Come unto these yellow sands,
And then take hands:
Courtsied when you have, and kiss’d
The wild waves whist.
The Tempest. Act i. Sc. 2
Generally when something bugs me either I work on it until I solve it or set it aside until I get hit out of the blue with an "aha!" moment. The plane crash didn't make any sense at all, until I realized that the fuselage had spun around to face away from the direction of travel; after that, everything fell into place concerning the position of the pieces of the plane.
However, we'll still left with the fact that the plane was ripped into
three pieces. We know that the nose must've dropped off the plane just
prior to the fuselage hitting the beach, and if the fuselage were spinning
like a frisbee it would remain relatively level and stable until it hit
the ground - which, I found it, is remotely possible if the engines on
one side of the plane are putting out considerably more thrust than the
other side, AND the plane isn't stabilized (which it wasn't, with the
tail gone), AND if the center of gravity was close to the area between
the wings (which it would've been, once the nose ripped off), AND if the
flaps and ailerons are level and don't decide to move up or down on their
own due to damage. Okay, we're just going to have to accept all of this,
otherwise the show would've ended about two minutes into the pilot, after
the camera panned over all the dead bodies and we saw that there were
no survivors. Not bloody likely, but it IS possible.
The primary problem we're left with is that we're told the plane was at
40,000 feet when it hit turbulence. (Note: by the way, that isn't unusual
for long-haul intercontinental flights, which often cruise at up to 42,000
feet. Yes, I've been wasting time doing research on the flying characteristics
of planes and on plane crashes. Mr. Rogers wants to know if you can say
"obsession"?). The plane had been dropping pretty quickly but
the pilot was undoubtedly fighting the drop and trying to take control
of the plane; the tail, I estimate, couldn't have been less than 30,000
feet above the ground when it ripped off the plane, assuming the pilot
was entirely unsuccessful - which really isn't possible. There's no such
thing as 12,000 feet of straight wind sheer; you pass through a couple
of atmospheric layers and conditions change between those two layers.
Okay, so let's assume (for the moment) the tail was at least 30,000 feet
above the ground when it ripped off the plane. But the nose couldn't have
been more than a few hundred feet off the ground when it fell; enough
to kill everyone in the nose but still allow the pilot a plausible chance
at survival (it's happened before). Now, how in the heck does the plane
manage to drop nearly 30,000 feet missing it's tail section without the
pilot losing complete control and either diving or going into a spin?
For those of you who don't know, the tail is a rather important piece
of equipment for keeping the plane stable. It helps if the fuselage doesn't
have a gaping hole in the back, too.
Knowing that it's flat-out impossible for the plane to remain in controlled
flight for 30,000 feet with this sort of damage, and that the nose came
off only a few hundred feet above the ground, Occam's Razor tells us that
the plane didn't drop a full 30,000 feet before the nose and fuselage
separated. It couldn't really have remained in controlled flight for very
long with the tail gone, perhaps a couple of minutes at most before the
pilot was unable to correct for instability (a very *good* pilot, I might
add, with a mountain of luck). And unless the plane was in free-fall "a
few minutes" isn't enough time to cover 30,000 feet. We know that
the plane wasn't in free fall because if it was the fuselage would be
an accordioned piece of metal sitting in a crater on the beach, and our
castaways would be human jelly.
We also know from Kate's description that the nose came off not long after
the tail came off. If that's the case then the plane must've been pretty
close to the ground before it started breaking apart. Yet we all saw the
tail separate only a couple of minutes after the turbulence hit and the
shrieking metal sounds started echoing throughout the fuselage. Not nearly
enough time to go from 40,000 feet to a few thousand feet when the tail
falls off, to a few hundred feet when the nose followed it. So this is
what we're left with:
- the plane was at 40,000 feet when the 'turbulence' hit.
- the plane couldn't have been more than a few thousand feet above ground
when it lost the tail.
- the plane couldn't have been more than a few hundred feet above ground
when the nose came off.
- there is no way on god's green earth the plane could've lost 40,000
feet of altitude in the time frame we're dealing with.
The only way to resolve this is to assume that the plane managed to change
altitude from 40,000 feet to a few thousand feet *without traversing the
distance between the two altitudes*.
Back to the Bermuda Triangle theory: if we assume that the plane went
through a 'rip' between our Earth and an alternate Earth, the entry point
could've been at 40,000 feet on our Earth, while *the exit point was only
a few thousand feet above the island on the alternate Earth*. And that,
my fellow fanatics, is how a plane goes from 40,000 feet to a few thousand
feet without traveling the distance between those two points, and that
is how a plane loses both its tail and nose without killing everyone on
board with a fatal 8-mile fall.
maxpublic
Max: I can't imagine how you did all that research without falling asleep...
But I guess that's what makes you, you and me, me. I'm back to one of my original questions. You have a pilot's license, don't you...
It's brilliant of course and totally explains the plane. I also happen
to love it. But now we have another question: What about the ships? I
think we have to assume there are ships (you think the polar bear came
from one, right?).
Also, if we decide to go on a possibility of mammoths or other extinct creatures, there have to be rips on the island itself (or very near to shore). That means other entrance and exit points have to exist as well. Care to do a little more research. I'm feeling waaaay too sleepy just thinking about it.
JacksGirlfriend
What would be a reasonable timeframe to drop 40,000 feet?
railwaymadness
just wanted to mention that when the tail comes off the plane you can
CLEARLY see the clouds BELOW the plane, which is a problem my friends
and i were trying to reconcile. so the fact is that the plane broke apart
BEFORE the massive altitude drop.
this still lends some credence to max's theory, since the crash would
have been a big crater with no survivors after dropping from 40,000 feet.
i am still leaning towards some strange electromagnetic weirdness/time-space
rippy typa dealie...
djshiva
You could just as easily postulate this:
a) tail rips off of plane around 30,000 feet, while they're passing through
the anomaly.
b) transition through anomaly complete and they're now at 3,000 feet.
c) plane continues to descend to a few hundred feet, nose is torn off.
d) plane crashes on beach.
Either way works. And it has the advantage of allowing the tail to pass
through the anomaly on its own and still end up on the island (although
*no one* will be alive in that section).
maxpublic
The idea of a rift in time/space seems out of place for what the show is seeming to trying to pull off. I see a character driven drama on the island, i.e. Lord of the Flies (without the fear manifestation brought up) where people's conflict is the center piece, rather then a sci-fi-centric 'how'd that happen' mystery. Could be wrong.
However, to add to this thread, I noticed something quite...alarming.
Seems the writers/directors either purposely or through lack of infinite
care put forth some either interesting or 'oh-geez-how'd-they-miss-that?!'
discrepencies. The three flashbacks (Jack, Charlie, and Kate) all had
different time spent between the first moment the plane hit turbulance
and the moment they first feel the plane dropping (with people hitting
the celing and all). On Jacks flashback, 44 seconds from
first turbulence to plane drop. On Charlie's flashback, it takes 1
minute and 12 seconds for that same timeframe. On Kate, it is
cut to a dramatic 24 seconds.
Also, someone mentioned seeing clouds out of the tail. I've re-watched
kate's flashback and at first you do see the clouds, but the last shot
out of the tail, you see the horizon even out. Seems like they were traveling
rather straight. I mean, if the plane was dropping, I'd expect to see
the sky, or maybe a very turbulent twist and turns. But nope. Horizons
all the way to the end of the flashback. And if you looked outside from
her window before the tail falls off, the horizon is steady. So either
the CG crew didn't think about the scene they were working on, or perhaps
it's done on purpose. The former means whatever we see onscreen might
just be a careless blunder on the part of the filmaker rather then yet
another conspiracy theory.
Klang007
This is not my preferred theory, but it is certainly very plausible--especially since the tail seems simply to have disappeared. Also, I've heard the bermuda triangle is a hot premise among studios these days. I would not be shocked if it's some combination of that and king kong.
The show can't have much of anything to do with "Lord of the Flies". It wouldn't last more than a season if it played out with roughly the same pessimism - most of the audience would bail for happier entertainment.
In fact, I'm not even sure why people keep mentioning the book. The only
similarity between "Lost" and "Lord of the Flies"
is that both groups of characters are stranded on an island. By this reasoning
we could postulate that "Lost" is equally well connected to
"Gilligan's Island". Putting aside the "stranded"
part, there is NOTHING in the first three episodes of "Lost"
that is even remotely akin to "Lord of the Flies".
As for the flashback differences, this is because the flashback is from
the perspective of the character in question. Each person remembers the
crash differently, and that means we'll get discrepancies like variable
times between the start of turbulence and the tail ripping off. Memory,
especially under stress, tends to be rather faulty. It's why eyewitnesses
to a crime are so notoriously unreliable.
Finally, re the plane crash: they clearly aren't diving. It's one of the
things that makes a semi-controlled descent from 40,000 feet within the
given time frame so unbelievable, especially with the tail gone. The plane
appears to be level throughout the scenes we've seen, losing altitude
for unknown reasons. You'd think perhaps wind sheer, but wind sheer doesn't
cross atmospheric layers. It's almost like the craft is being pushed towards
the ground, or perhaps pulled towards the ground.
maxpublic
Max, there are many more similarities than that:
First, they are marooned by a plane crash. That right there points to
Lord of the Flies, not Gilligan's Island.
Second, the surviving symbol of civilization is named Jack. In the book,
a boy named Jack becomes a symbol for the reverse (i.e., civilization's
collapse). That strikes me as an obvious ironic nod right there.
Third, the anithesis of civilization here is a blond named Sawyer. (Note
how he chastises Jack with the accusation: "You're still living in
civilization.") In the book, it's a little blond boy who represents
civilization. Again, an ironic nod if I ever saw one.
Fourth, there is a Piggy (i.e., Hurley) as well as wild boars (reportedly).
Fifth, there is the obvious emphasis on fear that runs throughout the
show. Remember Jack's story about the spinal surgery? Or Kate's counting
to five when the monster's around? Or the black lady's evident fear of
flying. Even if you don't accept the island is manifesting, it's clear
that fear of the unknown is a powerful theme. Much as it is in Lord of
the Flies.
Look, I'm not suggesting Lost is a remake, but I do think the book is
the source of many insights for this show. Aside from the themes already
mentioned, I predict the castaways will each begin gravitating towards
Jack or Sawyer, creating an eventual schism.
Quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
First, they are marooned by a plane crash. That right there points to
Lord of the Flies, not Gilligan's Island.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think you're quibbling over details here. It's a bit harder to start
a show like "Lost" from an ocean liner than from a plane crash.
A plane allows for a rapid departure from the plotted course, doesn't
have several thousand passengers you have to kill, isn't nearly as expensive
to build in terms of wreckage ($10 million just for the pilot, remember),
doesn't have thousands of tons of cargo washing up on shore (or hundreds
of bodies), etc. The plane crash was a practical consideration for setting
up the story, and still allows for a large number of survivors.
Quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, the surviving symbol of civilization is named Jack.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I know there are some folks here who make a big deal about the names.
But that's easily countered. In "Lord of the Flies" there is
no Sawyer, no Hurley, No Jin or Sun, no Claire, no Kate, etc. The names
are incidental, I think. I don't put much stock in any other explanation.
Quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Third, the anithesis of civilization here is a blond named Sawyer. In
the book, a blond boy represents civilization.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now you're talking about a link between the book and the movie based on
*hair color*. You're reaching here.
Quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fourth, there is a Piggy (i.e., Hurley) as well as wild boars (reportedly).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The only connection between Piggy and Hurley is that they're both overweight,
which is rather common in the First World. And we have no evidence whatsoever
of any wild boars being on the island.
Quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fifth, there is the obvious emphasis on fear that runs throughout the
show.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The producers themselves said that would be the case. But that isn't something
unique to "Lost" or "Lord of the Flies".
If you want to talk about nebulous connections between "Lord of the
Flies" and "Lost", we could just as easily point out all
of the differences between the book and the show which discount these
connections. Here are a few:
- the plane in "Lord of the Flies" was shot down by enemy forces
during a war. There is no war in "Lost".
- there were no adults in "Lord of the Flies", nor any females.
- all of the boys in "Lord of the Flies" were caucasian and
of the same culture.
- all of the boys apparently came from the same highly-regimented school.
The survivors in "Lost" have no connection to one another apart
from the fact that they were unlucky enough to get on the plane.
- in "Lord of the Flies" the monster was a figment of the boys
imagination. In "Lost" our monster chewed off the face of the
pilot.
- there were no other castaways in "Lord of the Flies". In "Lost"
we have evidence of at least one other set of castaways (French), and
possibly another set (source of the escaped polar bear).
- the tone of "Lost" is remarkably more upbeat than "Lord
of the Flies", despite all the nasty things happening to our castaways.
Not a single character presented to us has, as yet, shown themselves to
be ready to sink into a demonic abyss of savagery. Which was pretty much
the point of "Lord of the Flies", hence the title.
And so on.
maxpublic
Sorry, max, but it seems to me you're the one who's reaching to reject an opinion with which you disagree. I also find it ironic that you would accuse anyone of quibbling over details given your own obsessive analysis of the trajectory of the plane crash. I think we'll have to agree to disagree since you seem determined to reject my point of view (odd since I went out my way to avoid doing the same to you). But here, for the record, are my responses:
First, the most famous castaway show in history begins with a boat ride.
And if you're correct that this is a wormhole/bermuda triangle type scenario,
then it shouldn't matter how quickly they got off course. Plus, let's
get real, a plane crash is not a plausible way to generate a "large
number" of survivors. In fact, this is a common complaint against
the show.
Second, you reject the overlap of themes, names, hair color, and Hurley's
pigginess as "coincidences." Maybe in isolation I'd agree. But
at some point, the coincidences have to add up to something more. Let
me ask you this, do you really think it's a coincidence that Sawyer confronts
Jack by saying "you're still living in civilzation?" That those
two just happen to be the two most charismatic survivors? That they are
constantly in conflict with one another?
Finally, show me where the producers have said fear is irrelevant to the
show. I tried politely before to get you to direct me to a link, but you
could not. This grows tiresome as I can't argue with your assertions.
Please either point to something concrete or stop making this claim. Also,
let's be clear that my point here is not necessarily that the island is
manifesting their fears--just that fear of the unknown is a central theme
to both Lost and the Lord of the Flies.
To argue otherwise is to ignore several conversations in the pilot as
totally irrelevant. But keep pondering the trajectory of the plane crash
(which isn't mentioned once in the pilot). I'm sure that will turn out
to be central to the mystery.
PS: More upbeat?! They just had to put a man out of his misery by shooting
and strangling him (which, I might add, was the source of the aforementioned
quote by Sawyer). Please give some examples of this optimism you mention.
awsecond
Quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, you reject the overlap of themes, names, hair color, and Hurley's
pigginess as "coincidences." Maybe in isolation I'd agree. But
at some point, the coincidences have to add up to something more.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hmm, "coincidences". Here's a few for you:
- The crew of "The Minnow" end up on a deserted island, bereft
of civilization. The same thing happens to the boys from "Lord of
the Flies".
- On "Gilligan's Island" the skipper is overweight. So is Piggy
from "Lord of the Flies"
- Gilligan's Island *definitely* has wild boars. It figures into an entire
episode. So does "Lord of the Flies".
- One of the primary themes of Gilligan's island is an absurd manifestion
of the survivors fears. Heck, at one time Thurston Howell III thinks his
fellow castaways are going to kill him and eat him in an act of cannibalism!
This same theme can be found in "Lord of the Flies"
Oh my freakin' god! "Gilligan's Island" has a deep connection
to "Lord of the Flies"!
Funny thing is, Lindelof (one of the producers) never publicly makes the
connection between "Lost" and "Lord of the Flies".
In fact, he fears that people will be tempted to link "Lost"
and "Gilligan's Island" (talk about irony):
"How can we make it not 'Gilligan's Island'?" asked Lindelof,
co-creator and executive producer of the show.
"We needed a huge cast," Lindelof said. "It's like a petri
dish. You need as many protozoa as you can to begin with. You just can't
have people come in and out like 'Gilligan's Island.'"
Quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, show me where the producers have said fear is irrelevant to the
show.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I can't because I never said that. What I did say is that the producers
have nixed several ideas outright, one of those being that the fears of
the survivors are being magically created on the island, a la "Forbidden
Planet". Although it appears that a number of paper-and-ink articles
have yet to be translated into our favorite electronic medium, here's
a direct quote from Lindelof:
Acknowledging the bizarre elements, Lindelof was quick to point out: "This
show isn't 'The X-Files.' Everything that happens to these characters
is grounded to reality as we know it. Time and space are not bent."
Which, you'll note, pretty much trashes the speculation about 'fears coming
to life' (e.g., Walt's comic polar bear and the real polar bear). It also
seems to put the nix on my own Bermuda Triangle theory.
Further evidence the monster is real and not a magical manifestation of
the survivors fears:
"What we are trying to do is make sure everything has a very Scully
explanation," Fury said, referring to the X-Files character. "This
is not a show about the supernatural, despite the fact that we have a
very huge creature that likes to eat people. Despite the surreal, bizarre
aspects of the island, there will be an explanation for it. It may not
come for a very long time, but certain information about the island will
explain how things are possible. We'll try to root it in real science
or real pseudo-science. There will be no mystical reason or an island
of monsters."
Quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I tried politely before to get you to direct me to a link, but you could
not. This grows tiresome as I can't argue with your assertions.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This might be because the sum total of all human knowledge has yet to
be converted to electrons, which I do believe I pointed out. However,
in reference to my "there will be no magic" statement, I have
provided you with quotes listed above.
Quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please either point to something concrete or stop making this claim.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you think I said that FEAR won't play a big part in the show, you're
dead wrong. One hundred percent wrong. Completely, totally, not-even-in-the-ballpark
off-base. Feel free to find the post where I said this and quote it back
to me.
What I did say is that there will be no other-worldly, supernatural boojum.
This can't be disputed because the producers themselves have said there
won't be any other-worldly supernatural boojum. This is not "Forbidden
Planet" remade for the 21st century.
Quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also, let's be clear that my point here is not necessarily that the island
is manifesting their fears--just that fear of the unknown is a central
theme to both Lost and the Lord of the Flies.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Then you're arguing with yourself, because I never took the opposite tack.
Quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
But keep pondering the trajectory of the plane crash (which isn't mentioned
once in the pilot). I'm sure that will turn out to be central to the mystery.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't think there's any connection whatsoever between "Lord of
the Flies" and "Lost". You do. That doesn't mean that you
need to get petty over it. Chill out, it's just a TV show.
maxpublic
Quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acknowledging the bizarre elements, Lindelof was quick to point out: "This
show isn't 'The X-Files.' Everything that happens to these characters
is grounded to reality as we know it. Time and space are not bent."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you think time and space have to be "bent" in order to have
a Bermuda Triangle theory? It seems to me that space can open and time
can stop momentarily.
It's still early to tell in what direction this show will take. The first
season might just give us but a glimps, with the complex character developement
(from seeing the preview screen caps, there seems to be more flashbacks
in future episodes). However, the reason why I feel this show might turn
into a lord of the flies type of deal is the focus on character the show
is putting its emphasis on. Also...
-both stranded on an unknown island
-both have the survivors starting out in an optimistic, helpful slant
-both have people trying to set up order and try their best to live lives
as they were used to back in civilization
-both have people fearing somthing in the jungle, of an unseen monster
-both (too early for Lost, but this is what I feel it would become) a
study on character interaction (read somewhere that all of the writers
have at least a minor on sociology) and the eventual downfall of society
in the wild.
character driven, mystery laden, action packed...whichever way the show
goes towards, I'll be there watching it.
Quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you think time and space have to be "bent" in order to have
a Bermuda Triangle theory? It seems to me that space can open and time
can stop momentarily.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, I'm a science sort of guy. It's more likely that aliens are crossing
the gulf between the stars to dissect our cows and give farmers anal probes
than it is that ships and planes are magically transiting between this
Earth and an alternate one.
Quantum mechanics tells us that it's possible that there are alternate
universes, a whole passle of them (though not an infinite number). Quantum
mechanics also tells us that those universes can never interact with one
another, so whether or not they exist is pretty irrelevent (we'll never
know one way or another).
In the real world, no one is jumping between alternate Earths, not even
via Star Trek-like spatial anomalies. I'd be willing to suspend disbelief
for this one thing in order to get the show we have, but as the producers
have said "time and space are not bent".
maxpublic
What's their definition of "bent"? They didn't come right out and say what it means.
Come on, you know none of this can happen in fiction if there isn't an
alternate dimension or a Bermuda triangle. It just isn't possible.
Open your mind and let in what you know about fiction. Anything is possible
because the reality created by the writer becomes the reality of the piece.
Everything so far is "grounded" in reality. What they say, what
they do, what they see, what they feel - it's all real. Everything that
happens to them will be real. But... over and above and around it all
is the writer and he needs a foundation. If he wants it all, he has to
be creative and he has been, but he hasn't invented anything new. He's
using an idea that's probably been around for thousands of years, been
studied and still not disproved. Therefore it's real too. It's pseudo-science.
They would not have survived the plane crash. Time stopped. Space opened.
And they survived and landed somewhere we've all heard about but never
seen.
I think your plane crash theory is right. From what I've seen and read,
it's the only possible explanation. Right through a rip.
JacksGirlfriend
It could be that Lindelof and I have different ideas on what it means
to "bend" time and space. Transiting between alternate Earths
is a wild ride into science fantasy, so that seems to qualify as "bending".
Perhaps Lindelof thinks of this differently.
Quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
He's using an idea that's probably been around for thousands of years,
been studied and still not disproved.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Remember the basic rules of logic: it isn't necessary for a theory to
be disproved to be dismissed, but proved. It's always incumbent upon the
person making the statement to prove the statement, not for his detractors
to disprove it.
An example: how can I disprove that aliens are visiting the planet, masquerading
as humans, and visiting McDonald's late at night in order to feast on
our wonderful Big Macs, which are known galaxy-wide as some of the finest
food in existence?
Well, I can't. But if someone decides to claim this is happening, we can confidently ignore them until they provide proof that this is indeed happening. As no one has managed to prove that aliens are visiting the planet, much less doing so in order to chow down on Big Macs, I can dismiss the idea without further thought.
Now, what do we have that points to a Bermuda Triangle-like basis for
"Lost"?
- a plane that fails to transit the distance between 40,000 feet of altitude
and a few thousand feet of altitude before ripping apart.
- a strong radio signal that's been transmitting for sixteen years without
anyone detecting it - flat-out impossible in 2004.
- a huge uninhabited island which doesn't actually exist in our French
Polynesia.
- seemingly monstrous creature(s) wandering about the jungle.
- a badly out-of-place polar bear, pointing to a previous shipwreck.
- evidence of another expedition via the distress call.
It seems the likely explanation is that the island isn't on Earth, in
which case we're left with swallowing just one impossible thing before
breakfast: transiting between alternate universes. So the Bermuda Triangle
theory seems to fit for our basic preconceptions.
But we're still left with the statement that 'time and space aren't bent',
and that's a shotgun blast to the idea - unless Lindelof is of the opinion
that the Bermuda Triangle theory is a plausibly pseudo-scientific one.
Kinda boggles the mind, really, but in a world where people accept astrology
as being just as rational as astronomy, perhaps that is indeed the case.
maxpublic
Max, I owe you an apology on one point. I misread your reply as asserting
that the producers have said fear would be irrelevant. Sorry about that.
Still, I do think you're being rather rude and unfair in dismissing my
Lord of Flies analogy. I have never said this was an identical remake,
just that there are many interesting overlaps and apparent ironic nods
in Lost to Lord of the Flies. This remains so regardless of whether my
theory about the island is true.
Your frankly pathetic attempts to mock me by manufacturing absurd parallels
with Gilligan's island are totally unproductive. Fear is the central theme
in Lord of the Flies. It is also a central theme in Lost. In light of
that significant parallel, the multiple "coincidences" as you
term them take on added significance to me. All the moreso since reports
are that the survivors will split into factions, much as they did in Lord
of Flies. I don't think this is a ridiculous position even if you apparently
do.
That, incidentally, is why I'm so annoyed. It's not about my obsession
with the show (which admittedly runs deeep.) It's about your inability
to answer respectfully--something I went out of my way to do in my first
messge to this thread. Look back at what I wrote--I disagreed but admitted
you made some compelling points. In fact, I didn't even mention Lord of
the Flies. Yet your reply immediately attacked that anlogy as groundless
and inane.
I took that as a bit of a personal attack since we've argued about it
on other boards. But even then I tried to keep it civil. It wasn't until
you attacked me again in rather rude and dismissive terms that my gloves
finally came off.
PS: The bermuda triangle too is not explicable by science as we know it.
awsecond
Max: Here lies the basic difference between us. We're not on opposite
sides: We just look at things differently.
If someone told me aliens were eating Big Macs I would say "Really?
Why do you think that?" I would then listen, curiously interested
as to why they thought it was true. I wouldn't necessarily believe it
but I wouldn't dismiss it. Because I think things that cannot be disproved
are things that are possible. I may not believe in them personally, but
they are still possible because I don't know everything.
You're in the sciences. I'm in the arts. Although the two cross over from
time to time, there are basic differences between us (I think this board
is a clear example). The writers of this show want to please both types.
So they've given us reality and they've given us science. But they've
also given us possibility. We have the freedom to explore, to think, to
open our minds to another world and see the potentially impossible things
that fill it. That's why this show is so much fun. It allows us to cross
over into each other's territory.
This theory still works. Everyone has a different idea of what "bend"
means.
JacksGirlfriend
No one has ever heard the French transmission for help, because in the
altrenate reality they entered there is no one that can hear the transmission.
Kpretzer
Maybe no one's heard the French Transmision because there isn't really one. Maybe it was another "manifestation" by an outside force...
Wynter Zera
Quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
What would be a reasonable timeframe to drop 40,000 feet?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
If I remember my physics math: assume terminal velocity about 300 mph
= 440 ft/sec
40000ft / 440ft/sec = 90.9 secs
Of course it would take a few seconds to get to terminal velocity, and
with the engines running, that may be more or less, but basically it would
take less than 2 minutes from tail rip to impact.
ChanceGardener