Doc Jenson helps us prepare!

[Missie]

Remember Doc has already seen the premier! In this article he tells us what we should have fresh on our minds when we watch the premier oursleves! Plus he has good insight on our little bundle of joy, Aaron.

http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20251960,00.html

[notsolost42]

What Doc Jensen says about Aaron, his theory, is very wrong. I am sorry. Richard Malkin told Claire, most definitely and without a doubt, the she alone had to raise Aaron. Doc Jensen seems to have forgotten this episode in his theory.
Read the transcript from Raised by Another:

CLAIRE: Last week. Is that why you didn't want to do my reading last time?

MALKIN: No, I saw something, sort of a blurry thing.

CLAIRE: And, blurry's bad?

MALKIN: Blurry's bad. That's why I stopped the reading. Are you sure you want to go on now?

CLAIRE: Yeah, yes, please.

MALKIN: I can tell you, this is important.

CLAIRE: Okay.

MALKIN: It is crucial that you, yourself, raise this child.

CLAIRE: You mean with Thomas? Is he..

MALKIN: The father of this child will play no part in it's life, nor yours.

CLAIRE: So what exactly are you saying?

MALKIN: This child parented by anyone else, anyone other than you -- danger surrounds this baby. . .

CLAIRE: Danger?

MALKIN: Your nature, your spirit, your goodness, must be an influence in the development of this child.

CLAIRE: If Thomas and I don't get back together I'm putting this baby up for adoption. I just wanted to find out what would give the baby the happiest life.

MALKIN: There is no happy life -- not for this child, not without you.

CLAIRE: I don't. . .

MALKIN: It can't be another. You mustn't allow another to raise your baby.

CLAIRE: Okay, great. Thanks for taking my 200.

MALKIN: Oh, no look, take it. Ms. Littleton; I am begging you just to consider...

CLAIRE: I can't raise this child by myself.

MALKIN: You have to listen to me.

CLAIRE: Thanks for your time, and my money back.

MALKIN: Ms. Littleton, please. The baby needs your protection. Ms. Littleton, please.

Doc Jensen is usually so great at this but this time...no, no way do I buy into just the verbs. In other words, his talk of not raising the dead. Sorry, Aaron IS specifically mentioned.

[Brother Desmond]

Doc Jensen is usually so great at this but this time...no, no way do I buy into just the verbs. In other words, his talk of not raising the dead. Sorry, Aaron IS specifically mentioned.

I'm going to have to disagree with this. Aaron isn't specifically mentioned at all. If Aaron was specifically mentioned Charlie would have said, "You're not supposed to raise Aaron. And Claire would have said, "Don't bring Aaron back." "Don't you dare bring Aaron back."

Claire and Charlie's statements are left open for interpretation. I'm not saying Doc's theory is correct, but we don't know for sure Charlie and Claire were referring to Aaron. People will have their own opinions, of course, but at this point we don't know, with 100% certainty who they were referring to.

[notsolost42]

But BroDes, Richard Malkin was being specific. He told Claire that she must raise her child herself. That the child must not be raised by another. The other parts that Doc Jensen quotes do not mention Aaron specifically, true, but if you go back far enough to Richard Malkin that's where the connection is specifically made.

[Missie]

Notsolost: You make a great point...but remember Doc has already seen the first epi! He knows info we dont, he is giving us hints on things to consider when watching the premier, without giving us to much to spoiler the premier. So even though it seems to us like Claire and Charlie had to be talking about Aaron... there may be more info pointing to Doc's theory. I cant wait to see!

[Brother Desmond]

But BroDes, Richard Malkin was being specific. He told Claire that she must raise her child herself. That the child must not be raised by another. The other parts that Doc Jensen quotes do not mention Aaron specifically, true, but if you go back far enough to Richard Malkin that's where the connection is specifically made.

I agree that Malkin was specific, no doubt. I was just pointing out Charlie and Claire didn't specifically mention Aaron, which leaves their statements open for interpretation.

[notsolost42]

Notsolost: You make a great point...but remember Doc has already seen the first epi! He knows info we dont, he is giving us hints on things to consider when watching the premier, without giving us to much to spoiler the premier. So even though it seems to us like Claire and Charlie had to be talking about Aaron... there may be more info pointing to Doc's theory. I cant wait to see!

Missie, even Doc Jensen says he's going way out on a limb with the theory...I don't really think it has to do with the first few epi's. I don't think he's leaving us a breadcrumb trail to follow. I'm not biting.

[lostie108]

I Have been saying this to people and they just shrugged it off , i definately think that they are referring to someone else like John Locke and not aaron . I understand it is hard to believe but why would they not tell us the name of the person that jack isn't supposed to raise , or whom kate isn't supposed to bring back . i think doc has something here . it's just to much of a coincidence to overlook it.

[Missie]

I Have been saying this to people and they just shrugged it off , i definately think that they are referring to someone else like John Locke and not aaron . I understand it is hard to believe but why would they not tell us the name of the person that jack isn't supposed to raise , or whom kate isn't supposed to bring back . i think doc has something here . it's just to much of a coincidence to overlook it.

It sounds so much better when Doc says it! Lol, just kidding, this is the first Ive even considered it.

[lostie108]

Missie, even Doc Jensen says he's going way out on a limb with the theory...I don't really think it has to do with the first few epi's. I don't think he's leaving us a breadcrumb trail to follow. I'm not biting.

your kinda comparing apples to oranges , they are two totally different senarios richard malkin was specific . claire and charlie were not end of story otherwise they would have said aaron's name . and basically if this is true then this would set up locke to be a bad guy . huh i didn't just say that . i am losing it. i mean with all the episodes doc says to keep fresh look at lock in a bad guy light , it is there but he is being played by the ultimate long con man in ben linus . again this is definately crazy talk dont bite.

[lostie108]

It sounds so much better when Doc says it! Lol, just kidding, this is the first Ive even considered it.

of course it does he is much more elegant in his writing , i just talk out loud on this forum board. lol.

[notsolost42]

I Have been saying this to people and they just shrugged it off , i definately think that they are referring to someone else like John Locke and not aaron . I understand it is hard to believe but why would they not tell us the name of the person that jack isn't supposed to raise , or whom kate isn't supposed to bring back . i think doc has something here . it's just to much of a coincidence to overlook it.

I don't think it's a coinsidence, I think it is obvious. Let's not all forget Occham's Razor, okay? If it walks like a duck and qwacks like a duck...it ain't no freakin' polar bear!!!! LOL!!! Seriously, some things are meant to be taken at face value. Other things are left as clues. And still other things, well, that's TPTB toying with us and don't mean anything!

[Missie]

I don't think it's a coinsidence, I think it is obvious. Let's not all forget Occham's Razor, okay? If it walks like a duck and qwacks like a duck...it ain't no freakin' polar bear!!!! LOL!!! Seriously, some things are meant to be taken at face value. Other things are left as clues. And still other things, well, that's TPTB toying with us and don't mean anything!

lol, Im not sure Occham's Razor applies to LOST. There are no simple solutions in this show!

[notsolost42]

lol, Im not sure Occham's Razor applies to LOST. There are no simple solutions in this show!

Of course it does.

[Monkey-Hands]

Hmmmm, I think you can take his theory like 50/50. Could be that way, but also could be the way we saw it.

[losttime]

We have to keep in mind that when they say he or him it may lead us one way but remember when Kate met Jack at airport and said "he is going to wonder where I am" we were all thinking it was Sawyer when in fact it was Aaron. so we shall see the true identity of "him" soon

[boutte]

I'm going to have to disagree with this. Aaron isn't specifically mentioned at all. If Aaron was specifically mentioned Charlie would have said, "You're not supposed to raise Aaron. And Claire would have said, "Don't bring Aaron back." "Don't you dare bring Aaron back."

Claire and Charlie's statements are left open for interpretation. I'm not saying Doc's theory is correct, but we don't know for sure Charlie and Claire were referring to Aaron. People will have their own opinions, of course, but at this point we don't know, with 100% certainty who they were referring to.

But BroDes, Richard Malkin was being specific. He told Claire that she must raise her child herself. That the child must not be raised by another. The other parts that Doc Jensen quotes do not mention Aaron specifically, true, but if you go back far enough to Richard Malkin that's where the connection is specifically made.
When Claire said not to bring him back the first thought in my head was why did she not refer to the person in question by name or say something along the lines of my child or son. At first I thought she was referring to Jack but when I saw Locke in the coffin i became convinced that she was talking about either him or Ben. The idea of Charlie meaning not to raise Locke never occurred to me till I read this article but I think Doc Jensen may be onto something.

I'm pretty sure that Claire wasn't talking about Aaron though.

[boutte]

I don't think it's a coinsidence, I think it is obvious. Let's not all forget Occham's Razor, okay? If it walks like a duck and qwacks like a duck...it ain't no freakin' polar bear!!!! LOL!!! Seriously, some things are meant to be taken at face value. Other things are left as clues. And still other things, well, that's TPTB toying with us and don't mean anything!
The bastids!

[notsolost42]

After careful consideration and much thought last evening I am reconsidering my position on the Doc Jensen theory. Am I a perch nibbling away??????

[Missie]

After careful consideration and much thought last evening I am reconsidering my position on the Doc Jensen theory. Am I a perch nibbling away??????

Lol... Dont bite to hard! You may be rewarded with that big "Told ya so!" if you stick to your guns! On the other hand... you may be the one taunted. Thats why I am officially On The Fence!

[notsolost42]

Well, that's exactly it now Missie. I too am on the fence. The whole senario with Richard Malkin could have been a complete set up for this part of the series. It would make you automatically assume that was what Charlie and Claire meant. But then again, it might not be. I thought about it very carefully. It does leave alot of assuming on the table if you go with the Aaron theory. Then again, it is quite a stretch to believe they are going to ressurect John Locke. Guess we'll have to wait and see.

[ortrules]

You on the fence people sicken me. :p

I will buy that Claire wasn't referring to Aaron when she said "Don't bring him back". That honestly could go either way and make sense.

But I will not buy that when Charlie said Jack isn't suppose to raise him, he was referring to raising Locke (or someone else) from the dead. I mean, really, that's a huge stretch - and a ridiculous one, in my opinion. Besides, that was in the episode that was all about Jack and Kate and getting engaged and raising Aaron, and blah blah blah. If Charlie was indeed referring to Locke when he told Jack he wasn't supposed to raise him (from the dead), then it was quite possibly the most cryptic message ever, and one that I don't think Jack would ever understand.

[notsolost42]

You on the fence people sicken me. :p

I will buy that Claire wasn't referring to Aaron when she said "Don't bring him back". That honestly could go either way and make sense.

But I will not buy that when Charlie said Jack isn't suppose to raise him, he was referring to raising Locke (or someone else) from the dead. I mean, really, that's a huge stretch - and a ridiculous one, in my opinion. Besides, that was in the episode that was all about Jack and Kate and getting engaged and raising Aaron, and blah blah blah. If Charlie was indeed referring to Locke when he told Jack he wasn't supposed to raise him (from the dead), then it was quite possibly the most cryptic message ever, and one that I don't think Jack would ever understand.

I do honestly agree with you Ort. But, keep in mind that the message Hurley delivered from Charlie was "You are not supposed to raise him." He didn't mention Jack in the sentence only that the message was intended for him. Like I said before, it would leave a lot to assume and I hate to assume anything. It is a far stretch to suddenly bring in "raising the dead" although we still have the whispers to content with. That and just how Ben can conjure up a "ghost" like Goodwin's wife to deliver a message to Juliet. She did say that Ben sent her. Considering it seems he can already call up the smoke monster this adds an additional twist to Ben. Does he have powers that we are not aware of? Is this show going to change directions and go that way now? If so, I would be highly disappointed. Anticlimatic.

[ortrules]

I do honestly agree with you Ort. But, keep in mind that the message Hurley delivered from Charlie was "You are not supposed to raise him." He didn't mention Jack in the sentence only that the message was intended for him. Like I said before, it would leave a lot to assume and I hate to assume anything. It is a far stretch to suddenly bring in "raising the dead" although we still have the whispers to content with. That and just how Ben can conjure up a "ghost" like Goodwin's wife to deliver a message to Juliet. She did say that Ben sent her. Considering it seems he can already call up the smoke monster this adds an additional twist to Ben. Does he have powers that we are not aware of? Is this show going to change directions and go that way now? If so, I would be highly disappointed. Anticlimatic.

It still doesn't make any sense though, at all. If Charlie was sent to tell Jack that he shouldn't raise Locke (or whoever) from the dead, then he would say something a little more specific and less cryptic than "You are not supposed to raise him".

Also, and correct me if I'm wrong, but at the time Jack got this message Locke was still on the island and hadn't visited Jack. I believe this is the timeline:

O'6 get off the island.
Kate's trial where Jack appears but can't "handle" Aaron.
Jack and Kate get together sometime later.
Message delivered from Charlie.
Jack sees Christian.
Jack begins to break down.
Locke visits the O'6 and Jack really spirals downward.
Locke dies.
Jack goes to funeral parlor and runs into Ben.

According to this order of events, which I'm sure is accurate, Jack has no knowledge about the current status of the island or Locke, so how could Charlie's message refer to not raising Locke? And how could anyone expect Jack to understand that?

[coffefrap]

I Have been saying this to people and they just shrugged it off , i definately think that they are referring to someone else like John Locke and not aaron . I understand it is hard to believe but why would they not tell us the name of the person that jack isn't supposed to raise , or whom kate isn't supposed to bring back . i think doc has something here . it's just to much of a coincidence to overlook it.

I agree....to much of a coincidence.....it would seem that there is something there......at least we get to find out soon......I can't wait....!

[Missie]

I do honestly agree with you Ort. But, keep in mind that the message Hurley delivered from Charlie was "You are not supposed to raise him." He didn't mention Jack in the sentence only that the message was intended for him. Like I said before, it would leave a lot to assume and I hate to assume anything. It is a far stretch to suddenly bring in "raising the dead" although we still have the whispers to content with. That and just how Ben can conjure up a "ghost" like Goodwin's wife to deliver a message to Juliet. She did say that Ben sent her. Considering it seems he can already call up the smoke monster this adds an additional twist to Ben. Does he have powers that we are not aware of? Is this show going to change directions and go that way now? If so, I would be highly disappointed. Anticlimatic.

was it confrmed that Goodwins wife (Was it Harper or something like that?) was a ghost?

[coffefrap]

was it confrmed that Goodwins wife (Was it Harper or something like that?) was a ghost?

I just watched that episode last night and I don't think it was confirmed that she was a ghost....plus....Ben made the reference to Locke that if his people wanted him they would have already gotten him....which would lead me to believe that she (Harper) would be with his people still where Ben sent them in the first place.........????

[notsolost42]

was it confrmed that Goodwins wife (Was it Harper or something like that?) was a ghost?

I thought Harper was dead. Do you think she is with the Others? She moves very stealthily then.

[beachblinkette]

Well, here goes my opinion on the Doc Jensen idea about who is not supposed to be raised or brought back.....Very tricky!! So now we may have been tricked again by a bunch of writers!! Yes, it's clever. Yes, it's unexpected, Yes, it is possible. But, given Notso's posted dialogue between Claire and the psychic, it seems like a very sneaky trick! What's next? Must we start to become psychics ourselves, and language analysts? Wait! I hear the whispers speaking backwards!!!! !!!Gniog si siht woh ekil i fi wonk tnod i So, we wait with baited breath... um, er, that may really mean that I am breathing while I have a fishing line coming out of my mouth with a worm on the end. LOL!!

[coffefrap]

Well, here goes my opinion on the Doc Jensen idea about who is not supposed to be raised or brought back.....Very tricky!! So now we may have been tricked again by a bunch of writers!! Yes, it's clever. Yes, it's unexpected, Yes, it is possible. But, given Notso's posted dialogue between Claire and the psychic, it seems like a very sneaky trick! What's next? Must we start to become psychics ourselves, and language analysts? Wait! I hear the whispers speaking backwards!!!! !!!Gniog si siht woh ekil i fi wonk tnod i So, we wait with baited breath... um, er, that may really mean that I am breathing while I have a fishing line coming out of my mouth with a worm on the end. LOL!!

LOL.....love it....

[notsolost42]

I agree...it sounds too slick. If that's how the show is going I won't be very happy. You can do and say whatever you want on the one hand and then completely toss it out and change everything on the other. Nope, don't like it one bit. It's one thing being creative but being slick just plain stinks. My jury is definitely out on this one now. It's like what's going around about the island manifesting as something else...what??? Okay, not an island???? What???? Oh, come on. They better take a very fast plane to France! Beach, you and me are gonna get 'em!

[beachblinkette]

I agree...it sounds too slick. If that's how the show is going I won't be very happy. You can do and say whatever you want on the one hand and then completely toss it out and change everything on the other. Nope, don't like it one bit. It's one thing being creative but being slick just plain stinks. My jury is definitely out on this one now. It's like what's going around about the island manifesting as something else...what??? Okay, not an island???? What???? Oh, come on. They better take a very fast plane to France! Beach, you and me are gonna get 'em!

Yep! You better believe it!! I hope they are not underestimating all of us! They can't just side step the Aaron scenario they initially set up and now pretend they didn't spin that a certain way for all this time. And what's this?!?!? Change the island? ARE THEY MAD?!!!!X@$&!!:eek: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!
I think I'd better eat some chocolate so I can calm down. LOL. France may not be far enough away, ya know? Ha! All in all, I'm still on the hook for this show-wacky script tricks and all!! I'd say we're all in for some fun and craziness--just hope it doesn't disappoint!! And so far it hasn't. :)

[notsolost42]

Yep! You better believe it!! I hope they are not underestimating all of us! They can't just side step the Aaron scenario they initially set up and now pretend they didn't spin that a certain way for all this time. And what's this?!?!? Change the island? ARE THEY MAD?!!!!X@$&!!:eek: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!
I think I'd better eat some chocolate so I can calm down. LOL. France may not be far enough away, ya know? Ha! All in all, I'm still on the hook for this show-wacky script tricks and all!! I'd say we're all in for some fun and craziness--just hope it doesn't disappoint!! And so far it hasn't. :)

I second the motion!!! All but the chocolate part...I can't eat that...boo-hoo!
Hay Beach, I just had a seriously sick thought of where they might be going if all this stuff we've gone through will not be what we think. What if...Richard is a vampire???? Do you honestly think they would go that route? I was doing some research on "undead", the phrase coined by TPTB. That was what I came up with. It does kind of fit him. Ageless, etc. OMG! They best not go that route. They would be going by way of Stephen King's Storm of the Century. Remember that one? The bad guy was a vampire and he chose the child by picking a stone I believe. Black and white stones!
And I quote "A random drawing is organized by Linoge, and after drawing the single black-colored weirding stone, Ralphie Anderson (Mike's and Molly's son) is chosen. At that, Linoge removes Ralphie from the town.
OMG! No way! I don't think TPTB will have anywhere to hide from me if they are gonna go down a road like that!!!!

[Missie]

I second the motion!!! All but the chocolate part...I can't eat that...boo-hoo!
Hay Beach, I just had a seriously sick thought of where they might be going if all this stuff we've gone through will not be what we think. What if...Richard is a vampire???? Do you honestly think they would go that route? I was doing some research on "undead", the phrase coined by TPTB. That was what I came up with. It does kind of fit him. Ageless, etc. OMG! They best not go that route. They would be going by way of Stephen King's Storm of the Century. Remember that one? The bad guy was a vampire and he chose the child by picking a stone I believe. Black and white stones!
And I quote "A random drawing is organized by Linoge, and after drawing the single black-colored weirding stone, Ralphie Anderson (Mike's and Molly's son) is chosen. At that, Linoge removes Ralphie from the town.
OMG! No way! I don't think TPTB will have anywhere to hide from me if they are gonna go down a road like that!!!!

Not sure if thats what Richard was set up to be... but If it was they may want to back out considering the new love of vampires by a huge multitude of teenage girls and thier moms. (and yes Im afraid I read all the books as well.) Of course Im talking about Twilight. It seems the word "Vampire" will be associated with teenage drama for the next few years now. And it doesnt seem like Damelton will want that sort of rep.

[notsolost42]

Not sure if thats what Richard was set up to be... but If it was they may want to back out considering the new love of vampires by a huge multitude of teenage girls and thier moms. (and yes Im afraid I read all the books as well.) Of course Im talking about Twilight. It seems the word "Vampire" will be associated with teenage drama for the next few years now. And it doesnt seem like Damelton will want that sort of rep.

Or, it really could be a brilliant marketing ploy! I think these days Vampires suck green not red blood....

[beachblinkette]

Vampires? Why not? Seriously, I saw Twilight and thought it was a great flick! Full of vampires-lite! They only kill wild creatures-not humans. Richard doesn't age and does look a little pale...hmmm. Is that why those Dharma corpses look so dried out? No blood! Maybe Jacob is a vampire and can only "come out" at night. Remember the eye in the cabin that was staring at Hurley? Was it seeing him as a possible Menu item? Notsolost may be on to something here!!

[suzisunshine1]

The beauty of this show is the clever writing and the clues/hints/word plays that get us all discussing topics like this. Who is raising who? I love it. Having been out of the loop I am going to be reading and catching up before I start asking questions and commenting for fear of being repetitive.

[Missie]

I don't think it's a coinsidence, I think it is obvious. Let's not all forget Occham's Razor, okay? If it walks like a duck and qwacks like a duck...it ain't no freakin' polar bear!!!! LOL!!! Seriously, some things are meant to be taken at face value. Other things are left as clues. And still other things, well, that's TPTB toying with us and don't mean anything!

http://listverse.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/image008.gif
Lol... I thought of you when I saw this.

[cindylou316]

The first thing I thought of was the warning that Claire and only Claire must raise this child! I believe there may be another force at work here, sending false messages, trying to keep Kate from returning with Aaron.

[notsolost42]

http://listverse.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/image008.gif
Lol... I thought of you when I saw this.

Thanks Missie!!! That's real funny!!! Got a good giggle from it! Madame X...that's me now!!!! You know, the right question should be "find the value of x." I tell ya, if you don't ask the right questions you won't get the right answers!!!