**spoilers*** Lost Season Five **spoilers**

[bigmerle1966]

OK....I found one...this is from Kristen at E! online:

Interesting!


I don't think Juliette is pregnant, she would be too worried about what would happen if she was.

 

[lizbeth374]

Could someone please tell me where we have seen the name LaFleur before? I want to say it was one of the bodies in the mass "grave" that Locke was in when Ben shot him...

 

[justhat]

I was thinking, didn't Widmore say Locke needed to go back to the island cause a war was coming? Does he mean the purge since we're back in time now? If so, I wonder how that plays out with the Losties now being Dharma workers when the rebellion occurs. We know it happened, so it can't really be changed, can it?

 

[Disney1fan2002]

Could someone please tell me where we have seen the name LaFleur before? I want to say it was one of the bodies in the mass "grave" that Locke was in when Ben shot him...

Yes, we have seen the name before, on a Dharma jumpsuit. I don't think it was the grave. LaFleur would have to have died before 1974, for Sawyer to get away with using the name.

 

[beattyfamily]

I thought Jullet asked Sawyer about giving them the name "LaFleur" and his response was that he had to think fast and then he said "It's Creole".

I didn't get the impression at all that Sawyer had heard or seen the name before on the island. I got the impression it just popped into his head.

Of course, that doesnt' mean it doesn't have some relevance or history to the island anyway.

 

[Disney1fan2002]

I don't like LOST's version of time travel. It just doesn't make sense to me that a time traveler can't change the outcome of a situation. Anything different from the original event would change the outcome. It would cause a "ripple". I know I am getting this from the many time-traveling movies I have watched, but it makes sense. (Frequency and The Butterfly Effect are excellent example of how interfering with fate can change things drastically).

This whole "if he helped her now, he has always helped her, has me so confused, I can't get my mind around it. There had to be an ORIGINAL event. One that did not have time travelers witnessing it. So, Sawyer sees two Other's getting ready to shoot Amy, the original event, had Amy shot and dead. (Her husband was killed, and they were getting ready to shoot her execution style). So, Sawyer comes in and saves her, all that means is he now has to ALWAYS save her, when he finds himself in 1974 and she is getting ready to push up daisies. It still doesn't make sense that by Sawyer saving her, he did nothing to change the future. I just don't get that. Original '74, Amy is dead, Horace can't divorce his wife, and marry Amy and have a child, because SAWYER WASN'T ALWAYS THERE.

Who else shares my frustration with this? Am I missing something? I think the Losties can change the outcome of what happened in the past, and will.

 

[anniemae]

I am with you disney1fan2002, DH and I had a fight about this during Lost! I feel the exact way you just described, that Sawyer DID change the outcome by interfering, if he didn't interfere, Amy would be shot. Sawyer was not always there, because he was just a kid in 1974, so when it origianlly happened, he was not there to save her. But Faraday says they cannot change the outcome, just like they were going to warn themselves not to get on the chopper to go to the freighter that exploded. Faraday said they cannot change the outcome.

I was so confused. DH finally ended our argument by saying, "You just don't understand time travel." Ha!

 

[Amy]

disney1fan2002 and anniemae, I'm right there with you! I completely understand what you're saying - the Losties have gone back in time; since they weren't in 1974 when it was really 1974, whatever they do now IS going to change things. I don't understand the whole "if it happened, it happened and you can't change it."

 

[lizbeth374]

Yes, we have seen the name before, on a Dharma jumpsuit. I don't think it was the grave. LaFleur would have to have died before 1974, for Sawyer to get away with using the name.

I thought Jullet asked Sawyer about giving them the name "LaFleur" and his response was that he had to think fast and then he said "It's Creole".

I didn't get the impression at all that Sawyer had heard or seen the name before on the island. I got the impression it just popped into his head.

Of course, that doesnt' mean it doesn't have some relevance or history to the island anyway.

I don't think Sawyer borrowed the name LaFleur either. He made it up. Jin had his name on his and I think Juliette did too...

 

[wdhinn89]

Why do you all think that Amy would have been shot too? We do not know what transpired before Sawyer and friends showed up. They had a bag over her head. They didn't need to put a bag over her head to shoot her. Maybe they were only going to kidnap her and bring her to the others and covered her head so she wouldn't know where she was going. In that case she could still have had a baby in three years with some one else. We don't know the baby is anyone special. He could wind up being just another human in the island population.

 

[gometros]

OMG! I did! I was waiting to see it again, to be certain, but the camera never went back to her mis-section. Definitely thought I saw a bump!!

The episode is being replayed Wednesday night, so you have a chance to look again.

 

[gometros]

WE NEED MORE SPOILERS!

You're right. This has just turned into a redundancy of the other Lost thread.

 

[TheLittleRoo]

Okay, this question bubbled up after reading some of these posts:

What was so important to the Others about taking Amy's dead husband's body as part of the truce? Why would they want it, or need it? Could it have anything to do with a substitution, like we saw the LOSTies do with Locke's body for Christian Sebastian's body on the original Oceanic flight?

Along that same line, if the Others were killing Amy's husband for a stand-in body, might they have also been planning to either "harvest" Amy or kill her for an additional substitution, and this is what Sawyer unknowingly saved her from?

The thing about LOST is, you can't ever out-think the writers and the possibilities and tangents are mind-boggling...

 

[TheLittleRoo]

I don't remember any mention that he loved that woman. Just that he used her as a live human subject. I'll have to go back and watch the episode again to try and catch that.

Re: the woman in the hospital bed in Cambridge... if you can go back, I would love to hear what you find about this woman. Especially since we learned that people CAN be in two time places at the same time (young Ben and old Ben). Maybe young Charlotte is alive in 1974 at Daniel's camp, and is being held on life support as a young woman in Cambridge in 2006 (or whatever year it was when Desmond went there and found her)?? And that is why Daniel is paying to keep her alive at any cost, and also why Daniel can't return to see her himself: he's stuck in 1974 on the island. But he has hope that he'll see her again if he can solve for time travel to a specific time.

 

[beattyfamily]

You're right. This has just turned into a redundancy of the other Lost thread.

True but at least here I don't have to worry about slipping if I say something that's considered spoiler to some....

I can freely speak about whatever I want to about Lost without getting yelled at.

 

[beattyfamily]

So I'm surprised that no one has mentioned once (on either thread) that during one of their quicker flashes (time travel), Sawyer and gang saw the FULL statue, instead of just the 4 toed foot. I wonder how far back in time that was.

 

[harleyquinn]

I don't like LOST's version of time travel. It just doesn't make sense to me that a time traveler can't change the outcome of a situation. Anything different from the original event would change the outcome. It would cause a "ripple". I know I am getting this from the many time-traveling movies I have watched, but it makes sense. (Frequency and The Butterfly Effect are excellent example of how interfering with fate can change things drastically).

This whole "if he helped her now, he has always helped her, has me so confused, I can't get my mind around it. There had to be an ORIGINAL event. One that did not have time travelers witnessing it. So, Sawyer sees two Other's getting ready to shoot Amy, the original event, had Amy shot and dead. (Her husband was killed, and they were getting ready to shoot her execution style). So, Sawyer comes in and saves her, all that means is he now has to ALWAYS save her, when he finds himself in 1974 and she is getting ready to push up daisies. It still doesn't make sense that by Sawyer saving her, he did nothing to change the future. I just don't get that. Original '74, Amy is dead, Horace can't divorce his wife, and marry Amy and have a child, because SAWYER WASN'T ALWAYS THERE.

Who else shares my frustration with this? Am I missing something? I think the Losties can change the outcome of what happened in the past, and will.

Why do you think that there has to be an original event that Sawyer wasn't present at? We have no proof that Amy wasn't alive in 1978, for example. If we knew that Amy had died in the past and THEN Sawyer went and saved her, then we would know he changed the future.

We have to wait for events that we know happened in the past to happen before we'll know if they can change the future or not.

But I find it very strange that we cannot point to one thing that we know was one way in the future that has actually been changed. The events of Dharma and the purge and the hostiles are very, very sketchy. The writers have purposely told us very little. But I'm willing to bet (and I have ) that the purge will happen, Ben will kill his father, Charlotte will leave the island...all the things we know happened, will happen. The real story is what the Losties roles are in making them happen.

Big example...if the baby is actually someone important, like Keamy, then Daniel's (my) rules are proven. Because if there was an original event where Sawyer didn't interfere then Keamy never would have been born, so he couldn't be on the ship.

I said I would stop arguing on the other thread. Do you guys see my pointing out how Daniels' (my) theory works as arguing? If I'm annoying anyone, I will stop!!

 

[harleyquinn]

So I'm surprised that no one has mentioned once (on either thread) that during one of their quicker flashes (time travel), Sawyer and gang saw the FULL statue, instead of just the 4 toed foot. I wonder how far back in time that was.

I did!!! I explained the whole thing!

The statue is of Anubis the Egyptian guardian and judge of the dead. He is holding a huge ankh (same as the necklace), which is the egyptian symbol for eternity and reserrection.

Also the Egyptian god Horus (pronounce Horace) is also really important. He's VERY similar to Jesus. Many people think Christianity ripped off some of his story to make the Jesus story.

Go to lost.cubit.net for way more info...

 

[ibouncetoo]

So I'm surprised that no one has mentioned once (on either thread) that during one of their quicker flashes (time travel), Sawyer and gang saw the FULL statue, instead of just the 4 toed foot. I wonder how far back in time that was.

I only noticed that when I re-watched on line yesterday (our cable was out for ABC for almost two hours...came on about 20 minutes into LOST).

I said I would stop arguing on the other thread. Do you guys see my pointing out how Daniels' (my) theory works as arguing? If I'm annoying anyone, I will stop!!

I don't see it as arguing....especially since I agree with you! It's really difficult for people to NOT think of time as linear. Anybody remember the string theory from Quantum Leap?

.

 

[gometros]

I don't see it as arguing....especially since I agree with you! It's really difficult for people to NOT think of time as linear. Anybody remember the string theory from Quantum Leap?

.

Don't forget, though, that the premise of Quantum Leap was that you could change the past. Sam beckett's whole purpose was to 'set things right'.