Lost 5/2/07 "The Brig" (spoilers)

[Hand of Evil]

I don't think she knew who she was talking to when she said that.

BUT he was wearing a Dramha jumpsuit. It would be interesting if she is the replacement that Desmond's hatch mate said would be along one day. Besides, she is getting better and has yet to say ANYTHING to the castaways (like that would happen) like; did you find Bob, he was in the helicopter with me...along with...

But they know there is a boat 80 miles off shore! Also, standard grid pattern, meaning the crew of the boat knows when they enter a grid and when they leave, that boat will be coming soon and is going to run smack into the island!

 

[Mark CMG]

But they know there is a boat 80 miles off shore!

How so?

 

[Hand of Evil]

How so?

Well, they really don't, she seem to have passed that info to them but then this is Lost and mis-direction being what it is...

 

[Fast Learner]

If there is a boat 80 miles offshore, from which she came, and she really is part of a Penny-led rescue effort, then the fact that the copter is missing would keep them searching in the area for a certain amount of time, anyway.

 

[Arnwyn]

Explain, please.

Huh?

You're not going to get any reasonable "scientific" explanation to either the smoke monster and/or Desmond's seeing the future (among a bunch of other things, I'm sure).

 

[Mark CMG]

Huh?

You're not going to get any reasonable "scientific" explanation to either the smoke monster and/or Desmond's seeing the future (among a bunch of other things, I'm sure).

Well, what the writers/producers "said" has long since proven to be... ahem... "incorrect". (smoke monster, Desmond seeing the future)

Explain, please, what things the writers/producers have said that have been proven to be incorrect.

 

[The Grumpy Celt]

Why would they (or we, the audience) even trust what Naomi is saying?

I don't. IF, however, she is not lying, then what happened is likely that she witnessed a newscast with faked information about the crash of 815. That seems more likely than that the producers have reversed themselves on the whole "not dead" thing.

Explain, please.

The excuse and explainations will be about as scientific as those in Star TRek, which is to say very little and not much more than mumbo jumbo and hand waving. None of the strange things on the island - rapid healing without treatment, an electromagnetic pulse tearing apart the plane, a smoke monster, why the island is mostly invisable when your more than a few miles away - is not scientificly possible.

 

[Mark CMG]

(snip)

My question may not have been as clear as possible. I am wondering what the writers have said that has since proven incorrect.

 

[el-remmen]

My question may not have been as clear as possible. I am wondering what the writers have said that has since proven incorrect.

The writers have allegedly said, "there is a scientific explanation for everything."

There is no real scientific explanation for the smoke monster or Desmond's visions as we understand science in the real world.

Thus, I think the OP is saying, that the writers are incorrect in the above statement, and also thusly, someone else's comments about "science fiction" explanations.

That clearer? (unless of course, I am interpreting it wrong as well )

 

[Mark CMG]

The writers have allegedly said, "there is a scientific explanation for everything."

There is no real scientific explanation for the smoke monster or Desmond's visions as we understand science in the real world.

Thus, I think the OP is saying, that the writers are incorrect in the above statement, and also thusly, someone else's comments about "science fiction" explanations.

That clearer?

Yes, but what specifically has been proven incorrect? Not knowing or being able to figure out the explanation for something is not the same as having proven some explanation to be false. And, don't get me wrong. I am not saying they have adequately explained everything (or anything) or that everything will have a proper explanation. Don't cast me as a Lost-science apologist but I am looking for the specifics of something they have explained and the refutation thereof.