Lemmiwinks

ok we'll probably always have different views on the matter, the "open mystery" part which you find genious is IMO proof of a failed conclusion, cause just about anyone who's taken a book/ screenplay writing course will tell you that it's always much easier to write an captivating intrigue than a convincing ending... but anyway, who knows, maybe one year from now I'll be watching the season 6 finale and be like "wow, it finally all makes sense now". I guess we have no other choice but to wait and see... anyway, just a little last comment since I can't help myself: Well you see, for me (and most people who have given up on Lost), indeed none of it makes sense anymore... I mean, it started out pretty straight: a handfull of people stranded on an island after a plane crash, each with their own personal story behind. Now somehow 5 seasons later we have time travel, egyptian half-gods and living dead... surely something is screwed up here, no?

nah I find that I've... lost (*wink wink*) enough time speculating on it all already (reminds me the hours/days/nights/weeks I've spent speculating on Twin Peaks and X-Files to no avail). The thing is that not many people realize that these shows are made DYNAMICLY, they constantly change the script according to the feedback from the audience, that's just how series are made. For example the producers had to kill off Paulo and that Razzle Dazzle chick because fans didn't like them. If it wasn't for a negative reaction from fans then they would've probably kept them and made them part of the main plot. On the other hand, if a major plot is uncovered through speculations or "leakage", then the producers will have to abandon it and think of something else, otherwise fans would be like "hey, we already knew about that years ago". And so on. So I'm sorry but the hard truth is that this is all made as they go along and not much is fixed in advance, if not for a general scheme for the ending (and which is constantly subject to review in case of "leakage"). Now you always talk about "planning things" in former episodes which are revealed later, well most of those "explanations" are unsatisfactory at best. Like for example we see Danielle arrive on the island. So the average Lost fan is happy saying "now we finally know". My question is just what DO we know?? We saw her somehow drift to the island with part of the crew and realized that a fight happened that tore them apart. But WE ALREADY KNEW THAT!!! How did she get to the transmission tower, what was the plan behind recording that message, and why in French when she knew English, why wasn't it detected and removed by the others, especially considering that they had all that fancy radio equipment, now THOSE are question that I would've liked to be answered... but anyway I guess I'll be watching Season 6 if only to have peace of mind of finally knowing how it all ended PS Did you know that Richard Alpert's name is taken from a real person and that he used to collaborate with Tim Leary on his early researches with psychedellics? Maybe that's a hint that none of this is real and it's just happening in someone's mind (I suspect Hurley's)?

lol there is a Brave New World book

yes I agree. The same goes for most other conspiracy theories: they ALWAYS have a grain of truth in there somewhere. But jumping to hasty conclusions and presenting suppositions as "hard evidence" really do them more harm than good. One might even wonder if the whole Zeitgeist thing isn't a move to discredit "real" conspiracy theories, since the whole documentary is obviously so poorly researched (or is it intentionally disinformational?)...

well it seemed to me that they drew heavily on Brave New World...

not bad Ormion, your theory sure beats mine anyway: that the producers have but a vague general idea of how all this will end and that they make it up as they go along (like for example I'm convinced that the whole "anti-Jacob" carachter was just thought up during season 5 since absolutely no clue whatsoever is given about him until the season finale..). BUT, more than possible ways of resolving the plot, I would like some answers to already existing outstanding questions: 1. What is the smoke monster? 2. What are polar bears doing on a tropical island? 3. Why is Widmore filthy rich? 4. Why exactly did Danielle never "mix" with the guys from the Dharma initiative nor with The Others 5. Why do The Others seem so mean and nasty at some times and look like "good guys" on other occasions? 6. What the hell is this Richard Alpert carachter and why does he know so little when he's been around since Egyptian times? 7. What does Hurley's number sequence have to do with anything? 8. Why couldn't the women on the island bare babies? 9. Why can Eloise appear in dreams as well as in real life? 10. What ever happened to Claire? 9. Just what happened to Ben in the temple? BTW if your theory is true Ormion, then shouldn't the entity control Ben from the beginning since he was dying? 10. If your theory is correct Ormion, then Jacob was basically seeding his undoing all along when visiting the Lost crew during past events? Subsidiary question: What happened to Ben's bunny rabbit???

ok so that first part of Zeitgeist with Jesus = Horus stuff got me interested in the matter and I've started to do some research on the side. Guess what? It turns out (like with most such "theories") that most of the "facts" are actually just suppositions based on thin air and the "conclusions" are at best oversimplyfied: 1. Horus was never born of a virgin. Actually, Osiris and Isis (Horus' parents) were BOTH gods and Horus was a God as well, contrary to the Christian belief where Mary was 100% human being and Jesus was the son of God but not a God himself (which is to say from the start that any similarities between Jesus and Horus are a bit far-fetched...) 2. Horus never had 12 disciples... he either had 4 divine disciples, or 16 human disciples, but never 12. 3. Horus' birth was never anounced by an angel (I don't even think that angels were part of the Egyptian mythology...) 4. Horus never walked on water, nor did he perform any miracles (at leat in the biblical sense) 5. Horus was never crucified. Crucifixion was a Roman tradition, created many thousands of years AFTER Horus' legend, just how could Horus be killed in a way that was invented a few thousand years after his death?? BTW, there are almost no indications that Horus died at all (after all he was a God, so technically speaking he couldn't die in the first place...). Most accounts of his "death" are attributed to assimilations between Horus and other Egyptian gods, and even then, there is not even ONE story about any of the assimilated gods dying on a cross, burried in a cave and resurrected 3 days later... So, just like other such theories, they seem very plausible when you don't know squat about the matter in question but the more you read some legitimate source, the more holes you can see in the plot...

well you see, that is the frustrating part: every season the producers promise to "answer the questions" in the next seasons. For example in the opening of the 5th season, Lindelof said that starting the 5th season, fans will finally get more answers than questions... that never happened, I'm still as confused (or even more) than after season 4!!! I mean, it's been 5 freakin seasons already and we're no closer to knowing what the smoke monster is or what the polar bears did there (BTW, did you all notice that there weren't any polar bears on the island in 1977?). We're running out of seasons here... I suspect Lindelof's secret goal is to have people so interested that the production company will agree for a 7th, 8th season an so on. This isn't funny anymore

GODDAMNIT!!!! That must have been the most frustrating season finale EVER!!!!! So I guess we'll have to wait another year to see how it all ends :angry: :angry: That said, I'm getting more and more the feeling that the creators are just introducing gimick after gimick to keep the audience interested. Once you think of it, none of it really makes sense anymore and I'm starting to really hate the way they always raise more questions than answers...

Just saw this one: Welcome back, Mr Anderson it even has the Juno Reactor soundtrack and all lol so any other finds?

Yes, Union Jack are back with a new single !!! What are your thoughts on it? I must admit that it didn't really impress me on first listen, but it still has that distinctive Union Jack feeling. [EDIT: oh yeah and Art of Trance made a comeback as well: ]

So I've finally watched this movie after years and years of hearing how genious it is... and I wondered what the hell was so genious about it??? It was slooow and most of the scenes were so artificial it seemed like a theater play rather than a movie. Not to mention that the sex scenes were just stupid and unnatural. So has anyone else seen it?

yep that is the best description I've read about this movie until now

they did??? Cause I always found that the storylines were soo shallow compared to TNG. Like this one episode when Q wanted to have a child with the captain of the Voyager WTF?? This is Q we're talking about here, it felt like learning that Simon Posford wanted to produce Britney Spear's latest album...

well I guess that what bwhale is trying to say is that it takes a LOT of energy to extract and transport the natural resources needed to built the batteries. Also, the electricity used to recharge them comes mostly from fossil-fuel burning electric plants, so all you're basically doing is transfer the pollution source from the exhaust pipe of your car to the chimney of the electric powerplant... Electric cars don't really make sense unless the electricity used is generated by renewable resources.

I guess that it's not very usefull to comment on the carachter and the storyline because it was BIOGRAPHICAL!! They didn't make up a fictional carachter, they simply followed and existing human's story and tragic ending. And I guess that we're all so used to the "typical" Hollywood happy-end stories that we tend to forget that real life isn't like that. This was real life, not some artificial sugar-coated Hollywood story... Other than that, it was a good movie, but not exceptional IMO...

just edited my post to include the explanation of the "explosions"

well I guess it depends on what experts you chose to believe (cause obviously some are lying...). I found the documentary that did it for me and watched it again. The thing is that NONE of those "explosions" happened BEFORE the building started to collapse (and this is needed in the scenario of the controlled demolition). The explosions are happening DURING the fall of the tower, the most probable explanation for this is debry expelled at high speed by the huge pressure caused by the falling building... Look at minute 2 of this doc and tell me what do you believe (it's in french but you can hear the dude speak in english in the background, and anyway just look at the images and you'll see for yourself). Anyway this is the main point that made me chose my camp: most of the arguments that were taken up by Farenheit 911, Loose Change, etc. were initially presented in september 2002 by a certain Eric Hufschmid, who has been known all his life to make anti-semitical claims as far out as denying the Holocaust, or that Apollo's landing on the Moon was staged by "Hollywood sionist producers" (what exactly does the sionist part have to do with anything I don't know...). Really, just watch some interviews by the dude and you'll see that he's a total mental case. Other "reliable sources" used to back up such claims are articles from an obscure overtly anti-semitical magazine called American Free Press, presided by Willis Carto, known for claiming that "if anyone deserved the Nobel Peace Prize it was Adolf Hitler"... Like I said before, checking your sources is crucial to finding out what is bullshit and what is not... here are the links to the doc, if you know french maybe you'll care to watch it. 11 septembre: nous a-t-on caché la vérité? pt 1 pt 2 pt 3 pt 4 pt 5 of course one could argue that it's just more propaganda by the US government but personally I know the TV station and series to be known for their objectivity and impartiality so I'd give much more credit to the arguments here than those of some dudes who smoked too much pot...

yep... and Loose Change is like the definition of such conspiracy theories made up by a bunch of teens who don't known squat about anything and just make assumptions based on what they see, without ever bothering to actually do some thorough research to look for a more probable explanation But again, who knows, maybe they are right and I just chose to comfort myself in a false reality fed by greedy jewish bankers who want to control the world, anyway personally I have heard both sides of the story and chose to believe the one that seemed the most logical to me.

Well you see, most of the Venus project "revolutionary ideas" actually came from a certain Karl Marx in the 19th century. And guess what, most of the ideas WERE put in practice under the form of communism!! And we all saw where that led us... Every time I hear someone argue about the decadent capitalist society we live in, and that we'd be better off in this wonderfull magical world where people work for pleasure and don't need money to survive I ask them "look, do you prefer to live in the US or in North Korea?" Cause most of the utopic ideas presented by such "forward-thinking philososphers" are currently very much in force over there. Noone ever prefered North Korea, I wonder why...

like I said in another topic, the military was probably on the lookout for such events because they had intelligence on the matter but just didn't know if it was real or not, hence explaining the "exercise", which was in fact preparing for an event that could have been proved to be a false alarm. There are MANY false alarms triggered all over the World almost every day. Once the Russians missinterpreted data from a civilian rocket launch and thought that the US was launching a secret nuclear missle towards Moscow. Imagine if the person in charge then reacted imidiately to the information instead of giving it a few more minutes to see if it was real or not, we'd probably all be dead in a nuclear holocaust by now... Also, commercial airliners regularly stray off their courses to save fuel and shave some minutes off their flight paths when being late (ask any lowcost airline pilot...), that is also a very well known fact in the aviation industry that the 9/11 conspiracy buffs "forgot" to mention. And if even military planes actually "met" the hijacked planes (how can one tell if they didn't?), what then? Do you think the public would've preffered to have them blow them up in the sky? again, these are assumptions made by people who don't know squat about controlled demolitions... I have actually seen the opinion of someone who DOES make controlled demolitions as a job he showed video footage where we clearly see the difference in the way they fall. Also, if construction workers came and sawed the steel columns diagonally and plant explosives a few days before the events, I think that people would've noticed it... Also mind you that the columns were encased in concrete and that there was no physical way to reach them without drilling holes through concrete. Again, if 50 contruction workers came with huge drills and started drilling all over the place I think the employees working there would've noticed... there WAS an explosion because the planes were full of kerosene... that's also a part I like: they present "evidence" of many WTC designers saying that the towers were built to withstand a plane impact. BUT they conveniently edited out the second part of what they were saying that what they didn't predict was the explosion caused by the tanks full of kerosene, and that there was a conception error because the initial blow from the plane impact fractured the azbestos encasing of the steel columns, thus leaving them vulnerable to the resulting fire. Now if those "documentary" makers really wanted to be objective, they would've left the whole conversation and not just quickly edit if off after the first phrase... And for the passport, yeah so maybe they put the passport there because they had intelligence pointing to Atta and needed proof? People were shocked an wanted answers, so the pressure was pretty high on the authorities to find evidence... the fall from WTC 1 and 2 caused a huge trembling comparable to a big earthquake right next to WTC 7... why would it NOT collapse? Also the Enron files part is pure speculation, you should rather ask yourself, if this was so well planned, why would they bring down a 3rd building that wasn't hit? It doesn't make sense that such evil geniouses would make such a stupid error. again, this is the way intelligence works: they recieve heaps of information, some acurate, some bogus, then they have to stroll through it and decide which information is credible enough to act upon and which is not. When the attack happened, there was huge pressure for results, so obviously some mistakes have been made... well you see, many people conviniently forget that the attack happened during the CLINTON administration, NOT Bush... just how could the members of the oposition, who had no political power at the time carry out the attacks behind the back of the Clinton administration? Anyway like I said, there are some pretty convincing explanations for those stories that don't rely on conspiracy theories. Of course, whether you chose to believe one side or the other is up to you...

yep I've seen addendum as well. Although well documented I found the Venus project part didn't fit in at all and made me question the actual purpose of the documentary in the first place (I'm always on the lookout for hidden agendas when watching this kind of stuff...) ha well actually the creating money out of thin air and inflation parts are very true (I should know since I studied Monetary Policy at uni, and what they are saying is basically Monetary Policy 101... ). However, the part I don't like is the causality chain, basically claiming that a handfull of bankers carefully control the evolution of the economy to enslave us all. That is simply not true, for example there are theories like the Kondratiev cycles or the Elliott Wave Principle that clearly state that the economy has predictable cycles of upturns and downturns and that they are linked to some fundamental cause that is yet to be discovered (the mayans actually already predicted such patterns centuries ago for crops, and there weren't any gready bankers at that time). For example, Kondradieff already predicted in 1925 (yes, that's not a typo, I said 1925!!) the end of the bull market in stocks that we are witnessing now. Yes, if only we had listened, I know... So like I already said, once someone comes with the "THEY" theories, you should be cautious and look for other more plausible alternative explanations...

hum no, it was on RTBF Questions à la une: "11 septembre: nous a-t-on caché la vérité?" (I'm from the french side, you know ). So if you can find it and care to watch it, tell me what you think of it

ok I've watched it (finally). The thing is this (as with most such "movies"): they take some grains of real factual information, bloat them with interpretations which may or may not be true (obviously forgetting to mention the "may not" in the process...) and then use it as a basis for the usual "THEY" want to control our lives plot. I'm not saying that it does not bring some very thought provoking ideas, just that one should be careful with the interpretation side, and be highly skeptical when they serve you the "THEY" dish. Take for example the "they knew all along about 9/11" thing... this is completely ignoring how intelligence services work: intelligence is bombarded with information coming from different sources all the time. The thing is that there simply isn't any way of knowing which information is serious enough to act on and which is just bullshit fed by double-agents or people who just want to make money off false information. The US history is overridden by periods when they bought too much crap like in the 60s and the "impending soviet nuclear attack" period, and other periods when fed up with all the fodder information they decided not to act on it. The "military exercises" are also part of the deal since they have some infos about an impending attack so they prepare their troops, all while presenting it as an exercise so that the population won't pannick if it's a false alarm. If the same authorities acted on all the notices (as was the case with the whole "orange level" terrorist threat a few years ago) then the public will say that they are just intentionally making people live in perpetual fear. So it's a VERY fine line that the intelligence office has to know when to cross and when not, with the obvious tragedies involved. Now I could fill in many pages, taking each element and analyzing it, and finding that most of the time there's a much more logical explanation for the "facts" but I don't know if anyone is interested or even cares. But again, I was happy to see it, it does indeed present things in a new light and is pretty thought-provoking (especially the religion part)

Star Trek... although I find that exactly which series you like depends greately on the years that you were a teen (people who where teens in the 70s-80s will tell you that nothing beats the original, people who were teens in the 90s will tell you that Next Generation is the best, etc...). Personally I found the original pretty good albeit a bit childish at times with all the wars with aliens (romulans?) stuff. I was a HUGE Next Generation fan (I was a teen in the 90s so it figures...). I was also incredibly dissapointed by later series and never could understand what people found interesting. But again, I suppose that someone who was a teen in the 70s-80s probably thought the same thing about The Next Generation when it came out. As for Star Wars... actually I never really was a fan... I found it confusing and just too many special effects and fight scenes that distracted you from the main plot (which was really thin anyway...).