they don't have to explain the freaky stuff.


I meant it as the writers filling in the blanks for us the viewers, not the Captain for Sayid and Desmond.

Yeah, the freighter people are definitely aware of some of the island stuff.


----------



## Mike Farrington (Nov 16, 2000)

Didn't Daniel Dae Kim get pulled over for a DWI? 

That seals it -- Jin is dead for sure.


----------



## markz (Oct 22, 2002)

MitchO said:


> No one's commenting .. wasn't that Cynthia Waltros who jumped off the ship?





Mike Farrington said:


> No, that was Regina (played by Zoë Bell).
> 
> http://www.lostpedia.com/wiki/Regina


I came here to see if it was Cynthia Watross. I guess not, but sure looked like her to me.


----------



## jeff125va (Mar 15, 2001)

ToddNeedsTiVo said:


> How many people died in The Purge? Maybe Ben stored all their bodies in a cryogenic state for 25 years or so just in case he someday needed a bunch of bodies to submerge in a staged plane crash?


Before someone takes that seriously, the bodies were all (well, most of them anyway, other than Ben's dad) in the mass grave where Locke fell after Ben shot him.


----------



## Turtleboy (Mar 24, 2001)

Does anyone want to argue that Michael is not Ben's man on the boat? 

"Hey, just because Michael is on the boat, doesn't mean that he's Ben's man. . "


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

markz said:


> I came here to see if it was Cynthia Watross. I guess not, but sure looked like her to me.


It was definitely Bell, from the earlier scene when she was on guard duty. (What was the significance of her illiteracy?)

Kind of a waste, though, hiring one of the most famous stuntwomen on Earth for a role and then just having her jump off a boat...kinda makes me think we're not done with her yet.


----------



## acej80 (Jan 19, 2003)

Regarding the Oceanic 6 and whether Aaron is one of them, in the LOST official podcast something along these lines where stated:



Spoiler



Aaron is not one of the 6 and the producers take very seriously who the 6 are and it will be quite obvious who they are


----------



## jeff125va (Mar 15, 2001)

Turtleboy said:


> Does anyone want to argue that Michael is not Ben's man on the boat?
> 
> "Hey, just because Michael is on the boat, doesn't mean that he's Ben's man. . "


You'll regret that post when someone says that it really doesn't.

I was thinking though, that there was a slight possibility that Michael (or someone) was the father of Jin's baby. The timing of when Juliet says it was conceived puts it around the time when Jin and Sun were basically separated, or at least when they were definitely not all lovey-dovey. Plus there was that one mobisode where it looked like Michael and Sun were about to kiss (which is of a hint than we got about her and Jae).

But they left no doubt with this episode.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

acej80 said:


> Regarding the Oceanic 6 and whether Aaron is one of them, in the LOST official podcast something along these lines where stated:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


On the other hand, in this interview Damon Lindelof says:


Spoiler



'By the end of the seventh episode, the audience will now know who the Oceanic 6 are.''


 Which is now. Which means the final member HAS to be


Spoiler



Aaron.



I think one problem with this show (or one of its glories, I guess) is that it's trained us so much to look for wheels within wheels, we just can't accept the plain truth when it's in front of us.


----------



## Philosofy (Feb 21, 2000)

My theory on the Oceanic Six: Hurley, Sayid, Kate, Jack, Sun, and Ben. Yes, Ben wasn't on the flight, but knowing how Ben manipulates things, he probably got them to say he WAS on the flight in exchange for something else.


----------



## mqpickles (Nov 11, 2004)

Mike Farrington said:


> My Gymboree obsessed wife noticed an anachronism. Ji Yeon was wearing Gymboree clothing from a 2007 product line.
> 
> Either it was a production mistake, or they were all transported into the future when they got of the island!!!


Tell your wife she needs help.

And tell her the person who says that is still bothered about the California state courts having jurisdiction over Kate.


----------



## TheGreyOwl (Aug 18, 2003)

unicorngoddess said:


> Remember we have the Oceanic 6 + 2. Jack said 8 people survived the crash but 2 died later on. So it seems like Jin is one of the +2. So the question is, who is the other one...


I think one of those 2 would have to be Claire, in order to explain Aaron. Claire was pregnant when she got on the plane and if she didn't survive the crash then Aaron would've died as well. So I think their story pretty much has to be that Claire survived, gave birth, and later died (possibly during childbirth). I suppose the other explanation would be to say she gave birth ON the plane before it crashed and that the infant Aaron survived, but that seems a little less believable.


----------



## jeff125va (Mar 15, 2001)

TheGreyOwl said:


> I think one of those 2 would have to be Claire, in order to explain Aaron. Claire was pregnant when she got on the plane and if she didn't survive the crash then Aaron would've died as well. So I think their story pretty much has to be that Claire survived, gave birth, and later died (possibly during childbirth). I suppose the other explanation would be to say she gave birth ON the plane before it crashed and that the infant Aaron survived, but that seems a little less believable.


Yeah, makes sense. Perhaps Kate isn't purporting to be Aaron's _birth_ mother when she calls him her son. If she is, then the whole story must be a lot more convoluted.


----------



## mqpickles (Nov 11, 2004)

TheGreyOwl said:


> I think one of those 2 would have to be Claire, in order to explain Aaron. Claire was pregnant when she got on the plane and if she didn't survive the crash then Aaron would've died as well. So I think their story pretty much has to be that Claire survived, gave birth, and later died (possibly during childbirth). I suppose the other explanation would be to say she gave birth ON the plane before it crashed and that the infant Aaron survived, but that seems a little less believable.


That makes sense.

_Edit: I don't think it's a smeek if it comes in the same minute._


----------



## zync (Feb 22, 2003)

Philosofy said:


> My theory on the Oceanic Six: Hurley, Sayid, Kate, Jack, Sun, and Ben. Yes, Ben wasn't on the flight, but knowing how Ben manipulates things, he probably got them to say he WAS on the flight in exchange for something else.


DING DING DING! We have a winner!


----------



## PKurmas (Apr 24, 2001)

jehma said:


> I think they left that ambiguous. I can't remember Sun or Hurley saying anything about his being dead, other than Hurley's "should we go see him"?


I get the feeling that *any* hint that there's more to the 815 story than the "Oceanic 6" angle would cause the sky to fall in for the either the 6 or the remaining survivors -- if they are indeed still alive. Whoever's behind the money -- if not Oceanic's insurance company, probably Widmore -- has got to be watching them.

I think Jack probably took a huge risk even with what little he said to Kate in the parking garage after her trial. For Sun and Hurley to give any indication all wasn't as it seemed could be deadly.

So, who thinks that Ben bought another plane, loaded it with people, and crashed it to stage the 815 that was found?


----------



## TSuellentrop (Jan 16, 2006)

Philosofy said:


> My theory on the Oceanic Six: Hurley, Sayid, Kate, Jack, Sun, and Ben. Yes, Ben wasn't on the flight, but knowing how Ben manipulates things, he probably got them to say he WAS on the flight in exchange for something else.


Does that make Ben the one who is the casket that Jack visits who is neither friend nor family?


----------



## uncdrew (Aug 6, 2002)

thudtrain said:


> Heh. That was devious.
> 
> They got me too


Almost got me, but I recognized the cell phone looked "off" and that made me start thinking something was up.

Then the insistence on the Panda -- when you're a hubby you might stop for one Panda, but getting to the hospital is top priority. You can get another Panda later. You don't get another chance to be at the delivery.

Thing is, perhaps that cell phone wasn't supposed to be a tip off. I just don't know the cell phones well enough and it made me think there was a twist.


----------



## jeff125va (Mar 15, 2001)

PKurmas said:


> I get the feeling that *any* hint that there's more to the 815 story than the "Oceanic 6" angle would cause the sky to fall in for the either the 6 or the remaining survivors -- if they are indeed still alive. Whoever's behind the money -- if not Oceanic's insurance company, probably Widmore -- has got to be watching them.
> 
> I think Jack probably took a huge risk even with what little he said to Kate in the parking garage after her trial. For Sun and Hurley to give any indication all wasn't as it seemed could be deadly.
> 
> So, who thinks that Ben bought another plane, loaded it with people, and crashed it to stage the 815 that was found?


He has motive. We've been getting hints that he has the means. Since he evidently had the ability to communicate with the outside world, he had the opportunity to arrange it.


----------



## jeff125va (Mar 15, 2001)

TSuellentrop said:


> Does that make Ben the one who is the casket that Jack visits who is neither friend nor family?


No. And it doesn't really matter whether he's one of the Oceanic Six in that regard. It could still be Ben but whether or not he's one of the Six doesn't make it any more or less likely.


----------



## mqpickles (Nov 11, 2004)

Hurley: Did anyone else come?
Sun: No.
Hurley: Good.

Why is that good?


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

unicorngoddess said:


> I called the back/foward flashes. It became blindingly obvious when Jin dropped his cell phone after his cab got hijacked and it was like REALLY old. No way if Jack is using a Razr in present day post-island time is Jin using that kind of agent technology. Not in Korea.


Ha, that's what I was thinking too when I saw his phone. It didn't make me go "well this must be a flashback", but it lessened the impact of the twist. Still, nicely done.
I'm still guessing that both Hurley and Sun know how Jin REALLY died, but stick to the 9/22/04 date version to cover something up.


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

Mike Farrington said:


> I don't know. I think the captain/crew know a lot more about the weirdness of the island and are just feeding Sayid/Desmond the staged airliner story so they don't have to explain the freaky stuff.


Yes, the captain lies, the note said. And I'm sure that was directed to us as well as to Sayid and Desmond - so I don't think we should take anything the captain says at face value.


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> It was definitely Bell, from the earlier scene when she was on guard duty. (What was the significance of her illiteracy?)


I just took that to mean that she was tired and confused and just sat there pretending to read, probably half-sleeping or something.



Rob Helmerichs said:


> On the other hand, in this interview Damon Lindelof says: 'By the end of the seventh episode, the audience will now know who the Oceanic 6 are.'' Which is now. Which means the final member HAS to be Aaron.
> 
> I think one problem with this show (or one of its glories, I guess) is that it's trained us so much to look for wheels within wheels, we just can't accept the plain truth when it's in front of us.


I'm removing those spoiler tags, as they certainly are no longer spoilers since the 7th episode just aired. 

Yes, I don't understand why it seems so many people have a hard time accepting Aaron as one of the Oceanic 6. He's not hidden (Kate's lawyer knew about him) and he was in fact a survivor of the crash. It's more likely that Claire is one of the 2 that died (according to Jack's story in court).

And yes, nobody seem willing to take anything as truth, no matter how plainly it's stated.



zync said:


> DING DING DING! We have a winner!


Only if Aaron doesn't count, and I haven't seen a good reason why he doesn't.


----------



## gchance (Dec 6, 2002)

I'm 100% sure I'm smeeking (I haven't read any messages yet) but...

OF ALL THE DIRTY...

Jin's a flashback, Sun's a flashforward. She got off the island, he didn't. PAH!

Greg


----------



## gchance (Dec 6, 2002)

MickeS said:


> Yes, the captain lies, the note said. And I'm sure that was directed to us as well as to Sayid and Desmond - so I don't think we should take anything the captain says at face value.


The note didn't say that. It said "DON'T TRUST THE CAPTAIN".

Greg


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

Mike Farrington said:


> Did anyone else see the short clip of Nikki starring in Exposé on Sun's TV?
> 
> Razzle Dazzle!


Caught that.



TiVotion said:


> Did anyone else think that Sun was about to give birth to a baby smoke monster?


No, but I thought that the baby would have Ben's face.



Rob Helmerichs said:


> It was definitely Bell, from the earlier scene when she was on guard duty. (What was the significance of her illiteracy?)
> 
> Kind of a waste, though, hiring one of the most famous stuntwomen on Earth for a role and then just having her jump off a boat...kinda makes me think we're not done with her yet.


I believe it was to show that she was not thinking clearly.

I liked the scenes with Jin and Bernard in the boat as well.
Bernard is correct when he points out that Locke is a murderer as well.

And didn't Kate seem rather pissy about Juliette.

Michael, didn't he look older to you?

I think it's a reasonable assumption that Jin sacrificed himself to save Sun and the baby.
What I'm not sure of, is he still on the island or did he fully sacrifice his life?


----------



## brott (Feb 23, 2001)

If we're supposed to know by this episode, then the only other person (sans Aaron) that can be #6 of the Oceanic 6 is Benjamin Linus. We also saw him as part of the folks in the flash forwards, but he seemed to be more clandestine which could have been misleading.


----------



## getbak (Oct 8, 2004)

Michael could also be one of the Six. He was on the flight, survived, and (presumably) no one knows he's made it off the island yet.


----------



## Peter000 (Apr 15, 2002)

brott said:


> If we're supposed to know by this episode, then the only other person (sans Aaron) that can be #6 of the Oceanic 6 is Benjamin Linus. We also saw him as part of the folks in the flash forwards, but he seemed to be more clandestine which could have been misleading.


I can't remember actually seeing him in any flash forwards. Just hearing his voice.


----------



## bruinfan (Jan 17, 2006)

getbak said:


> Typically, when one half of a married couple dies, the surviving spouse will buy a joint burial plot and a single gravestone. Both names and birth dates are usually added, with a blank spot for the surviving spouse's death date. Presumably, the 1980 birth date was Sun's. Jin's death date matched the date of the crash, so it's possible that he's still alive (and well?) on the island and visiting the grave site was the only way they could "visit" him.


on the right was jin's birthday and date he died

in the middle is jin's name: kwon jin soo..

on the left, it has sun's maiden name: baek sun hwa and her birthdate


----------



## atrac (Feb 27, 2002)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> I agree. It was a beautiful fake, but kind of a cheat since the ONLY purpose of Jin's flashbacks were to fake us out. That seems a little beneath this show.


Totally manipulative! No reason to show the flashback in hindsight now, other than to fool us. Bah humbug!

The cell phone did clue me in though. So I started to figure out if there was another reason for the flashback as I was watching it.

Nope!


----------



## Uncle Briggs (Sep 11, 2004)

Turtleboy said:


> Ok, I'm sticking with my earlier belief that Aaron doesn't count and we only know 5 of the Oceanic 6.


I think that's true, and the 6th one will be Sawyer.


----------



## bpurcell (Mar 16, 2005)

Peter000 said:


> I can't remember actually seeing him in any flash forwards. Just hearing his voice.


Ben's face was shown, when he was talking to Sayid in the medical room. I am of the opinion that Aaron is #6. The previews last week definitely said we'd discover all the Oceanic 6 by this episode, so there's no question it has to be either Ben or Aaron and no one else. Ben just doesn't make sense; who would he be claiming to be? The public would know exactly everyone on the original flight.

Since the captain was wanting Ben to answer some questions, I have some further questions for the Oceanic 6. When they got rescued, what was the public told about the original crashed plane that was found and identified as 815? Is there an investigation going on as to who faked a plane crash with 325 bodies?

A few episodes ago, I made a couple of wild predictions. First, I predicted that Michael was on the ship (ok, not a stunner). Second, I predicted that by the end of this season, the Oceanic 6 will be rescued and leave the island. That would leave the rest of the series dealing with those still on the island. Seeing the last two episodes, I'm becoming more convinced that is going to happen. If it's true, Lost will be a far different show without Jack and the rest on the show.


----------



## Sirius Black (Dec 26, 2001)

bpurcell said:


> Second, I predicted that by the end of this season, the Oceanic 6 will be rescued and leave the island. That would leave the rest of the series dealing with those still on the island. Seeing the last two episodes, I'm becoming more convinced that is going to happen. If it's true, Lost will be a far different show without Jack and the rest on the show.


What about the finale last year? Who was in the casket? What is driving Jack to take flights back and forth hoping for a plane crash? There is quite a bit about, at the least, Jack that needs to be finished. What's the deal with the coverup? Why would they do that? Why would be they be fine with it? I don't think the flash-forwards will ever leave us for good. There might be less of them though.


----------



## Cearbhaill (Aug 1, 2004)

I'm fine with the ambiguity of "is he alive or isn't he". We have no firm proof of death so anything is possible here IMO.

What I'm wondering is why Hurley said "Good" when Sun indicated that "no one else" was coming. Presumably none of the other Oceanic 6.
And... "coming" to what?
What was the occasion that both Sun and Hurley had to dress in their funeral best to "go see" Jin. It was almost as if they were performing a scene for an unknown observer- keeping up a facade.

If Jin was back on the island and alive Sun could certainly choose a cemetery with his (fake) headstone as the best place to talk to him. She's lonely, she's hormonal- talking to someone who isn't there is by no means a stretch IMO- sh'e got to let it out somewhere. Especially if she was afraid to do it in her home, or anywhere that it might be construed as her thinking he was alive should someone overhear.

Why was a substitute doctor brought in at the last minute, and if the Oceanic 6 was such a newsworthy bunch worldwide why did said substitute doctor keep telling her they were trying to reach Jin? And why did she herself keep calling for him?


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

Philosofy said:


> My theory on the Oceanic Six: Hurley, Sayid, Kate, Jack, Sun, and Ben. Yes, Ben wasn't on the flight, but knowing how Ben manipulates things, he probably got them to say he WAS on the flight in exchange for something else.


I don't think Ben really wants all the scrutiny and recognition that comes with being one of the Oceanic Six.


----------



## Turtleboy (Mar 24, 2001)

I don't think Desmond ever met Michael before, did he?


----------



## jeff125va (Mar 15, 2001)

MickeS said:


> Yes, the captain lies, the note said. And I'm sure that was directed to us as well as to Sayid and Desmond - so I don't think we should take anything the captain says at face value.


I don't think we should take the note, which we don't even know the author of, at face value either.


----------



## jeff125va (Mar 15, 2001)

MickeS said:


> Ha, that's what I was thinking too when I saw his phone. It didn't make me go "well this must be a flashback", but it lessened the impact of the twist. Still, nicely done.
> I'm still guessing that both Hurley and Sun know how Jin REALLY died, but stick to the 9/22/04 date version to cover something up.


IF he really died.


----------



## jeff125va (Mar 15, 2001)

MickeS said:


> ...Yes, I don't understand why it seems so many people have a hard time accepting Aaron as one of the Oceanic 6. He's not hidden (Kate's lawyer knew about him) and he was in fact a survivor of the crash. It's more likely that Claire is one of the 2 that died (according to Jack's story in court).
> 
> And yes, nobody seem willing to take anything as truth, no matter how plainly it's stated.
> 
> Only if Aaron doesn't count, and I haven't seen a good reason why he doesn't.


I think the fact that we don't know what the story is behind Kate referring to Aaron as her son just raises some doubts, that's all. Without any outside knowledge, I don't think it's stated all that plainly. Even though she's not hiding him, they're definitely lying about something regarding Aaron. Although now that we have an idea of when they get back (less than 9 months) it's seems virtually impossible that Kate is claiming to have given birth to Aaron, which would likely mean that they're claiming that he was on the flight.

In any case, if we're supposed to know who they all are by now, Aaron is a FAR more likely choice than Ben.


----------



## MacThor (Feb 7, 2002)

I agree that Jin may still be alive on the island, since the O6 are obviously lying to the outside world about the crash survivors. I'm hopeful that they don't kill everyone off but the O6 - that many _choose_ (or are forced) to stay on the island.


----------



## jeff125va (Mar 15, 2001)

I wonder if the staging of the crash included actual data in that flight data recorder. Other than Lapidus recognizing the pilot as fake, what clued anyone in to the fact that it had been staged? I have to suspect that Widmore had some other reason to suspect it. I doubt that Lapidus is the one who let Widmore know about it.


----------



## jkeegan (Oct 16, 2000)

Ok, first, before I forget, I think the reason they had a substitute doctor was so when she called out for Jin, the regular doctor wouldn't say "Sun, remember? Jin died during the crash.."

Ok, on to replies..



Rob Helmerichs said:


> On the other hand, in this interview Damon Lindelof says:
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> ...


Hehe, I think you need to apply that thought to yourself right now.. We've seen the answer: _Michael_.. He's already on the boat.. (the boat is presumably how they get rescued, as far as we know now). He was on the plane, in the manifest, etc. I know someone mentioned it below but I wanted to repeat more strongly for emphasis, not to deliberately smeek.



mqpickles said:


> Hurley: Did anyone else come?
> Sun: No.
> Hurley: Good.
> 
> Why is that good?


{had to retype end of that quote since my iPhone went crazy and started overtyping backspaces, sorry if I changed it}
I wondered that too and I think the answer is because the other 4 are kinda jerks: Jack (dunno if this was before or after his trip to visit Hurley, but he was a dick then), Sayid (murderer helping Ben), Kate (at the least probably obsessed with her kid, at worst maybe a kid thief, though I doubt it), and Michael (who murdered Hurley's gf Libby).



getbak said:


> Michael could also be one of the Six. He was on the flight, survived, and (presumably) no one knows he's made it off the island yet.


DING DING DING!!!


----------



## acej80 (Jan 19, 2003)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> On the other hand, in this interview Damon Lindelof says:
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> ...





Spoiler



Doesn't have to be Aaron, there is Michael


----------



## jkeegan (Oct 16, 2000)

Turtleboy said:


> I don't think Desmond ever met Michael before, did he?


hmm.. Good point, and I thiiiiink you're right..


----------



## Mike Farrington (Nov 16, 2000)

jkeegan said:


> [...]I wondered that too and I think the answer is because the other 4 are kinda jerks: Jack (dunno if this was before or after his trip to visit Hurley, but he was a dick then), Sayid (murderer helping Ben), Kate (at the least probably obsessed with her kid, at worst maybe a kid thief, though I doubt it), and Michael (who murdered Hurley's gf Libby).


Kate's absence can be explained away by her legal troubles. Either she is in custody immediately following the crash. Or, this is pre-Trial and she isn't allowed such travel as a condition of her release. Or, this is post trial and she cannot travel as a condition of her parole.

Maybe Hurley knows Sayid is an assassin for Ben, but I doubt it.

Hurley could be pleased because he still feels as if he betrayed Jack by going to Locke's camp (especially if this was before the nuthouse basketball scene). But I do like the theory that he just doesn't want to see Michael.


----------



## lambertman (Dec 21, 2002)

mqpickles said:


> Hurley: Did anyone else come?
> Sun: No.
> Hurley: Good.


At that point, I thought Hurley was the father. 

"Dude," I said.


----------



## Turtleboy (Mar 24, 2001)

Mike Farrington said:


> Kate's absence can be explained away by her legal troubles. Either she is in custody immediately following the crash. Or, this is pre-Trial and she isn't allowed such trial as a condition of her release. Or, this is post trial and she cannot travel as a condition of her parole.
> 
> Maybe he knows Sayid is an assassin for Ben, but I doubt it.
> 
> Hurley could be pleased because he still feels as if he betrayed Jack by going to Locke's camp (especially if this was before the nuthouse basketball scene). But I do like the theory that he just doesn't want to see Michael.


I think this scene is the earliest of the flasfowards. As far as flashforwards go it's

Sun -> Hurely -> Kate -> Jack.

I left out Sayid's because he didn't interact with any of the other characters.


----------



## Cearbhaill (Aug 1, 2004)

jkeegan said:


> Ok, first, before I forget, I think the reason they had a substitute doctor was so when she called out for Jin, the regular doctor wouldn't say "Sun, remember? Jin died during the crash.."


If the Oceanic 6 were as widely reported about and recognizable even a sub would have known. The nurses were talking about it as they wheeled her in and I find it unreasonable that *any* doctor wouldn't have known who she is and her circumstances.

And even in labor she would remember that Jin was dead, or that they had concocted a story- so I don't get why she was calling out to begin with. Childbirth doesn't give you amnesia.

And why would sub doc say the baby was in distress and required a c-section three seconds before it was crowning and born? All he did was feel her stomach. Something's fishy.


----------



## ElJay (Apr 6, 2005)

I thought the flashback/foward mix was cheesy and forced. There was way too much emphasis on the chunky cellphone and "Year of the Dragon" was a dead giveaway.


----------



## jkeegan (Oct 16, 2000)

I am NOT trying to start another spoiler war here but I have something I want to say..

I've noticed a disturbing trend in the past few weeks where people are removing _other people's_ spoiler tags in their replies, deliberately, because the replier disagreed with the original poster about whether something should be spoiler tagged. Let's please stop that right now.. If it continues, we'll get to a point where people are hesitant to say anything even slightly spoiler-related for fear of someone unspoilertagging it.

It's also become common for people to reply to spoiler text with unspoilerized text, vaguely referring to what it said (just barely crypic enough that it doesn't technically reveal the spoiler), but then _other_ people reply to that in such a way that it feels like they're almost deliberately trying to reveal the original text.
Again, please stop.

But then a post like this comes along (safe to read, IMO):


acej80 said:


> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't have to be Aaron, there is Michael


which makes matters worse, since there is no reason why that should be spoilerized!

Ok, rant over.. Please, everyone, spoilerize when necessary, and don't "correct" other people's spoiler decisions other than to point them out to them - let the original poster decide whether to edit their post or not.


----------



## Turtleboy (Mar 24, 2001)

jkeegan said:


> I am NOT trying to start another spoiler war here but I have something I want to say..
> 
> I've noticed a disturbing trend in the past few weeks where people are removing _other people's_ spoiler tags in their replies, deliberately, because the replier disagreed with the original poster about whether something should be spoiler tagged. Let's please stop that right now.. If it continues, we'll get to a point where people are hesitant to say anything even slightly spoiler-related for fear of someone unspoilertagging it.
> 
> ...





Spoiler



Ok



It's the sled.


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

gchance said:


> The note didn't say that. It said "DON'T TRUST THE CAPTAIN".


Thanks for the correction.



jeff125va said:


> I don't think we should take the note, which we don't even know the author of, at face value either.


Huh? The note was obviously written by "Kevin Johnson" aka Michael.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

But Michael has never been seen in the Oceanic 6 flashforwards. Aaron has.

You can't say Michael is one of the Oceanic 6 just because he's alive and still on the show! That would make almost everybody a candidate!


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

MickeS said:


> The note was obviously written by "Kevin Johnson" aka Michael.


No it wasn't obviously written by him. It could have been written by damn near anyone.


----------



## Turtleboy (Mar 24, 2001)

The title "Oceanic Six" is obviously not something the survivors came up with themselves, but something the sensationlist media dubbed them, like The Keating Five, or the Boston Strangler. 

So let's back up. 

A plane crashes, and survivors are found on an island.

One of the survivors is a baby born on the Island after the crash.

How would the sensationlist media dub the survivors? Would they count six adults on the plane plus the baby as the Oceanic Six? Or would the dub the 6 human beings who got off the Island, even if one was in uetero at the time of the crash the Oceanic Six?

And why not the Oceanic six plus fetus?


----------



## jkeegan (Oct 16, 2000)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> But Michael has never been seen in the Oceanic 6 flashforwards. Aaron has.
> 
> You can't say Michael is one of the Oceanic 6 just because he's alive and still on the show! That would make almost everybody a candidate!


Not just "on the show", but _off the island_..

O6. _Oceanic_ 6. Aaron wasn't on the Oceanic plane. It's Michael.

(what kinda good O6 flashback's is Aaron gonna have?  flashforwards, maaaybe, but..)


----------



## Paperboy2003 (Mar 30, 2004)

Is next week the last before the new 'hiatus' that was announced at the end of the writers strike? Without being specific, it sure seems like next week's show will be interesting...


----------



## Paperboy2003 (Mar 30, 2004)

I also didn't recall Michael and Desmond meeting before....


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

Turtleboy said:


> I don't think Desmond ever met Michael before, did he?


Unless they completely avoided each other in the hatch I don't see how they could not have. I don't remember if they had any scenes together though.


----------



## Turtleboy (Mar 24, 2001)

Michael and Desmond definitely did not ever meet _on camera_.

What I don't remember if it was possible for them to have met off camera, based on Desmond's leaving and Michael's leaving.


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

Turtleboy said:


> The title "Oceanic Six" is obviously not something the survivors came up with themselves, but something the sensationlist media dubbed them, like The Keating Five, or the Boston Strangler.
> 
> So let's back up.
> 
> ...


They would dub them "The Flight 815 Survivors" in real life.


----------



## stiffi (Jun 14, 2006)

Cearbhaill said:


> Why was a substitute doctor brought in at the last minute, and if the Oceanic 6 was such a newsworthy bunch worldwide why did said substitute doctor keep telling her they were trying to reach Jin? And why did she herself keep calling for him?


They needed to have the "substitute" DR. to support Sun's delusion. Her "real" DR. would obviously know her husband was dead, and would not try to call him. The substiture DR. would try to call him until some other staff looked up her file.


----------



## stiffi (Jun 14, 2006)

jkeegan said:


> Not just "on the show", but _off the island_..
> 
> O6. _Oceanic_ 6. Aaron wasn't on the Oceanic plane. It's Michael.
> 
> (what kinda good O6 flashback's is Aaron gonna have?  flashforwards, maaaybe, but..)


Just to start another pointless debate. Depending on your feelings toward conception and the start of life Aaron could be considered as a passenger on the plane (albeit in utero).


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

jkeegan said:


> Not just "on the show", but _off the island_..


But Michael's NOT IN THE OCEANIC 6 FLASHFORWARDS!

He's just not there. So how can he have been revealed as one of the Oceanic 6?


----------



## Fish Man (Mar 4, 2002)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> It was definitely Bell, from the earlier scene when she was on guard duty. (What was the significance of her illiteracy?)


Illiteracy?

I had a totally different take on the upside down book.

She seemed very distracted and a bit disoriented. Once she jumped off the boat, it became rather clear that she must be depressed too.

Put all that together, and what conclusion tends to come? She's also experiencing the same flash-forward-and-back effects that Desmond, Daniel and the radio man on the boat are experiencing!

Therefore, she's distracted and disoriented, and was using the book as a prop to try to hide her disorientation. But, because of the disorientation she wasn't really looking at it.

She apparently successfully hid her disorientation from the captain or she wouldn't have been assigned that "guard duty".

However, I suspect that Frank has figured out what's wrong with her, based on his reaction.


----------



## crowfan (Dec 27, 2003)

Just now listening to *last week's* podcast. In discussing the next upcoming episode, which was this week's ("Ji Yeon"), Lindelof and Cuse state that we will find out who Ben's man on the boat is, and that our questions about the O6 will be answered. That says to me that Michael is Ben's man on the boat, and the O6 are Sun, Hurley, Jack, Kate, Sayid, and Aaron.


----------



## Fish Man (Mar 4, 2002)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> But Michael's NOT IN THE OCEANIC 6 FLASHFORWARDS!
> 
> He's just not there. So how can he have been revealed as one of the Oceanic 6?


Agreed. Based on his name change, I'd say he's been given a new identity.

It makes me wonder how many other survivors might actually have gotten off the island, but rather than being added to the "Oceanic 6" group, were given new identities. (Much like the Witness Protection Program.)

An organization that could fake a plane crash, and then get 6 survivors to live a lie about what really happened could certainly arrange for people to have new identities.

I found it intriguing that the captain spelled out in no uncertain terms that Ben was part (perhaps the head) of an organization with such resources (to fake a plane crash, complete with the correct number of fake dead bodies). Of course, the captain could have been mistaken, or lying. However, what we've seen so far of Ben and his people suggests that they are part of some massive secret organization. Widmore, also a very wealthy and powerful man, is apparently an enemy of that organization. As, apparently, was Dharma. Or perhaps Dharma was simply "in the wrong place at the wrong time". Ben's organization, who recruited Ben as a young man, wanted the island, and the Dharma people had to be killed.


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

Not sure if this has been suggested, so if I am smeeking, sorry.

I have a theory on why the baby's that are concieved on the island make the mother die. I beleive it has to do with the time differnce that we have seen take place. 

Somehow, the baby and the mother are not operating on the same "time wavelength" and it causes problems. The baby is growing in one timeline and Mom is still in the old one. 
Think of it in terms of havin gone part of your body running in one time frame and the rest of your body running in the other. I'd be curious to know what the ration of time difference is and how that relates to unborn babys that start causing the mother distress in the middle of the 2nd trimester. 
It may mean the baby needs more nurishment then the mom can give and would explain some of the symptoms.

Since Juliet doesn't/didn't know about the time variation, she couldn't find an answer.

Juliet: Dammit Ben, I'm a doctor not a time traveller!!


----------



## editivo (Jan 22, 2001)

jkeegan said:


> Aaron wasn't on the Oceanic plane. It's Michael.


So if Michael is one of the 6 and Walt is still alive why isn't it the Oceanic 7? Or are you presuming that Walt is dead, on the island or hiding out?


----------



## goblue97 (May 12, 2005)

I thought the substitute Dr. was put in there to look like Jin. Once he put the mask on his face I thought it looked a lot like him.


----------



## MitchO (Nov 7, 2003)

I was concerned that the replacement doctor was going to result in a babynapping.


----------



## GDG76 (Oct 2, 2000)

betts4 said:


> Not sure if this has been suggested, so if I am smeeking, sorry.
> 
> I have a theory on why the baby's that are concieved on the island make the mother die. I beleive it has to do with the time differnce that we have seen take place.
> 
> ...


If that's the case, then Alex should be able to have a baby on the island since she was born there, right?


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

betts4 said:


> Somehow, the baby and the mother are not operating on the same "time wavelength" and it causes problems. The baby is growing in one timeline and Mom is still in the old one.


But there doesn't seem to be a difference in time between the island and the outside world, just some kind of discontinuity that happens when you pass from one to the other.

Plus the problem is when babies are conceived ON the island. When Juliette found that Sun conceived on the island, she thought it was bad news because it was a death sentence; it would have been better for Juliette if the English teacher were the father, because then Sun would be (relatively) safe. (Sun had different ideas, but that had nothing to do with her health.) I suspect the problem involves the strange electro-magnetic fields on the island...


----------



## Cainebj (Nov 11, 2006)

Fish Man said:


> complete with the correct number of fake dead bodies


The fake bodies story didn't make any sense to me 
- not ONE of the real dead passengers has dental records?


----------



## jamesbobo (Jun 18, 2000)

As far as Desmond ever meeting Michael; if he did, would he remember it? With his "forward/backward" experiences in the previous episode who knows what he remembers.

Could Jin be alive on the island? Maybe that's why Sun called his name, in the state she was in she forgot that he's supposed to be "dead." 
And on that note:


Spoiler



the previews of next week said that someone would die. Jin? Michael?


----------



## MitchO (Nov 7, 2003)

They had indicated that the ship was in a position that (normal) recovery was impossible. The Captain indicated that Widmore spent "considerable resources" to appropriate the black box, so maybe only Widmore and associates are the only ones to have gotten to a body to do dental records in the first place.


----------



## uncdrew (Aug 6, 2002)

gchance said:


> The note didn't say that. It said "DON'T TRUST THE CAPTAIN".
> 
> Greg


Like they would anyway... 

I wouldn't be trusting anyone anywhere near that boat. People walking off with chains around themselves and no one caring. Being locked up.


----------



## jamesbobo (Jun 18, 2000)

I am suspecting that someone in Ben's camp is a traitor. Richard (I think that's his name) told Locke that some members don't like the way Ben is running things. How would the outside world suspect Ben of gassing everyone if someone didn't supply the information?


----------



## thudtrain (Sep 29, 2005)

Cainebj said:


> The fake bodies story didn't make any sense to me
> - not ONE of the real dead passengers has dental records?


Not to mention when the 'real' world found the fake wreck, all passengers were accounted for. Then the Oceanic 6 were discovered, but yet, there were still the correct number of bodies in the wreckage. Did nobody think something fishy was going on?


----------



## uncdrew (Aug 6, 2002)

Cainebj said:


> The fake bodies story didn't make any sense to me
> - not ONE of the real dead passengers has dental records?


Agreed.

Not to mention...

How do they explain the wreckage with all the passengers and then the Oceanic 6?

Doesn't that then make the wreckage obviously fake?


----------



## Mike Farrington (Nov 16, 2000)

Such a site would surely be designated as a mass grave and left alone. They're not going to tear apart the plane to recover bodies, not at those depths. I could see the NTSB trying to recover the flight data recorders.


----------



## uncdrew (Aug 6, 2002)

Mike Farrington said:


> Such a site would surely be designated as a mass grave and left alone. They're not going to tear apart the plane to recover bodies, not at those depths. I could see the NTSB trying to recover the flight data recorders.


But they said that the bodies were counted and all the passengers were accounted for in the wreckage.

Right?


----------



## unicorngoddess (Nov 20, 2005)

I don't think Michael is a member of the O6. He's obviously picked up a false identity for whatever reason, so it would seem that even the people on the freighter don't even know he is a survivor of 815.

I think it was perfectly normal for Sun to call out to Jin even if he were dead. And I think the doctors would've probably gone along with it because they didn't want her upset during child birth.

I don't think Ben is part of the O6 as I think he's probably still going back and forth to the island somehow. And it was him in the coffin, which upset Jack because now no one can show him how to get back.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Cearbhaill said:


> I'm fine with the ambiguity of "is he alive or isn't he". We have no firm proof of death so anything is possible here IMO.
> 
> What I'm wondering is why Hurley said "Good" when Sun indicated that "no one else" was coming. Presumably none of the other Oceanic 6.
> And... "coming" to what?
> ...


Great points all. It could be, as you are hinting at that they want SOMEONE to believe he's dead, but he really isn't. Her screaming out for him at the delivery, Hurley's comments all bear this out. So Jin could STILL be one of the 6.

About all the comments about it being Aaron. I recall someone saying either in this thread or the last that the producers said it wasn't Aaron. Are they throwing us a curveball? I think it's either Jin (as speculated here, or Ben). Since the "Oceianic 6" seems to be something created by the press (the press in the show, not the real life press we read), then Ben, being his manipulative self could have somehow got him on the manifest, OR, the "Oceanic 6" could refer to 6 (or 8) people who just happened to be rescued as part of whatever operation GOT them rescued. There's no reason that they HAVE to be passengers on the plane.

Also:

Since Juliet mentioned that Sun would start feeling sick in about 3 weeks and that she'd be dead in 6 (I think it was 5 or 6) then she'd have to be rescued in that time, and probably closer to 3 than 6 I would think. If each episode is a "day" in LOST time, then they will be rescued in 21-42 more episodes. If it's closer to 3 weeks as I'm speculating, then I'm thinking the rescue will occur sometime during NEXT season.

(sorry if I smeeked, I HAD to get this down before I lost my train of thought).


----------



## GDG76 (Oct 2, 2000)

So is Ji Yeon the only child ever born that was conceived on the island?


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Mike Farrington said:


> Kate's absence can be explained away by her legal troubles. Either she is in custody immediately following the crash. Or, this is pre-Trial and she isn't allowed such travel as a condition of her release. Or, this is post trial and she cannot travel as a condition of her parole.
> 
> Maybe Hurley knows Sayid is an assassin for Ben, but I doubt it.
> 
> Hurley could be pleased because he still feels as if he betrayed Jack by going to Locke's camp (especially if this was before the nuthouse basketball scene). But I do like the theory that he just doesn't want to see Michael.


Remember also that all these fast forwards are happening at different times. This could be before or after Kate's trial. Hurley is there, so it's either before or after he's back in the mental hospital.


----------



## uncdrew (Aug 6, 2002)

GDG76 said:


> So is Ji Yeon the only child ever born that was conceived on the island?


Seems that way.

I wonder what happened to all the kids being lead away by "The Others" a few seasons back...


----------



## Fish Man (Mar 4, 2002)

uncdrew said:


> But they said that the bodies were counted and all the passengers were accounted for in the wreckage.
> 
> Right?


"Accounted for" could be a head count, and then left at the bottom of the ocean in a mass grave, not autopsies and dental identification of all passengers.

Of course, after the fake crash, when whatever organization faked the crash wants to reveal that 6 people actually survived, there'd be some splanin' to do. Of course, this organization seems to be very skilled at BSing the public.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Turtleboy said:


> The title "Oceanic Six" is obviously not something the survivors came up with themselves, but something the sensationlist media dubbed them, like The Keating Five, or the Boston Strangler.
> 
> So let's back up.
> 
> ...


Or it could refer to someone who was NOT on the plane but rescued at the same time but CONNECTED to the Oceanic 6 like Ben. I'm just sayin'


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Steveknj said:


> About all the comments about it being Aaron. I recall someone saying either in this thread or the last that the producers said it wasn't Aaron. Are they throwing us a curveball?


People keep saying that, but my recollection is that what was actually said was more ambiguous. But I'm too lazy to go re-reading these endless threads to find the exact quote.


----------



## Fish Man (Mar 4, 2002)

jamesbobo said:


> Could Jin be alive on the island? Maybe that's why Sun called his name, in the state she was in she forgot that he's supposed to be "dead."


I'm solidly in the school of thought that Jin remained on the island alive. I think we'll learn why in a future episode.

The headstone could be a simple monument to him (with no body buried beneath) because the "official" story is that he died in the crash, hence the date on the headstone.

We've seen from other flashforwards (the episode about Kate's trial, especially) that the Oceanic 6 has been convinced to "live a lie" about what really happened, how they really survived, and how they were really rescued. I believe that Sun is living a lie about Jin being dead.

It will be interesting to learn how these 6 could be compelled, by whatever organization or persons, to live this lie.


----------



## HoldenBanky (Oct 25, 2006)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> But Michael's NOT IN THE OCEANIC 6 FLASHFORWARDS!
> 
> He's just not there. So how can he have been revealed as one of the Oceanic 6?


What if he is the body in the coffin in Jack's flash-forward?


----------



## Mike Farrington (Nov 16, 2000)

Steveknj said:


> Remember also that all these fast forwards are happening at different times. This could be before or after Kate's trial. Hurley is there, so it's either before or after he's back in the mental hospital.


Um, that's why I presented multiple possibilities in three post-island timeframes about Kate's situation and why she wouldn't be able to go to South Korea.


----------



## brettatk (Oct 11, 2002)

uncdrew said:


> Seems that way.
> 
> I wonder what happened to all the kids being lead away by "The Others" a few seasons back...


Or what happened to all of "The Others". I'm sure it was just an oversight though. It's not like the writers ever leave anything unanswered.


----------



## Mike Farrington (Nov 16, 2000)

uncdrew said:


> I wonder what happened to all the kids being lead away by "The Others" a few seasons back...


We have at least two reference to them. We see Cindy the flight attendant with the kids when Jack is in the bear cage. We also saw Juliet make mention to Ben in "The Other Woman". She talked about how the children were still asking about their mother in LA. Ben said that they would stop asking in time.


----------



## Mike Farrington (Nov 16, 2000)

brettatk said:


> Or what happened to all of "The Others". I'm sure it was just an oversight though. It's not like the writers ever leave anything unanswered.


All of the others were making some sort of mass pilgrimage to "The Temple". They better not leave that hanging for too much longer.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Fish Man said:


> I'm solidly in the school of thought that Jin remained on the island alive. I think we'll learn why in a future episode.
> 
> The headstone could be a simple monument to him (with no body buried beneath) because the "official" story is that he died in the crash, hence the date on the headstone.
> 
> ...


We've seen Sun lie about things multiple times, especially to Jin. The affair, her speaking English, and there were one or two other things I cannot recall. It is not out of the realm of possibility that Sun is hiding something, either that Jin is NOT really dead, or how he died, or whatever. Lots of speculation, but we really don't have enough details yet.

Anyone have a pic of the gravestone?


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

Fish Man said:


> I'm solidly in the school of thought that Jin remained on the island alive. I think we'll learn why in a future episode.
> 
> The headstone could be a simple monument to him (with no body buried beneath) because the "official" story is that he died in the crash, hence the date on the headstone.
> 
> ...


Could Hurley's remark about "no one else came" be in regards to Sun's parents or Jin's dad or anyone that they would have to keep up the 'lie' and since no one else showed up they can be themselves a bit.

I wonder also why was the visit special? was it the anniversary of his death, their return home, the crash? his birthday? Those would be reasons for dressing up to go to the cemetary.


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

Question that has bugged me for the last two episodes.

Why hasn't Dan taken off his tie???


----------



## ireland967 (Feb 27, 2003)

Steveknj said:


> Remember also that all these fast forwards are happening at different times. This could be before or after Kate's trial. Hurley is there, so it's either before or after he's back in the mental hospital.


We have enough clues (Ji being a newborn, Aaron being around 2 years old, and Jack hitting the bottom) to confirm Turtleboy's earlier post about the FF timeline. You could probably argue to swap Hurley and Kate's places.

Sun - Hurley - Kate - Jack

Hard to place Sayid without any of the references we've been given.


----------



## danterner (Mar 4, 2005)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> It was definitely Bell, from the earlier scene when she was on guard duty. (What was the significance of her illiteracy?)


This one puzzled me, too. I prefer a couple of the explanations offered on this thread to my own, but here's what I thought while I was watching: I interpreted it to mean that Regina hadn't really been sitting guard. She hurried over to the chair in the moments before Frank arrived, to give the appearance that she was watching the door, but she had been off doing something else. The fact that she had the book upside down gave her away to Frank, and so he told her that "he was just helping her out" (or something to that effect) in case someone else came along and discovered her slacking.


----------



## MegaHertz67 (Apr 18, 2005)

betts4 said:


> Question that has bugged me for the last two episodes.
> 
> Why hasn't Dan taken off his tie???


Some people need some semblance of "normalcy" to help them cope with situations that freak them out.

Maybe the act of wearing the tie makes the scientist in him think that all of the weirdness is just part of an experiment and allows him to remain a bit distanced and detached.

If he allowed himself to take the tie off...he would begin to unravel a bit at the edges and might lose control.

Just a thought.


----------



## philw1776 (Jan 19, 2002)

I like LOST very much but I'm not obsessed enough to remember all the past details. Does anyone remember enough to tell me if Sayid and or Desmond knows that Michael murdered Anna-Lucia (not that she didn't need shootin') and regretfully Libby?

Given the way that the LOST writers set up future episodes with seemingly inconsequential stories in previous episodes, I still think that the Nikki spider bite episode will resurface with Naiomi being 'wounded' but in a spider bite coma as I'd posted in previous threads. Why focus on her vacant eyes (just like Nikki & Paolo's) and make such a big deal about bringing her body back to the freighter? Another hint to the viewers about the Nikki thread being an ongoing item was the TV show in Jin's place. These writers are clever.


----------



## unicorngoddess (Nov 20, 2005)

Mike Farrington said:


> Um, that's why I presented multiple possibilities in three post-island timeframes about Kate's situation and why she wouldn't be able to go to South Korea.


Well, we know that Sun's flash forward can't be more than 7 months from current island time. That would mean Aaron couldn't have been more than a year old when they got off the island. They were on the island for at least 2 weeks or so before he was born. So let's just say he's suppose to be about 2 1/2-3 months old now. Sun is currently 2 months pregnant and part of me wants to think the baby was coming early because when she called for help she didn't say, "I'm going into labor." she said, "Something is wrong."

So if you add that knowledge to how old Aaron appeared to be in Kate's flash forward, there's a pretty big gap between Sun's flash forward and Kate's. So it seems as if Kate went at least a year or so before she was taken into custody. She should've still been able to travel. But I don't know why she wouldn't be there.


----------



## Sirius Black (Dec 26, 2001)

There is no evidence to suggest that Sun is the only person to have conceived on the island to have had a baby. There might have been others that left the island.

The timeline is still too fuzzy. Need more input. Input, Stephanie!


----------



## jehma (Jan 22, 2003)

Steveknj said:


> We've seen Sun lie about things multiple times, especially to Jin. The affair, her speaking English, and there were one or two other things I cannot recall. It is not out of the realm of possibility that Sun is hiding something, either that Jin is NOT really dead, or how he died, or whatever. Lots of speculation, but we really don't have enough details yet.
> 
> Anyone have a pic of the gravestone?


http://losteastereggs.blogspot.com/2008/03/jins-tombstone-and-date-of-death-9-22.html


----------



## GDG76 (Oct 2, 2000)

philw1776 said:


> I like LOST very much but I'm not obsessed enough to remember all the past details. Does anyone remember enough to tell me if Sayid and or Desmond knows that Michael murdered Anna-Lucia (not that she didn't need shootin') and regretfully Libby?
> .


I thought that whole scene was set up so that everyone thinks Ben killed both of them, not Michael. Didn't Michael shoot himself to make it look that way?


----------



## unicorngoddess (Nov 20, 2005)

GDG76 said:


> I thought that whole scene was set up so that everyone thinks Ben killed both of them, not Michael. Didn't Michael shoot himself to make it look that way?


Yeah, but when Michael was leading Hurley, Jack, Kate and Sawyer to the Others, Jack called Michael out and he admitted to the four of them what he had done.


----------



## Cindy1230 (Oct 31, 2003)

getbak said:


> Presumably, the 1980 birth date was Sun's. Jin's death date matched the date of the crash, so it's possible that he's still alive (and well?) on the island and visiting the grave site was the only way they could "visit" him.





bruinfan said:


> on the right was jin's birthday and date he died
> in the middle is jin's name: kwon jin soo..
> on the left, it has sun's maiden name: baek sun hwa and her birthdate.


It has Sun's birthday as 1980. 7 years younger than the actress. That's a big gap.



Cearbhaill said:


> What I'm wondering is why Hurley said "Good" when Sun indicated that "no one else" was coming. Presumably none of the other Oceanic 6.


Why would she be surprised he came all that way. He's got free oceanic airfare. 



Cearbhaill said:


> And why would sub doc say the baby was in distress and required a c-section three seconds before it was crowning and born? All he did was feel her stomach. Something's fishy.


My husband told me to give TV a break, but that is soooo impossible. I haven't given birth, but i'm just tired of shows and movies making it look so instantaneous and she was able to get back to pre-baby figure in meer days.



editivo said:


> So if Michael is one of the 6 and Walt is still alive why isn't it the Oceanic 7? Or are you presuming that Walt is dead, on the island or hiding out?


Where is Waaaalt? No one has said he could be 1 of the 6.



uncdrew said:


> Like they would anyway...
> I wouldn't be trusting anyone anywhere near that boat. People walking off with chains around themselves and no one caring. Being locked up.


And the fact that someone also blew their brains out in a room.

http://losteastereggs.blogspot.com/
The screencaps shows an axe in the ship. Eeek.

And are the screen caps showing it was the same nurse with Jin and Sun? Hard to tell.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> It was definitely Bell, from the earlier scene when she was on guard duty. (What was the significance of her illiteracy?)


As others have said, I think it just indicated that she hadn't been diligent about guard duty, likely because of her agitated mental state due to the proximity to the island.


Cearbhaill said:


> Why was a substitute doctor brought in at the last minute, and if the Oceanic 6 was such a newsworthy bunch worldwide why did said substitute doctor keep telling her they were trying to reach Jin? And why did she herself keep calling for him?


I think the substitute doctor was brought in, and Sun kept calling for Jin, to keep the illusion of the Sun and Jin scenes being contemporaneous. IIRC, right before we saw the doctor switch, we saw Jin's panda get napped and his phone run over, so we were probably supposed to suspect that there was foul play afoot, and that it was happening at the hospital too. In hindsight, it was nothing, but for storytelling purposes, it heightened the tension.


Cearbhaill said:


> If the Oceanic 6 were as widely reported about and recognizable even a sub would have known. The nurses were talking about it as they wheeled her in and I find it unreasonable that *any* doctor wouldn't have known who she is and her circumstances.
> 
> And even in labor she would remember that Jin was dead, or that they had concocted a story- so I don't get why she was calling out to begin with. Childbirth doesn't give you amnesia.
> 
> And why would sub doc say the baby was in distress and required a c-section three seconds before it was crowning and born? All he did was feel her stomach. Something's fishy.


Sun said at the end that the doctor told her that she was under the effects of the medication when she was calling for Jin. No surprise there.


Cainebj said:


> The fake bodies story didn't make any sense to me
> - not ONE of the real dead passengers has dental records?


Too deep to actually recover bodies.


Fish Man said:


> "Accounted for" could be a head count, and then left at the bottom of the ocean in a mass grave, not autopsies and dental identification of all passengers.
> 
> Of course, after the fake crash, when whatever organization faked the crash wants to reveal that 6 people actually survived, there'd be some splanin' to do. Of course, this organization seems to be very skilled at BSing the public.


I don't think it will be that hard to explain. All they'll have to do is say that the plane they found on the bottom of the ocean was intact, and they could see dead bodies through the windows, so they assumed all passengers were aboard. However, it now appears a few of them were able to get out before it sank.


Mike Farrington said:


> All of the others were making some sort of mass pilgrimage to "The Temple". They better not leave that hanging for too much longer.


They'll leave it hanging as long as Nestor Carbonell is working on the CBS series "Cane." He's got to be available to travel to Hawaii during shooting in order for them to pick up that storyline. Not sure what the status of "Cane" is, so perhaps he's been available to go to Hawaii since the end of the writer's strike and we'll get that info later this season.


unicorngoddess said:


> Well, we know that Sun's flash forward can't be more than 7 months from current island time. That would mean Aaron couldn't have been more than a year old when they got off the island. They were on the island for at least 2 weeks or so before he was born. So let's just say he's suppose to be about 2 1/2-3 months old now. Sun is currently 2 months pregnant and part of me wants to think the baby was coming early because when she called for help she didn't say, "I'm going into labor." she said, "Something is wrong."
> 
> So if you add that knowledge to how old Aaron appeared to be in Kate's flash forward, there's a pretty big gap between Sun's flash forward and Kate's. So it seems as if Kate went at least a year or so before she was taken into custody. She should've still been able to travel. But I don't know why she wouldn't be there.


I don't think you can say that at all. No reason Kate couldn't have been in custody for over a year before she got to trial. That's pretty common. Or, as someone else already pointed out, she was not in custody but was unable to leave the state as they built a case against her and then was indicted later.

I think Michael is the other member of the O6, but we'll have to wait and see.


----------



## jeff125va (Mar 15, 2001)

philw1776 said:


> I like LOST very much but I'm not obsessed enough to remember all the past details. Does anyone remember enough to tell me if Sayid and or Desmond knows that Michael murdered Anna-Lucia (not that she didn't need shootin') and regretfully Libby?
> 
> Given the way that the LOST writers set up future episodes with seemingly inconsequential stories in previous episodes, I still think that the Nikki spider bite episode will resurface with Naiomi being 'wounded' but in a spider bite coma as I'd posted in previous threads. Why focus on her vacant eyes (just like Nikki & Paolo's) and make such a big deal about bringing her body back to the freighter? Another hint to the viewers about the Nikki thread being an ongoing item was the TV show in Jin's place. These writers are clever.


Sayid knows. He was there when they all figured it out.

We never saw Naomi experience any of the effects that Nikki did. Gradual inability to move or speak, etc. And it's been several days longer since Nikki died than the spider poison kept Nikki paralyzed. And she would have had an untreated knife wound in her back for several days as well.


----------



## Mike Farrington (Nov 16, 2000)

Did anyone notice that Sun's accent has basically disappeared?


----------



## jeff125va (Mar 15, 2001)

MickeS said:


> Huh? The note was obviously written by "Kevin Johnson" aka Michael.


At best, it was _probably_ Michael, aka "Kevin Johnson". Even more reason not to take the note at face value.


----------



## dianebrat (Jul 6, 2002)

Steveknj said:


> Since Juliet mentioned that Sun would start feeling sick in about 3 weeks and that she'd be dead in 6 (I think it was 5 or 6) then she'd have to be rescued in that time, and probably closer to 3 than 6 I would think. If each episode is a "day" in LOST time, then they will be rescued in 21-42 more episodes. If it's closer to 3 weeks as I'm speculating, then I'm thinking the rescue will occur sometime during NEXT season.
> 
> (sorry if I smeeked, I HAD to get this down before I lost my train of thought).


And Juliet mentioned that the mothers did not survive into the third trimester, that was an important date in this process.

Diane


----------



## CarynFromHermosa (Sep 26, 2005)

I was totally fooled by the Jin flashback! That being said, this show has not made a habit of showing us things that are irrelevant (other than the little Easter eggs). In fact, someone mentioned that all flashbacks from this season will be only those germane to the plot. Perhaps we missed the point?


----------



## unicorngoddess (Nov 20, 2005)

DevdogAZ said:


> I don't think you can say that at all. No reason Kate couldn't have been in custody for over a year before she got to trial. That's pretty common. Or, as someone else already pointed out, she was not in custody but was unable to leave the state as they built a case against her and then was indicted later.


She wasn't in custody. She had a nice house in California and was pretty settled by the time her case came to trial. It wasn't until then that the DA requested that she be held throughout the duration of her trial. Then she made a plea bargain that tied her to the state of California from there on out.

I think the most likely reason is she has just become very protective of Aaron and doesn't want to do anything that might put him at risk.


----------



## Cindy1230 (Oct 31, 2003)

When Juliet told Jin about Sun's affair... didn't you guys all go,... daaaaaammmmmmmnnnnnnn.


----------



## TheGreyOwl (Aug 18, 2003)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> People keep saying that, but my recollection is that what was actually said was more ambiguous. But I'm too lazy to go re-reading these endless threads to find the exact quote.


Same here (meaning I'm also too lazy to go look up the exact quote). But I remember it being ambigious as well, something along the lines of "we couldn't decide if somebody that wasn't a passenger should count as one of the Oceanic 6 or not". I don't recall them ever saying definitively one way or the other.



DevdogAZ said:


> Too deep to actually recover bodies.
> 
> I don't think it will be that hard to explain. All they'll have to do is say that the plane they found on the bottom of the ocean was intact, and they could see dead bodies through the windows, so they assumed all passengers were aboard. However, it now appears a few of them were able to get out before it sank.


Except the captain gave a specific number of bodies (324? 325? something like that), which means they were at least counted and it matched the total number expected. But when 6 survivors show up, that would throw off the total. Actually, it would be off by 8 since the story was that 8 survived initially. One of these can be discounted as being Aaron, as he wouldn't have been counted in the original manifest, but that still means the total is off by 7, right? Maybe I'm missing something...


----------



## super dave (Oct 1, 2002)

Cindy1230 said:


> When Juliet told Jin about Sun's affair... didn't you guys all go,... daaaaaammmmmmmnnnnnnn.


No, I said to the wife Sun should have knocked Juliet's teeth out.


----------



## Cindy1230 (Oct 31, 2003)

Okay, timeline stuff. 

I don't know if i have the right dates, maybe someone can fill them in, but my question is if people off the island think Jin died Sept 22, and Sun concieved a few weeks after that... is no one going to question if Jin is the father or not? 

In the ep "D.O.C." - approximate date is Dec 18th
Juliet said Sun concieved 8 weeks before, sooo Oct 16-23rd. 
That's 4 weeks after Jin 'died.'

And Sun said something is wrong, not that she was in labor. So the baby came sooner than expected. Which would narrow the pregnancy time as well.


----------



## tewcewl (Dec 18, 2004)

A couple of observations on the timeline here:

Our Losties have been on the island for just over three months. This episode revealed that at some point during those three months:

1) The plane crash was faked/staged as claimed by the Cap'n.
2) After the discovery of the fake plane by the Christiane I, the news was spread throughout the world close to instantaneously. So thus:
2a) Daniel's sobbing as he watches the news takes on an even more puzzling aspect as this predates him being on the island.

2b) Charlotte's expedition to Tunisia predates her being on the island and her flashback shows that she was already aware of Dharma and was not fazed on finding a polar bear in Africa.

2c) Abaddon (or someone) gathers Naomi, Charlotte, Daniel and Lapidus for an expedition to the island using the freighter owned by Widmore. The Cap'n's seemingly awareness of what's going on plus his possession of the flight recorder (presumably taken from the faked plane) indicates that he's also not just a hired hand. However, him and his crew not being mentioned by Abaddon during his meeting with Naomi may indicate that Naomi and her team had an alternate task.​3) People are correctly observing that the appearance of the Oceanic 6 and the reveal that there were two other survivors with them means that this contradicts the news stories that 815 went down with everybody. This explains why they're celebrities, showing up approximately four-five months after the news was broadcast around the world about the demise of 815. This would shock anybody and be a newsworthy headline. What will be interesting to see is how O6's re-surfacing is explained to the world and how this clashes with Ben (if it was Ben) and his group's desire to keep the true destiny of 815 hidden from the world.

I think this is the endgame here. Ben's group vs. Widmore and our poor Losties and Desmond are caught in all of this.


----------



## Sirius Black (Dec 26, 2001)

Cindy1230 said:


> And Sun said something is wrong, not that she was in labor. So the baby came sooner than expected. Which would narrow the pregnancy time as well.


Looked pretty healthy to me after they cleaned her up. Not sure that it was too far off the mark, if at all.


----------



## dslunceford (Oct 19, 2000)

Cearbhaill said:


> I'm fine with the ambiguity of "is he alive or isn't he". We have no firm proof of death so anything is possible here IMO.
> 
> What I'm wondering is why Hurley said "Good" when Sun indicated that "no one else" was coming. Presumably none of the other Oceanic 6.
> And... "coming" to what?
> ...


Emphasis mine on the "performing/facade" angle. I think there's something to that...


----------



## Cindy1230 (Oct 31, 2003)

Sirius Black said:


> Looked pretty healthy to me after they cleaned her up. Not sure that it was too far off the mark, if at all.


You're right, but i wasn't wondering about the health of the baby, i was wondering, if people off the island did the math, then it couldn't be jin's baby because he technically 'died' before date of conception.


----------



## 3D (Oct 9, 2001)

Turtleboy said:


> Does anyone want to argue that Michael is not Ben's man on the boat?
> 
> "Hey, just because Michael is on the boat, doesn't mean that he's Ben's man. . "


Sure, Ben's man on the boat is grown up Walt, who bears a striking resemblance to his father. 



bpurcell said:


> Ben's face was shown, when he was talking to Sayid in the medical room. I am of the opinion that Aaron is #6. The previews last week definitely said we'd discover all the Oceanic 6 by this episode, so there's no question it has to be either Ben or Aaron and no one else. Ben just doesn't make sense; who would he be claiming to be? The public would know exactly everyone on the original flight.


I agree that Aaron is #6, but disagree of your reason that it can't be Ben. If someone can stage a fake plane crash with 324 bodies, they can certainly change the manifest or pass Ben off as someone who's on the manifest but actually dead.



CarynFromHermosa said:


> I was totally fooled by the Jin flashback! That being said, this show has not made a habit of showing us things that are irrelevant (other than the little Easter eggs). In fact, someone mentioned that all flashbacks from this season will be only those germane to the plot. Perhaps we missed the point?


The final Dharma site will be known as the Panda Station, you heard it here first


----------



## Mike Farrington (Nov 16, 2000)

unicorngoddess said:


> She wasn't in custody. She had a nice house in California and was pretty settled by the time her case came to trial. It wasn't until then that the DA requested that she be held throughout the duration of her trial. Then she made a plea bargain that tied her to the state of California from there on out.
> 
> I think the most likely reason is she has just become very protective of Aaron and doesn't want to do anything that might put him at risk.


From my experience watching television court dramas over the years (no real-life knowledge), I though you could be free pending trial but have your travel restricted. Especially international travel. For example, the court might confiscate your passport on condition of your pre-trial release.


----------



## unicorngoddess (Nov 20, 2005)

Mike Farrington said:


> From my experience watching television court dramas over the years (no real-life knowledge), I though you could be free pending trial but have your travel restricted. Especially international travel. For example, the court might confiscate your passport on condition of your pre-trial release.


Not until a hearing is set, which is what we saw in the beginning of Kate's flashback.


----------



## MacThor (Feb 7, 2002)

At this point are we to assume Charles Widmore is "The Economist?"


----------



## Jericho Dog (Feb 10, 2006)

jamesbobo said:


> As far as Desmond ever meeting Michael; if he did, would he remember it? With his "forward/backward" experiences in the previous episode who knows what he remembers.
> 
> Could Jin be alive on the island? Maybe that's why Sun called his name, in the state she was in she forgot that he's supposed to be "dead."
> And on that note:
> ...





Spoiler



That's what I was thinking. Not too much of a stretch since we'd just seen his gravestone.
Yeah, but who knows.....


----------



## Jericho Dog (Feb 10, 2006)

My first thought was that Jin must be dead, the way Sun was dealing with it, such real emotion. But thinking back, she could just be 'missing him' because she knows he's still on the island and not actually dead.
I can see Jin putting her on the helicopter just to get her off the island for the baby's sake, and not actually going himself.


----------



## Mike Farrington (Nov 16, 2000)

Jericho Dog said:


> My first thought was that Jin must be dead, the way Sun was dealing with it, such real emotion. But thinking back, she could just be 'missing him' because she knows he's still on the island and not actually dead.
> I can see Jin putting her on the helicopter just to get her off the island for the baby's sake, and not actually going himself.


Let's not forget that she was drugged up with her epidural (or whatever meds they gave her). So it's hard to say whether she was longing for her dead husband or for her missing husband. Good thing she didn't spill the beans in such a state.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

For me (obviously not for all of you), the Oceanic 6 business is like the "Did Sun sleep with her tutor?" business--it's been resolved, except in the minds of the sadly delusional , and it's Kate, Jack, Hurley, Sayid, Aaron, Sun. And that answers half of the second question, which is "Who are the Oceanic +2?" One of them must be Claire, to explain the existence of Aaron. But that leaves a question that it really surprises me hasn't been asked seriously yet, who is the other +1? I'm going to assume that it's somebody who they had to say survived the crash for some reason and then died, like Claire. So who is it, and what's the reason? I bet figuring out the answer to that one will be a lot more fruitful than arguing about whether Aaron counts or if Sun slept with her tutor...


----------



## Jericho Dog (Feb 10, 2006)

Mike Farrington said:


> Let's not forget that she was drugged up with her epidural (or whatever meds they gave her). So it's hard to say whether she was longing for her dead husband or for her missing husband.


I agree. It's pretty vague enough that she could be doing either one.

Dang writers!!!!


----------



## bruinfan (Jan 17, 2006)

Cindy1230 said:


> Okay, timeline stuff.
> 
> I don't know if i have the right dates, maybe someone can fill them in, but my question is if people off the island think Jin died Sept 22, and Sun concieved a few weeks after that... is no one going to question if Jin is the father or not?
> 
> ...


There is a simple explanation...

Sun is now member of the Mile High Club


----------



## getbak (Oct 8, 2004)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> But that leaves a question that it really surprises me hasn't been asked seriously yet, who is the other +1? I'm going to assume that it's somebody who they had to say survived the crash for some reason and then died, like Claire. So who is it, and what's the reason? I bet figuring out the answer to that one will be a lot more fruitful than arguing about whether Aaron counts or if Sun slept with her tutor...


I was thinking it might be Jin, to explain the conception of the baby, but his gravestone has the date of the crash as his date of death, so I don't know if it makes sense.


----------



## jrgtivo (Mar 8, 2004)

How long have they been on the island? A few months? If so, Sun's conception date is basically irrelevant. I think Julliet said she was 9 weeks pregnant. She could easily say she got pregnant the night before the flight. Jin does not have to be one of the +2s.

I had to pause when I first saw the baby, I though it might have been michael's. Hurly said she looked like Jin, and I though Sun's response was a little weird. Hurly's comment aside. This baby may not be from the same pregnancy (although Sun made a comment that Jin was right about it being a girl).

One thing I thought was interesting: When the captain told sayid and des that it was Chuck Widmore's expedition, Des reacted and the captain said "you know him". It wasn't a question. I think it might have been "That's right, you know him" or something like that. Didn't sound like a question and there was no question mark in the CC. So the captain knows who desmond is. He wouldn't have been on any 815 manifests. hmmm.


----------



## danterner (Mar 4, 2005)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> For me (obviously not for all of you), the Oceanic 6 business is like the "Did Sun sleep with her tutor?" business--it's been resolved, except in the minds of the sadly delusional , and it's Kate, Jack, Hurley, Sayid, *Aaron, Sun*.


Claudia Black is a member of the O6?


----------



## danterner (Mar 4, 2005)

Mike Farrington said:


> Did anyone notice that Sun's accent has basically disappeared?


Yes - especially in the scene when she was speaking with Juliette, regarding the prenatals. It was pretty jarring.


----------



## Mike Farrington (Nov 16, 2000)

getbak said:


> I was thinking it might be Jin, to explain the conception of the baby, but his gravestone has the date of the crash as his date of death, so I don't know if it makes sense.


Sun could simply say that the baby must have been conceived the day before the crash. Who's to say otherwise? It's not like anyone is going to force a sonogram to be performed, and then quibble over a few days difference between the stated DOC and the calculated DOC.

I see no reason to obsess about who the other +2 person must be. It's just a made up story anyway.

Also, DOC is a weird thing. We know the date exact DOC of our children because it happened in a pietre dish. But the DOC labelled on all the medical records was 2 weeks off to jive with the math they do for normal pregnancies (x days from last period).


----------



## jehma (Jan 22, 2003)

My daughter is watching the ep right now. Two thoughts on the second viewing:

1. There were definitely 2 toothbrushes in Sun's place when she was packing for the hospital, which I see as intentional misdirection.
2. When she's in labor, Sun sees a man in the hall and thinks it's Jin for a second. I find it hard to believe she could react like that if he were dead. She wasn't that heavily drugged.


----------



## jehma (Jan 22, 2003)

The scene in the tent where Jin forgives Sun for her infidelity is very sweet.

And very sad  I hope they get a happy ending when this is all over with.


----------



## unicorngoddess (Nov 20, 2005)

getbak said:


> I was thinking it might be Jin, to explain the conception of the baby, but his gravestone has the date of the crash as his date of death, so I don't know if it makes sense.


+1. I think it HAS to be Jin. Or else Jin isn't the father or Sun is claiming someone else is the father. Sun being rescued 3+ months since the plane crash and being 2+ months pregnant would be rather suspicious to the outside world if we're NOT counting Jin as a +2. When it comes to pregnancies, a couple of weeks make a difference. They were on the island for about a month before Sun concieved. you can explain that away as, "Oh, I must've gotten pregnant the night before we took off." Especially since she was going to be leaving her husband at the airport and run away. Then people would be wondering why a baby being born so early is so matured. This isn't a matter of being a few days off the conception date...it's many WEEKS off.

ETA: According to Lostpedia timeline, the plane crash was on Sept 22 and Sun concieved roughly about Oct 26th. That's more than just a few days' discrepency in the DOC.


----------



## latrobe7 (May 1, 2005)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> So who is it, and what's the reason? I bet figuring out the answer to that one will be a lot more fruitful than arguing about whether Aaron counts or if Sun slept with her tutor...


I don't know about that; in the podcast and in interviews the producers have been suggesting that it doesn't matter much. The excerpt below is from an interview with Carlton Cuse and Damon Lindelof included in the latest Jay & Jack podcast:



Spoiler



...are we gonna find out who those other two are?

Damon: Well, you know, that's part of a fiction as concocted by, you know, the Oceanic 6,um many many things that Jack said on the stand in Kate's trial were untrue, although he was under oath, um, you know, like the Marshall dying in the crash, for example, amongst others; so the idea that you know, that - we want to very clear on the idea that there were only ever the Oceanic 6; you know, so the idea that he said "8 of us that survived the crash", the identities of those two other people are probably not as significant as everyone is making it out to be; it just feels like it's a believable fiction.


----------



## acej80 (Jan 19, 2003)

I just figured out the 6th of the oceanic 6. Unless the episode of Expose that Sun was watching was a re-run, then Nikki must be alive to create the new show. Nikki is obviously the 6th.


----------



## unicorngoddess (Nov 20, 2005)

acej80 said:


> I just figured out the 6th of the oceanic 6. Unless the episode of Expose that Sun was watching was a re-run, then Nikki must be alive to create the new show. Nikki is obviously the 6th.


No, silly. Everyone knows that Nikki was let go from Expose. Her character was killed off. She was just a guest star...and you know what happens to guest stars


----------



## jeff125va (Mar 15, 2001)

acej80 said:


> I just figured out the 6th of the oceanic 6. Unless the episode of Expose that Sun was watching was a re-run, then Nikki must be alive to create the new show. Nikki is obviously the 6th.


It was the scene we saw them filming in "Expose" (the episode).


----------



## stellie93 (Feb 25, 2006)

I really don't get why the producers said so clearly that we would know who the O6 are. At the time they said that we were already debating about Aaron, so I expected something clear as to whether he was included or not. Like a group photo. 

So are we assuming that there is no body in Jin's grave whether he's alive or dead? I don't get why you would make a grave and everything when he's supposedly buried on an island in the Pacific. Do they normally do that when you don't have a body at all? Use up and cemetery plot with nothing buried there? 

While I'm willing to concede that Michael is Ben's man on the boat,  I don't see why it impressed Locke so much that he let Ben go free. We all know Michael will do or say anything--including murder--to protect Walt. Why trust him? Did Ben tell Locke something else, or did he have another conversation with Taller Walt?

Explaining the survivors in light of the wreckage requires more than just, opps there were 8 less bodies than we thought. Aren't they in a completely different place?

I don't quite see the Dharma people as innocents who stumbled onto the island by accident. Didn't they originally make the poison gas that Ben used on them?


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

stellie93 said:


> I really don't get why the producers said so clearly that we would know who the O6 are. At the time they said that we were already debating about Aaron, so I expected something clear as to whether he was included or not. Like a group photo.


I think the fact that we have seen exactly six of them in the flash-forwards is pretty conclusive, but obviously some folks disagree...


----------



## bruinfan (Jan 17, 2006)

stellie93 said:


> So are we assuming that there is no body in Jin's grave whether he's alive or dead? I don't get why you would make a grave and everything when he's supposedly buried on an island in the Pacific. Do they normally do that when you don't have a body at all? Use up and cemetery plot with nothing buried there?


yes... as long as you pay for the plot, you can do whatever with it... bury an empty casket for the funeral's sake, or just buy a tombstone/tablet.

you can sell it... or you can just leave it grass forever.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> I think the fact that we have seen exactly six of them in the flash-forwards is pretty conclusive _(...)_


Six of whom?

We've seen exactly *5* people in flash-forwards who were Oceanic 815 passengers: Jack, Kate, Hurley, Sun and Sayid. That's it. *5*.

We've also seen two people from the island who were not Oceanic 815 passengers: Ben and Aaron.

I'm not sure who this "them" are of whom we've seen "exactly six"...


----------



## jeff125va (Mar 15, 2001)

Cindy1230 said:


> Okay, timeline stuff.
> 
> I don't know if i have the right dates, maybe someone can fill them in, but my question is if people off the island think Jin died Sept 22, and Sun concieved a few weeks after that... is no one going to question if Jin is the father or not?
> 
> ...


I think it's hard to say whether the baby came early or not. The doctor said the baby was in distress, so she could have felt something more than just labor pains. There definitely seemed to be more wrong with her than that, sort of delirious talking about Jin, etc. So whatever was wrong might have had nothing to do with it being early.

I agree that the difference between her conception date and the purported date of Jin's death is not that big of a deal. It's no one's business how far along she was (other than her doctor, who can't really tell anyone, presumably) and she could have just told people it came early.

I believe that Juliet said that most or all of the women died between the middle of their second and beginning of their third trimesters, which would be 20-26 weeks. I think that's more relevant than when the symptoms she was talking about would have begun. She could have been there long enough for that stuff to start and then been rescued and recovered. The D.O.C. according to the sonogram was exactly 9 weeks ago, so she's "11 weeks pregnant" (40 weeks includes the two weeks pre-conception, right?) So that gives her another 9 to 15 weeks.

In any case, we can place the events in this episode's flash-forward some time before July 2005.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Amnesia said:


> I'm not sure who this "them" are of whom we've seen "exactly six"...


Nobody has ever made a convincing argument that Aaron doesn't count, and he was the only "reveal" in one of the weeks when they said one of the Oceanic 6 would be revealed...


----------



## jeff125va (Mar 15, 2001)

Amnesia said:


> Six of whom?
> 
> We've seen exactly *5* people in flash-forwards who were Oceanic 815 passengers: Jack, Kate, Hurley, Sun and Sayid. That's it. *5*.
> 
> ...


If they hadn't told us explicitly that they have been revealed at this point, I'd agree that your point makes Aaron's status inconclusive. But they have told us that, and the only two possibilities are Aaron and Ben. To make Aaron fit your criterion, you simply have to rephrase it slightly. I can't come up with any way to make Ben fit. He had nothing to do with the flight and by all appearance would do anything he could to eschew celebrity and fame.


----------



## mqpickles (Nov 11, 2004)

Amnesia said:


> Six of whom?
> 
> We've seen exactly *5* people in flash-forwards who were Oceanic 815 passengers: Jack, Kate, Hurley, Sun and Sayid. That's it. *5*.
> 
> ...


Aaron survived the crash. He was in utero and therefore didn't have his own ticket, but what makes people so sure being a "passenger" is the key?

There hasn't been a rule stated that the Oceanic 6 membership requires having been a passenger listed on the flight manifest. Anyone from the plane _could _count, including Aaron. If Cindy the flight attendant were one of the six survivors to make it back, it would almost certainly still be Oceanic 6, not "Oceanic 5 + 1 crewmember."


----------



## jeff125va (Mar 15, 2001)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Nobody has ever made a convincing argument that Aaron doesn't count, and he was the only "reveal" in one of the weeks when they said one of the Oceanic 6 would be revealed...


That's correct. Kate's revelation (in "Through The Looking Glass") had been confirmed in the podcast prior to the airing of "Eggtown."


----------



## unicorngoddess (Nov 20, 2005)

mqpickles said:


> Aaron survived the crash. He was in utero and therefore didn't have his own ticket, but what makes people so sure being a "passenger" is the key?


Exactly...Aaron WAS on the plane. Just because he didn't have a ticket doesn't mean he wasn't a passenger. If I'm flying with a 6 month old and I didn't buy that baby a seat, that baby would still be considered a survivor. To say Aaron ISN'T a survivor of Flight 815 is kinda ridiculous. Aaron was a passenger, even if he didn't have his own ticket. His method of travel was just different than anyone elses.


----------



## TheGreyOwl (Aug 18, 2003)

Mike Farrington said:


> Sun could simply say that the baby must have been conceived the day before the crash. Who's to say otherwise? It's not like anyone is going to force a sonogram to be performed, and then quibble over a few days difference between the stated DOC and the calculated DOC.
> 
> I see no reason to obsess about who the other +2 person must be. It's just a made up story anyway.


It's a made up story, but why make it up that particular way instead of just saying 6 survived and leaving it at that? One has to be Claire, so they had to say at least 7 survived and 1 died. But there must have been some other reason to add the 8th person into the story. I'm thinking it has to be Jin...wasn't the baby conceived like a month after they got on the island or am I remembering incorrectly? A difference of a few days may be easy to fake but a month would not be for any competent doctor.


----------



## Mike Farrington (Nov 16, 2000)

TheGreyOwl said:


> It's a made up story, but why make it up that particular way instead of just saying 6 survived and leaving it at that? One has to be Claire, so they had to say at least 7 survived and 1 died. But there must have been some other reason to add the 8th person into the story. I'm thinking it has to be Jin...wasn't the baby conceived like a month after they got on the island or am I remembering incorrectly? A difference of a few days may be easy to fake but a month would not be for any competent doctor.


But his tombstone says 9/22/04 -- the day of the crash. How can she claim to have been impregnated after the crash, if Jin "died" on that day. I doubt the cover story would include Jack extracting dead Jin's semen and preserving it for up to a month.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

mqpickles said:


> Aaron survived the crash.


IMO, he did not "survive" the crash any more than Ji Yeon did (since neither was born yet)...but that's ultimately a philosophical argument.

If we're arguing about what the media would call a group of crash survivors + a baby born on the island....well, they might count the baby and they might not. They also might count Ben (somehow) and they might not. Who can tell with the media---especially a fictional media.


----------



## latrobe7 (May 1, 2005)

Amnesia said:


> IMO, he did not "survive" the crash any more than Ji Yeon did (since neither was born yet)...but that's ultimately a philosophical argument.


IMO, it's a factual difference since Ji Yeon was concieved on the island. So yes, one existed and on the flight and subsequently on the island and therefore 'survived' the crash. One did not exist at the time of the crash, and therefore could not have 'survived' it.


----------



## stellie93 (Feb 25, 2006)

I guess if you look at it like a group of people getting off a plane in LA with press and media circus going on, and there are 6 of them--2 of them a woman holding her baby--the press would say 6 and probably not even think about when the baby was born until later.


----------



## ADG (Aug 20, 2003)

I always thought Jack's story about 2 dying on the island was something that was made up. "Why" it was made up is what I think is important. Was it a story agreed upon by all the survivors remaining on the island? Was it something agreed upon by the Oceanic 6? *Are *there survivors remaining on the island? I think all this is what we're destined to learn.


----------



## Turtleboy (Mar 24, 2001)

ADG said:


> I always thought Jack's story about 2 dying on the island was something that was made up. "Why" it was made up is what I think is important. Was it a story agreed upon by all the survivors remaining on the island? Was it something agreed upon by the Oceanic 6? *Are *there survivors remaining on the island? I think all this is what we're destined to learn.


Of _COURSE_ it's made up. The story is that everyone but 8 survived the _crash_. We knew from the start that it was made up.


----------



## ADG (Aug 20, 2003)

Turtleboy said:


> Of _COURSE_ it's made up. The story is that everyone but 8 survived the _crash_. We knew from the start that it was made up.


From reading posts earlier in this thread I got the idea that not everyone thought it was made up. Perhaps I misunderstood those posts. Regardless, as I said I think what's important is how and why the story was made up.


----------



## MitchO (Nov 7, 2003)

Honestly, I find it rather silly that so many of you are SO SURE about who's in the 6, what it means, etc ... just be friggin' patient.


----------



## Delta13 (Jan 25, 2003)

The reason 8 survive the crash but 2 die is simple psychology. The story has more tragedy that way, and it would feel a little odd if everyone who survived the crash survived the water trek, the starvation on the island, etc. It makes the story seem right. Ben's behind the Oceanic 6, right- then it's just psychology.



Cainebj said:


> The fake bodies story didn't make any sense to me
> - not ONE of the real dead passengers has dental records?





uncdrew said:


> Agreed.
> 
> Not to mention...
> 
> ...


We have no evidence that the world knows that the wreckage is fake. This episode seemed to clear some of that up. Ben's group arranged for the wreckage, Widmore paid serious coin to go down and research it. It's too deep for body recovery, as Devdogaz pointed out, and the feds would have the black box if they could. The Christiane I probably brought up a fake black box, if one at all.

Widmore searched after Frank spilled the beans, maybe. But Widmore has no interest in this information becoming public. I seriously doubt anyone else knows. So he has no interest in checking dental records, he ALREADY knows it's fake. It's all just part of the war between Ben and Widmore.

The passenger count is easy to fix - easy to miscount at that depth, passengers were thrown around, and let's not forget that the plane was in broken pieces on the ocean floor. 8 missing from that would be a snap to explain. The 8 survivors (give or take  ) could have floated for a bit. We don't know, since we don't know where they were rescued from or how close to the wreckage it might be. Most assuredly not the current island.



jeff125va said:


> Sayid knows. He was there when they all figured it out.
> 
> We never saw Naomi experience any of the effects that Nikki did. Gradual inability to move or speak, etc. And it's been several days longer since Nikki died than the spider poison kept Nikki paralyzed. And she would have had an untreated knife wound in her back for several days as well.


I'm starting to lose faith in the spider bite idea for Nikki. But I almost guarantee she will show up next week ...


Spoiler



... since Michael's backstory looks to be told, so we will probably see her on the freighter.


----------



## Turtleboy (Mar 24, 2001)

ADG said:


> From reading posts earlier in this thread I got the idea that not everyone thought it was made up. Perhaps I misunderstood those posts. Regardless, as I said I think what's important is how and why the story was made up.


Not everyone thought that two naked Asians in bed together had sex either. People read ridiculous things into this show.


----------



## smak (Feb 11, 2000)

I think the +2 of the 6+2 are for a reason, and one of the reasons could be they have to explain the 2 babies. 

If they are getting off the island within weeks, then the baby can't be Kate's. There is a woman that was on the plane, who is not one of the 6, and she was 8 months pregnant. She has to be one of the +2. There's no other explanation.

The Sun baby looks like a month's difference, so maybe they could get away with it.

As for who is #6, I am wondering if a VERY pregnant passenger is noted on the manifest as being VERY pregnant. If so, I can easily see that as being a fair enough reason to have Aaron be #6.

And besides that. The "Oceanic 6" is just a media created name. If it really only were 5 + Aaron, what were they going to call it, the "Oceanic 5 + unborn baby, who some people think should have been counted as a passenger"?

-smak-


----------



## cherry ghost (Sep 13, 2005)

who's in the casket?


----------



## gchance (Dec 6, 2002)

cherry ghost said:


> who's in the casket?


In an AP interview with Harold Parrineau that I just read (which pissed me off because the headline was "Michael's back on Lost"), he says that before Michael returned, he thought Michael was in the coffin, but now he doesn't know. 

Earlier I was rewatching The Other Woman with the subtitles and had a thought... what if Michael *isn't* Ben's man? We're assuming he is (me included) but it was an interesting thought. He could be like Jack in the flashforwards, desperate to get back to the island for whatever reason.

I'm not saying I believe it, but it would make things interesting. 

BTW, how long has it been since Michael & Walt left? A few weeks?

Greg


----------



## Dennis Wilkinson (Sep 24, 2001)

smak said:


> If they are getting off the island within weeks, then the baby can't be Kate's. There is a woman that was on the plane, who is not one of the 6, and she was 8 months pregnant. She has to be one of the +2. There's no other explanation.


Not having an accurate timeline doesn't really help, but until this episode, I've been going under the assumption that, to the outside world, at least, the timeline looks like this (remember, I'm talking about the lie they're telling the rest of the world here):

- Plane crashes. Kate is pregnant but not noticeably (3 months?), Sun is pregnant (on the order of a few days post-conception).
- Stuff happens. Outside world oblivious to the survivors.
- Kate gives birth
- Jack, Kate, Aaron, Sayid, Hurley, and Sun are rescued (and are the Oceanic Six). Sun is now noticeably pregnant.
- Sun gives birth.

It doesn't make sense to me that Kate (given her "wanted" status) would be allowed to keep Aaron after the "rescue" unless she could convincingly claim the child was hers (admittedly, modern medicine should be able to confirm/disprove that pretty quickly, but I'll assume that whoever's masterminding the rest of the lie can handle coming up with some falsified results.)

This episode might make the timing too tight for my timeline, though. Kate and Sun would both have to board 815 while not noticeably pregnant, they'd have to appear to be missing long enough for only Kate to give birth, and for both Sun to still be pregnant and Aaron to look the right age at the apparent time of rescue. Claiming that Sun got pregnant post-crash would open things up again, but that would imply they're also claiming someone other than Jin as the father, which doesn't appear to be the case.


----------



## steve614 (May 1, 2006)

Cindy1230 said:


> When Juliet told Jin about Sun's affair... didn't you guys all go,... daaaaaammmmmmmnnnnnnn.


I did, and I expected her to do more than just slap.



jkeegan said:


> ... Aaron wasn't on the Oceanic plane...





Amnesia said:


> Six of whom?
> 
> We've seen exactly *5* people in flash-forwards who were Oceanic 815 passengers: Jack, Kate, Hurley, Sun and Sayid. That's it.


Then who was in Claire's belly during the flight?



unicorngoddess said:


> ...Aaron WAS on the plane. Just because he didn't have a ticket doesn't mean he wasn't a passenger. If I'm flying with a 6 month old and I didn't buy that baby a seat, that baby would still be considered a survivor. To say Aaron ISN'T a survivor of Flight 815 is kinda ridiculous. Aaron was a passenger, even if he didn't have his own ticket. His method of travel was just different than anyone elses.





smak said:


> ... If it really only were 5 + Aaron, what were they going to call it, the "Oceanic 5 + unborn baby, who some people think should have been counted as a passenger"?
> 
> -smak-


FINALLY, some people get it.


----------



## Cearbhaill (Aug 1, 2004)

gchance said:


> Earlier I was rewatching The Other Woman with the subtitles and had a thought... what if Michael *isn't* Ben's man? We're assuming he is (me included) but it was an interesting thought. He could be like Jack in the flashforwards, desperate to get back to the island for whatever reason.


Given the amount of misdirection we see on this show, I think it is a fair bet that you are correct and we should not assume anything.

Just as this weeks being about Jin being dead with the


Spoiler



preview voiceover saying "someone will *die*" leads many people to think Jin will die next episode. I think the misdirection is so heavyhanded that Jin is about the last person I would expect to see die this season.


 If it isn't directly addressed, shown, or proven then it is fair game for a twist IMO.

I think half the 'clues' they throw out are intended only to make people on the message boards dance. *We *are the ones who are lost.


----------



## TriBruin (Dec 10, 2003)

Cearbhaill said:


> Given the amount of misdirection we see on this show, I think it is a fair bet that you are correct and we should not assume anything.


Spoiler from next weeks preview deleted



> I think half the 'clues' they throw out are intended only to make people on the message boards dance. *We *are the ones who are lost.


Cearbhaill, can you please edit your post to spoilerize the talk about the preview for next week? Some people do not watch the previews and what you just posted was a huge SPOILER!


----------



## dianebrat (Jul 6, 2002)

Cearbhaill said:


> Given the amount of misdirection we see on this show, I think it is a fair bet that you are correct and we should not assume anything.


I agree 101%!
I'm also very supportive of the "Aarron is one of the 6" discussions, but I personally am yet to believe he's one of the 6.

I'm just stubborn and ornery.

Diane


----------



## jamesbobo (Jun 18, 2000)

Spoiler



Someone will die next week. We last left Miles with a granade in his mouth. While I think it's a fake, I could be wrong. Maybe it's him.


----------



## gchance (Dec 6, 2002)

Cearbhaill said:


> Just as this weeks being about Jin being dead with the preview voiceover saying "someone will *die*"


Previews are created by the network, not the producers. Sometimes they exist in an alternate reality. If you've been watching TV for any length of time, you should know that. "Someone will die" could mean that in a flashforward an extra will die.

That's one reason many people don't watch trailers. That and they give away too much.

Greg


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

steve614 said:


> Then who was in Claire's belly during the flight?


"Who"? As in "what person"? No one. Aaron wasn't in Claire's belly any more than Ji Yeon was in Sun and Jin's respective bodies. But again, that's a philosophical argument and a little off-topic for this thread.


Delta13 said:


> This episode seemed to clear some of that up. Ben's group arranged for the wreckage, Widmore paid serious coin to go down and research it.


Are we supposed to take the captain's word that it was Ben who arranged for the wreckage? Even if he were telling the truth ("don't trust the captain"!) as he knew it, there's no reason to believe that he really knows what actually happened.


----------



## TheGreyOwl (Aug 18, 2003)

Amnesia said:


> "Who"? As in "what person"? No one. Aaron wasn't in Claire's belly any more than Ji Yeon was in Sun and Jin's respective bodies. But again, that's a philosophical argument and a little off-topic for this thread.


I think you might be remembering incorrectly. There's a clear difference between them. Ji Yeon was conceived on the island, so it can be considered "philosophical" whether she was on the plane (I don't think it makes sense to say she was). But Claire was 8-9 months pregnant with Aaron when she got on the plane. Aaron was clearly inside Claire's womb during the flight. There is a big difference between the two situations.


----------



## Cindy1230 (Oct 31, 2003)

Cindy1230 said:


> Okay, timeline stuff.
> 
> I don't know if i have the right dates, maybe someone can fill them in, but my question is if people off the island think Jin died Sept 22, and *Sun conceived a few weeks after that... is no one going to question if Jin is the father or not*?
> 
> ...





unicorngoddess said:


> +1. I think it HAS to be Jin. Or else Jin isn't the father or Sun is claiming someone else is the father. Sun being rescued 3+ months since the plane crash and being 2+ months pregnant would be rather suspicious to the outside world if we're NOT counting Jin as a +2. When it comes to pregnancies, a couple of weeks make a difference. They were on the island for about a month before Sun concieved. you can explain that away as, "Oh, I must've gotten pregnant the night before we took off." Especially since she was going to be leaving her husband at the airport and run away. Then people would be wondering why a baby being born so early is so matured. This isn't a matter of being a few days off the conception date...it's many WEEKS off.
> 
> ETA: According to Lostpedia timeline, the plane crash was on Sept 22 and Sun concieved roughly about Oct 26th. That's more than just a few days' discrepency in the DOC.


Thank you very much supporting my post and making it make more sense, because I didnt think anyone was getting me



jeff125va said:


> I agree that the difference between her conception date and the purported date of Jin's death is not that big of a deal. It's no one's business how far along she was (other than her doctor, who can't really tell anyone, presumably) and she could have just told people it came early.
> 
> In any case, we can place the events in this episode's flash-forward some time before July 2005.


I agree that its not a big deal in the storyline, etc.. but IMO I find it to be quite a discrepancy.



Mike Farrington said:


> But his tombstone says 9/22/04 -- the day of the crash. *How can she claim to have been impregnated after the crash, if Jin "died" on that day*.


Thats what I said already and have been trying to say!!!
I guess I wasn't very clear.. ok moving on.


----------



## Squeak (May 12, 2000)

Amnesia said:


> "Who"? As in "what person"? No one. Aaron wasn't in Claire's belly any more than Ji Yeon was in Sun and Jin's respective bodies.


That is blatantly wrong.

Ji Yeon was not conceived.

Aaron was alive and well (but not born) in Claire's womb.

Even the most die-hard pro choice person will not argue that there is an alive baby inside an 8-mo pregnant women. Heck, police will charge people with murder for causing a fetus that late to be killed.

Aaron survived the crash -- there is no doubt about that.


----------



## thatmeowgirl (Oct 8, 2004)

Spoiler



The following makes me believe Mr. Friendly went to NYC late December to retrieve Michael for Ben who will get him on the freighter as his spy:

Source: Hawaii Blog 11/18 -

From Fiji to New York City, it's been a busy week for Lost. The production returned to Chapin Lane (which previously played Bangkok in a Jack flashback) and the area around Mark's Garage to recreate the Big Apple. Streets were lit up with the Christmas spirit, and people bundled up for the imaginary winter cold. The omnipresent green newsstand was also standing by. A narrow alley, a busy street, a New York Yellow Cab. What could possibly happen here? As it turns out, the "where" and "what" weren't the half of it. It's the "who" that's the real surprise. Over the course of the evening, I and another Lost fan who lived in the apartment building across the street spotted a veritable parade of familiar faces. Harold Perrineau seemed to be the center of attention, which is hardly a surprise since we've seen him in Manhattan. Indeed, his clean cut look suggests that this is a flashback. But who should he meet in a narrow alley, but one M.C. Gainey. And it's not a friendly encounter, either, involving a gun, and a fistfight. The sounds of the confrontation echo down Honolulu streets. Christmas lights are strung everywhere. Smoke machines blanket the ground with white fog. Lights and camera cranes are brought in, as older cars are fitted with New York plates. And what's this? A car crash?


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

Squeak said:


> Aaron survived the crash -- there is no doubt about that.


Sorry, no. Aaron did not survive the crash. He was not on the plane.

There is no doubt that Aaron was not a crash survivor. Instead, he was born on the island. You can't be both. Here's a rule of thumb---if you say that someone "survived" something, you have to be able to talk about how old they were at the time. If your only answer involves negative numbers, then forget it...

If he was born on the plane, then you could say he did or did not survive the crash...but not if he hadn't been born. Instead, you can only talk about whether or not Claire survived the crash.


----------



## mqpickles (Nov 11, 2004)

Squeak said:


> Even the most die-hard pro choice person will not argue that there is an alive baby inside an 8-mo pregnant women.


 That's not true. In fact, that's the very point Amnesia _is _arguing, just not in those exact words.


----------



## ToddNeedsTiVo (Sep 2, 2003)

Amnesia said:


> Sorry, no. Aaron did not survive the crash. He was not on the plane.
> 
> There is no doubt that Aaron was not a crash survivor. Instead, he was born on the island. You can't be both. Here's a rule of thumb---if you say that someone "survived" something, you have to be able to talk about how old they were at the time. If your only answer involves negative numbers, then forget it...
> 
> If he was born on the plane, then you could say he did or did not survive the crash...but not if he hadn't been born. Instead, you can only talk about whether or not Claire survived the crash.


Oh, okay then. I guess Claire was flying from Sydney to Los Angels with a basketball under her shirt. 

Come on! Where do you think children come from? The stork?

A pregnant woman in a car accident or plane crash could suffer injuries that cause the death of the unborn child, but not her own death. In such a scenario, people might say "she lost the baby in the accident" or "her baby didn't survive the crash."

Apparently such babies have "negative age" and thus do not yet exist.

Likewise, there have been accidents where the woman died a short time later but the baby is delivered via emergency c-section and survives.

Whether or not Aaron is being counted among the Oceanic Six remains to be seen, but he most certainly survived the crash, in utero, along with his mother.


----------



## Delta13 (Jan 25, 2003)

Amnesia is arguing a legal and political viewpoint that is totally immaterial. That he may or may not be wrong is also totally beside the point (and politics are a no-no here). He keeps missing the point: it doesn't matter Aaron's legal status on the day of the crash. *It only matters what the fictional media dubbed these people when they were rescued!*

Argue away all you want it does not matter. Some fictional wag at CNN or MSNBC came up with the tagline "Oceanic 6" and it stuck, most likely.


----------



## hanumang (Jan 28, 2002)

gchance said:


> BTW, how long has it been since Michael & Walt left? A few weeks?


Yeah, somewhere in the vicinity of 4 weeks.

If we go by what Locke said (during the hatch scenes with Desmond), the finale of season 2 occurred 60 to 65 days after the crash.

The crash was Sept 22, and it's (about) Dec 25th now, so Michael and Walt left the island about 30 days ago.


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

gchance said:


> I'm 100% sure I'm smeeking (I haven't read any messages yet) but...
> 
> OF ALL THE DIRTY...
> 
> ...


It was either an interview or one of the podcasts where they said that they can have flashbacks or flashforwards, but that within the sequence of flashbacks/forwards the story will be told in a chronological manner. In other words, the second flash-X would chronologically follow the first; the third will follow the second, and so on.

So did they break one of their own rules here? I guess the loophole is that they were telling two stories -- Sun's and Jin's; but that would make it the first episode where they told backstories for two individuals, wouldn't it?


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

jkeegan said:


> hmm.. Good point, and I thiiiiink you're right..


Maybe in another life?


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

jkeegan said:


> Not just "on the show", but _off the island_..
> 
> O6. _Oceanic_ 6. Aaron wasn't on the Oceanic plane. It's Michael.
> 
> (what kinda good O6 flashback's is Aaron gonna have?  flashforwards, maaaybe, but..)


Aaron could have some _interesting_ flashbacks to his time on the Island, but they may not be able to show them during prime time. Or any time on ABC.


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

thudtrain said:


> Not to mention when the 'real' world found the fake wreck, all passengers were accounted for. Then the Oceanic 6 were discovered, but yet, there were still the correct number of bodies in the wreckage. Did nobody think something fishy was going on?


I don't think anyone did a real head count to ensure that all 325 (or whatever number) bodies were still on board. The camera could only scan the outside, and I'm sure that visibility of the inside of the fuselage through the little windows, at that dept, would be near zero,

That said, there were enough bodies visible so that the number of survivors would have to be quite low. Perhaps that's the reason for the 8/6. I still don't understand why we need 8 to have survived the initial crash. Seven to account for Aaron (assuming Kate's not pretending Aaron is hers). Why eight?

Frank recognized the pilot was wrong. Is that why he was selected for the "rescue" party. I'm guessing they were not expected to survive. So far we have Naomi, Regina and that un-named spot on the wall. I'm guessing Frank and Dan are not long for this world either. And Miles can't hold onto that grenade forever.


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> For me (obviously not for all of you), the Oceanic 6 business is like the "Did Sun sleep with her tutor?" business--it's been resolved, except in the minds of the sadly delusional , and it's Kate, Jack, Hurley, Sayid, Aaron, Sun. And that answers half of the second question, which is "Who are the Oceanic +2?" One of them must be Claire, to explain the existence of Aaron. But that leaves a question that it really surprises me hasn't been asked seriously yet, who is the other +1? I'm going to assume that it's somebody who they had to say survived the crash for some reason and then died, like Claire. So who is it, and what's the reason? I bet figuring out the answer to that one will be a lot more fruitful than arguing about whether Aaron counts or if Sun slept with her tutor...


Could the other +1 be the Marshall? It would be pretty hard for Kate -- being handcuffed to him and all -- to be up and around helping others get out. If the Marshall "survived" the crash he could have removed the handcuffs.

Or she could have taken the key off his cold, dead body, but that would interfere with her "hero" status a little.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

Delta13 said:


> [Amnesia] keeps missing the point: it doesn't matter Aaron's legal status on the day of the crash. *It only matters what the fictional media dubbed these people when they were rescued!*


I didn't miss that point at all. In fact, I brought it up myself back in post 200...


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

Mike Farrington said:


> Sun could simply say that the baby must have been conceived the day before the crash. Who's to say otherwise? It's not like anyone is going to force a sonogram to be performed, and then quibble over a few days difference between the stated DOC and the calculated DOC.
> 
> I see no reason to obsess about who the other +2 person must be. It's just a made up story anyway.
> 
> Also, DOC is a weird thing. We know the date exact DOC of our children because it happened in a pietre dish. But the DOC labelled on all the medical records was 2 weeks off to jive with the math they do for normal pregnancies (x days from last period).


But it's made up for a reason. Right now we are assuming one of them is Claire, and the reason for that is pretty obvious. We have no idea who the other is, but we know that there is a reason for having another person "survive" the crash. And that makes the discussion worthwhile.


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

unicorngoddess said:


> +1. I think it HAS to be Jin. Or else Jin isn't the father or Sun is claiming someone else is the father. Sun being rescued 3+ months since the plane crash and being 2+ months pregnant would be rather suspicious to the outside world if we're NOT counting Jin as a +2. When it comes to pregnancies, a couple of weeks make a difference. They were on the island for about a month before Sun concieved. you can explain that away as, "Oh, I must've gotten pregnant the night before we took off." Especially since she was going to be leaving her husband at the airport and run away. Then people would be wondering why a baby being born so early is so matured. This isn't a matter of being a few days off the conception date...it's many WEEKS off.
> 
> ETA: According to Lostpedia timeline, the plane crash was on Sept 22 and Sun concieved roughly about Oct 26th. That's more than just a few days' discrepency in the DOC.


The age of the fetus is calculated based on size. Being stranded on a deserted island would certainly make you more susceptible to malnutricion, so the fetus would be expected to be smaller than expected. If the fetus measures up to being 2 months old, but the mother swears conception happened three months ago, the difference could be explained away as poor nutrition.

After all, it's not like they had to tell the outside world about the Dharma Ranch dressing or Locke's roasted boar.l


----------



## danterner (Mar 4, 2005)

wprager said:


> It was either an interview or one of the podcasts where they said that they can have flashbacks or flashforwards, but that within the sequence of flashbacks/forwards the story will be told in a chronological manner. In other words, the second flash-X would chronologically follow the first; the third will follow the second, and so on.
> 
> So did they break one of their own rules here? I guess the loophole is that they were telling two stories -- Sun's and Jin's; but that would make it the first episode where they told backstories for two individuals, wouldn't it?


It was one of the podcasts - one of the more recent ones. So recent that it was probably recorded after the story for _Ji Yeon_ was already broken. So I think they not only broke the guideline they explained on the podcast, but they knowingly _misled_ listeners of the podcast by making that statement all the while knowing that _Ji Yeon_ was in the pipeline.


----------



## alyssa (Dec 7, 2003)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Aarron, Sun





danterner said:


> Claudia Black is a member of the O6?



thank you


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

thatmeowgirl said:


> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Very interesting -- especially the last sentence. Didn't Michael


Spoiler



end up in a hospital after being hit by a car?


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

Amnesia said:


> Sorry, no. Aaron did not survive the crash. He was not on the plane.
> 
> There is no doubt that Aaron was not a crash survivor. Instead, he was born on the island. You can't be both. Here's a rule of thumb---if you say that someone "survived" something, you have to be able to talk about how old they were at the time. If your only answer involves negative numbers, then forget it...
> 
> If he was born on the plane, then you could say he did or did not survive the crash...but not if he hadn't been born. Instead, you can only talk about whether or not Claire survived the crash.


What if part of the O6 story is that Claire went into labor on the plane?


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

Delta13 said:


> Amnesia is arguing a legal and political viewpoint that is totally immaterial. That he may or may not be wrong is also totally beside the point (and politics are a no-no here). He keeps missing the point: it doesn't matter Aaron's legal status on the day of the crash. *It only matters what the fictional media dubbed these people when they were rescued!*
> 
> Argue away all you want it does not matter. Some fictional wag at CNN or MSNBC came up with the tagline "Oceanic 6" and it stuck, most likely.


Not exactly. In Jack's testimony he says that 8 survived the crash, and 2 of those died later, leaving 6.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

wprager said:


> What if part of the O6 story is that Claire went into labor on the plane?


In that case, it would make sense for the media to refer to him as a "survivor"...though we, the viewers, know that the tag would be incorrect since that's not what really happened.


----------



## gchance (Dec 6, 2002)

wprager said:


> It was either an interview or one of the podcasts where they said that they can have flashbacks or flashforwards, but that within the sequence of flashbacks/forwards the story will be told in a chronological manner. In other words, the second flash-X would chronologically follow the first; the third will follow the second, and so on.
> 
> So did they break one of their own rules here? I guess the loophole is that they were telling two stories -- Sun's and Jin's; but that would make it the first episode where they told backstories for two individuals, wouldn't it?


I'm not saying they broke one of their own rules, I'm just saying portraying it the way they did was a dirty trick on the viewers, making us think that Jin was rushing to make it to the hospital to see his child being born, only to find out that it was a completely separate story. They did it that way on purpose.

What you're talking about was in a podcast. What they were referring to is the fact that the story unfolds sequentially, both on the island and in flashbacks. Within an episode you won't see a person's flashback be from 1998, then from 2004, then from 2002, then from 2004 again... it would be, you'd see 1998, then 2002, then 2004.

Greg


----------



## balboa dave (Jan 19, 2004)

To everyone who are using what the producers say as canon, especially when it's the only basis for your opinions, I can only say you are all great candidates for the casting couch.


----------



## TheGreyOwl (Aug 18, 2003)

Amnesia said:


> Sorry, no. Aaron did not survive the crash. He was not on the plane.


Just try to leave the political implications aside for a bit and think about this rationally. I personally don't care whether you or anyone else is pro-choice, pro-life, or undecided. Just look at the facts in this specific instance and try not to generalize it to what it might imply to a specific political view.

Some "being" was in Claire's womb during the flight. That being was developed enought to be a "he" and had a heart beat and brain function. That is indisputable fact and could be proven through medical scans. If you're saying that he wasn't on the plane, then where was he? Whose heart was beating? Claire didn't have two hearts, so _somebody_ else had to be the source of the heartbeat, right?



Amnesia said:


> There is no doubt that Aaron was not a crash survivor. Instead, he was born on the island. You can't be both. Here's a rule of thumb---if you say that someone "survived" something, you have to be able to talk about how old they were at the time. If your only answer involves negative numbers, then forget it...


Well, that's your mistake right there. Your rule of thumb is based on an artificial social construct that age is calculated from birth. But that's just a social convention. In fact, I grew up in a country where you would be considered one year old at birth, because they interpreted the number of your age as being the year of life you were currently beginning. So one year after birth, you would have been considered 2 years old because you were beginning your second year of life. By that convention, the unborn baby's age on the flight would have been about 11 months, which is not negative. How you count it is completely arbitrary and is not indicative of anything. By saying that negative numbers make the difference is like saying whether the baby is alive or dead depends on which country you were in at the time...


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

TheGreyOwl said:


> Just try to leave the political implications aside for a bit and think about this rationally. Some "being" was in Claire's womb during the flight. _(...)_ If you're saying that he wasn't on the plane, then where was he?


I'm saying that Aaron wasn't on the plane because he hadn't been born yet. The fetus was on the plane. However, the fetus was not Aaron. The zygote wasn't Aaron. The individual sperm and egg cells weren't Aaron. Yes, yes---given proper conditions and health and all that, the zygote would eventually turn into the fetus which would eventually be born and be Aaron, but it hadn't happened yet. Just like the individual sperm and egg cells carried by Sun and Jin hadn't yet formed Ji Yeon. You're not going to argue that Ji Yeon was on the plane, too, are you?



TheGreyOwl said:


> Well, that's your mistake right there. Your rule of thumb is based on an artificial social construct that age is calculated from birth. But that's just a social convention.


I'm not sure what the word "artificial" means in that context. It's a social convention, yes. A very widespread social convention and it's certainly the only such convention in America (as well as Australia, Claire's country of birth).

Perhaps it's *your* mistake right there.


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

Amnesia said:


> I'm saying that Aaron wasn't on the plane because he hadn't been born yet. The fetus was on the plane. However, the fetus was not Aaron. The zygote wasn't Aaron. The individual sperm and egg cells weren't Aaron. Yes, yes---given proper conditions and health and all that, the zygote would eventually turn into the fetus which would eventually be born and be Aaron, but it hadn't happened yet. Just like the individual sperm and egg cells carried by Sun and Jin hadn't yet formed Ji Yeon. You're not going to argue that Ji Yeon was on the plane, too, are you?
> 
> I'm not sure what the word "artificial" means in that context. It's a social convention, yes. A very widespread social convention and it's certainly the only such convention in America (as well as Australia, Claire's country of birth).
> 
> Perhaps it's *your* mistake right there.


Amnesia, as a father of four -- all of who were premies (all of them younger than the 8 months that Claire was pregnant) I can, from personal experience tell you that Aaron -- unnamed and all -- was on the plane and qualifies to be considered an Oceanic Survivor.

What the producers said in the podcasts, of course, casts some serious doubt as to what *they* considered as being the O6. Two entirely different arguments.

Personally, I think Aaron is #6, with the only doubt being whether he was Kate's own baby (by Sawyer), which was dispelled when she called him "Aaron". We were told that by the end of episode 7 we would know the identity of all six. Ben is the only other Islander shown in the flash forwards, and I'd put my money on Aaron over Ben. That's it.


----------



## MitchO (Nov 7, 2003)

Unreal. Ridiculous.

Stop arguing whether Aaron counts as a life, and just friggin' wait a week or two.


----------



## gchance (Dec 6, 2002)

wprager said:


> Amnesia, as a father of four -- all of who were premies (all of them younger than the 8 months that Claire was pregnant) I can, from personal experience tell you that Aaron -- unnamed and all -- was on the plane and qualifies to be considered an Oceanic Survivor.


wprager, as a father of three, I can, from personal experience tell you that Aaron -- unnamed and all -- was on the plane, but does not qualify to be considered an Oceanic Survivor.

He survived the crash, yes, but wasn't on the manifest. The only people who would be named "Oceanic survivors" are those on the manifest who survived.

The news report would go something like, "There were 6 survivors of the crash of Oceanic 815..." and when they got to, in this case, Kate, they would say, "...including Kate Austin, who was pregnant during the crash and gave birth to her son, Aaron, shortly thereafter." He wouldn't be called a SURVIVOR.

Arguing over whether or not he was a baby while in Claire's uterus is stupid.

You know, after typing this message, I did have a thought about the manifest. Wouldn't Oceanic have it on record that Claire was pregnant onboard, not Kate? Not to mention the Federal Marshall, who would have detailed files on her. Come to think of it, we really don't know how long a period in their fabricated story it was from the crash until the rescue. It might have been long enough to get pregnant, give birth, and raise the boy for a while. Heh.

Greg


----------



## Peter000 (Apr 15, 2002)

You're high if you think that Aaron couldn't be called part of the "Oceanic 6" in spite of the fact that his name wasn't on the manifest. The press or the public at large doesn't think like that.

If anything he would be regarded as the most miraculous survivor... mother and unborn child surviving a crash, then giving birth on an uncharted island beach somewhere, surviving for months etc. 

Whether the producers counted him as part of the 6 remains to be seen. But at this point it sure appears he's one of the 6.


----------



## TheGreyOwl (Aug 18, 2003)

Amnesia said:


> I'm saying that Aaron wasn't on the plane because he hadn't been born yet. The fetus was on the plane. However, the fetus was not Aaron. The zygote wasn't Aaron. The individual sperm and egg cells weren't Aaron. Yes, yes---given proper conditions and health and all that, the zygote would eventually turn into the fetus which would eventually be born and be Aaron, but it hadn't happened yet. Just like the individual sperm and egg cells carried by Sun and Jin hadn't yet formed Ji Yeon. You're not going to argue that Ji Yeon was on the plane, too, are you?


No, I don't think Ji Yeon was on the plane. If you agree the fetus was on the plane and "survived" (before we get into semantics again on what that word means, I mean it just in the sense that the fetus did not die), then how's that different? The producers showed Aaron, who was previously a fetus that was on the plane, and that fetus "survived" the crash of the plane (i.e., did not die during the crash).



Amnesia said:


> I'm not sure what the word "artificial" means in that context. It's a social convention, yes. A very widespread social convention and it's certainly the only such convention in America (as well as Australia, Claire's country of birth).
> 
> Perhaps it's *your* mistake right there.


I'm not clear on what you think my mistake is. Did I present a fact incorrectly somewhere?

"Artificial" in that context means that you could choose to define someones age from any point in time. Yes, most everyone chooses to do it from date of birth but there is no law saying that is the only way to do it.

It makes no difference what the convention is in Australia where Claire is from, because it isn't her that is making arbitrary rules based on "negative age" meaning a person doesn't exist. I gave you a real-world example of how age is measured differently in some countries. That example results in your definition meaning a person "exists" or "doesn't exist" depending on the country you're in. Since that clearly doesn't make logical sense, perhaps a different definition would be in order?

And just to clarify what "survivor" means, it has nothing to do with whether Aaron was a passenger or not (and I agree he wasn't a "passenger" as I think that would imply buying a ticket). According to the dictionary, survivor means "someone or something that continues to function or prosper in spite of opposition, hardship, or setbacks." Aaron (or the fetus, whatever you want to call him) was functioning before the crash and continued to do so afterwards. Therefore, he was a "survivor". I'm assuming the argument with some people comes down to whether he was actually a "person" before being born or not, leading to the "when does life really start" argument. I don't really want to get into that, and have no desire to convince anyone one way or the other on that issue. My whole point is that it isn't really relevant in this case. Whatever was in Claire's womb was functioning before the crash and continued to function after the crash. By definition, that makes whatever that was a "survivor". It isn't really relevant to this discussion when he can be considered to be "alive". I could just as easily say "my cell phone survived the crash" and that would have no implication one way or another as to whether my phone was alive or if so, when it became that way. It would only mean that my phone still works after the crash.


----------



## Turtleboy (Mar 24, 2001)

I'm beginning to come around, after being strongly against it, that Aaron is the sixth of the Oceanic Six.

I don't like it though.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Peter000 said:


> You're high if you think that Aaron couldn't be called part of the "Oceanic 6" in spite of the fact that his name wasn't on the manifest. The press or the public at large doesn't think like that.
> 
> If anything he would be regarded as the most miraculous survivor... mother and unborn child surviving a crash, then giving birth on an uncharted island beach somewhere, surviving for months etc.
> 
> Whether the producers counted him as part of the 6 remains to be seen. But at this point it sure appears he's one of the 6.


Again, I think we are:

A) overthinking this whole thing

B) assuming that the O6 HAD to be a survivor of the crash and not simply rescued along with the survivors

I agree, Aaron was NOT a passanger on the plane, and thus not a survivor of the flight.

Still it doesn't mean HE'S 6. Since there are some other folks who could have been "rescued" as the O6....Jin (if you believe he's alive) even Ben. It might be Aaron, but I don't think it is without a doubt.


----------



## Cearbhaill (Aug 1, 2004)

I don't think Aaron is an Oceanic 6 either, but the way this show jerks me around I'm certainly not going to get emotionally invested either way


----------



## CarynFromHermosa (Sep 26, 2005)

As far as I know there is no record of whether or not one is pregnant when boarding an airplane. I flew from Boston to LA and back many, many times while I was pregnant wearing baggy clothes and no one new the difference....in fact folks at work didn't notice until I was 6+ months pg. The flight attendants can refuse to board you if you look "too pregnant", which is why I always tried to fly incognito.


----------



## CarynFromHermosa (Sep 26, 2005)

CarynFromHermosa said:


> I was totally fooled by the Jin flashback! That being said, this show has not made a habit of showing us things that are irrelevant (other than the little Easter eggs). In fact, someone mentioned that all flashbacks from this season will be only those germane to the plot. Perhaps we missed the point?


In rewatching the ep this eve, I think the Jin flashback might have been there as an illustration of the Karma he and Bernard were talking about -- "You do bad things and bad things happen to you. You do good things and good things happen to you."


----------



## CarynFromHermosa (Sep 26, 2005)

Something about the 'Don't trust the captain' note is bothering me...I am wondering if maybe Walt was the author. The handwriting is printed in all caps. Yes, some adults have rather poor handwriting, but it looks a bit childish to me.


----------



## Fool Me Twice (Jul 6, 2004)

CarynFromHermosa said:


> Something about the 'Don't trust the captain' note is bothering me...I am wondering if maybe Walt was the author. The handwriting is printed in all caps. Yes, some adults have rather poor handwriting, but it looks a bit childish to me.


I write in all caps (small caps). If I was writng a warning note, I'd probably use all caps. When I was a kid I wrote in lowercase or cursive. (Does cursive still exist?)

Keamy from the freighter always looks strange to me. Like someone put a smaller mans head on his body.


----------



## balboa dave (Jan 19, 2004)

Fool Me Twice said:


> I write in all caps (small caps). If I was writng a warning note, I'd probably use all caps. When I was a kid I wrote in lowercase or cursive. (Does cursive still exist?)
> 
> Keamy from the freighter always looks strange to me. Like someone put a smaller mans head on his body.


Maybe you'd like his head better as Joshua in Dark Angel.


----------



## stellie93 (Feb 25, 2006)

Do we all agree that the O6 all have to at least appear to have been on the plane? (I'm not talking about Aaron here) If Ben is O6 then some fake documentation has to have been done to sub him for one of the passengers. I think there's no doubt that as far as the public knows there were NO natives on whatever island they claim to have been on. No Dharma, no others, zip. So to the public only people from the plane could have been there. Right?


----------



## TheGreyOwl (Aug 18, 2003)

CarynFromHermosa said:


> As far as I know there is no record of whether or not one is pregnant when boarding an airplane. I flew from Boston to LA and back many, many times while I was pregnant wearing baggy clothes and no one new the difference....in fact folks at work didn't notice until I was 6+ months pg. The flight attendants can refuse to board you if you look "too pregnant", which is why I always tried to fly incognito.


They do ask if you're 6 months or more pregnant when you buy a ticket and if you are, they require a doctor's note. So there would be that record, unless Claire chose to lie though at the time, I'm not sure why she would have. She also looked quite pregnant and didn't seem to be trying to hide it, so she would also have been on security cameras.


----------



## TheGreyOwl (Aug 18, 2003)

stellie93 said:


> Do we all agree that the O6 all have to at least appear to have been on the plane? (I'm not talking about Aaron here) If Ben is O6 then some fake documentation has to have been done to sub him for one of the passengers. I think there's no doubt that as far as the public knows there were NO natives on whatever island they claim to have been on. No Dharma, no others, zip. So to the public only people from the plane could have been there. Right?


Well, I don't think they necessarily had to have been on the plane. But I do think the general public needs to have _thought_ they were on the plane.



Steveknj said:


> I agree, Aaron was NOT a passanger on the plane, and thus not a survivor of the flight.


Being a passenger is not a requirement of being a survivor. The pilot wasn't a passenger and he was a survivor, for a little while at least.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

TheGreyOwl said:


> They do ask if you're 6 months or more pregnant when you buy a ticket and if you are, they require a doctor's note. So there would be that record, unless Claire chose to lie though at the time, I'm not sure why she would have. She also looked quite pregnant and didn't seem to be trying to hide it, so she would also have been on security cameras.


Plus the boarding staff made a fuss over her, IIRC, so she definitely would have been remembered. She's one of the ones who the media would be doing sidebar stories over--pretty blonde (you know how the media obsess over pretty blondes!), very pregnant, plus the tragedy of the couple in LA waiting for their new baby.

Which raises an interesting question (not really a show question, I doubt they'll deal with it, just an interesting question): Who else would the media do sidebars on after the crash but before the "rescue"?

Hurley (big lottery winner) and Nikki (minor TV actor) for sure. Probably Kate (sexy fugitive murderer being brought back to justice) and the marshal. Maybe Jack, depending on how just prominent he was/is in his field. Anybody else?


----------



## TheGreyOwl (Aug 18, 2003)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Plus the boarding staff made a fuss over her, IIRC, so she definitely would have been remembered. She's one of the ones who the media would be doing sidebar stories over--pretty blonde (you know how the media obsess over pretty blondes!), very pregnant, plus the tragedy of the couple in LA waiting for their new baby.
> 
> Which raises an interesting question (not really a show question, I doubt they'll deal with it, just an interesting question): Who else would the media do sidebars on after the crash but before the "rescue"?
> 
> Hurley (big lottery winner) and Nikki (minor TV actor) for sure. Probably Kate (sexy fugitive murderer being brought back to justice) and the marshal. Maybe Jack, depending on how just prominent he was/is in his field. Anybody else?


Perhaps Locke? The tragedy of a disabled man in a wheelchair dying in the crash?


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

TheGreyOwl said:


> I'm not clear on what you think my mistake is. Did I present a fact incorrectly somewhere?


If it's a fact, then it's not incorrect. However, you can (and have) present false assertions as facts. In particular, the mistake I was referring to was in asserting that just because some country somewhere in the world used a different standard for calculating age that it's relevant in this discussion. It's not. Aaron was 0 when he was born. Period.


TheGreyOwl said:


> The producers showed Aaron, who was previously a fetus that was on the plane, and that fetus "survived" the crash of the plane (i.e., did not die during the crash).


Aaron wasn't "previously a fetus". The fetus became Aaron, but that's not the same thing. Oh, and the individual cells that would form Ji Yeon were also on the plane and did not die during the crash. How come she isn't counted as one of the survivors?


TheGreyOwl said:


> Aaron (or the fetus, whatever you want to call him) was functioning before the crash and continued to do so afterwards.


Now you're confused again. The fetus is not Aaron. The fetus eventually became Aaron, but they are not identical. Just like the individual cells eventually became Ji Yeon. There's no difference.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

But back to the point:

I don't remember Jack's exact words, but in court didn't he say something like "8 people survived the crash and 2 died"? Are we to take it that *7* passengers were supposed to have survived and then Aaron was born making it 8 and then two died?

When Jack walked around the island saying that there were 48 survivors (or however many)---particularly before Aaron's birth---do you think he was counting the fetus?


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

danterner said:


> It was one of the podcasts - one of the more recent ones. So recent that it was probably recorded after the story for _Ji Yeon_ was already broken. So I think they not only broke the guideline they explained on the podcast, but they knowingly _misled_ listeners of the podcast by making that statement all the while knowing that _Ji Yeon_ was in the pipeline.


It's not even a question. All of the Season 4 podcasts have been after the writers strike ended. All of the Season 4 episodes we've seen so far were not only written, but filmed and completed, before the writers strike started.


----------



## Delta13 (Jan 25, 2003)

wprager said:


> Not exactly. In Jack's testimony he says that 8 survived the crash, and 2 of those died later, leaving 6.


Jack did not create the "Oceanic 6" name, I'm sure.



Amnesia said:


> In that case, it would make sense for the media to refer to him as a "survivor"...though we, the viewers, know that the tag would be incorrect since that's not what really happened.


A little light dawns for you ... see how immaterial it all is? We already know the entire Oceanic 6 story is bogus! We don't know how they told the exact story because we haven't heard it yet, so how do we know what happened in their fictional lie? So let it rest.

Which brings me to ...



MitchO said:


> Unreal. Ridiculous.
> 
> Stop arguing whether Aaron counts as a life, and just friggin' wait a week or two.


:up: :up:


----------



## Delta13 (Jan 25, 2003)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Plus the boarding staff made a fuss over her, IIRC, so she definitely would have been remembered. She's one of the ones who the media would be doing sidebar stories over--pretty blonde (you know how the media obsess over pretty blondes!), very pregnant, plus the tragedy of the couple in LA waiting for their new baby.
> 
> Which raises an interesting question (not really a show question, I doubt they'll deal with it, just an interesting question): Who else would the media do sidebars on after the crash but before the "rescue"?
> 
> Hurley (big lottery winner) and Nikki (minor TV actor) for sure. Probably Kate (sexy fugitive murderer being brought back to justice) and the marshal. Maybe Jack, depending on how just prominent he was/is in his field. Anybody else?


Rob, you triggered something for me. Didn't the adoptive parents pay for Claire's flight to LA? There must have been some paperwork for all of this, but I honestly don't know how it would work. If Claire had already agreed to give up custody, why don't the adoptive parents have Aaron?


----------



## cherry ghost (Sep 13, 2005)

We don't know for sure it's the same Aaron.


----------



## hanumang (Jan 28, 2002)

Delta13 said:


> Didn't the adoptive parents pay for Claire's flight to LA?


It was established in season 1 that there were no adoptive parents in LA. The psychic simply wanted Claire to get on Flight 815, giving her the ticket.

The most interesting point (of speculation, for me at least) is, according to Desmond's vision in Charlie's last flashback episode (from Season 3), that Claire and Aaron get on a helicopter and leave the island. I'm very curious to see what road the writers take to explain Aaron as Kate's son, given that Desmond's visions have thus far all been true...


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

Delta13 said:


> A little light dawns for you ...


What the hell is that supposed to mean? That *if* Jack et al lied about when Aaron was born it would make sense for the media to incorrectly refer to him as a survivor? Yes, I agree with that.

Are you willing to admit that if Jack and the rest did *not* lie about when Aaron was born, then it would *not* make sense for the media to refer to him as a survivor?


----------



## Turtleboy (Mar 24, 2001)

So we al agree that there are two and only two possibly scenarios:

1) Aaron is one of the Oceanic Six.

2) Aaron is not on of the Six, and there is another person, who was on the plane (not Ben, not Desmond, and most certainly not Ji Yeon) who hasn't been revealed yet as one of the six.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

Turtleboy said:


> So we al agree that there are two and only two possibly scenarios


I think it's at least conceivable that Ben is one of the Six.

If he indeed had the wherewithal to rig the whole fake crashed plane, he certainly could adjust a few records to make himself a passenger on flight 815...


----------



## jeff125va (Mar 15, 2001)

Turtleboy said:


> So we al agree that there are two and only two possibly scenarios:
> 
> 1) Aaron is one of the Oceanic Six.
> 
> 2) Aaron is not on of the Six, and there is another person, who was on the plane (not Ben, not Desmond, and most certainly not Ji Yeon) who hasn't been revealed yet as one of the six.


The producers have stated pretty plainly that they've been revealed at this point. It was also stated in the previews for "Eggtown" that another one would be revealed, and it was stated in the podcast prior to "Eggtown" that Kate had already been revealed. Maybe the producers or the network preview script people are trying to confuse us. OR, there's only one scenario.


----------



## Turtleboy (Mar 24, 2001)

The producers have said in the past that they have no control over the network promos, and they are often surprised at them.


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

Delta13 said:


> Jack did not create the "Oceanic 6" name, I'm sure.


My point was just that the term Oceanic Six does not refer, specifically, to survivors of the Flight 815 (which would mean Aaron can easily be one of the O6; as could Ben). However Jack's testimony mentions 8 survivors, two of whom died, leaving six to be rescued.

So, unless the six who were rescued and the O6 are not the same set of six people, Jack's testimony would, seemingly, rule out Aaron as being one of the O6. Unless, of course, the "story" is that Aaron was born on the plane before it crashed.

Ah, whatever.


----------



## jeff125va (Mar 15, 2001)

hanumang said:


> It was established in season 1 that there were no adoptive parents in LA. The psychic simply wanted Claire to get on Flight 815, giving her the ticket.


That whole story was left in doubt after Eko met with Malkin (the psychic) and he claimed he was a fraud. In fact, there is a deleted scene where Malkin claimed to have been paid by the couple in L.A. to convince the girl to board the plane (implying the motive for faking the psychic visions on Claire). Of course, being that it was deleted, we don't know whether that should be considered an actual occurrence in the story or if it was deleted simply due to time constraints or what. Either way, we definitely can't assume that there was no L.A. couple. He could have been lying to Eko about being a fraud just to convince him to leave his daughter alone or because he had some psychic vision about Eko needing to be on the plane, who knows?


----------



## jeff125va (Mar 15, 2001)

wprager said:


> My point was just that the term Oceanic Six does not refer, specifically, to survivors of the Flight 815 (which would mean Aaron can easily be one of the O6; as could Ben). However Jack's testimony mentions 8 survivors, two of whom died, leaving six to be rescued.
> 
> So, unless the six who were rescued and the O6 are not the same set of six people, Jack's testimony would, seemingly, rule out Aaron as being one of the O6. Unless, of course, the "story" is that Aaron was born on the plane before it crashed.
> 
> Ah, whatever.


I think the only point that's come out of this inane argument about whether Aaron was on the plane is that if the story is as some of us are speculating, you'd think that Jack would have parenthetically mentioned during his testimony that one of the survivors was born shortly after they crashed. I mean with all the semantic arguments we're having here, you think he would have clarified. Of course, if the story was as well known as it appears to have been, he may not have had to.


----------



## hanumang (Jan 28, 2002)

jeff125va said:


> He could have been lying to Eko about being a fraud just to convince him to leave his daughter alone or because he had some psychic vision about Eko needing to be on the plane, who knows?


I was waiting for someone to bring this up. 

I took everything Malkin said to Claire and Eko as a means to an end, namely to get Claire on that plane and to shoo away Eko. I can't speak on whether or not he was a meant to be a true seer, though considering the tendencies of the writing staff - a strong belief in the supernatural - he just might be. Either way, though it might make me John Locke (mistaking coincidence for fate), I'm still inclined to believe Claire's supposition that there were no adoptive parents.

As for the deleted scenes (which aren't canon), I 'know' why they were left out - they completely short-circuited the emotional power of the episode.


----------



## avery (May 29, 2006)

hanumang said:


> The most interesting point (of speculation, for me at least) is, according to Desmond's vision in Charlie's last flashback episode (from Season 3), that Claire and Aaron get on a helicopter and leave the island. I'm very curious to see what road the writers take to explain Aaron as Kate's son, given that Desmond's visions have thus far all been true...


When Desmond told Charlie, he didn't actually say _get on_ a helicopter. He said he "saw Claire and her baby *getting* into a helicopter - a helicopter that lifts off - leaves this island"

Given the random nature of Desmond's flashes, Claire making an approach to enter into the helicopter and the helicopter lifting off, don't necessarily represent one fluid action - and don't make the accuracy of his visions wrong. Desmond simply didn't *flash* on whatever event occurred between those two separate flashes... the circumstances of Claire's unsuccessful attempt to make it onboard.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

hanumang said:


> _(...)_ given that Desmond's visions have thus far all been true...


Funny, I was under the impression that very few of Desmond's visions have been true. He saw Charlie drown. Didn't happen. He saw Charlie die of electric shock. Didn't happen. He saw Charlie get impaled in the neck. Didn't happen.

It's certainly possible that Desmond will have to make a choice in the future whereby his vision of Claire getting on the helicopter will also get changed.


----------



## hanumang (Jan 28, 2002)

avery said:


> When Desmond told Charlie, he didn't actually say _get on_ a helicopter. He said he "saw Claire and her baby *getting* into a helicopter - a helicopter that lifts off - leaves this island"


Your interpretation sounds like a very possible one though I'd be disappointed if that is the route they took. Personally, I heard "saw Claire and her baby _get_ into a helicopter" and it didn't seem to me that he meant separate events.

Anyway, I'm not replying to argue semantics (really!), only to say that I'm ready for the writers to use Desmond's predictions to play with our (collective) expectations. I know my expectations have been built up pretty good...


----------



## s2kdave (Jan 28, 2005)

jamesbobo said:


> Could Jin be alive on the island? Maybe that's why Sun called his name, in the state she was in she forgot that he's supposed to be "dead."


I highly doubt it. First if anyone was left alive on the island, wouldn't the O6 send help? They'd be complete a--holes if not. And Sun would definitely send help if she knew he was still alive on the island rather than go to a fake grave and talk as if he's dead.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

s2kdave said:


> I highly doubt it. First if anyone was left alive on the island, wouldn't the O6 send help? They'd be complete a--holes if not. And Sun would definitely send help if she knew he was still alive on the island rather than go to a fake grave and talk as if he's dead.


They must still be alive, at least some (most?) of them, otherwise Jack wouldn't be so eager to go back.

The question is, what are the circumstances that led the 6 (and only the 6) to leave, and why did they leave the rest behind?


----------



## hanumang (Jan 28, 2002)

Amnesia said:


> Funny, I was under the impression that very few of Desmond's visions have been true. He saw Charlie drown. Didn't happen. He saw Charlie die of electric shock. Didn't happen. He saw Charlie get impaled in the neck. Didn't happen.


Well, I wasn't talking about Charlie dying - of course, only the last one was allowed to happened. 

I was speaking about all the circumstances that Desmond was - unexplainably - able to 'see' in advance. Claire almost drowning. The lightning strike. Walking through the jungle and the arrow trap.


----------



## Turtleboy (Mar 24, 2001)

Stephen King has said many times that he's a huge fan of Lost, but I'm thinking the writers are huge fans of Stephen King. I am seeing more and more of The Stand in the story every week.


----------



## stellie93 (Feb 25, 2006)

Claire may have gotten on the chopper with Aaron and taken off and made it as far as the freighter. Then maybe Aaron survived and she didn't. There was blood and death all over that ship.


----------



## hanumang (Jan 28, 2002)

stellie93 said:


> Claire may have gotten on the chopper with Aaron and taken off and made it as far as the freighter. Then maybe Aaron survived and she didn't.


This is how I've read all the signs, though I fully expect the writers to throw in something unexpected.


----------



## TheGreyOwl (Aug 18, 2003)

Amnesia said:


> If it's a fact, then it's not incorrect. However, you can (and have) present false assertions as facts. In particular, the mistake I was referring to was in asserting that just because some country somewhere in the world used a different standard for calculating age that it's relevant in this discussion. It's not.


Correct or incorrect, it's just as relevant as the method you use to calculate age and the assumptions you draw from it. Meaning, it is a matter of opinion both ways and not an absolute fact.



Amnesia said:


> Aaron wasn't "previously a fetus". The fetus became Aaron, but that's not the same thing.


I guess that's where we disagree. In my mind, if "A" becomes "B", then "B" was previously "A". A caterpillar becomes a butterfly. The butterfly was previously a caterpillar. Liquid water freezes to become solid ice. The ice was previously liquid water. At least, that's how I interpret the meanings of the words "becomes" and "previously". Clearly you don't interpret it that way, but that's okay.

Regardless, there's clearly not anything to be gained for either of us to continue this, so it would be fruitless to continue. For the purposes of the show, I would just think of it this way. There are obviously at least some people here that think about "survivors" in a different way than you do (and some that agree with you). I'm sure you won't argue with that. Now regardless of who is right and who is wrong, it's possible that the general public (or at least the media that coined the term) in the "Lost world" interprets it in a way different than you do. It's also possible that the writers interpret it that same way. So it is possible for Aaron to be considered a survivor in the Lost universe, even if you would not consider him to be in the real-world. All that matters is how the people that coined the term viewed the situation.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

TheGreyOwl said:


> Meaning, it is a matter of opinion both ways and not an absolute fact.


It's certainly an absolute fact that in America age is calculated based on date of birth...and if we're talking absolutes, how else could it be done? Even if you could get everyone to believe that it should be done based on date of conception (and that will never happen), that date is almost always an estimate. If you're talking absolutes, you need a firm date....like date of birth.


----------



## TheGreyOwl (Aug 18, 2003)

Amnesia said:


> It's certainly an absolute fact that in America age is calculated based on date of birth...and if we're talking absolutes, how else could it be done? Even if you could get everyone to believe that it should be done based on date of conception (and that will never happen), that date is almost always an estimate. If you're talking absolutes, you need a firm date....like date of birth.


I have no desire to get everyone to believe it should be based on date of conception, or anything other than what it is now. Not sure where that came from, but I don't even think that's a good idea, for the same reason you stated - it is an estimate. We agree on which event the baseline should be based on, namely date of birth.

What I'm pointing out is that based on that event, there are different ways people around the world count the numbers. Some start with "0" on that date and some start with "1". Personally, I go by what most people in America use, too. So I don't think we even disagree on whether that should be different or not.

So what I meant is that your theory about "negative ages" meaning a person doesn't exist yet is not an absolute fact, but only your opinion. I already gave an example of how ages are calculated in some places, still based on date of birth, that does not result in a negative age for an unborn baby. Your theory is relative and not absolute because it gives a different conclusion when using two different counting methods. And neither of the two counting methods is an "absolute rule" but an arbitrary choice made by various cultures.


----------



## Roadblock (Apr 5, 2006)

Amnesia, if your goal was to bloat this thread with a ridiculous argument that an 8-month-old fetus can't possibly be considered a survivor while also coming across as a complete jerk, then mission accomplished.

Sorry, the fictional media forgot to consult you before they dubbed Aaron a survivor.


----------



## brott (Feb 23, 2001)

Jack
Kate
Hurley
Sayid
Sun
Michael .. or by miraculous twist Ben or Aaron .. 

... also exitiing the Island really must be Desmond as he seems key to the storyline at this point ... although clearly he boated to the Island and is perhaps "rescued" at the same time ... an indicator that Juliette may have also "survived" which I think will happen but no proof has been noted as of yet.

I do wonder who the other two are (in the cover up) .. definitely not Jin due to tombstone, but could be Walt .. Could be Sawyer (as a main character) .. could be the pilot .. could be the Marshall .. I don't recall seeing any proof at this point, but I'm sure we have.


----------



## CarynFromHermosa (Sep 26, 2005)

I don't think Michael is trustworthy. I am not convinced he's Ben's "man on the boat"....for the simple reason that he's insane when it comes to Walt. He doesn't seem to be with Walt, so I believe he'll do anything to cross the "Islanders" if that's what the "frieghters" want him to do -- just as he allied with the Others against the 815 survivors...


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

CarynFromHermosa said:


> I don't think Michael is trustworthy. I am not convinced he's Ben's "man on the boat"....for the simple reason that he's insane when it comes to Walt. He doesn't seem to be with Walt, so I believe he'll do anything to cross the "Islanders" if that's what the "frieghters" want him to do -- just as he allied with the Others against the 815 survivors...


Well, it may not be two characters of the opposite sex lying naked in bed together, but until we are shown _another_ character who is on the freighter under an assumed name, and with a connection to Ben -- until that time I will just go on assuming that Michael is the mole.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

brott said:


> Jack
> Kate
> Hurley
> Sayid
> ...


Well, I repeat, I don't see how it CAN be Michael. The 6 have been revealed, according to the producers, and Michael has never been seen in the Oceanic 6 flashforwards.


----------



## balboa dave (Jan 19, 2004)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Well, I repeat, I don't see how it CAN be Michael. The 6 have been revealed, according to the producers, and Michael has never been seen in the Oceanic 6 flashforwards.


Yeah, about how much stock you can put into what the producers say, ironically from the producers:

From here:

UGO: Here's an issue that arises with regards to that. Fans will speculate about different aspects of the show and will often reference statements that we're made, like "Oh it can't be about time travel because Damon and JJ said on the non-linear board at The Fuselage that there is no time travel in the show." How do you deal with it when, I don't want to say out and out lie, but if a fan or an interviewer asks a question that is going to really blow the story open; you obviously can't say "yeah, that's right."

CARLTON: Obviously, we're very careful about what we say. But, honestly, the assumption that you can figure it all out pre-supposes that you know enough about the world of the show to figure it all out. If I were to ask you towards the end of season one what your theory on what all the revelations of Lost are, you're going to give a wildly different answer then you would now part way through season 4. What we would say is there are still twists and turns and unexpected surprises to come, so its really hard to figure out where we're going because the audience doesn't possess enough information yet. Occasionally people do stumble upon bits and pieces of things that are true and I think that is great, but it has to remain that viewers individual satisfaction because we're not going to ruin it for everybody else by saying "Yes! That's exactly what is going to happen."

DAMON: The reality is, anything that Carlton and I say, or anyone involved with the show says, that is all part of the politicking that sort of surrounds the show. We like the idea of being answerable to the show, that is to say if we do something the fans don't like we can come forward and apologize for it and explain what the thought process was for executing that story line. Or, vice versa, if we do something people really like we get to sort of pull that forward and explain, for instance, that we weren't able to do the flash forward part of the story until they promised us an end to the show, and this is how we were able to end the show, and this is why we are doing three more seasons, and so on. The fans are owed those explanations. But, in a lot of ways it is like J.K. Rowling revealing that Dumbledore was gay. She's saying this, and it is part of her talking about the books, but all that matters at the end of the day is the books. So, watching the show Lost, you watch it and the data is there for you to form whatever theories you have, and *you can't factor in anything that even the creators or actors are saying about the show outside of the show, because at the end of the day the show will be processed in six DVD box sets. It will be completely irrelevant as to whether we confirmed or denied or speculated.* The one thing that Carlton and I are steadfast on saying over and over again, and that we're not lying about is that the show is not all a dream. It's happening in the real world, there are real stakes, you're not going to get to the end and cut to black and suddenly realize that this was all sort of a fantasy. That's the only thing that we sort of need to get out there in the world, because it does diffuse a lot of wacky theories.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

Roadblock said:


> Sorry, the fictional media forgot to consult you before they dubbed Aaron a survivor.


You conveniently seem to have forgotten that we don't know whether or not Aaron really is being considered a survivor.


----------



## TheGreyOwl (Aug 18, 2003)

Amnesia said:


> You conveniently seem to have forgotten that we don't know whether or not Aaron really is being considered a survivor.


So in the episode where Aaron was revealed to be living with Kate in the future, who else was revealed to be one of the Oceanic Six? Because the producers said one of the 6 was revealed during that episode.


----------



## jeff125va (Mar 15, 2001)

hanumang said:


> I was waiting for someone to bring this up.
> 
> I took everything Malkin said to Claire and Eko as a means to an end, namely to get Claire on that plane and to shoo away Eko. I can't speak on whether or not he was a meant to be a true seer, though considering the tendencies of the writing staff - a strong belief in the supernatural - he just might be. Either way, though it might make me John Locke (mistaking coincidence for fate), I'm still inclined to believe Claire's supposition that there were no adoptive parents.
> 
> As for the deleted scenes (which aren't canon), I 'know' why they were left out - they completely short-circuited the emotional power of the episode.


Well, Claire is making that supposition without the benefit of having heard Malkin claim that he is a fraud. Not that your inclination is unreasonable - like I said, there's reason to believe that Malkin might have been lying about being a fraud. To me there's enough doubt raised about either possibility.


----------



## jeff125va (Mar 15, 2001)

balboa dave said:


> Yeah, about how much stock you can put into what the producers say, ironically from the producers:
> 
> From here:
> 
> ...*you can't factor in anything that even the creators or actors are saying about the show outside of the show, because at the end of the day the show will be processed in six DVD box sets. It will be completely irrelevant as to whether we confirmed or denied or speculated.* The one thing that Carlton and I are steadfast on saying over and over again, and that we're not lying about is that the show is not all a dream. It's happening in the real world, there are real stakes, you're not going to get to the end and cut to black and suddenly realize that this was all sort of a fantasy. That's the only thing that we sort of need to get out there in the world, because it does diffuse a lot of wacky theories.


Ummm... if we can't factor in _anything_ that they say, wouldn't that include the next sentence ("The one thing that Carlton and I . . .") ?

I understand his point about being asked questions about certain theories that put them in a position where answering honestly would give other things away. I don't think he's talking about straightforward statements they've made such as the four members of the O-6 whom had been revealed prior to "Eggtown." I mean if we're really to take him literally there, then we really don't know that it's not all a dream. Who knows, maybe that was intentional?


----------



## jeff125va (Mar 15, 2001)

wprager said:


> Well, it may not be two characters of the opposite sex lying naked in bed together, but until we are shown _another_ character who is on the freighter under an assumed name, and with a connection to Ben -- until that time I will just go on assuming that Michael is the mole.


Wow, you're really going out on a limb there!


----------



## jeff125va (Mar 15, 2001)

The more I think about the Aaron question, the more it makes me wonder about the details of the Oceanic Six's story and when, according to them, Aaron was born. According to Jack, Kate helped 7 people get to the island, treated them with first aid, etc. If that included assisting in childbirth, it would be a very notable detail that certainly would have furthered the purpose of his testimony, even if everyone did already know it. The same could be said if Aaron had been born on the plane (which seems unlikely given the length of time they would have been on the plane, but it's possible), i.e. it would have generated more sympathy for her.

Also - and I'm certainly not saying that Aaron wasn't there since he was in utero, that would be absurd, but during the initial days after the crash when they were saying there were 48 survivors, they weren't counting him then. So if one of the seven people Kate helped were a pregnant Claire, then Jack probably wasn't counting Aaron as one of those eight he testified about. Not because Jack didn't consider Aaron to be a person, but simply because of the ambiguity involved. He could simply say "including the unborn baby" or "including a pregnant woman" or something like that in order to clarify.

I think there has to be some critical information that is missing at this point to help us piece all of this together.


----------



## Mike Farrington (Nov 16, 2000)

Do we know roughly when the Oceanic Six found rescue in real-world time? I'm frequently of the opinion that perhaps the Oceanic Six took the wrong heading when leaving the island and was thrown into the not-too-distant future. If that is the case, then the Oceanic Six's cover-story could be that they lived for let's say a year or two on some deserted island. That would give Kate plenty of time to claim that she became pregnant and gave birth herself. Because under no circumstance can I see Kate being allowed to keep another person's child.

This same thinking makes me think that Michael and Walt were thrown backwards in time (perhaps by just a few years). This would explain Taller Walt and would also allow Michael to become a crew-person on the Freighter under an assumed name before it launched. Because as it is now, I highly doubt that the freighter took on some random passer-by as a deckhand. Not with the presumed secrecy of their mission.


----------



## unicorngoddess (Nov 20, 2005)

gchance said:


> He survived the crash, yes, but wasn't on the manifest. The only people who would be named "Oceanic survivors" are those on the manifest who survived.


I disagree with this. If you're flying with an infant and you don't buy them their own seat and happen to get in a crash and that infant survives...is that infant NOT a survivor of the crash just because he didn't have his own ticket? That line of reasoning just doesn't work.

We've never heard the press say "There's one of the members of the Oceanic Six that had tickets to be on board Flight 815." The Oceanic Six are just the people who were RESCUED (let's leave the word survived out of this) that were related to the crash of Flight 815. Now, if you want, you can debate the meaning of rescue all you want. But I think it's pretty clear (whether you believe Aaron survived the crash or not) that he was, in fact, RESCUED along with the other passengers of flight 815. Hence people would look at these six living people and say, "Hey look, it's the Oceanic Six! The people that were rescued from an island after flight 815 went down!"

And, no, I don't believe that Ben or Michael is one of them. I think Ben has his own means to get on and off the island so he wouldn't have been "rescued" with the rest. And I don't think it's Michael because he's taken on a new identity so he probably won't associate himself with flight 815.


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

Mike Farrington said:


> Do we know roughly when the Oceanic Six found rescue in real-world time? I'm frequently of the opinion that perhaps the Oceanic Six took the wrong heading when leaving the island and was thrown into the not-too-distant future. If that is the case, then the Oceanic Six's cover-story could be that they lived for let's say a year or two on some deserted island. That would give Kate plenty of time to claim that she became pregnant and gave birth herself. Because under no circumstance can I see Kate being allowed to keep another person's child.


That would mean one of the eight original survivors of the crash is the father of the child. Since two of them are women, that leaves six possible fathers: Jack, Sayid, Hurley, the sixth of the six assuming it's not Aaron, and the other two who didn't make it, assuming they were men.

Also, it would reveal to the public that there's spooky time traveling going on. Everyone (the public in the Lost universe) knows when the crash was, and how many days it was between when they crashed and when they were rescued. If they're going to concoct a cover story, it's not going to be one that says that they were on a magic island where time moves at a different speed.


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

I don't think Ben is rescued or one of the six. I think we are just being led to believe that. Twists and turns are a Lost given.


----------



## 3D (Oct 9, 2001)

I'm of the opinion that Aaron is one of the Oceanic Six. I also think that one could argue either way whether the media would be correct or incorrect for including him in the moniker. My thinking is that the producers specifically called the group the Oceanic Six rather than the Oceanic Five so that there would be some ambiguity as to whether or not Aaron was a member, thereby allowing them to pull off the surprise ending to this week's episode. If the group had been called the Oceanic Five, it would have been much easier to guess that Jin's flashes were flashbacks rather than flash forwards. I expect the next set of flash forwards to clear up any ambiguities as to who comprises the six, now that said ambiguity is no longer necessary.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

TheGreyOwl said:


> So in the episode where Aaron was revealed to be living with Kate in the future, who else was revealed to be one of the Oceanic Six? Because the producers said one of the 6 was revealed during that episode.


Kate. We knew she was alive in the future, but at the end of the previous season, only Jack had been identified as one of the Oceanic 6.

For all we knew previous to that episode, no one except Jack was aware that Kate had made it off the island.


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

Amnesia said:


> Kate. We knew she was alive in the future, but at the end of the previous season, only Jack had been identified as one of the Oceanic 6.
> 
> For all we knew previous to that episode, no one except Jack was aware that Kate had made it off the island.


Not even him. The term "Oceanic Six" wasn't used until the first episode of this season when Hurley blurted it out to the cops who were chasing him.


----------



## jeff125va (Mar 15, 2001)

betts4 said:


> I don't think Ben is rescued or one of the six. I think we are just being led to believe that. Twists and turns are a Lost given.


How are we being led to believe that? We know that there's a high level of celebrity associated with the group, and what little we've seen of Ben makes it pretty clear that he'd be avoiding any degree of public recognition.


----------



## jeff125va (Mar 15, 2001)

Amnesia said:


> Kate. We knew she was alive in the future, but at the end of the previous season, only Jack had been identified as one of the Oceanic 6.
> 
> For all we knew previous to that episode, no one except Jack was aware that Kate had made it off the island.


It was revealed in the podcast prior to "Eggtown" that Kate had already been revealed, which could only have been in last season's finale. There was debate as to whether Kate was in the group because of her legal issues, but that was put to rest before that episode aired. Neither she nor Jack have actually been referred to (within the show) as one of the "Oceanic Six" by name.


----------



## MitchO (Nov 7, 2003)

Will THIS shut you people up about the argument? From TVGuide.com, cast members interview the producers with questions:

http://www.tvguide.com/news/lost-questions-answered/080304-01



> Yunjin Kim (Sun): "Is Aaron actually one of the Oceanic 6?"
> Cuse: We're not officially saying yet. We want the audience to engage in an active debate about who the Oceanic 6 are.
> Lindelof: Following [Sayid's] episode, we got several inquiries we weren't anticipating about, 'Is Ben a member of the Oceanic 6?' He could've assumed the identity of somebody on the plane [with] no surviving family members. Who the actual six are is very much in play through the end of the [March 13th] episode. We'll confirm or deny after that.


SO IT IS INTENTIONAL THAT WE DON'T KNOW YET.


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

MitchO said:


> Will THIS shut you people up about the argument? From TVGuide.com, cast members interview the producers with questions:
> 
> http://www.tvguide.com/news/lost-questions-answered/080304-01
> 
> SO IT IS INTENTIONAL THAT WE DON'T KNOW YET.


That says it was supposed to be a mystery until the 3/13 episode. They were obviously leaving a spot open for Jin. But that episode has aired. We're supposed to know who the six are.


----------



## unicorngoddess (Nov 20, 2005)

MitchO said:


> SO IT IS INTENTIONAL THAT WE DON'T KNOW YET.


But we've seen that episode and Sun was the ONLY one revealed in that one. So we now have our six one way or another.


----------



## jeff125va (Mar 15, 2001)

MitchO said:


> Will THIS shut you people up about the argument? From TVGuide.com, cast members interview the producers with questions:
> 
> http://www.tvguide.com/news/lost-questions-answered/080304-01
> 
> SO IT IS INTENTIONAL THAT WE DON'T KNOW YET.


But this _was_ the March 13th episode. So it's no longer in play.

If they meant to leave it ambiguous, then too much information was revealed between the podcast and previews prior to "Eggtown."

Btw, that interview is pretty spoilerific. Not so much that it actually answers any pending mysteries but it does mention certain ones that will be answered and when.


----------



## GDG76 (Oct 2, 2000)

My post only contains observations about previous shows, but some may not like it as I imagine the producers will re-reveal this fact sometime soon this season...



Spoiler



I saw this elsewhere and don't know if anyone has mentioned it yet.

When the hatch imploded/whatever it did, Michael, Walt, Jack, Hurley, Kate and Sawyer were at the Others camp, Jin, Sun, and Sayid were on their way to rescue those who were taken/help Jack's group.

Notice anything about the above people?

It doesn't really explain how Aaron could get off the island (maybe his brain isn't advanced enough to need a constant or since he's only known life on the island) but it may have some big implications as far as Sawyer getting off the island at some point ... and who can really leave this island and why they may be "trapped" there still... and could help explain why Claire is still on the island though she may not want to be...


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

GDG76 said:


> My post only contains observations about previous shows, but some may not like it as I imagine the producers will re-reveal this fact sometime soon this season...
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Spoiler



I've seen, that, and I've seen it speculated that Aaron being near the camp at that time is counteracted by his having been innoculated by the Others while in utero.


----------



## Mike Farrington (Nov 16, 2000)

aindik said:


> Also, it would reveal to the public that there's spooky time traveling going on. Everyone (the public in the Lost universe) knows when the crash was, and how many days it was between when they crashed and when they were rescued. If they're going to concoct a cover story, it's not going to be one that says that they were on a magic island where time moves at a different speed.


The public would have no realization of time travel. The survivors know that's it's only been a few months, but their story would stretch the truth to cover any time that has elapsed. If they do happen to have jumped forward in time (if if just by several months), then Kate could claim that Aaron was her child. Either from an island mate, or from a pre-flight mate.


----------



## jeff125va (Mar 15, 2001)

GDG76 said:


> My post only contains observations about previous shows, but some may not like it as I imagine the producers will re-reveal this fact sometime soon this season...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


What are we supposed to notice?


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

jeff125va said:


> What are we supposed to notice?


None of the Oceanic Six were near the hatch when it exploded.


----------



## jeff125va (Mar 15, 2001)

aindik said:


> None of the Oceanic Six were near the hatch when it exploded.


Is there a point to that?


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

jeff125va said:


> Is there a point to that?


I think the point is the speculation that being near the hatch when it exploded makes you susceptible to time-travel weirdness when you leave the island, which is perhaps why the folks who left are the only ones who left.


----------



## jeff125va (Mar 15, 2001)

aindik said:


> I think the point is the speculation that being near the hatch when it exploded makes you susceptible to time-travel weirdness when you leave the island, which is perhaps why the folks who left are the only ones who left.


Well, Desmond recovered from the effects. There's been no indication that what he experienced would cause him to be unable to leave even though Sayid does.


----------



## GDG76 (Oct 2, 2000)

jeff125va said:


> Well, Desmond recovered from the effects. There's been no indication that what he experienced would cause him to be unable to leave even though Sayid does.


This was fairly well covered in Desmonds episode.

People would need someone that they knew in the past (at some random time it appears) and still had a connection to in the present if they were near the hatch (on the beach) when it went off... Who would Locke's constant be at this point? Claire's? etc. Unless they have Faraday/Desmond still there, would they even know about the constants and how to use them?

All of them would be able to physically leave, it's just whether or not 
a) they could survive it
b) they are told they wouldn't survive it, so they don't even try.

I suspect it may come to this in a future episode, but Jack could easily be Claire's constant (ie she looks him up in the past on the basis that he is her half brother)


----------



## unicorngoddess (Nov 20, 2005)

Okay. I see where you're going with that. So maybe Claire DID get on the helicopter and try to leave but when she got on the freighter she started suffering from the same thing Desmond did and she could've died when she didn't find her "constant." Then they realized that anyone near the hatch when Desmond activated the failsafe could not safely leave without risking their lives.

And since Claire had been giving Aaron those injections every nine days, he was immune.


----------



## gchance (Dec 6, 2002)

GDG76 said:


> People would need someone that they knew in the past (at some random time it appears) and still had a connection to in the present if they were near the hatch (on the beach) when it went off...


Some THING, not some ONE. It just happens that something includes someone. Remember, when Faraday said "something" to Desmond, Desmond asked, "Can it be a person?" It could be a picture, an artifact, a dog even.

My point is it doesn't HAVE to be a person.

Greg


----------



## jeff125va (Mar 15, 2001)

GDG76 said:


> This was fairly well covered in Desmonds episode.
> 
> People would need someone that they knew in the past (at some random time it appears) and still had a connection to in the present if they were near the hatch (on the beach) when it went off... Who would Locke's constant be at this point? Claire's? etc. Unless they have Faraday/Desmond still there, would they even know about the constants and how to use them?
> 
> ...


Well if it's A, then there'd be no reason to go back and help them. B doesn't really make sense. If someone could tell them why they couldn't survive it, they could tell them what they need to do to survive it.

If the mouse needed a constant, then I can't see why Aaron wouldn't need one.

The ones on the beach were nowhere near as close to the explosion as Desmond. They were about a mile and a half away. The sky looked pretty much the same from the beach as it did from the ferry.

It doesn't explain Jin, either, so there must certainly be more to it, even if that is a factor.


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

jeff125va said:


> If the mouse needed a constant, then I can't see why Aaron wouldn't need one.


Perhaps he's immune because of the injections he was getting before he was born.



jeff125va said:


> It doesn't explain Jin, either, so there must certainly be more to it, even if that is a factor.


True. Even if Jin and Sun need constants, they have each other as constants. Same with Rose and Bernard.


----------



## jeff125va (Mar 15, 2001)

aindik said:


> Perhaps he's immune because of the injections he was getting before he was born.
> 
> True. Even if Jin and Sun need constants, they have each other as constants. Same with Rose and Bernard.


Desmond was taking the injections, too.

Is this theory supposed to be taken seriously?


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

jeff125va said:


> Desmond was taking the injections, too.


Perhaps they only work if you take them from birth or before.



jeff125va said:


> Is this theory supposed to be taken seriously?


I have no idea.


----------



## Hunter Green (Feb 22, 2002)

uncdrew said:


> Thing is, perhaps that cell phone wasn't supposed to be a tip off. I just don't know the cell phones well enough and it made me think there was a twist.


When I groaned at the continuity error of Jack having a modern Motorola cell phone in his flashback at the end of the last season, and then dismissed it, and it turned out to have been a key clue that it wasn't a flashback at all, I learned to pay attention to cell phone styles.

Though by time I got a good luck at Jin's cell phone, I had already concluded that the Sun and Jin storylines were not contemporaneous. (I thought they might both be flash-forwards, but that Jin and Sun had split up or something. The obvious interpretation of the story was too obvious. But it wasn't until the cell phone that I figured out that Jin's was a flashback, though once I did, his hairstyle and his temper all clicked right in.)



tewcewl said:


> 2a) Daniel's sobbing as he watches the news takes on an even more puzzling aspect as this predates him being on the island.​



It's almost as if someone's consciousness got unstuck in time...



wprager said:


> Well, it may not be two characters of the opposite sex lying naked in bed together, but until we are shown _another_ character who is on the freighter under an assumed name, and with a connection to Ben -- until that time I will just go on assuming that Michael is the mole.


The important question is whether Michael slept with Jae.​


----------



## unicorngoddess (Nov 20, 2005)

jeff125va said:


> Desmond was taking the injections, too.
> 
> Is this theory supposed to be taken seriously?


Yeah, but Desmond was right on top of the electromagnetic anomolly, so maybe his injections weren't enough...could also be the reason he was perfectly normal again after one conversation with Penny...maybe his just wasn't as severe as it could be.


----------



## vman (Feb 9, 2001)

For the record, here are the excerpts from recent podcasts about the Oceanic 6.

In the Feb 28 podcast, when "pre-hashing" the episode "The Other Woman", during the 7th minute:


Spoiler



"- We will find out within the first five minutes of this episode whether or not Juliet was one of the Oceanic 6. I think that there is still a couple slots available, depending on who you talk to. Some people say there are no slots available because they are counting Ben and Aaron both as members of the Oceanic 6.
- But (s)he wasn't on the plane.
- but neither was Aaron, if you think about it, so
- well he was...
- he was in utero
- he was in utero
- he didn't buy a ticket
- but he was on the plane
- I'm just saying, anything's possible
- after these first eight though, if there's any remaining questions about who the Oceanic 6 are, we will actually list them.
- Yeah. Well I think by the end of episode 7 it will be very clear who the six are. We don't mean to be cutesy about the Oceanic six, we hold them very very seriously."



And in the March 10 podcast (also during the 7th minute), they "pre-hash" episode Ji Yeon and say:



Spoiler



"Hopefully by the end of that episode many of your questions about the identities of the Oceanic 6 will be answered."


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

Other thoughts:
1) Either a) Jin is one of the people who, according to the cover story, survived the crash but didn't survive post-crash, or b) Sun lied about her date of conception. If a, then Jin's tombstone is wrong even from the perspective of the cover story. He died at least a month later than 9-22-04. If b, then people would have been expecting her to give birth for a month before she finally did. The call to the ambulance would exacerbate that. "Something wrong" necessitating delivery at what everyone thinks is week 37 but is really week 33 is much more serious than her doctors know. If she carried "to term," the doctors would think she was due when she really was only at week 36.

2) It seems fairly incredible that one of the people Kate saved from a crash into an ocean was a newborn. It seems highly unbelievable that the infant (miraculously born in the air pre-crash) survived under water for long enough for Kate to save him. So, the only other possibility is that Aaron was born after the crash, which would make Claire another person who survived the crash but died afterward.

3) Jack said 8 people survived the crash. Assuming Aaron was not yet born, I don't think Jack would include him in that 8 that survived (IOW, if 7 people survived and one of them was pregnant, Jack would have said that rather than saying 8 people survived and Kate pulled the other 7 out of the water). Which means that, if Aaron is one of the O6, then three other people supposedly survived the crash but died later, rather than two.


----------



## balboa dave (Jan 19, 2004)

jeff125va said:


> Ummm... if we can't factor in _anything_ that they say, wouldn't that include the next sentence ("The one thing that Carlton and I . . .") ?


Thus my use of the word "ironically."


----------



## jeff125va (Mar 15, 2001)

balboa dave said:


> Thus my use of the word "ironically."


Ah. Thought you were just referring to the general notion that even their own statements about the show can't be taken as gospel.


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

jeff125va said:


> Wow, you're really going out on a limb there!


That was in response to CarynFromHermosa, who said:



> I don't think Michael is trustworthy. I am not convinced he's Ben's "man on the boat"...


----------



## jeff125va (Mar 15, 2001)

aindik said:


> Other thoughts:
> 1) Either a) Jin is one of the people who, according to the cover story, survived the crash but didn't survive post-crash, or b) Sun lied about her date of conception. If a, then Jin's tombstone is wrong even from the perspective of the cover story. He died at least a month later than 9-22-04. If b, then people would have been expecting her to give birth for a month before she finally did. The call to the ambulance would exacerbate that. "Something wrong" necessitating delivery at what everyone thinks is week 37 but is really week 33 is much more serious than her doctors know. If she carried "to term," the doctors would think she was due when she really was only at week 36.
> 
> 2) It seems fairly incredible that one of the people Kate saved from a crash into an ocean was a newborn. It seems highly unbelievable that the infant (miraculously born in the air pre-crash) survived under water for long enough for Kate to save him. So, the only other possibility is that Aaron was born after the crash, which would make Claire another person who survived the crash but died afterward.
> ...


1. As far as (a) goes, you point out yourself that there's no apparent reason for that to be the case, since they say he died that day. Meaning that he could be one of those but we have absolutely no indication either way. For (b), her doctor would have been bound by doctor-patient secrecy, but from what we've seen so far they all seem to be going to great lengths not to allow even a hint of what really happened to get out. So I'm guessing she just lied to her doctor. Who doesn't? (Don't you watch "House"?) Her doctor would be the only one who would really be in a position to call her on it anyway. Someone else might say "you look further along than that" but who's going to question a plane crash survivor about their story anyway? What are they going to say? Jeez Sun you look huge! There must have been more survivors than you're claiming. Did you guys leave them back there to die?

2. I mentioned something similar earlier regarding Jack's testimony. I think what you're saying seems likely, or there's some highly significant information that we don't even have a hint about yet.

3. Yes, assuming that about Aaron. Regardless of the earlier "debate" about Aaron, he simply wouldn't count him, just like he didn't count him among the 48 on the beach. But he did say 8, so what are we to conclude? Even more reason that I think there's something REALLY big missing from the picture we have so far.


----------



## jeff125va (Mar 15, 2001)

wprager said:


> That was in response to CarynFromHermosa, who said:


I know, sorry. Should have included a


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

Mike Farrington said:


> Do we know roughly when the Oceanic Six found rescue in real-world time? I'm frequently of the opinion that perhaps the Oceanic Six took the wrong heading when leaving the island and was thrown into the not-too-distant future. If that is the case, then the Oceanic Six's cover-story could be that they lived for let's say a year or two on some deserted island. That would give Kate plenty of time to claim that she became pregnant and gave birth herself. Because *under no circumstance* can I see Kate being allowed to keep another person's child.
> 
> This same thinking makes me think that Michael and Walt were thrown backwards in time (perhaps by just a few years). This would explain Taller Walt and would also allow Michael to become a crew-person on the Freighter under an assumed name before it launched. Because as it is now, I highly doubt that the freighter took on some random passer-by as a deckhand. Not with the presumed secrecy of their mission.


What if Claire had a will done up before she "died"?

I do agree with the point about a freighter on a very, very secretive mission not picking up a deckhand without some level of checking him out. Interesting.


----------



## TheGreyOwl (Aug 18, 2003)

jeff125va said:


> 3. Yes, assuming that about Aaron. Regardless of the earlier "debate" about Aaron, he simply wouldn't count him, just like he didn't count him among the 48 on the beach. But he did say 8, so what are we to conclude? Even more reason that I think there's something REALLY big missing from the picture we have so far.


That's actually a good point. Does anyone have the exact quote of what Jack said in that episode? I can't recall if it was worded like "8 survived the crash, then 2 died later", which goes along with what you're pointing out. Or maybe his quote could be taken as meaning something more like "some people survived the crash, 2 died later, so now there are 6 survivors". But I can't remember what he said exactly...


----------



## jeff125va (Mar 15, 2001)

TheGreyOwl said:


> That's actually a good point. Does anyone have the exact quote of what Jack said in that episode? I can't recall if it was worded like "8 survived the crash, then 2 died later", which goes along with what you're pointing out. Or maybe his quote could be taken as meaning something more like "some people survived the crash, 2 died later, so now there are 6 survivors". But I can't remember what he said exactly...


If I still have the episode I'll try to provide an exact quote, but he definitely said that 8 of them survived the crash. I don't remember how or if he said how many died later, or if we just did the math in our minds.


----------



## Roadblock (Apr 5, 2006)

JACK: Only eight of us survived the crash. We landed in the water. I was hurt, pretty badly. In fact, if it weren't for her, I would have never made it to the shore. She took care of me. She took care of all of us. She--she gave us first aid, water, found food, made shelter. She tried to save the other two, but they didn't--


----------



## TheGreyOwl (Aug 18, 2003)

Roadblock said:


> JACK: Only eight of us survived the crash. We landed in the water. I was hurt, pretty badly. In fact, if it weren't for her, I would have never made it to the shore. She took care of me. She took care of all of us. She--she gave us first aid, water, found food, made shelter. She tried to save the other two, but they didn't--


Thanks for looking that up. That's interesting - the way it's worded, 8 could have survived including a pregnant Claire, then 2 other people died, leaving 6, then Claire could have given birth bringing the number to 7. They have shown us 7 people in the future if we count Ben, but I'm still not sure about counting him. I guess it really depends on why they had to fabricate a story in the first place.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

vman said:


> For the record, here are the excerpts from recent podcasts about the Oceanic 6.
> 
> In the Feb 28 podcast, when "pre-hashing" the episode "The Other Woman", during the 7th minute:
> 
> ...





Spoiler



So, I'm not sure how this clears anything up. It sounds like, based on what was said here it's NOT Ben or Aaron, but they did leave over the possibility it COULD be either. And he said it would be CLEAR, but it ISN'T. Maybe they thought it would be clear but it didn't work out that way. So after the 8th episode they will list them for us? Cool!


----------



## jeff125va (Mar 15, 2001)

TheGreyOwl said:


> Thanks for looking that up. That's interesting - the way it's worded, 8 could have survived including a pregnant Claire, then 2 other people died, leaving 6, then Claire could have given birth bringing the number to 7. They have shown us 7 people in the future if we count Ben, but I'm still not sure about counting him. I guess it really depends on why they had to fabricate a story in the first place.


Or (according to their story, which is false, of course) Claire died in childbirth or shortly after, and Aaron essentially replaced her as one of the six. That is, we know that there were 6 shortly after the crash, and 6 who returned. I think if that's the case, and they're claiming that Kate was raising Aaron for the first several months of his life, she could essentially be considered his adoptive mother in the absence of any legal system on the island. If they were there for several years she certainly would be, so why not a few months?

Just speculation, but I think it fits with everything we know so far. No need to explain any pregnancy time-frames or anything like that. It doesn't help to explain what really happened, of course.


----------



## jeff125va (Mar 15, 2001)

Steveknj said:


> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> So, I'm not sure how this clears anything up. It sounds like, based on what was said here it's NOT Ben or Aaron, but they did leave over the possibility it COULD be either. And he said it would be CLEAR, but it ISN'T. Maybe they thought it would be clear but it didn't work out that way. So after the 8th episode they will list them for us? Cool!


It's clear to some of us. If we didn't know that it was supposed to be clear, it might not be. We simply don't have enough information to conclude that it's Ben. We can speculate that Ben assumed the identity of one of the passengers, or that the Six's story is that Kate conceived Aaron on the island, or whatever else, but that's all pure conjecture. If we have to rely on conjecture, then it's not clear. Regardless of the semantic arguments we could get into about Aaron being on the plane, if it's supposed to be clear, and the choice is between him and Ben, I don't see how there can be any doubt.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

jeff125va said:


> It's clear to some of us. If we didn't know that it was supposed to be clear, it might not be. We simply don't have enough information to conclude that it's Ben. We can speculate that Ben assumed the identity of one of the passengers, or that the Six's story is that Kate conceived Aaron on the island, or whatever else, but that's all pure conjecture. If we have to rely on conjecture, then it's not clear. Regardless of the semantic arguments we could get into about Aaron being on the plane, if it's supposed to be clear, and the choice is between him and Ben, I don't see how there can be any doubt.


To me it could be just as clear that it's Ben. Again, O6 doesn't have to MEAN that they were on the plane, just rescued as part of the O6 rescue. How is it ANY clearer it's Aaron and not Ben? That's your thought process making it clear in YOUR head. While the more I think about it, I probably agree it's Aaron, (I had originally speculated it might be Jin, but if the public thinks he's dead, and the O6 is a moniker created by the fictional media on Lost, then THAT would not make sense), there's no reason it couldn't be Ben. To me, it being Aaron is not clearer than it being Ben to the point where "there cannot be any doubt" as you said above.


----------



## jeff125va (Mar 15, 2001)

Steveknj said:


> To me it could be just as clear that it's Ben. Again, O6 doesn't have to MEAN that they were on the plane, just rescued as part of the O6 rescue. How is it ANY clearer it's Aaron and not Ben? That's your thought process making it clear in YOUR head. While the more I think about it, I probably agree it's Aaron, (I had originally speculated it might be Jin, but if the public thinks he's dead, and the O6 is a moniker created by the fictional media on Lost, then THAT would not make sense), there's no reason it couldn't be Ben. To me, it being Aaron is not clearer than it being Ben to the point where "there cannot be any doubt" as you said above.


Actually, according to Henry Ian Cusick, it does mean that. This is from an interview he did discussing "The Constant:"


> Q: We are learning one by one who make up the Oceanic Six, so far revealed to be Jack, Hurley, Sayid, Kate and maybe (the shows not confirming) baby Aaron. Since Desmond was never on Flight 815, can we assume he does not turn out to be one of the six?
> A: Thats what all of us were trying to figure out when we were receiving the scripts. I think it suddenly dawned on us that you had to be an original passenger on the plane that went down to be an Oceanic Six.


Even if one insists on construing "original passenger" in the strictest sense possible so as to argue against Aaron, there's absolutely NO way to interpret that to include Ben, certainly not given the choice between him and Aaron. Given that I wrote my previous post based on that assumption, I still say that I don't see how there can be any doubt.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

jeff125va said:


> Even if one insists on construing "original passenger" in the strictest sense possible so as to argue against Aaron, there's absolutely NO way to interpret that to include Ben, certainly not given the choice between him and Aaron.


I don't think it requires a very strict sense to exclude Aaron as an "original passenger", especially with the qualifier "original". Claire was a passenger. Aaron was not. Vincent was more of a passenger than Aaron was and he traveled in the cargo section.

And Ben could certainly arrange to take the place of a passenger... So perhaps it's not "Benjamin Linus" who is one of the Oceanic Six, but rather whatever name Ben is currently using...


----------



## jeff125va (Mar 15, 2001)

Amnesia said:


> I don't think it requires a very strict sense to exclude Aaron as an "original passenger", especially with the qualifier "original". Claire was a passenger. Aaron was not. Vincent was more of a passenger than Aaron was and he traveled in the cargo section.
> 
> And Ben could certainly arrange to take the place of a passenger... So perhaps it's not "Benjamin Linus" who is one of the Oceanic Six, but rather whatever name Ben is currently using...


You're saying Ben was more of an "original" passenger than Aaron?


----------



## philw1776 (Jan 19, 2002)

I'm not into the O6 furor, but given what we know about Ben's ability to manipulate folks, his access to information via the net, the flash fwd episode with Sayid and Ben, it's not beyond possibility that Ben somehow gets the passengers to all say that he was on the plane and was one of the O6 and backs it up with falsified digital records. Trivial compared to faking the flight wreckage, IF he was the one who did so.


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

philw1776 said:


> I'm not into the O6 furor, but given what we know about Ben's ability to manipulate folks, his access to information via the net, the flash fwd episode with Sayid and Ben, it's not beyond possibility that Ben somehow gets the passengers to all say that he was on the plane and was one of the O6 and backs it up with falsified digital records. Trivial compared to faking the flight wreckage, IF he was the one who did so.


Someone else said this already but I'll say it again: What possible motivation does Ben have to make himself one of the Oceanic Six? What advantage does the publicity from that give him?


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

jeff125va said:


> Actually, according to Henry Ian Cusick, it does mean that. This is from an interview he did discussing "The Constant:"
> Even if one insists on construing "original passenger" in the strictest sense possible so as to argue against Aaron, there's absolutely NO way to interpret that to include Ben, certainly not given the choice between him and Aaron. Given that I wrote my previous post based on that assumption, I still say that I don't see how there can be any doubt.


First of all, Henry is just an actor and may not have any more insight than we might have. Second, he says "I think it suddenly dawned on us that you had to be an original passenger on the plane that went down to be an Oceanic Six. " Well, he THINKS is the key word here, as it might be speculation. And third, I don't buy the argument that Aaron was a passenger on the plane as he was not born yet, meaning, he was not a LISTED passenger on the plane. Now, as I said, it could very well BE Aaron, but to say that there can be NO doubt is a leap of faith. There IS doubt, even if it's just a slight doubt.


----------



## jeff125va (Mar 15, 2001)

philw1776 said:


> I'm not into the O6 furor, but given what we know about Ben's ability to manipulate folks, his access to information via the net, the flash fwd episode with Sayid and Ben, it's not beyond possibility that Ben somehow gets the passengers to all say that he was on the plane and was one of the O6 and backs it up with falsified digital records. Trivial compared to faking the flight wreckage, IF he was the one who did so.


The question isn't whether there might be some remotely conceivable way for it to be Ben. We've been told that it's CLEAR who they are. Without even a hint that Ben _actually_ did any such thing, how could it _clearly_ be him?


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

jeff125va said:


> Actually, according to Henry Ian Cusick, it does mean that. This is from an interview he did discussing "The Constant:"
> Even if one insists on construing "original passenger" in the strictest sense possible so as to argue against Aaron, there's absolutely NO way to interpret that to include Ben, certainly not given the choice between him and Aaron. Given that I wrote my previous post based on that assumption, I still say that I don't see how there can be any doubt.





aindik said:


> Someone else said this already but I'll say it again: What possible motivation does Ben have to make himself one of the Oceanic Six? What advantage does the publicity from that give him?


Right now none, but that doesn't mean we won't find out some reason later on. Speculation could have something to do with Darma or Penny's dad. For speculation's sake let me pose this scenario:

Lets assume that Penny's dad does not know what Ben looks like, just what he's done. So the assumption is, that "Ben Linus" is dead and that Ben has somehow blackmailed the other 5 to say he was on the plane and is "someone else". This could be part of the reason Jack wants to go back to the island, knowing he's helping a killer, same with Sayid. It could have something to do with Jin's faked death date and why Hurley went bonkers (and was asking if anyone else was at the grave, and also refused to talk to the man who came to visit him at the mental institution). All of those things might be explained further down the road.

I'm not saying this is the way it will be worked out by the writers, but what I am saying is that the reason why Ben would want to leave the island may not be appearent yet.


----------



## danterner (Mar 4, 2005)

...therefore, the iocaine powder surely must be in the cup in front of me...


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

jeff125va said:


> The question isn't whether there might be some remotely conceivable way for it to be Ben. We've been told that it's CLEAR who they are. Without even a hint that Ben _actually_ did any such thing, how could it _clearly[/] be him?_


_

Clear to whom? It's still not clear to me and about half the folks reading the forum. Could be clear to the writers, but they are very close to the story.

I won't eat crow if it is indeed Aaron, as that is a definite possibility, but it's just not as CLEAR as the writers said or you have said._


----------



## jeff125va (Mar 15, 2001)

Steveknj said:


> First of all, Henry is just an actor and may not have any more insight than we might have. Second, he says "I think it suddenly dawned on us that you had to be an original passenger on the plane that went down to be an Oceanic Six. " Well, he THINKS is the key word here, as it might be speculation. And third, I don't buy the argument that Aaron was a passenger on the plane as he was not born yet, meaning, he was not a LISTED passenger on the plane. Now, as I said, it could very well BE Aaron, but to say that there can be NO doubt is a leap of faith. There IS doubt, even if it's just a slight doubt.


Reading the scripts ahead of time doesn't give him any more insight? If you're going to pase his words, he said "he thinks" that it suddenly dawned on them, not that he thinks you had to be an original passenger. As far as that phrase goes, I think he was choosing his words so as not to give too much away. If he had said something like "including in utero passengers" he might as well have read off a list.

If it were a question of Aaron among some other choices, there might be some doubt. But Ben was neither listed as a passenger, nor on the plane either in utero or post-birth in any way, shape or form.


----------



## hanumang (Jan 28, 2002)

Ben manipulating things to make himself one of the Oceanic 6 wouldn't make sense to me, especially if there is some degree of notoriety around the group (as we have been led to be believe).

Considering the resources being used to find the island - and Ben specifically - it seems like a far too visible way to get off the island for Mr. Linus. Also, when Matthew Abbadon - Naomi's boss - visited Hurley in the seasoner opener, he made it seem as though there was doubt about the fate of the other players - Losties, freighter follks, helicopter team, whoever - involved. 

And, as Sayid's flash-forward demonstrated, Ben is still being hunted...


----------



## ThePennyDropped (Jul 5, 2006)

danterner said:


> ...therefore, the iocaine powder surely must be in the cup in front of me...


lol :up::up:

--Debbie


----------



## MitchO (Nov 7, 2003)

I think the last of the O6 is goth.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

jeff125va said:


> You're saying Ben was more of an "original" passenger than Aaron?


He's just as much of a "original passenger" as Aaron--that is, not at all.

However, Ben could convince the public that he was an original passenger (that is---boarded the plane as a passenger). Aaron could not. Even if the story was that he was born on the plane and therefore could be considered a "survivor", he was most definitely not an original passenger.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Amnesia said:


> He's just as much of a "original passenger" as Aaron--that is, not at all.
> 
> However, Ben could convince the public that he was an original passenger (that is---boarded the plane as a passenger). Aaron could not. Even if the story was that he was born on the plane and therefore could be considered a "survivor", he was most definitely not an original passenger.


Exactly.

Look all I'm saying is that to say "There is no doubt" is absurd. Now if jeff125va had said "There's no doubt IN MY MIND" I could accept that. I have yet so see definitive proof that it's Aaron (such as it obviously be stated in an episode, the writers coming out and saying it, or it being SO obvious, such as Jack, Kate, etc.). To me Aaron is among a few positilites, probably the leading possibility, but he's not SO obvious that there is no doubt.


----------



## jeff125va (Mar 15, 2001)

Steveknj said:


> Clear to whom? It's still not clear to me and about half the folks reading the forum. Could be clear to the writers, but they are very close to the story.
> 
> I won't eat crow if it is indeed Aaron, as that is a definite possibility, but it's just not as CLEAR as the writers said or you have said.


Maybe I wasn't clear in making my point about it being clear. I'm taking them at their word that it should be clear/obvious to us by now who the six are. I understand that you're saying it's unclear to you because we've seen in the flash-forwards a total of seven people who were on the island. But since they've told us it should be clear, coupled with the knowledge that it's someone who was on the plane, I'm concluding that we can rule out any possibility that requires conjecture or speculation. Aaron only requires a slightly loose interpretation of "passenger."

Think about it this way: if we had only seen one of either Ben or Aaron, which one would make us say "well that wasn't CLEAR" more? The one who wasn't on the plane in any way whatsoever, or the one who just wasn't listed on the manifest, but was certainly physically on the plane? We could come up with the same speculation about how it could be Ben, but we'd be saying that it's ridiculous that they said it was "clear" who they are. If it were only Aaron, we'd say well they threw us a bit of a curve there since he wasn't _listed_ as a passenger, but yeah he was there on the plane, in utero.

Anyway... maybe we're just not on the same page here.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

jeff125va said:


> The one who wasn't on the plane in any way whatsoever, or the one who just wasn't listed on the manifest, but was certainly physically on the plane?


Aaron was *not* "certainly" physically on the plane.


----------



## latrobe7 (May 1, 2005)

Amnesia said:


> Aaron was *not* "certainly" physically on the plane.


That's the opinion you've expressed several times. What difference does it make?


----------



## jeff125va (Mar 15, 2001)

Amnesia said:


> He's just as much of a "original passenger" as Aaron--that is, not at all.
> 
> However, Ben could convince the public that he was an original passenger (that is---boarded the plane as a passenger). Aaron could not. Even if the story was that he was born on the plane and therefore could be considered a "survivor", he was most definitely not an original passenger.


So "original passenger" (especially taking into account that he probably didn't want to give away too much information) can't possibly be interpreted to mean an unborn child who was on the plane, but "be" can be interpreted to mean "convince the public?" You either have to interpret "original passenger" a little more loosely or rule out both Ben _and_ Aaron, since, as you point out, neither were original passengers at all.


----------



## jeff125va (Mar 15, 2001)

Amnesia said:


> Aaron was *not* "certainly" physically on the plane.


I now see the futility in trying to use any sort of reasoning in this discussion.


----------



## cwoody222 (Nov 13, 1999)

Why wouldn't the media dub a unborn child who survived a PLANE CRASH INTO THE OCEAN AND THEN MONTHS ON A DESERTED ISLAND a 'survivor' of said plane crash?

If this happened today SURELY the baby would be considered just as much as a survivor and a celebrity than people who's only difference was their name appeared on a manifest.


----------



## Hunter Green (Feb 22, 2002)

danterner said:


> ...therefore, the iocaine powder surely must be in the cup in front of me...


You're trying to trick me into giving away something. It won't work.

The way I see it, Carlton and Cuse, hearing about these conversations, are either distressed thinking "how can these schmoes not get it?" (hope not), or better yet, are thinking, "boy, we outdid ourselves pulling a fast one on those rubes with the old 'you'll definitely know by the end of ep 7' trick!" (I hope!).

Let's pretend this whole thread is us trying to trick them into giving away something. It might work.


----------



## ToddNeedsTiVo (Sep 2, 2003)

Amnesia said:


> Aaron was *not* "certainly" physically on the plane.


If you were ever involved in a pregnancy, I can only assume this would be a very confusing nine-month period for you. Especially near the end.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

ToddNeedsTiVo said:


> If you were ever involved in a pregnancy, I can only assume this would be a very confusing nine-month period for you. Especially near the end.


Next time they show the crash, I'll see if I can't do some screen-caps and zoom in to see if I can see fetus Aaron flying alongside the plane...that would be pretty conclusive evidence of, well, something.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

latrobe7 said:


> That's the opinion you've expressed several times. What difference does it make?


It matters just as much as jeff125va's opinion that Aaron was "certainly" on the plane.


jeff125va said:


> I now see the futility in trying to use any sort of reasoning in this discussion.


It wasn't reasoning that was at fault, it was the blatant assumption that your opinion was the only valid one. You say that your opinion is "certainly" true. I disagree.


----------



## jeff125va (Mar 15, 2001)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Next time they show the crash, I'll see if I can't do some screen-caps and zoom in to see if I can see fetus Aaron flying alongside the plane...that would be pretty conclusive evidence of, well, something.


That's a perfectly reasonable explanation. Maybe they just didn't show him crawling back inside Claire, what with all the chaos on the beach and everything. I mean, they have to leave some things to the imagination, right?


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Amnesia said:


> It matters just as much as jeff125va's opinion that Aaron was "certainly" on the plane.
> It wasn't reasoning that was at fault, it was the blatant assumption that your opinion was the only valid one. You say that your opinion is "certainly" true. I disagree.


Exactly my point. I don't disagree necessarily that it's Aaron, I only disagree with the assumption that we look dumb because there's no doubt it's him!!

Anyway, we keep going round and round on this.... and I'm sure we'll find out soon enough. I'm getting excited just thinking about Thursday's episode!


----------



## jeff125va (Mar 15, 2001)

Amnesia said:


> It matters just as much as jeff125va's opinion that Aaron was "certainly" on the plane.
> It wasn't reasoning that was at fault, it was the blatant assumption that your opinion was the only valid one. You say that your opinion is "certainly" true. I disagree.


You're right. I now see the error of my ways. I just blatantly assumed that since he was inside Claire before the flight and after the flight, that he was inside Claire during the flight as well and since she was on the plane (another blatant assumption based on nothing more than seeing her sitting in a seat in the cabin with a big pregnant belly), that he was also on the plane.


----------



## Roadblock (Apr 5, 2006)

ToddNeedsTiVo said:


> If you were ever involved in a pregnancy, I can only assume this would be a very confusing nine-month period for you. Especially near the end.


LOL


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

jeff125va said:


> You're right. I now see the error of my ways. I just blatantly assumed that since he was inside Claire before the flight and after the flight _(...)_


There's the issue right there. Your opinion is that the fetus *is* Aaron (and I assume that the zygote was Aaron, too). My opinion is that the fetus *became* Aaron, but was not Aaron at that point (just like the zygote became the fetus but is not the same thing).

Do you understand the difference in opinion?


----------



## Squeak (May 12, 2000)

Amnesia said:


> There's the issue right there. Your opinion is that the fetus *is* Aaron (and I assume that the zygote was Aaron, too). My opinion is that the fetus *became* Aaron, but was not Aaron at that point (just like the zygote became the fetus but is not the same thing).
> 
> Do you understand the difference in opinion?


Do you agree that the fetus, absent any name, was on the plane, and survived the crash?


----------



## TheGreyOwl (Aug 18, 2003)

I'm extremely reluctant and hesitant to post more about this topic, but now I'm truly curious. I'm really not trying to argue with you Amnesia, but I just can't understand the distinctions you're making. So no offense meant, and (hopefully) none will be taken.

I honestly don't mean to sound condescending, and I apologize in advance if it comes across that way, but have you had children? I ask because it seems that you're basing your view on theory and things you've read and not on what you've actually experienced. I get and even agree that at some point during the pregnancy the fetus it is not recognizable as or even equivalent to the baby that will be born. But for someone that's been through a pregnancy that point is clearly way before 8-9 months (and this is why I wouldn't count Ji Yeon as a survivor, passenger, or anything else). No, I can't tell you where to draw the line, but I know that 8-9 months is too far. Yes, this is my opinion and not a fact, but my opinion is based on real-life experience.

In the ultrasound video of my son, he has features that clearly resemble him to this day (he's 6 now). You can tell that it is the same person just by looking. In his ultrasound, he was sucking his thumb in a peculiar way and would pop it out of his mouth which made a "clicking" sound. During the pregnancy, we could hear this sound through my wife's stomach. After he was born, he had the same habit. We have similar stories about my daughter (she's almost 3 now) and her ultrasound. She would constantly get hiccups in the womb, which we could hear and feel. We can watch it happening on the ultrasound, and to this day she is still especially susceptible to getting hiccups. The people in the ultrasound and the babies that were born are clearly the same people (at least in our case - maybe other people work differently) These ultrasounds were from 5-6 months during the pregnancy, and even at that point they were recognizable as being the same person as the babies that were born.

Of course, I'm not sure what criteria you're using to say that 2 people or 2 "beings" are or are not the same. Is it DNA comparison? Because the DNA for the fetus and baby are identical, as would the fingerprints, retinal patterns, or anything else that is used to uniquely identify a person. Is it the fact that the fetus wasn't named "Aaron", since the name was given after birth, and that's why you're saying they aren't the same? Would you interpret it differently if the name was given prior to birth? I guess I just don't see the mutual exclusivity of "becoming" something and not being the same as what you were before. When someone "becomes" a teenager, they're still the same person. When someone becomes a legal adult, they're still the same person. When someone becomes middle aged, they're still the same person. Why should this be different when a fetus "becomes" a baby?


----------



## jeff125va (Mar 15, 2001)

Amnesia said:


> There's the issue right there. Your opinion is that the fetus *is* Aaron (and I assume that the zygote was Aaron, too). My opinion is that the fetus *became* Aaron, but was not Aaron at that point (just like the zygote became the fetus but is not the same thing).
> 
> Do you understand the difference in opinion?


I don't consider that a difference in opinion any more than I would if we disagreed about what 2 + 2 equals.

But if you're going to start from that assumption, then how can it be either Ben or Aaron, based on the information we have to go on from both the show itself and what the producers and actors have told us? Neither of them could be considered an original passenger using your definitions. And no reasonable person could consider it "clear" who the 6th one is because of the speculation involved in making the case for either one of them.


----------



## jradford (Dec 28, 2004)

Amnesia said:


> There's the issue right there. Your opinion is that the fetus *is* Aaron (and I assume that the zygote was Aaron, too). My opinion is that the fetus *became* Aaron, but was not Aaron at that point (just like the zygote became the fetus but is not the same thing).
> 
> Do you understand the difference in opinion?


Wrong. Here is the issue: Your argument has nothing to do with the show. Your opinion is a political and theological argument of "when does human life begin." In another forum or a different thread, it might be an interesting debate. In this Lost thread, it is ridiculous, transparent, and tired.

/rant


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

If Walt had an acorn in his pocket on the plane and planted it in the ground when he got to the island, perhaps an oak tree would grow there.

Would you say that the oak tree was on the plane? I sure wouldn't.

Yes, the acorn shares all its genetic material with the tree, but they are not the same thing.



jradford said:


> In this Lost thread, it is ridiculous, transparent, and tired.


Sorry to disagree with your self-described rant, but I don't see my opinion as any more ridiculous, transparent or tired than the other opinion expressed here. This all started because someone claimed that Aaron survived the crash and I expressed my opinion---clearly stated as an opinion---that he did not. Is that transparent? I would think the bald assertion that he was a survivor was much more transparent.

I certainly have never claimed my opinion to be the only possible one as others have been quick to do for their opinions.


----------



## jeff125va (Mar 15, 2001)

jeff125va said:


> It's clear *to some of us*. (. . .)if it's supposed to be clear, and the choice is between him and Ben, *I don't see *how there can be any doubt.





Steveknj said:


> Look all I'm saying is that to say "There is no doubt" is absurd. Now if jeff125va had said "There's no doubt IN MY MIND" I could accept that. (. . .)


Isn't "to some of us" and "I don't see" essentially the same as "in my mind"? That was my intention anyway. I also acknowledged that I might not have made my point clearly. I never said anyone looked dumb for having any doubt.


----------



## jeff125va (Mar 15, 2001)

jradford said:


> Wrong. Here is the issue: Your argument has nothing to do with the show. Your opinion is a political and theological argument of "when does human life begin." In another forum or a different thread, it might be an interesting debate. In this Lost thread, it is ridiculous, transparent, and tired.
> 
> /rant


I don't see it quite that way. If my mom told me "I carried you in my womb for nine months" as opposed to "I carried a fetus that became you" in my womb for nine months, she wouldn't be making a political or theological statement. It's just something people say. A common, but apparently not universal, understanding of what words and phrases mean.


----------



## Roadblock (Apr 5, 2006)

Amnesia said:


> Would you say that the oak tree was on the plane? I sure wouldn't.


If the acorn was planted in a pot and already growing, then sure, the tree was on the plane. If it was instead eaten by a monkey wearing a pink dress, then no. Maybe Ben time-traveled from the island to the plane, grabbed the monkey and retrieved the acorn before returning to the island. Then he planted it among the Others and named it the Giving Tree. In that case, I'd say the tree was not on the plane, but Ben was, although he could not be called a survivor in this instance.

Can we move on now?


----------



## Squeak (May 12, 2000)

Amnesia said:


> If Walt had an acorn in his pocket on the plane and planted it in the ground when he got to the island, perhaps an oak tree would grow there.
> 
> Would you say that the oak tree was on the plane? I sure wouldn't.


Comparing, a living creature "in utero" to a seed is quite a stretch.

Now, if you wanted to say a 3-day old zygote, or even a 6-week old zygote, I would be willing to give you more breadth in your argument.

But come on, a 36-week fetus is almost finished baking, and is only staying in the oven a little bit longer so it's lungs can develop.

There is a 98+% chance of survival for a 36-week fetus when delivered.

Anything past 34 or 35 weeks (I forget which one) is no longer considered premie.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

Squeak said:


> Comparing, a living creature "in utero" to a seed is quite a stretch.


I'm illustrating that common genetic material is not the same as identity. And that "will become" is not the same as "is".

The acorn will become the tree. It is not the tree.
The acorn has the same genetic material as the tree, yet it is not the tree.

Do you grant those points?


----------



## danterner (Mar 4, 2005)

Roadblock said:


> Can we move on now?


How about this one:

We now have Aaron and Ji Yeon - a male and female, each with ties to the island. We also have a plot that is focusing more and more on time travel as a central element.

Anyone think that Aaron and Ji Yeon may turn out to be the "Adam and Eve" bodies discovered in the cave back at the beginning of season one?


----------



## TheGreyOwl (Aug 18, 2003)

Amnesia said:


> If Walt had an acorn in his pocket on the plane and planted it in the ground when he got to the island, perhaps an oak tree would grow there.
> 
> Would you say that the oak tree was on the plane? I sure wouldn't.
> 
> Yes, the acorn shares all its genetic material with the tree, but they are not the same thing.


I think your acorn analogy is faulty. The acorn is more analogous to a sperm or an egg, and not a fetus at 36 weeks of development. That's because the acorn is not in the process of growing (it would have to be planted for that), much less only a few weeks from becoming a tree. The example you give of planting the acorn on the island is equivalent to a baby being conceived on the island (like Ji Yeon). So in that case, I wouldn't say the oak tree was on the plane, just like I don't think Ji Yeon was on the plane.

But if you want to make the acorn analogy work for Claire's fetus/baby, think of it this way. Plant the acorn and tend to it until it sprouts and starts to grow. At first, it will just be a sapling and have no bark so you may not be able to tell if it's going to grow into a tree, a bush, a flower, or whatever else. Eventually, it will slowly start resembling a tree and growing bark, but maybe the bark isn't quite fully developed. And then it will eventually start resembling an oak tree, instead just a generic "tree". Let's say, to make the two situations comparable, that the plant is now 3-4 weeks away from completely looking like an oak tree. So at this point it resembles an oak tree in shape, is mostly covered in bark, and is continuing to grow and is otherwise healthy. Would you still call it an acorn at this point? Based on your previous arguments, it sounds like you would. Would you not say, 3-4 weeks later when it was full-fledged oak tree, that the sapling and the oak tree were the same plant? Since the sapling became the oak tree, would you not say the oak tree was previously the sapling? Again, based on your previous arguments, it sounds like you wouldn't.

Now if this hypothetical sapling was on the plane and survived the crash, then continued to grow on the island into a large oak tree, then yes, I would say the oak tree was on the plane.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

TheGreyOwl said:


> I think your acorn analogy is faulty. The acorn is more analogous to a sperm or an egg, and not a fetus at 36 weeks of development.


The difference is that the acorn contains all the genetic material of the tree. The sperm or egg cells contain only half the genetic material.

So you're saying that you would *not* state that the tree was on the plane? And your rationale is that the acorn wasn't growing, is that right?


----------



## MitchO (Nov 7, 2003)

And yet, this entire debate STILL doesn't matter, because the only reason Aaron is/is not the last member of O6 is because THE WRITERS TELL US SO. Period.

When I went to college, I was studying to be a comic book artist. I spent a year in the formative classes, listening to people just as stubborn as this argue over whether Superhero A could beat Superhero B, and why this guy can't do this, etc etc. I couldn't stand it. I would always answer "Whoever the writer WANTS to win will win", and they'd look at me like I had two heads (like .. I dunno, some two headed Supervilligan guy~). 

The second year I transferred to Illustration. I couldn't stand listening to irrelevant arguments anymore. Little did I know I'd be back in college here on this thread.


----------



## TheGreyOwl (Aug 18, 2003)

Amnesia said:


> I'm illustrating that common genetic material is not the same as identity. And that "will become" is not the same as "is".
> 
> The acorn will become the tree. It is not the tree.
> The acorn has the same genetic material as the tree, yet it is not the tree.
> ...


You're making a comparison by mixing terminology. The acorn is not the tree, but they are both oaks, and specifically, they are the same oak (given the common DNA). Acorn vs. tree doesn't differentiate identity, it differentiates stages of life.

Replace "acorn" with "child", "tree" with "adult", and "oak" with "human" and you'll see the fallacy of the argument. It would go like this:

The child will become the adult. It is not the adult.
The child has the same genetic material as the adult, yet it is not the adult.

So far it makes sense, but what you leave out of your comparison is the "oak" part. The acorn and tree are both oaks. The child and adult are both humans. And based on DNA, they are the same oak/human.


----------



## stellie93 (Feb 25, 2006)

Looking at it from Jack's recounting makes it even more confusing. The math still doesn't add up if you replace Claire with Aaron. There were 8--2 died, one of them Claire supposedly, and you add Aaron to the 6 then you either have 7 or if you don't count him, you need someone else to make the 6. Why would Jack possibly tell the whole story and not say that Claire gave birth before she died. If Aaron is not presented as Claire's, then who is he? Hard to believe that Kate got on the plane 6 months pregnant and no one noticed. Even if he was an orphan (another child on the manifest) who would give Kate custody before she is even cleared of her crimes?

Then there's this: a quote from Cuse,"


Spoiler



There are some growth issues when you go on or off the island."



So from what we're seen of Walt,


Spoiler



that would make Aaron even older than he is, which is how it looked, but making it more impossible for him to be Kate's.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

TheGreyOwl said:


> You're making a comparison by mixing terminology. The acorn is not the tree, but they are both oaks, and specifically, they are the same oak (given the common DNA). Acorn vs. tree doesn't differentiate identity, it differentiates stages of life.


By that argument, you *would* say that the tree was on the plane. I would not. I don't think the acorn is the tree any more than the tree is the boat that could be carved from it.

Yes, the acorn and tree are both oak. And the fetus and baby are both human. The difference is that the baby is *a* human while the fetus is human. (Just like you'd say the tree is an oak while is acorn is oak.) Just like a foot can be a human foot, but it's not *a* human.

As I stated back in the beginning, this is a philosophical argument.


----------



## Squeak (May 12, 2000)

Amnesia,

Answer me one simple question: Do you have any children of your own?


----------



## TheGreyOwl (Aug 18, 2003)

Amnesia said:


> The difference is that the acorn contains all the genetic material of the tree. The sperm or egg cells contain only half the genetic material.


This just means that it isn't a valid comparison between an acorn and a fetus in the first place, because of the differences between plant and human biology. The acorn is essentially in stasis and won't grow on it's own until planted, watered, etc. A human egg fertilized with sperm is not in statis and immediately begins to grow. The "seed in statis" has no equivalent in human biology.

And by the way, this acorn-tree argument is one that's been used for a long time back-and-forth by various pro-choice and pro-life groups (just Google it if you haven't already done so). It still seems like you're going off of what you read and not what you've actually experienced, though you never did answer my question about having children. If you haven't actually had children, then it is pointless to continue discussing this because it is theory vs. reality. I'll tell you what...one day if and when you have children, come back and say that you didn't consider your son or daughter to be a person when your wife was 8-9 months pregnant. Your opinion will carry more weight at that point. In fact, if you can tell your son or daughter that you didn't consider him or her a person at that point, it will carry even more weight.


----------



## getreal (Sep 29, 2003)

TheGreyOwl said:


> Now if this hypothetical sapling was on the plane and survived the crash, then continued to grow on the island into a large oak tree, then yes, I would say the oak tree was on the plane.


And, using the same logic, you would say that a squirrel or a chipmunk can carry and hide many oak trees within another tree. And they eat numerous oak trees during the winter.

*I say let's drop the acorn analogy. It's getting nutty.* 

As Morey Amsterdam said many years ago:
_"Don't worry if your work is hard,
And your rewards are few;
Remember that the Mighty Oak
Was once a NUT like you!"_


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Holy CRAP!!! I go out of town for a couple of days and this thread turns insane! Why do you people care so much about who the O6 are to continue with this ridiculous exercise? Give it up, already.



stellie93 said:


> Explaining the survivors in light of the wreckage requires more than just, opps there were 8 less bodies than we thought. Aren't they in a completely different place?


It's exactly that easy. I don't think anyone is claiming that the robo-sub went inside the fuselage and counted every body. The assumption was simply that because the plane was intact at the bottom of the ocean, all the passengers who boarded the plane in Sydney must still be alive. If it turns out later that six of them come forward and claim to be survivors, that doesn't discredit the original reports of finding all 324 passengers dead at all, IMO.


mqpickles said:


> Aaron survived the crash. He was in utero and therefore didn't have his own ticket, but what makes people so sure being a "passenger" is the key?
> 
> There hasn't been a rule stated that the Oceanic 6 membership requires having been a passenger listed on the flight manifest. Anyone from the plane _could _count, including Aaron. If Cindy the flight attendant were one of the six survivors to make it back, it would almost certainly still be Oceanic 6, not "Oceanic 5 + 1 crewmember."


Crew members are also on the flight manifest. But it doesn't really matter.


jeff125va said:


> That's correct. Kate's revelation (in "Through The Looking Glass") had been confirmed in the podcast prior to the airing of "Eggtown."





jeff125va said:


> It was revealed in the podcast prior to "Eggtown" that Kate had already been revealed, which could only have been in last season's finale. There was debate as to whether Kate was in the group because of her legal issues, but that was put to rest before that episode aired. Neither she nor Jack have actually been referred to (within the show) as one of the "Oceanic Six" by name.


You're assuming that what the producers say to the 1% of LOST fans who are avid enough to listen to a podcast equates to what the network promo people say to the millions of suckers out there who watch the previews. I don't think they have anything to do with each other.


Delta13 said:


> We have no evidence that the world knows that the wreckage is fake. This episode seemed to clear some of that up. Ben's group arranged for the wreckage, Widmore paid serious coin to go down and research it. It's too deep for body recovery, as Devdogaz pointed out, and the feds would have the black box if they could. The Christiane I probably brought up a fake black box, if one at all.
> 
> Widmore searched after Frank spilled the beans, maybe. But Widmore has no interest in this information becoming public. I seriously doubt anyone else knows. So he has no interest in checking dental records, he ALREADY knows it's fake. It's all just part of the war between Ben and Widmore.
> 
> The passenger count is easy to fix - easy to miscount at that depth, passengers were thrown around, and let's not forget that the plane was in broken pieces on the ocean floor. 8 missing from that would be a snap to explain. The 8 survivors (give or take  ) could have floated for a bit. We don't know, since we don't know where they were rescued from or how close to the wreckage it might be. Most assuredly not the current island.


See above. The plane was not in broken pieces on the ocean floor. I don't think there's any indication that the bodies in the sunken plane were actually counted.


TheGreyOwl said:


> So in the episode where Aaron was revealed to be living with Kate in the future, who else was revealed to be one of the Oceanic Six? Because the producers said one of the 6 was revealed during that episode.


I'm not saying that it's not Aaron, but since there were questions about Kate's status as O6 prior to that episode (podcast notwithstanding), there's no reason we couldn't treat Kate as the reveal for that episode.

I still don't see any reason why Michael couldn't be one of the O6. Everyone seems to think it's either Ben or Aaron, but Michael was a passenger and we've seen him off the island. Just because he's in hiding under an assumed name while on the freighter doesn't mean that he can't come forth at some point in the near future.


----------



## jeff125va (Mar 15, 2001)

DevdogAZ said:


> Holy CRAP!!! I go out of town for a couple of days and this thread turns insane! Why do you people care so much about who the O6 are to continue with this ridiculous exercise? Give it up, already.


 I'll take your advice on that one.



DevdogAZ said:


> It's exactly that easy. I don't think anyone is claiming that the robo-sub went inside the fuselage and counted every body. The assumption was simply that because the plane was intact at the bottom of the ocean, all the passengers who boarded the plane in Sydney must still be alive. If it turns out later that six of them come forward and claim to be survivors, that doesn't discredit the original reports of finding all 324 passengers dead at all, IMO.


Assuming you mean "still be dead" I agree with the not discrediting part. But you seem to have overlooked the location part. That plane was several miles deep in the northeastern Indian Ocean. It couldn't have been within swimming distance of land or in the South Pacific.



DevdogAZ said:


> You're assuming that what the producers say to the 1% of LOST fans who are avid enough to listen to a podcast equates to what the network promo people say to the millions of suckers out there who watch the previews. I don't think they have anything to do with each other.


I'm not really sure what you mean by equating them. I haven't seen any indication that either is unreliable.



DevdogAZ said:


> See above. The plane was not in broken pieces on the ocean floor. I don't think there's any indication that the bodies in the sunken plane were actually counted.


If you watch the video from the Christiane I, you see that it is broken or cracked in a couple places, although the pieces aren't separated from one another. Hard to tell due to the scale whether it would be enough room to get in and count bodies, but the fact that they say "confirmed" dead is an indication that they at least made some sort of body count (or purported to, at least). Not to mention that Jack and Kate et. al. had to get out somehow. But still, given the difficulty involved, 8 out of 324 is a reasonable margin of error. Then again, it's sort of moot due to the location thing.



DevdogAZ said:


> I'm not saying that it's not Aaron, but since there were questions about Kate's status as O6 prior to that episode (podcast notwithstanding), there's no reason we couldn't treat Kate as the reveal for that episode.
> 
> I still don't see any reason why Michael couldn't be one of the O6. Everyone seems to think it's either Ben or Aaron, but Michael was a passenger and we've seen him off the island. Just because he's in hiding under an assumed name while on the freighter doesn't mean that he can't come forth at some point in the near future.


Well, like you said, podcast notwithstanding regarding Kate.

There's a reason about Michael, too, but it would also be based on the podcasts. That is, they said it would be clear who they are. I don't think they'd expect it to be clear to us if it were Michael, given that we've seen 6 of them back home (well, home meaning civilization, if not their personal homes). But if you don't factor that in, then I guess it's possible. They can't really say anything about the murders he committed because of their cover story.


----------



## Roadblock (Apr 5, 2006)

jeff125va said:


> Then again, it's sort of moot due to the location thing.


Maybe they will be taken closer to the staged location before they are 'rescued'.


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

The more I think about it, the more I'm beginning to think -- why not Michael? What led us to believe that all of the O6 will be revealed using flash-forwards? The appearance of Michael -- while long expected by *us* -- was probably supposed to be *just* the kind of moment to make something "obvious".


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

cwoody222 said:


> Why wouldn't the media dub a unborn child who survived a PLANE CRASH INTO THE OCEAN AND THEN MONTHS ON A DESERTED ISLAND a 'survivor' of said plane crash?
> 
> If this happened today SURELY the baby would be considered just as much as a survivor and a celebrity than people who's only difference was their name appeared on a manifest.


I have no problem accepting that the term Oceanic Six refers to the six people rescued, and does not necessarily mean that they were "survivors" of either the crash or the time on the deserted island. In that way, I see no problem with Aaron being part of the O6. Or Julliet or Desmond or Ben, or ...

The problem is that Jack's testimony specifically referred to 8 people surviving the crash, two dying, leaving 6 to be rescued.

Unless (as I've already said) Aaron was delivered on the plan before it crashed -- possible, but we have seen no evidence to support it -- Jack could not have been talking about Aaron as being one of the 8; not even with Claire being almost due.

So that's the problem.


----------



## TheGreyOwl (Aug 18, 2003)

wprager said:


> I have no problem accepting that the term Oceanic Six refers to the six people rescued, and does not necessarily mean that they were "survivors" of either the crash or the time on the deserted island. In that way, I see no problem with Aaron being part of the O6. Or Julliet or Desmond or Ben, or ...
> 
> The problem is that Jack's testimony specifically referred to 8 people surviving the crash, two dying, leaving 6 to be rescued.
> 
> ...


Or I guess it's possible that one of the 6 that survived (in Jack's false testimony) was Claire and then she gave birth to Aaron leaving 7 people. Really, for all we know, these 6-7 people that survived are not the same as the Oceanic 6. I can't think of how they'd be different, but I'm sure the writers could.


----------



## jeff125va (Mar 15, 2001)

Roadblock said:


> Maybe they will be taken closer to the staged location before they are 'rescued'.


The only reason to take them to the staged location would be if they wanted people to believe that they crashed there. But Jack said during his testimony that they crashed on an island in the south pacific, so obviously they weren't trying to pretend that.


----------



## jeff125va (Mar 15, 2001)

stellie93 said:


> Looking at it from Jack's recounting makes it even more confusing. The math still doesn't add up if you replace Claire with Aaron. There were 8--2 died, one of them Claire supposedly, and you add Aaron to the 6 then you either have 7 or if you don't count him, you need someone else to make the 6. Why would Jack possibly tell the whole story and not say that Claire gave birth before she died. If Aaron is not presented as Claire's, then who is he? Hard to believe that Kate got on the plane 6 months pregnant and no one noticed. Even if he was an orphan (another child on the manifest) who would give Kate custody before she is even cleared of her crimes?


The math adds up fine if they're claiming that Claire died later, possibly during childbirth, which would be easy enough to believe on a deserted island with no medical facilities. And Jack did not tell the whole story - he was cut off by Kate in mid-sentence. If Kate was raising him on the island (purportedly, of course), then she essentially had custody already by default. She could certainly afford a good lawyer and no one else in the U.S. would really have a claim to him.


TheGreyOwl said:


> Or I guess it's possible that one of the 6 that survived (in Jack's false testimony) was Claire and then she gave birth to Aaron leaving 7 people. Really, for all we know, these 6-7 people that survived are not the same as the Oceanic 6. I can't think of how they'd be different, but I'm sure the writers could.


So the (8 - 2) that Jack talked about would include Claire, and the 6 that came back would include Aaron. Assuming Aaron is actually #6, of course.


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

Roadblock said:


> Maybe they will be taken closer to the staged location before they are 'rescued'.


I think the point is that if the ocean floor is that far down (I don't know about "miles" -- anyone notice a depth gauge display?), you ain't anywhere near land.


----------



## jeff125va (Mar 15, 2001)

wprager said:


> I think the point is that if the ocean floor is that far down (I don't know about "miles" -- anyone notice a depth gauge display?), you ain't anywhere near land.


Right, that too. And yes, according to Naomi it was four miles, which is the depth of the Sunda Trench.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

jeff125va said:


> Assuming you mean "still be dead" I agree with the not discrediting part. But you seem to have overlooked the location part. That plane was several miles deep in the northeastern Indian Ocean. It couldn't have been within swimming distance of land or in the South Pacific.


I meant they were still on board. As for the location of the wreckage vs. the location of the island, even the guys on the freighter have said they don't know exactly where they are. I would imagine that there's a big gray area when discussing the South Pacific and Eastern Indian oceans.


jeff125va said:


> I'm not really sure what you mean by equating them. I haven't seen any indication that either is unreliable.


I'm not saying that either is unreliable. I'm saying that they're not necessarily in tune with each other. The promos could be saying that the "final member of the O6 will be revealed tonight!!!" while the podcast may have already revealed it. Just because a miniscule number of avid fans may already know the big reveal (due to the podcast), it doesn't mean the network promos can't still claim that it's a big reveal. In this case, I'm saying that your claims about Kate having been identified as O6 in the podcast prior to "Eggtown" do not necessarily mean that the network promos claiming that another member of the O6 will be revealed in "Eggtown" wasn't referring to Kate. The podcast and the previews are aimed at wildly different audiences.



jeff125va said:


> There's a reason about Michael, too, but it would also be based on the podcasts. That is, they said it would be clear who they are. I don't think they'd expect it to be clear to us if it were Michael, given that we've seen 6 of them back home (well, home meaning civilization, if not their personal homes). But if you don't factor that in, then I guess it's possible. They can't really say anything about the murders he committed because of their cover story.


Well, considering that it obviously wasn't clear about Aaron prior to this episode (as they were counting on the ambiguity for the Jin headfake), I think it's every bit as possible that Michael, who was revealed in this episode, becomes the clear 6th member of the O6 that it becomes Aaron by default.


wprager said:


> I think the point is that if the ocean floor is that far down (I don't know about "miles" -- anyone notice a depth gauge display?), you ain't anywhere near land.


No, I think what he's talking about is the location of the wreckage in the Indian Ocean compared to the perceived location of the island somewhere in the South Pacific.


----------



## jeff125va (Mar 15, 2001)

DevdogAZ said:


> I don't think anyone is claiming that the robo-sub went inside the fuselage and counted every body.


Naomi did, in "The Brig." Submersible robots with cameras.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

jeff125va said:


> Naomi did, in "The Brig." Submersible robots with cameras.


Yeah, we saw the footage from the subs showing the wreckage and looking in the cockpit windows to show the pilot. I don't think there has ever been any statement by anyone that the subs went inside the intact fuselage and counted bodies.


----------



## jeff125va (Mar 15, 2001)

DevdogAZ said:


> I meant they were still on board. As for the location of the wreckage vs. the location of the island, even the guys on the freighter have said they don't know exactly where they are. I would imagine that there's a big gray area when discussing the South Pacific and Eastern Indian oceans.


All that matters is where people believed they crashed, in terms of discrediting the fake wreckage. Jack said that they were in the South Pacific, and there was no indication that anyone doubted him. The Sunda Trench is clearly in the Indian Ocean, not the South Pacific. It's to the northwest of Australia, the Pacific is to the east.



DevdogAZ said:


> I'm not saying that either is unreliable. I'm saying that they're not necessarily in tune with each other. The promos could be saying that the "final member of the O6 will be revealed tonight!!!" while the podcast may have already revealed it. Just because a miniscule number of avid fans may already know the big reveal (due to the podcast), it doesn't mean the network promos can't still claim that it's a big reveal. In this case, I'm saying that your claims about Kate having been identified as O6 in the podcast prior to "Eggtown" do not necessarily mean that the network promos claiming that another member of the O6 will be revealed in "Eggtown" wasn't referring to Kate. The podcast and the previews are aimed at wildly different audiences.


I see what you're saying. Good point.



DevdogAZ said:


> Well, considering that it obviously wasn't clear about Aaron prior to this episode (as they were counting on the ambiguity for the Jin headfake), I think it's every bit as possible that Michael, who was revealed in this episode, becomes the clear 6th member of the O6 that it becomes Aaron by default.


Yeah, that's one thing that I questioned. If we should have known there were 5 by that point, then there would be no surprise about Jin.



DevdogAZ said:


> No, I think what he's talking about is the location of the wreckage in the Indian Ocean compared to the perceived location of the island somewhere in the South Pacific.


That's what I was referring to, but the other thing might be even more significant.


----------



## jeff125va (Mar 15, 2001)

DevdogAZ said:


> Yeah, we saw the footage from the subs showing the wreckage and looking in the cockpit windows to show the pilot. I don't think there has ever been any statement by anyone that the subs went inside the intact fuselage and counted bodies.


She didn't just say that they counted them, she said that they (robots) went through with cameras and imaged all of them.


----------



## DUDE_NJX (Feb 12, 2003)

Amnesia, you should start your own blog and vent your twisted philosophies there instead of ruining this thread for everyone. No offense, just let it go, or should I say "forget it".


----------



## marysieli (Mar 18, 2008)

MitchO said:


> And yet, this entire debate STILL doesn't matter, because the only reason Aaron is/is not the last member of O6 is because THE WRITERS TELL US SO. Period.
> 
> When I went to college, I was studying to be a comic book artist. I spent a year in the formative classes, listening to people just as stubborn as this argue over whether Superhero A could beat Superhero B, and why this guy can't do this, etc etc. I couldn't stand it. I would always answer "Whoever the writer WANTS to win will win", and they'd look at me like I had two heads (like .. I dunno, some two headed Supervilligan guy~).
> 
> The second year I transferred to Illustration. I couldn't stand listening to irrelevant arguments anymore. Little did I know I'd be back in college here on this thread.


Seriously though,
WHY is SO much time and effort being spent on acorns and babies?? And, realistically (if that's a reasonable word to use regarding a fictional story), the writers have already made the decision as to Aaron's status as Oceanic 6. Take a breath. Wait for it.


----------



## TheGreyOwl (Aug 18, 2003)

jeff125va said:


> She didn't just say that they counted them, she said that they (robots) went through with cameras and imaged all of them.


I forgot about that. So if they were all imaged, does that imply that they actually matched the face of each passenger, meaning hat the fake dead bodies aren't just "random"?


----------



## jeff125va (Mar 15, 2001)

TheGreyOwl said:


> I forgot about that. So if they were all imaged, does that imply that they actually matched the face of each passenger, meaning hat the fake dead bodies aren't just "random"?


I have to think not. The world has to know that the faked wreckage was not really flight 815. Between the Indian/Pacific Ocean thing and the depth making it too far from land thing, we can be fairly certain of that, barring some major yet-to-be-hinted-at twist. It would make sense that the pictures would simply have been too gruesome to show the families. And who (in the general public at least) would really question it anyway? There aren't too many people to whom it would occur that the wreckage might have been faked. It's not like the airlines are going to have all the passengers' photos on file somewhere. Whomever the Christiane I people might have passed them on to might have just held on to them and figured that the pilot's ID and the count matching up was enough to go on.


----------



## TheGreyOwl (Aug 18, 2003)

jeff125va said:


> I have to think not. The world has to know that the faked wreckage was not really flight 815. Between the Indian/Pacific Ocean thing and the depth making it too far from land thing, we can be fairly certain of that, barring some major yet-to-be-hinted-at twist. It would make sense that the pictures would simply have been too gruesome to show the families. And who (in the general public at least) would really question it anyway? There aren't too many people to whom it would occur that the wreckage might have been faked. It's not like the airlines are going to have all the passengers' photos on file somewhere. Whomever the Christiane I people might have passed them on to might have just held on to them and figured that the pilot's ID and the count matching up was enough to go on.


Of course, there's still the issue of the count matching up, and THEN 6 survivors showing up. I wonder how that will be explained?


----------



## jeff125va (Mar 15, 2001)

TheGreyOwl said:


> Of course, there's still the issue of the count matching up, and THEN 6 survivors showing up. I wonder how that will be explained?


They wouldn't. People would realize that there are another 316 dead people in another plane near an island in the south pacific, plus 2 or 3 more (presumably buried) on that island.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

DUDE_NJX said:


> _(...)_ and vent your twisted philosophies there _(...)_


"twisted"?!?

Look---people have been debating at what point a new entity deserves to be called "human" for decades or longer. Just about everyone agrees that separate sperm and egg cells are not "human beings" and so the question is where along the spectrum from conception to birth the combination of sperm and egg deserves the label "human being". From your comment, I can only assume that you feel the label should be applied at the very beginning. Others feel it should be applied at some point in the middle of the process. I feel it should be applied at the end. I'm not sure what makes my opinion any more "twisted" than yours.

I'm also curious as to what it is that makes you malign others' opinions when they do not agree with your own. I certainly haven't done that. Which of us is more twisted then?


----------



## rondotcom (Feb 13, 2005)

MitchO said:


> I think the last of the O6 is goth.


Naw. He's furry. It's Vincent


----------



## jeff125va (Mar 15, 2001)

Amnesia said:


> "twisted"?!?
> 
> Look---people have been debating at what point a new entity deserves to be called "human" for decades or longer. Just about everyone agrees that separate sperm and egg cells are not "human beings" and so the question is where along the spectrum from conception to birth the combination of sperm and egg deserves the label "human being". From your comment, I can only assume that you feel the label should be applied at the very beginning. Others feel it should be applied at some point in the middle of the process. I feel it should be applied at the end. I'm not sure what makes my opinion any more "twisted" than yours.
> 
> I'm also curious as to what it is that makes you malign others' opinions when they do not agree with your own. I certainly haven't done that. Which of us is more twisted then?


The problem is not your opinion on when one becomes a human being. It's your antagonistic attitude about it in the context of discussing a TV show. This isn't a legal debate that requires an absolute answer to that question. It's an informal discussion about some characters on a TV show. That's it. People refer to unborn babies all the time in human terms without getting into such technicalities, and they know what each other means. What's twisted is that you're so rigid in your definition that you can't acknowledge that plenty of people consider Aaron, in some sense at least, to have been a passenger on the flight, especially with the "in utero" qualifier, without even concerning themselves with that question. You might not have called him one yourself, but a reasonable person could at least acknowledge that he understands the sense in which other people mean it and not feel the need to inject their opinion on an irrelevant topic into the discussion.


----------



## unicorngoddess (Nov 20, 2005)

Amnesia said:


> "twisted"?!?
> 
> Look---people have been debating at what point a new entity deserves to be called "human" for decades or longer. Just about everyone agrees that separate sperm and egg cells are not "human beings" and so the question is where along the spectrum from conception to birth the combination of sperm and egg deserves the label "human being". From your comment, I can only assume that you feel the label should be applied at the very beginning. Others feel it should be applied at some point in the middle of the process. I feel it should be applied at the end. I'm not sure what makes my opinion any more "twisted" than yours.
> 
> I'm also curious as to what it is that makes you malign others' opinions when they do not agree with your own. I certainly haven't done that. Which of us is more twisted then?


I think its fair to say that when a fetus becomes developed enough to survive outside the womb it becomes human enough. At least to the point where you can be charged with murder for killing an unborn baby. And I know we have at least one member here who will argue that the fetus is perfectly human at 28 weeks at least.

A fetus becomes a baby once it is born, that baby turns into a toddler, that toddler becomes a child, a preteen, a teen, etc. But through all those stages they are all one in the same. To say Aaron wasn't the fetus or the fetus wasn't Aaron makes no sense. They are one in the same, just at different life stages. And you can't say the same for Ji Yeon. Once an egg goes unfertilized, its game over for that egg. I would say its safe to assume that any egg Sun may have been carrying at the time of the crash went unfertilized since they were on the island for over a month before she concieved. Different egg/different sperm than what might have been on the plane. So stop saying Ji Yeon was as much on the plane as Aaron was.

It doesn't matter what everyone's personal opinions are on when life stars. The point is Claire had a living person growing inside her. That life did not stop when they crashed and continued to thrive to the point where he was transitioned from fetus to infant.

As for the status of who the O6 are...I think the only reason it's not "clear" is because we're so use to having to look for a deeper meaning when it comes to LOST. There's obviously more story to be told though and no one ever said that the O6 would be the FINAL word. We'll just have to wait to see what else happens.

I'm still standing by my statement that whether you believe Aaron was a survivor or not, he was obviously rescued...so debating his survival status is meaningless.


----------



## Jericho Dog (Feb 10, 2006)

Since Aaron was born on the island, does that mean he will have four toes like the statue?


----------



## jeff125va (Mar 15, 2001)

Jericho Dog said:


> Since Aaron was born on the island, does that mean he will have four toes like the statue?


Hard to say. What you're basically asking is whether the fetus that became Aaron lost one of its toes when they crashed.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

jeff125va said:


> The problem is not your opinion on when one becomes a human being. It's your antagonistic attitude about it in the context of discussing a TV show.


Why is it my attitude "antagonistic" and not the person who called my philosophy "twisted"? I haven't been antagonistic at all. I've only tried to make it clear that your opinion is not the only possible one.


jeff125va said:


> What's twisted is that you're so rigid in your definition that you can't acknowledge that plenty of people consider Aaron, in some sense at least, to have been a passenger on the flight _(...)_


Again, I think you need to look in the mirror. I have stated many times that it is *my opinion* that Aaron was not a passenger. That implicitly acknowledges alternate viewpoints.

How about you? Can you at least acknowledge that people might *not* consider Aaron a passenger? Aren't you the person who said that he "certainly" was one? That doesn't seem very open to alternate points of view. Who is it that's being rigid?



unicorngoddess said:


> It doesn't matter what everyone's personal opinions are on when life stars. The point is Claire had a living person growing inside her.


Whether or not the life growing inside Claire was a "person" or not is the debate in question. Again, there are many viewpoints.


----------



## unicorngoddess (Nov 20, 2005)

Amnesia said:


> Whether or not the life growing inside Claire was a "person" or not is the debate in question. Again, there are many viewpoints.


I haven't seen any viewpoints stating Claire was carrying an alien. All of the stages of life you have said Aaron had previously been through are all human stages of life. And since she didn't seem to give birth to a chimp or any other mamal, I think it's safe to say that the life growing inside Claire was a person...as in human...as in Aaron.

Unless the Others did something to her when they took her and took the baby she was carrying and replaced it with something else before Alex helped her escape.


----------



## getreal (Sep 29, 2003)

TheGreyOwl said:


> Of course, there's still the issue of the count matching up, and THEN 6 survivors showing up. I wonder how that will be explained?


Hanging chads?


----------



## gchance (Dec 6, 2002)

Enough with the "is Aaron a person" discussion. The new episode is on tomorrow.

Greg


----------



## tewcewl (Dec 18, 2004)

gchance said:


> Enough with the "is Aaron a person" discussion. The new episode is on tomorrow.
> 
> Greg


Amen. The funny thing is this whole "who is the O6" issue will get resolved sooner or later with the addition of new episodes that shine light on these things.


----------



## latrobe7 (May 1, 2005)

Amnesia said:


> Why is it my attitude "antagonistic" and not the person who called my philosophy "twisted"? I haven't been antagonistic at all.


No, you're not antagonistic at all; oh, except maybe your very next line:


> Again, I think you need to look in the mirror.


or how about:


Amnesia said:


> What the hell is that supposed to mean?


And regarding this:


> I have stated many times that it is my opinion that Aaron was not a passenger. That implicitly acknowledges alternate viewpoints


Actually, you vacillate between saying that it's only your opinion and stating your argument like it's fact:


Amnesia said:


> Sorry, no. Aaron did not survive the crash. He was not on the plane.
> 
> There is no doubt that Aaron was not a crash survivor. Instead, he was born on the island. You can't be both. Here's a rule of thumb---if you say that someone "survived" something, you have to be able to talk about how old they were at the time. If your only answer involves negative numbers, then forget it...
> 
> If he was born on the plane, then you could say he did or did not survive the crash...but not if he hadn't been born. Instead, you can only talk about whether or not Claire survived the crash.


That sounds pretty definitive and doesn't leave much room for alternative viewpoints.


Amnesia said:


> In that case, it would make sense for the media to refer to him as a "survivor"...though we, the viewers, know that the tag would be incorrect since that's not what really happened.


That's antagonistic, because youre projecting your opinion on to others - this also doesn't acknowledge the possibility of an alternative viewpoint.


Amnesia said:


> If it's a fact, then it's not incorrect. However, you can (and have) present false assertions as facts. In particular, the mistake I was referring to was in asserting that just because some country somewhere in the world used a different standard for calculating age that it's relevant in this discussion. It's not. Aaron was 0 when he was born. Period.
> Aaron wasn't "previously a fetus". The fetus became Aaron, but that's not the same thing. Oh, and the individual cells that would form Ji Yeon were also on the plane and did not die during the crash. How come she isn't counted as one of the survivors?
> Now you're confused again. The fetus is not Aaron. The fetus eventually became Aaron, but they are not identical. Just like the individual cells eventually became Ji Yeon. There's no difference.





Amnesia said:


> It's certainly an absolute fact that in America age is calculated based on date of birth...and if we're talking absolutes, how else could it be done? Even if you could get everyone to believe that it should be done based on date of conception (and that will never happen), that date is almost always an estimate. If you're talking absolutes, you need a firm date....like date of birth.





Amnesia said:


> I don't think it requires a very strict sense to exclude Aaron as an "original passenger", especially with the qualifier "original". Claire was a passenger. Aaron was not. Vincent was more of a passenger than Aaron was and he traveled in the cargo section.
> 
> And Ben could certainly arrange to take the place of a passenger... So perhaps it's not "Benjamin Linus" who is one of the Oceanic Six, but rather whatever name Ben is currently using...





Amnesia said:


> He's just as much of a "original passenger" as Aaron--that is, not at all.
> 
> However, Ben could convince the public that he was an original passenger (that is---boarded the plane as a passenger). Aaron could not. Even if the story was that he was born on the plane and therefore could be considered a "survivor", he was most definitely not an original passenger.


The tone of these is dismissive and therefore antagonistic and take the discussion to an extraordinary, nonsensical, extreme; what's you're point? They are also in no way explicit that you are expressing your opinion, they read like you are arguing what you believe to be a fact - not that any of this matters.


----------



## jeff125va (Mar 15, 2001)

Amnesia said:


> Why is it my attitude "antagonistic" and not the person who called my philosophy "twisted"? I haven't been antagonistic at all. I've only tried to make it clear that your opinion is not the only possible one.
> Again, I think you need to look in the mirror. I have stated many times that it is *my opinion* that Aaron was not a passenger. That implicitly acknowledges alternate viewpoints.
> 
> How about you? Can you at least acknowledge that people might *not* consider Aaron a passenger? Aren't you the person who said that he "certainly" was one? That doesn't seem very open to alternate points of view. Who is it that's being rigid?


You're antagonistic because you insist on interpreting whatever was originally stated about all of the O-6's being passengers, or "on the flight" or however it was phrased, in light of your opinion. All that matters is what that person is likely to have meant, particularly in the context of only two possible candidates, one of whom was never a passenger in any remotely possible sense of the word. (I know some people have since suggested Michael, but most of this discussion took place regarding only Ben and Aaron).

The rest of us have no trouble at all communicating with each other when referring to unborn children by their names. Out of the many many times throughout my life I've heard someone say "when I was pregnant with [whomever]" I've never once heard anyone respond saying "well, you really weren't pregnant with him/her, you were pregnant with the fetus that became him/her." Your desire to let all of us know about your opinion when it isn't really relevant is what's antagonistic. It's not about your opinion, unusual as it may be, that people shouldn't refer to unborn children by their names, it's about the fact that people do it all the time without spurring a contentious debate.

I wasn't discounting other viewpoints because I wasn't even thinking about the question in the first place. I said he was certainly on the plane because he was. I'm not going to qualify everything I say just to satisfy every conceivable response someone could come up with. Even from your point of view, you knew I meant that the fetus who became him was there in utero, and any reasonable and sensible person would know what people mean when they say something like that. They might have a different opinion on when someone becomes a human if that were the actual topic being discussed. But most people are capable of carrying on conversations referencing unborn babies without going into it.



Amnesia said:


> Whether or not the life growing inside Claire was a "person" or not is the debate in question. Again, there are many viewpoints.


You're the one who made it the debate in question.


----------



## jeff125va (Mar 15, 2001)

tewcewl said:


> Amen. The funny thing is this whole "who is the O6" issue will get resolved sooner or later with the addition of new episodes that shine light on these things.


Unfortunately, it's probably going to require seeing the news reports about it. I mean, there was debate about Kate because of her criminal issues, people said that Sayid might have been lying, the whole Ben/Aaron/Michael issue. We've actually never heard anyone refer to Jack or Kate as members of the group by name, IIRC. I'm sure someone in some forum is making something of that.

In one of the recent podcasts, Naveen Andrews said that he figured that it was Ben because of "The Economist", so who knows whether people will accept what people from the show say about it as gospel or not.


----------



## TheGreyOwl (Aug 18, 2003)

jeff125va said:


> They wouldn't. People would realize that there are another 316 dead people in another plane near an island in the south pacific, plus 2 or 3 more (presumably buried) on that island.


What I meant was, how would it be explained by whoever staged the fake crash. If they put all the bodies in there, then it stands to reason that they never expected anyone to ever leave the island.


----------



## jlb (Dec 13, 2001)

Wow, this thread has gone in a terrible direction. Let's get it back on a better track, ok:


----------



## getreal (Sep 29, 2003)

I say some of you folks are nitpicking way too much.

This is the sort of stuff I hate about the forum. I like some conjecture and catching details in the story which some of us might have otherwise missed.

But when the thread devolves into a philosophical exercise in mental masturbation where neither party will convince the other, then just make your point and move on. It is frustrating reading through post after post of repeated quotes and nitpicking the connotations and denotation of particular words.

Let's talk about other things in the episode.

PRETTY PLEASE!


----------



## stellie93 (Feb 25, 2006)

TheGreyOwl said:


> Or I guess it's possible that one of the 6 that survived (in Jack's false testimony) was Claire and then she gave birth to Aaron leaving 7 people. Really, for all we know, these 6-7 people that survived are not the same as the Oceanic 6. I can't think of how they'd be different, but I'm sure the writers could.





jeff125va said:


> The math adds up fine if they're claiming that Claire died later, possibly during childbirth, which would be easy enough to believe on a deserted island with no medical facilities. And Jack did not tell the whole story - he was cut off by Kate in mid-sentence. If Kate was raising him on the island (purportedly, of course), then she essentially had custody already by default. She could certainly afford a good lawyer and no one else in the U.S. would really have a claim to him.
> 
> So the (8 - 2) that Jack talked about would include Claire, and the 6 that came back would include Aaron. Assuming Aaron is actually #6, of course.


I realize this will be a moot point in 30 hours or so, but I don't see how this math adds up. Jack said 8 survived the crash--Jack, Kate, Sayid, Sun, Hurley, Claire, and X and Y. Then he said 2 didn't make it. Claire and either X or Y die (in his story). If you add Aaron, who is now a full oak tree and no longer an acorn, you get Jack, Kate, Sayid, Sun, Aaron, Hurley, and whichever of X or Y who didn't die. That's 7. If only six came home, and only 2 died, then Aaron wasn't counted and X or Y was the 6th survivor.

I'm not really saying I think this is what the story is, but this is how the math adds up. You can't sub Aaron for Claire the way Jack told it.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Why aren't any of those thumbnails clickable?


----------



## TheGreyOwl (Aug 18, 2003)

I think what some people are pointing out is that just because Jack said 2 people died, that doesn't preclude additional people from having died later on. Or maybe I'm wrong and that's not what they mean.


----------



## jeff125va (Mar 15, 2001)

TheGreyOwl said:


> What I meant was, how would it be explained by whoever staged the fake crash. If they put all the bodies in there, then it stands to reason that they never expected anyone to ever leave the island.


Oh, I see. But I'm thinking that they're sort of busted big time. I don't really see anyone involved in the hoax coming forward, or if the authorities happen to find out who did it, that they'd even try to say "Jack and Kate and those guys are the fake passengers." Just completely and utterly busted.


----------



## jeff125va (Mar 15, 2001)

getreal said:


> But when the thread devolves into ... mental masturbation ...


Hey, I'm not the one who posted the Kate pictures!


----------



## jeff125va (Mar 15, 2001)

stellie93 said:


> I realize this will be a moot point in 30 hours or so, but I don't see how this math adds up. Jack said 8 survived the crash--Jack, Kate, Sayid, Sun, Hurley, Claire, and X and Y. Then he said 2 didn't make it. Claire and either X or Y die (in his story). If you add Aaron, who is now a full oak tree and no longer an acorn, you get Jack, Kate, Sayid, Sun, Aaron, Hurley, and whichever of X or Y who didn't die. That's 7. If only six came home, and only 2 died, then Aaron wasn't counted and X or Y was the 6th survivor.
> 
> I'm not really saying I think this is what the story is, but this is how the math adds up. You can't sub Aaron for Claire the way Jack told it.


No. I'm saying X and Y were the two that Kate was unable to save. Claire was one of the remaining six (Jack, Kate, Sayid, Sun, Hurley and pregnant Claire). Then Claire died, let's say during childbirth, to keep it simple. Then the six are Jack, Kate, Sayid, Sun, Hurley and Aaron. Not that it's really critical to the math, but from what Jack said, I think that #7 and #8 died pretty much that day. Either Kate wasn't able to get them to shore, or they died from injuries in the crash within a very short period of time.

And I'm not convinced it's going to be settled that soon (if it's not now). I'm guessing the show will have flashbacks of Michael between when we last saw him and now, and no flash-forwards, and I don't see how that would help with the Oceanic 6. Just a guess though.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

jeff125va said:


> You're antagonistic because you insist on interpreting whatever was originally stated about all of the O-6's being passengers, or "on the flight" or however it was phrased, in light of your opinion.


As do you. I don't think you're going to realize that all of your objections apply much more to you than to me (although just try to think about it objectively and you should see), so I guess we'll just have to disagree as to who they fit.


----------



## getreal (Sep 29, 2003)

stellie93 said:


> ... Aaron, who is now a full oak tree and no longer an acorn ...


LOL! Nicely worded! :up:


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

jeff125va said:


> No. I'm saying X and Y were the two that Kate was unable to save. Claire was one of the remaining six (Jack, Kate, Sayid, Sun, Hurley and pregnant Claire). Then Claire died, let's say during childbirth, to keep it simple. Then the six are Jack, Kate, Sayid, Sun, Hurley and Aaron. Not that it's really critical to the math, but from what Jack said, I think that #7 and #8 died pretty much that day. Either Kate wasn't able to get them to shore, or they died from injuries in the crash within a very short period of time.
> 
> And I'm not convinced it's going to be settled that soon (if it's not now). I'm guessing the show will have flashbacks of Michael between when we last saw him and now, and no flash-forwards, and I don't see how that would help with the Oceanic 6. Just a guess though.


If everyone except Jack, Kate, Sayid, Sun, Hurley and Claire (and Aaron) died on day 1, who is the father of Sun's baby?


----------



## stellie93 (Feb 25, 2006)

Thanks, Jeff, I finally got it. I'm a little slow today.


----------



## jeff125va (Mar 15, 2001)

aindik said:


> If everyone except Jack, Kate, Sayid, Sun, Hurley and Claire (and Aaron) died on day 1, who is the father of Sun's baby?


Jin. There's no indication that she's claiming that it was anyone else. We know that the baby wasn't conceived until about a month later, but no one else really would. It's not THAT far off. In any case, we know that they're saying that Jin died on day 1, so we know for sure that he isn't one of the five people whom Kate was able to save.


----------



## jeff125va (Mar 15, 2001)

stellie93 said:


> Thanks, Jeff, I finally got it. I'm a little slow today.


Cool.


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

jeff125va said:


> Jin. There's no indication that she's claiming that it was anyone else. We know that the baby wasn't conceived until about a month later, but no one else really would. It's not THAT far off. In any case, we know that they're saying that Jin died on day 1, so we know for sure that he isn't one of the five people whom Kate was able to save.


She's not claiming that it was anyone else. But 4 weeks is a long time during a 40 week gestation. If she's really 7 months pregnant but all her doctors think she's 8, there's a big difference that could cause a serious health problem for her or the baby. Not to mention, when she called the ambulance and said "something's wrong," that "something," if it causes her to deliver early, is a much bigger deal at 32 weeks than it is at 36 weeks. That's a big risk that I don't imagine she took.

Which is why I think the cover story has to be that Jin made it a month and then died. Which, though, makes no sense if you look at his tombstone.

Unless, of course, the baby grows to be what 8 month-old fetuses look like in 7 months because of some time-weirdness on the island.


----------



## unicorngoddess (Nov 20, 2005)

jeff125va said:


> Jin. There's no indication that she's claiming that it was anyone else. We know that the baby wasn't conceived until about a month later, but no one else really would. It's not THAT far off. In any case, we know that they're saying that Jin died on day 1, so we know for sure that he isn't one of the five people whom Kate was able to save.


For pregnancy 1 month off is a REALLY long time. People would be expecting her to go into labor a whole month before her "real" due date. I think once she went a month past her due date, everyone might get suspicious.

Try telling a woman that is two weeks past her due date that she's not THAT far off and I bet you'll get slapped


----------



## jeff125va (Mar 15, 2001)

aindik said:


> She's not claiming that it was anyone else. But 4 weeks is a long time during a 40 week gestation. If she's really 7 months pregnant but all her doctors think she's 8, there's a big difference that could cause a serious health problem for her or the baby. Not to mention, when she called the ambulance and said "something's wrong," that "something," if it causes her to deliver early, is a much bigger deal at 32 weeks than it is at 36 weeks. That's a big risk that I don't imagine she took.
> 
> Which is why I think the cover story has to be that Jin made it a month and then died. Which, though, makes no sense if you look at his tombstone.
> 
> Unless, of course, the baby grows to be what 8 month-old fetuses look like in 7 months because of some time-weirdness on the island.


If it makes no sense, then do you still think it? I was even thinking that perhaps people did his tombstone after the wreckage was discovered, but hers would have had the 9/22/04 date as well.



unicorngoddess said:


> For pregnancy 1 month off is a REALLY long time. People would be expecting her to go into labor a whole month before her "real" due date. I think once she went a month past her due date, everyone might get suspicious.
> 
> Try telling a woman that is two weeks past her due date that she's not THAT far off and I bet you'll get slapped


Ok, duh, I was thinking about it backwards. Then perhaps she's claiming the father to be someone else. I think Jack's testimony and the tombstone are pretty conclusive clues that they are saying that Jin died in the crash.


----------



## madscientist (Nov 12, 2003)

I hate to even dip my toe into the O6 debate (mainly because I don't care that much), but I don't remember there ever being a definitive statement that Claire survived the crash. Do we know for a fact that Kate is admitting Aaron was Claire's baby, rather than just saying Aaron is her (Kate's) own son? As has been pointed out before, it seems unlikely that anyone would let an accused murderer, con artist, etc. adopt a baby like that. Obviously the timeline is problematic but she was out in the wilderness before she boarded the plane, and didn't the man who was sheltering her get killed? And there are very few people left alive who saw her on the plane other than the other survivors and they could say Aaron was hers.

If Kate is claiming Aaron as her own son then Claire doesn't have to be a survivor.

I don't know what difference that makes.


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

madscientist said:


> I hate to even dip my toe into the O6 debate (mainly because I don't care that much), but I don't remember there ever being a definitive statement that Claire survived the crash. Do we know for a fact that Kate is admitting Aaron was Claire's baby, rather than just saying Aaron is her (Kate's) own son? As has been pointed out before, it seems unlikely that anyone would let an accused murderer, con artist, etc. adopt a baby like that. Obviously the timeline is problematic but she was out in the wilderness before she boarded the plane, and didn't the man who was sheltering her get killed? And there are very few people left alive who saw her on the plane other than the other survivors and they could say Aaron was hers.
> 
> If Kate is claiming Aaron as her own son then Claire doesn't have to be a survivor.
> 
> I don't know what difference that makes.


Given Aaron's age and excluding for a moment some crazy island time anomalies, there's no way Kate was as pregnant on the plane as she'd need to have been to have a kid that age.

Think about how pregnant Claire was on the plane. If Kate were that pregnant, people would have known.


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

jeff125va said:


> If it makes no sense, then do you still think it?


The cover story that he died in the crash doesn't make sense, and the cover story that he didn't die in the crash doesn't make sense. One of them has to be the story, and whichever one it is won't make sense.



jeff125va said:


> I was even thinking that perhaps people did his tombstone after the wreckage was discovered, but hers would have had the 9/22/04 date as well.


It didn't?


----------



## Turtleboy (Mar 24, 2001)

aindik said:


> The cover story that he died in the crash doesn't make sense, and the cover story that he didn't die in the crash doesn't make sense. One of them has to be the story, and whichever one it is won't make sense.
> 
> It didn't?


No.

The tombstone and both birth dates, and one date of death (his). Hers was empty.


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

stellie93 said:


> I realize this will be a moot point in 30 hours or so, but I don't see how this math adds up. Jack said 8 survived the crash--Jack, Kate, Sayid, Sun, Hurley, Claire, and X and Y. Then he said 2 didn't make it. Claire and either X or Y die (in his story). If you add Aaron, who is now a full oak tree and no longer an acorn, you get Jack, Kate, Sayid, Sun, Aaron, Hurley, and whichever of X or Y who didn't die. That's 7. If only six came home, and only 2 died, then Aaron wasn't counted and X or Y was the 6th survivor.
> 
> I'm not really saying I think this is what the story is, but this is how the math adds up. You can't sub Aaron for Claire the way Jack told it.


Well, the only way that all adds up is if one of those unknown (X or Y) is a nobody -- a_zero_. Which one of the survivors fits this description? Arszt?

Or there could be another _negative_ person -- call him/her Z. Someone who is always arguing or being contradictory. Anna Lucia?

Problem is both of those are dead.


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

aindik said:


> She's not claiming that it was anyone else. But 4 weeks is a long time during a 40 week gestation. If she's really 7 months pregnant but all her doctors think she's 8, there's a big difference that could cause a serious health problem for her or the baby. Not to mention, when she called the ambulance and said "something's wrong," that "something," if it causes her to deliver early, is a much bigger deal at 32 weeks than it is at 36 weeks. That's a big risk that I don't imagine she took.
> 
> Which is why I think the cover story has to be that Jin made it a month and then died. Which, though, makes no sense if you look at his tombstone.
> 
> Unless, of course, the baby grows to be what 8 month-old fetuses look like in 7 months because of some time-weirdness on the island.


It's the other way round. The baby is not big enough for her to claim that she got pregnant before the crash -- i.e. earlier. In which case my malnutrition theory fixes things up rather nicely. Don;t you people read *every* post?


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

madscientist said:


> I hate to even dip my toe into the O6 debate (mainly because I don't care that much), but I don't remember there ever being a definitive statement that Claire survived the crash. Do we know for a fact that Kate is admitting Aaron was Claire's baby, rather than just saying Aaron is her (Kate's) own son? As has been pointed out before, it seems unlikely that anyone would let an accused murderer, con artist, etc. adopt a baby like that. Obviously the timeline is problematic but she was out in the wilderness before she boarded the plane, and didn't the man who was sheltering her get killed? And there are very few people left alive who saw her on the plane other than the other survivors and they could say Aaron was hers.
> 
> If Kate is claiming Aaron as her own son then Claire doesn't have to be a survivor.
> 
> I don't know what difference that makes.


The other possibility is that the toddler *is* Kate's (and Sawyer's) son, and that she only named him Aaron in memory of Claire's Aaron. That would mean the flash forwards were a few months later. It would also nicely explain Jack's reluctance to see the kid.


----------



## jeff125va (Mar 15, 2001)

wprager said:


> It's the other way round. The baby is not big enough for her to claim that she got pregnant before the crash -- i.e. earlier. In which case my malnutrition theory fixes things up rather nicely. Don;t you people read *every* post?


I think unicorngoddess pointed out the real problem. If she'd been pregnant before 9/22, the baby would be due in June, but she was really due in July. Unless she just got lucky and the baby came early, people are going to start wondering things in July.

Still, I think the question has to be how that is explained, not what their story is regarding Jin and when he died.


----------



## jeff125va (Mar 15, 2001)

wprager said:


> The other possibility is that the toddler *is* Kate's (and Sawyer's) son, and that she only named him Aaron in memory of Claire's Aaron. That would mean the flash forwards were a few months later. It would also nicely explain Jack's reluctance to see the kid.


I know they have some crazy twists in this show, but do they really ever deliberately mislead us like that? Maybe I'm forgetting something, but that just seems out of character. Some unexpected things happen but I can't think of any time where they've misled us so blatantly.


----------



## madscientist (Nov 12, 2003)

aindik said:


> Given Aaron's age and excluding for a moment some crazy island time anomalies, there's no way Kate was as pregnant on the plane as she'd need to have been to have a kid that age.
> 
> Think about how pregnant Claire was on the plane. If Kate were that pregnant, people would have known.


First, there are very few people left to "know". Everyone on the plane is either in on the coverup, or dead (or on the island still). The man she was staying with in Australia is dead (IIRC). He had a wife, I think, so that's a problem, but they live way out in the outback so maybe no one knows about her. That marshal seemed to have a vendetta so he may well have not been as forthcoming to his bosses back in the States about every detail. So, who's left? People who happened to see her in the airport, and after that many months who's going to remember exactly? I believe she was put on the plane handcuffed in front and didn't she have a jacket over the cuffs or something? That could hide some amount of belly as well. If they still have airport video footage; that might be a problem.

And second, why can't Kate say that Aaron was born later then he actually was? There's really no way to tell the age of a baby that accurately, I would guess. Sure, that still leaves an improbable timeline (assuming she actually gets off the island with Aaron soon) but I bet she could pull it off.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

madscientist said:


> First, there are very few people left to "know". Everyone on the plane is either in on the coverup, or dead (or on the island still). The man she was staying with in Australia is dead (IIRC). He had a wife, I think, so that's a problem, but they live way out in the outback so maybe no one knows about her. That marshal seemed to have a vendetta so he may well have not been as forthcoming to his bosses back in the States about every detail. So, who's left? People who happened to see her in the airport, and after that many months who's going to remember exactly? I believe she was put on the plane handcuffed in front and didn't she have a jacket over the cuffs or something? That could hide some amount of belly as well. If they still have airport video footage; that might be a problem.
> 
> And second, why can't Kate say that Aaron was born later then he actually was? There's really no way to tell the age of a baby that accurately, I would guess. Sure, that still leaves an improbable timeline (assuming she actually gets off the island with Aaron soon) but I bet she could pull it off.


Let's please stop with the speculation that the Aaron we saw is possibly Kate's baby. We know that they get off the island sometime within the next few weeks (because otherwise Sun's pregnancy would have killed her). Therefore, Aaron is roughly 3-4 months old when they get rescued. Sure, they could pass him off as anywhere between 2-6 months, but none of those possible timeframes would fit with Kate being the mother.


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

jeff125va said:


> I know they have some crazy twists in this show, but do they really ever deliberately mislead us like that? Maybe I'm forgetting something, but that just seems out of character. Some unexpected things happen but I can't think of any time where they've misled us so blatantly.


True, but up until the moment she said the name (even longer for those who heard "Eric") many believed the baby to be Kate's, the only question being was it by Jack or Sawyer.

I'm just throwing it out as a possibility -- not even a theory.


----------



## unicorngoddess (Nov 20, 2005)

madscientist said:


> First, there are very few people left to "know". Everyone on the plane is either in on the coverup, or dead (or on the island still). The man she was staying with in Australia is dead (IIRC). He had a wife, I think, so that's a problem, but they live way out in the outback so maybe no one knows about her. That marshal seemed to have a vendetta so he may well have not been as forthcoming to his bosses back in the States about every detail. So, who's left? People who happened to see her in the airport, and after that many months who's going to remember exactly? I believe she was put on the plane handcuffed in front and didn't she have a jacket over the cuffs or something? That could hide some amount of belly as well. If they still have airport video footage; that might be a problem.
> 
> And second, why can't Kate say that Aaron was born later then he actually was? There's really no way to tell the age of a baby that accurately, I would guess. Sure, that still leaves an improbable timeline (assuming she actually gets off the island with Aaron soon) but I bet she could pull it off.


First of all, the famer's wife was dead, which is why Kate was staying with him to help out.

Second of all, if I remember correctly, once the Marshal caught Kate she was booked and had a mugshot taken. Then they had to go through special airport security so the marshal could get on board with his guns and such. So at the very least, airport security in Sydney would know she wasn't that pregnant.


----------



## Hunter Green (Feb 22, 2002)

Seriously. If you see a discussion that doesn't belong here, _stop posting to it_. Let the other guy get the last word in, let him be wrong without having to point it out again. It works. Really.


----------



## MitchO (Nov 7, 2003)

XKCD rules. That comic was already taped to my monitor


----------



## 3D (Oct 9, 2001)

jeff125va said:


> I know they have some crazy twists in this show, but do they really ever deliberately mislead us like that? Maybe I'm forgetting something, but that just seems out of character. Some unexpected things happen but I can't think of any time where they've misled us so blatantly.


I don't think that the baby was Kate's, but they have misled us like this before. I think Jack referring to his father as if he were alive in last year's season finale was just as manipulative, though wholly resolved in the same episode. I would say the current episode under discussion was just as manipulative with Jin's flashbacks's, seeing as how they really served no purpose but to make the ending a surprise.


----------



## 3D (Oct 9, 2001)

Don't know if this has been posted in another thread before, but it's a really interesting theory that was linked to earlier today in an ew article.

http://www.timelooptheory.com/

Make sure you've got more than a few minutes, as it's quite long. Although I assure you it never gets boring. Also, the question and answer section that follows has a pretty interesting explanation for any issues relating to the age of Sun's baby.


----------



## getreal (Sep 29, 2003)

Has anybody else considered the Captain of the freighter, Captain Gault, that he may be the mysterious "RG" engraved onto Naomi's bracelet?

And could it have been Regina who slipped the note to Dez and Sayid before they were released from the cabin to witness Regina's demise just before meeting Captain Gault?


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

3D said:


> Don't know if this has been posted in another thread before, but it's a really interesting theory that was linked to earlier today in an ew article.
> 
> http://www.timelooptheory.com/
> 
> Make sure you've got more than a few minutes, as it's quite long. Although I assure you it never gets boring. Also, the question and answer section that follows has a pretty interesting explanation for any issues relating to the age of Sun's baby.


That's very interesting. Don't know that I buy any of it, but it's definitely very creative. I wouldn't be surprised if at least some portions of that explanation are accurate.


----------



## latrobe7 (May 1, 2005)

DevdogAZ said:


> That's very interesting. Don't know that I buy any of it, but it's definitely very creative. I wouldn't be surprised if at least some portions of that explanation are accurate.


Yeah, it's a fun read - but you can tell the author had an inspiration then tried to make everything fit his idea.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

latrobe7 said:


> Yeah, it's a fun read - but you can tell the author had an inspiration then tried to make everything fit his idea.


Absolutely. It's very much shoehorned in there.


----------



## Church AV Guy (Jan 19, 2005)

Sixteen pages. It took me all this time to read through the debate and all. I have a few thoughts that I'm not sure were addressed yet or not.

I fully suspect that part of the lie that the O6 are telling has to do with where they were when they were rescued. I'm sure with all the emphasis on secrecy of the island location, that they were "rescued" from an island close to the false plane wreck site, and far from the acutal island.

Juliet mentioned that the mother's iummune system is activing in the pregnant women. It is a long-time mystery why a woman's body will tolerate the baby since it is a foreign substance within her system. Her body SHOULD reject the growing baby at every developmental stage, but it does not. Juliet was suggesting that the island "mechanism" that causes improved healing, and general robust health, is what is killing the pregnant women. Their heightened immune systems attack the growing fetus, resulting in the death of both.

I think the "flash forwards" we have been seeing have been in reverse order. That makes little sense. I think the furthest in the future was Jack's in the season finale last year. Each successive one has been getting close and closer to the time of the rescue.

[extreme-off-the-wall-speculation]
I think we have been TOLD something that might be important. We haven't seen it, but we have been told. When Jack was in the hospital, he said to those who were telling him to leave that his father was there and that they should get him. He also had a perscription from Christian, his father earlier that episode. No one looked at him like he was crazy when he said these things. No one rolled their eyes, and no one said, "Your father is dead, you pill-popping alcoholic!" I think it very likely that they would have. Is it at least possible that Christian is alive and the last member of the O6 group? I prefer to think it's Sawyer, but you never know. That was him in Jacob's cabin, wasn't it? His coffin was empty when they found it. Jack did see him on the island.
[/extreme-off-the-wall-speculation]

This show is a fun ride.


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

Church AV Guy said:


> When Jack was in the hospital, he said to those who were telling him to leave that his father was there and that they should get him. He also had a perscription from Christian, his father earlier that episode. No one looked at him like he was crazy when he said these things. No one rolled their eyes, and no one said, "Your father is dead, you pill-popping alcoholic!" I think it very likely that they would have.


If they would have said that, it would have ruined the surprise.

Kinda like the guy in the toy store didn't ask Jin if he was the father of the baby for whom he was buying the panda.


----------



## unicorngoddess (Nov 20, 2005)

When will be the next new episode of LOST. I just realilzed there's no new episode this week and I feel like I'm going through withdrawals!


----------



## latrobe7 (May 1, 2005)

unicorngoddess said:


> When will be the next new episode of LOST. I just realilzed there's no new episode this week and I feel like I'm going through withdrawals!


There's a new one tonight - but it's the last new one for 6 weeks (until 4/24)...


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

latrobe7 said:


> There's a new one tonight - but it's the last new one for 6 weeks...


Fear not. There are only four weeks without a new episode. The next episode after tonight's is on April 24.


----------



## unicorngoddess (Nov 20, 2005)

latrobe7 said:


> There's a new one tonight - but it's the last new one for 6 weeks...


Hmm...oh, nevermind. My brain turned to mush. I saw the thread title for this week and assumed it was last week's episode because of how the show ended last week. Okay, so I get one more fix and then the withdrawal sets in.


----------



## latrobe7 (May 1, 2005)

aindik said:


> Fear not. There are only four weeks without a new episode. The next episode after tonight's is on April 24.


Ok we'll compromise, 5 weeks...


----------



## 3D (Oct 9, 2001)

latrobe7 said:


> Yeah, it's a fun read - but you can tell the author had an inspiration then tried to make everything fit his idea.


True and true, but I agree with DevdogAZ that parts of it might very well turn out to be true. The thing I most like about it, however, is that if he were mostly correct, it would be very satisfying to see unfold (i.e., I wouldn't feel cheated in the endgame).


----------



## latrobe7 (May 1, 2005)

3D said:


> (i.e., I wouldn't feel cheated in the endgame).


I would. That theory requires 'fate' to be a conscious, God-like entity to fill in the holes, among other things.

There's some things I like - the way the Black Rock ends up where it does, for example, but other stuff, like his thoughts on Ben, Richard Alpert and the 4-toed statue are pretty weak, IMO.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Church AV Guy said:


> *Sixteen pages.* It took me all this time to read through the debate and all. I have a few thoughts that I'm not sure were addressed yet or not.


This is something I'll never understand. Why do people not have their forum settings set to the highest possible posts per page? Why would you want to reload the page more often than necessary?

If you don't know what I'm talking about, go to User CP at the top of the page and then click Edit Options on the left side. You can set it to display 50 posts per page, which makes this only the 10th page of the thread.


----------



## stellie93 (Feb 25, 2006)

You scared me, Unicorn! Tonight's ep better be new. 

Also Sun kept calling and talking about Jin in the hospital like he was alive, and no one rolled their eyes. Is this a trend?


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

stellie93 said:


> You scared me, Unicorn! Tonight's ep better be new.
> 
> Also Sun kept calling and talking about Jin in the hospital like he was alive, and no one rolled their eyes. Is this a trend?


I think that was the whole point of the substitute doctor. He wasn't familiar with Sun, so when she called out for Jin he didn't know to tell her that Jin was dead.


----------



## jeff125va (Mar 15, 2001)

3D said:


> I don't think that the baby was Kate's, but they have misled us like this before. I think Jack referring to his father as if he were alive in last year's season finale was just as manipulative, though wholly resolved in the same episode. I would say the current episode under discussion was just as manipulative with Jin's flashbacks's, seeing as how they really served no purpose but to make the ending a surprise.


Maybe but there were already hints that it was a flash-forward, and like you said it was resolved within that episode.

But making the ending a surprise IS a purpose.

I wouldn't make the comparison you're making. Both things you're talking about were contained within one episode and were both hinted at at some point. This would be leading us to believe the complete opposite. They call him by the name of a character featured prominently in the episode, about 5 episodes have gone by since then, so it would be a long time that they'd let us go on thinking that it was the Aaron we know.


----------



## jeff125va (Mar 15, 2001)

Hunter Green said:


> Seriously. If you see a discussion that doesn't belong here, _stop posting to it_. Let the other guy get the last word in, let him be wrong without having to point it out again. It works. Really.


I'll try to follow that advice sooner next time. Sorry to everyone for dragging that out more than was necessary.


----------



## latrobe7 (May 1, 2005)

Sun's flash-forward left several questions for me; like others have said, I thought it was odd that her doctor wasn't available and a back-up had to be found. Because she is a person of importance in her own right as a member of the Oceanic 6, and also before the crash she was a member of the social-elite due to her family. I just think that she would be an important patient and her doctor would not miss the delivery if he could possibly avoid it &#8211; but then again, there may have really been a conference and she may have been ahead of schedule. But what&#8217;s up with the doctor saying they need a C-section; then a few seconds later the baby crowns and is born fine? What happened to the &#8220;distress&#8221;? I think the substitute doc is part of a Conspiracy (whichever one you like). I mean, why write in the substitute unless there&#8217;s some significance to it, right?

I also wonder about her dad. We didn&#8217;t see any direct evidence of him in Sun&#8217;s flash; he seemed like an over-bearing guy who would want to be involved &#8211; I think the guy in the hallway was one of his guys, just like Jin used to be; hence the parallel story of Jin going to the hospital for a birth as part of his henchman duties. And Sun&#8217;s dad had business with Widmore&#8230; I don&#8217;t know what that means, but it must mean something!

I also wonder what the occasion was that Sun and Hurley went to &#8211; was it just to take Ji Yeon to Jin's grave for the first time? The way they were dressed seemed pretty formal like there was an actual funeral to attend; but clearly there was no ceremony for Jin at the cemetery. I don&#8217;t know, maybe that&#8217;s just how lottery-winners and industrialist heiress&#8217;s roll, dressed to the nines; but in my experience &#8211; and, thankfully, I haven&#8217;t had excessive experience visiting graves &#8211; people don&#8217;t normally dress up to visit a grave unless it&#8217;s the actual funeral. Am I way off base on this one?


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

latrobe7 said:


> Sun's flash-forward left several questions for me; like others have said, I thought it was odd that her doctor wasn't available and a back-up had to be found. Because she is a person of importance in her own right as a member of the Oceanic 6, and also before the crash she was a member of the social-elite due to her family. I just think that she would be an important patient and her doctor would not miss the delivery if he could possibly avoid it  but then again, there may have really been a conference and she may have been ahead of schedule. But whats up with the doctor saying they need a C-section; then a few seconds later the baby crowns and is born fine? What happened to the distress? I think the substitute doc is part of a Conspiracy (whichever one you like). I mean, why write in the substitute unless theres some significance to it, right?


She wasn't scheduled to deliver when she did. (Which means, if she lied about the conception date by a month, and she delivered at what the doctors thought was a month early, it was really two months early, which is really early). That's why the doctor was out of town.



latrobe7 said:


> I also wonder what the occasion was that Sun and Hurley went to  was it just to take Ji Yeon to Jin's grave for the first time? The way they were dressed seemed pretty formal like there was an actual funeral to attend; but clearly there was no ceremony for Jin at the cemetery. I dont know, maybe thats just how lottery-winners and industrialist heiresss roll, dressed to the nines; but in my experience  and, thankfully, I havent had excessive experience visiting graves  people dont normally dress up to visit a grave unless its the actual funeral. Am I way off base on this one?


That was especially weird if you consider that Hurley flew half way across the world (yes, probably for free, but still) and that Jin's body probably isn't even really buried there, and that he's probably not even dead. Why go all the way out there to talk to the grave you know is empty?


----------



## jeff125va (Mar 15, 2001)

latrobe7 said:


> Sun's flash-forward left several questions for me; like others have said, I thought it was odd that her doctor wasn't available and a back-up had to be found. Because she is a person of importance in her own right as a member of the Oceanic 6, and also before the crash she was a member of the social-elite due to her family. I just think that she would be an important patient and her doctor would not miss the delivery if he could possibly avoid it - but then again, there may have really been a conference and she may have been ahead of schedule. But what's up with the doctor saying they need a C-section; then a few seconds later the baby crowns and is born fine? What happened to the "distress"? I think the substitute doc is part of a Conspiracy (whichever one you like). I mean, why write in the substitute unless there's some significance to it, right?
> 
> I also wonder about her dad. We didn't see any direct evidence of him in Sun's flash; he seemed like an over-bearing guy who would want to be involved - I think the guy in the hallway was one of his guys, just like Jin used to be; hence the parallel story of Jin going to the hospital for a birth as part of his henchman duties. And Sun's dad had business with Widmore&#8230; I don't know what that means, but it must mean something!
> 
> I also wonder what the occasion was that Sun and Hurley went to - was it just to take Ji Yeon to Jin's grave for the first time? The way they were dressed seemed pretty formal like there was an actual funeral to attend; but clearly there was no ceremony for Jin at the cemetery. I don't know, maybe that's just how lottery-winners and industrialist heiress's roll, dressed to the nines; but in my experience - and, thankfully, I haven't had excessive experience visiting graves - people don't normally dress up to visit a grave unless it's the actual funeral. Am I way off base on this one?


Given how Hurley typically dressed, on the plane, etc., I have to think there was an "occasion" of some sort. You're on base. I was wondering about Sun's parents, too.


----------



## jeff125va (Mar 15, 2001)

aindik said:


> She wasn't scheduled to deliver when she did. (Which means, if she lied about the conception date by a month, and she delivered at what the doctors thought was a month early, it was really two months early, which is really early). That's why the doctor was out of town.
> 
> That was especially weird if you consider that Hurley flew half way across the world (yes, probably for free, but still) and that Jin's body probably isn't even really buried there, and that he's probably not even dead. Why go all the way out there to talk to the grave you know is empty?


That depends whether she told the doctors when she actually conceived, which would have been tacitly admitting that Jin wasn't the father, of course. But hey, he'd have been dead, so whose business is it anyway?

If you think about it, is there any point in talking to a grave _with_ a dead body in it? It's just a special place they set aside to remember him. He's not actually there, body or not, so I wouldn't make much of that aspect of it. It's the "did anyone else come? No. Good." part and how dressed up they got that intrigue me.


----------



## 3D (Oct 9, 2001)

jeff125va said:


> Maybe but there were already hints that it was a flash-forward, and like you said it was resolved within that episode.
> 
> But making the ending a surprise IS a purpose.
> 
> I wouldn't make the comparison you're making. Both things you're talking about were contained within one episode and were both hinted at at some point. This would be leading us to believe the complete opposite. They call him by the name of a character featured prominently in the episode, about 5 episodes have gone by since then, so it would be a long time that they'd let us go on thinking that it was the Aaron we know.


Yes, but having a revelation that Aaron is not the same Aaron we already know would have that same purpose, a surprise later on. I agree that the difference with my examples is that this type of misdirection would occur over multiple episodes, but the OP was simply asking if the writers ever threw out misleading information for no other purpose than to later pull a fast one, and episode containment aside, I think these examples qualify, particularly Jack's comments about his Dad (of course, if there's any merit to the theory I linked to earlier, the Dad comment would take on a completely different context). That said, I agree with you that the writers have not actually done any such thing here. That is, I'm convinced that Aaron is simply Aaron.

I'm probably just wasting time responding because the new thread will surely get started any time now, but there you have it.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

latrobe7 said:


> I also wonder about her dad. We didnt see any direct evidence of him in Suns flash; he seemed like an over-bearing guy who would want to be involved  I think the guy in the hallway was one of his guys, just like Jin used to be; hence the parallel story of Jin going to the hospital for a birth as part of his henchman duties. *And Suns dad had business with Widmore I dont know what that means, but it must mean something!*


What evidence did we see that Sun's father had business with Widmore?


----------



## Rosincrans (May 4, 2006)

DevdogAZ said:


> This is something I'll never understand. Why do people not have their forum settings set to the highest possible posts per page? Why would you want to reload the page more often than necessary?
> .


I like the page breaks because for a long thread (like any lost thread) it's easier to come back and see where you left off. If you know you were on page 14 (by it being highlighted, not that I would remember which page I was on.), if there aren't as many posts per page it's easier to find where you left off.


----------



## jkeegan (Oct 16, 2000)

If my plane crashes, I'm in AA Flight 1358.. Search for us. Racing home to see Lost!
(I'm in the baaaaaack of the tail section, so check that side of the island first.. I promise not to kill any fellow passengers for the first few weeks, unless we're hungry, they act crazy, or they get a speeding ticket somehow.

Note to self: I only made it to post 183 in this thread.


----------



## latrobe7 (May 1, 2005)

DevdogAZ said:


> What evidence did we see that Sun's father had business with Widmore?


Well, strictly speaking, there has only been a reference to Paik Heavy Industries being involved with the Hanso Foundation - in the show. In the episode D.O.C., there is an overheard conversation in Mr Paik's office:


> The conversation is notably not subtitled despite all other Korean conversations being so in the episode. Translation has revealed that Paik was arguing about forged shipping documents which they were supposed to provide for the Hanso Foundation (or possibly vice versa). Paik warns that they must provide the equipment soon or their friends will become very annoyed (or possibly he will become very angry).


link 

However, in The Lost Experience online game and in the novel "Bad Twin" there are direct references to dealings between Paik, Widmore and Hanso. Now, you may question the 'canonocity' of The Lost Experience and "Bad Twin"; after all the producers have said that the only _true_ canon is the show itself. However, they have also said that some stuff from the ancillary sources are correct, such as "Information about the Hanso Foundation and the Valenzetti Equation revealed in The Lost Experience."link And in a recent podcast (I'll find the quote and post it later) they say that the stuff in "Lost Twin" regarding the Widmore Corporation is correct.

ETA: OK, found the quote, from the 3/10/08 podcast 10:39 in...



> *Carlton Cuse:* ...but yes, we put the time and effort in so that other people who dig in to these ancillary products will find things that are rewarding, and most of "Bad Twin" is not really, particularly relevant to the show; but there's few things in there that are actually, things that have become a big part of the show like the relationship of the Widmores and Alvar Hanso. That gets first detailed in "Bad Twin"; so there are nuggets of things that are canon in things that are not fully canon...


I'm such a geek...


----------



## jeff125va (Mar 15, 2001)

jkeegan said:


> If my plane crashes, I'm in AA Flight 1358.. Search for us. Racing home to see Lost!
> (I'm in the baaaaaack of the tail section, so check that side of the island first.. I promise not to kill any fellow passengers for the first few weeks, unless we're hungry, they act crazy, or they get a speeding ticket somehow.
> 
> Note to self: I only made it to post 183 in this thread.


I recommend skipping any post that contains the word "acorn." And most of mine.


----------



## jkeegan (Oct 16, 2000)

jeff125va said:


> I recommend skipping any post that contains the word "acorn." And most of mine.


of course, now I'm intrigued! 

Made it! And not once did I pull a "Jack" and hope the plane crashed.


----------



## mqpickles (Nov 11, 2004)

jkeegan said:


> of course, now I'm intrigued!
> 
> Made it! And not once did I pull a "Jack" and hope the plane crashed.


Glad you're safe and sound.

Do yourself a favor and gloss over as much of the "Can a fetus be a passenger or survivor?" debate as you can. Otherwise, you will want to get back on a plane in the hopes that it will crash.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

latrobe7 said:


> Well, strictly speaking, there has only been a reference to Paik Heavy Industries being involved with the Hanso Foundation - in the show. In the episode D.O.C., there is an overheard conversation in Mr Paik's office:link
> 
> However, in The Lost Experience online game and in the novel "Bad Twin" there are direct references to dealings between Paik, Widmore and Hanso. Now, you may question the 'canonocity' of The Lost Experience and "Bad Twin"; after all the producers have said that the only _true_ canon is the show itself. However, they have also said that some stuff from the ancillary sources are correct, such as "Information about the Hanso Foundation and the Valenzetti Equation revealed in The Lost Experience."link And in a recent podcast (I'll find the quote and post it later) they say that the stuff in "Lost Twin" regarding the Widmore Corporation is correct.
> 
> ...


Yes, yes you are. 

Actually, I read "Bad Twin" but barely remember anything about it, especially not anything about Widmore or Hanso.


----------



## Hunter Green (Feb 22, 2002)

DevdogAZ said:


> This is something I'll never understand. Why do people not have their forum settings set to the highest possible posts per page? Why would you want to reload the page more often than necessary?


Back when my Internet connection was even slower than the one I have now, a low posts-per-page setting was a vital way to get to where I could start reading posts in a reasonable time. (I also browsed with pictures off.)


----------

