I have watched the scene where the Others pass in the jungle at least a dozen times. I have skimmed through the messages to see if anyone else caught this, and have found nothing so far.

When the person carrying the bear passes, it is clear that this person is MUCH smaller than the rest. The knees are much lower. The child looks about the size of a 6 - 7 yer old. The pants are longish (much nearer the ankle than the knee) and the feet are bare. The kid has the teddy bear dangling from a rope.
Then, as the same kid passes and we see him/her from a different angle, still holding the bear, suddenly the pants are much shorter, the legs are longer and he/she is wearing shoes!

WHAT THE HECK WAS THAT!!!!!

Did we have an episode of missing time....like 5 years?? It was as if the person outgrew their pants in mere seconds! (Edited to point out the sarcasm of the previous statement) The shoes are hard to see on my old tv, but they remind me of the athletic shoes of the 70's. Very trim cut - not bulky, blue striped with a tan, rubber-band colored sole. You see the shoes when the person has passed by and we are just seeing him/her the second time. But as the foot moves back, you see only the sole fom behind and it blends in with the skin color. I watched this frame-by-frame.

It seemed impossible to count the Others. We would see them from one point of view, then again as they looked from Jin and Eko's point of view.

Then we have the bears bandaged leg. Another for the list of missing or injured limbs.

Why was the bear bandaged? Sometimes a favorite bear will get an imaginary injury to match the childs. Or perhaps this child was used to witnessing lots of injured limbs. They seem to be plentiful on this island.

I am curious if anyone with HD TV can check this scene and comfirm what we saw here on my crappy old tv. Was this just a huge error in editing, or did the little Other grow a foot taller and acquire some retro footwear?

Good catch on the bandaged leg. I wasnt really sure what that strip of cloth was on the bear, but I did notice it... Wasnt Micheal's leg in a cast? Is that what the bear is mimicking? The kid couldnt have been Walt though...

Here are 2 screen caps from Lost-Media:
First time the Teddy is seen:
http://www.lost-media.com/modules.php?name=coppermine&file=displayimage&album=757&pos=358
Second time the Teddy is seen:
http://www.lost-media.com/modules.php?name=coppermine&file=displayimage&album=757&pos=360

To my eye, it looks like the same set of legs, same size, same pants and barefeet. The Teddy is hanging at about knee level in both. The pants seem longer in the first pic perhaps because the leg is straight and the cut-off bottom is hidden by a fern.

Here's another where the feet look bare, just dirty.
http://www.lost-media.com/modules.php?name=coppermine&file=displayimage&album=757&pos=360

But you're right about adding the poor Teddy's leg to the limb list!!

Bandaged left leg on bear. I thought of a bear loosing it's stuffing from being old.

As to how many passed. I looked at pants also and tried to eliminate the same pants as they passed Jin. I thought there was 12 others. (Also looked like the same two passed at the front and end of the line------that may have been just the use of extras...don't know.)

I found screencaps on Lost-media.
Hope this works!

First view of Other with bear - long pants, can't see the feet in this cap:
http://www.freeimagehosting.net/7cb419e906.jpg

After he/she passes - now with shoes, long legs and short pants:
http://www.freeimagehosting.net/9f14ae8d8f.jpg

Another:
http://www.freeimagehosting.net/290a026313.jpg

Pattycakes, you beat me to it. But my caps have been brightened up to where you can see them more clearly. If you compare - the first pair of pants looks baggy and you can see where the knee is from the bouffed out fabric. I the third, the pants are tight. The shoes seem very clear to me in the second shot.

Sorry MPmom, but they just look like very dirty feet, not shoes, to me. Now, I know for a fact that sometimes when actor's have to walk barefoot over things that might hurt their feet, they put on latex "soles", sort of like the prosthetic Hobbit feet used in LoTR. I guess that could be the case here, but if it is they are made up to look like dirty feet.

Anybody else?

First post, so hey you all. I was thinking about this and maybe he pulled his pant leg up to indicate he was aware that Echo and Jin were there.

The other ones with exposed feet had light spots so no tennis shoes imo.

I definitely do not see shoes- just very dirty feet. The pants do look different though. In one shot the pants legs appear to be up (or cropped), in another the legs are down. Possible continuity error IMO... another possibility though- twins? Dunno. :confused:

Are you people looking at the same picture I am?
http://www.freeimagehosting.net/9f14ae8d8f.jpg

The shoes are very clear. You can see that the uppers are blue and you can see the dark trim around the ankle. The sole of this style of shoe wraps up around the sides slightly. They are old style track shoes. I think they are specifically for sprinting. They don't make them like this anymore with the wrap around gum soles. You would have to be older to recognize the style.

If you cant see it in the picture, watch the scene frame-by-frame.

I see dirty feet.

dirty feet!

Dirty feet.

dirty feet.

Dirrrrrrty feet.

I agree they appear to only be dirty feet and not shoes.

Dirty Feet.....No Shoes

Dirty Andre Agassi's!!!!!

i think it was probably just an error?


also, i see shoes.

very dirty feet...

dirty feet

To me it looks like dirty feet with a very dirty sticking plaster on the back of his right ankle, which is what looks like the dark trim of a shoe. But the pants are definitely shorter and tighter. When the he first appeared, his pants seemed longer and looser even when his knees bent.

Dirty Feet

dirty feet *shrugs*

Ok, apart from the dirty feet, what do people think of the pants changing length and bagginess?

I can see where you would get shoes if you were looking for them really hard. But I think they are dirty feet. The "sole" and the legs are the same color. That would be quite a coinsidence if they were shoes.

As far as the pants, they are different. I thought something looked weird when I watched the show. I knew something had changed, but didn't record it, so couldn't check it out. I do think that this is Walt too. Some have said that Walt didn't have a teddy bear, so it couldn't be him. But they probably gave him one to comfort him. I don't care if he is 10, he would be scared to death I'm sure.

~Amy

I found screencaps on Lost-media.
Hope this works!

First view of Other with bear - long pants, can't see the feet in this cap:
http://www.freeimagehosting.net/7cb419e906.jpg

After he/she passes - now with shoes, long legs and short pants:
http://www.freeimagehosting.net/9f14ae8d8f.jpg

Another:
http://www.freeimagehosting.net/290a026313.jpg

The first and third caption really gives a clear pic that it doesn't look like the same person b/c of the pants. First one pants are all the way down to the persons feet, third one the pants are right below the knees, must have been an editing mistake

Or maybe for some reason they are passing the bear back and forth?

Did anyone notice an ankle bracelet on the "other" carrying the teddy bear?

Did anyone notice an ankle bracelet on the "other" carrying the teddy bear?
On which leg?

Editing mistake

I don't think there is any chance that this is a mistake. Remember folks, you are not watching Pretty Woman, (Gear tie error), you are watching a show that the writers, producers, cast, editors, etc., are all clearly aware of how carefully people watch, analyze, and disect it. I find it hard to believe there would be an editing error in a scene, let alone the first scene in which we see "the others."

I don't think it's Walt

Just seems to obvious to me, no other reason. The writers like to mislead us, this may be what they are doing. And, if Walt is with them, I think he may feel like he belongs with them. Forget for a moment that he was screaming for his father, now what do you have? He clearly has some mystical, supernatural or extra-sensory powers -- he summoned a polar bear to the island after receiving one from his father on their "parting" in Michael's back story this year. He also read a comic with a polar bear. He destroyed the raft. I think he wants to be on the island, and the others want to be there, so perhaps he just feels at home with them --- point is, if that is him, I don't think he would near a teddy bear to comfort him. He may need it though to bring a Grizzly bear to the island!!!! (sorry for the rambling, thinking while I write, and haven't had coffee yet).

Definately dirty feet

And finally, what else have we learned? Can teh others actually be survivors from the back of the plane and they have all gone mad? Why can't Anna-Lucia take two mins to explain to Mike what the problem is (and they can do this w/o telling us....show her start to tell him, and fade out of scene, have music and no dialogue - limiting us to seeing the fear register on his face, etc). Point is, why would Mike, Jin or Sawyer bother to follow them without knowing what they are running from? They may be "Lost," but they are still people and I for one would not move without getting some answers.

Ok.....thoughts??

Editing mistake

I don't think there is any chance that this is a mistake. Remember folks, you are not watching Pretty Woman, (Gear tie error), you are watching a show that the writers, producers, cast, editors, etc., are all clearly aware of how carefully people watch, analyze, and disect it. I find it hard to believe there would be an editing error in a scene, let alone the first scene in which we see "the others."

I don't think it's Walt

Just seems to obvious to me, no other reason. The writers like to mislead us, this may be what they are doing. And, if Walt is with them, I think he may feel like he belongs with them. Forget for a moment that he was screaming for his father, now what do you have? He clearly has some mystical, supernatural or extra-sensory powers -- he summoned a polar bear to the island after receiving one from his father on their "parting" in Michael's back story this year. He also read a comic with a polar bear. He destroyed the raft. I think he wants to be on the island, and the others want to be there, so perhaps he just feels at home with them --- point is, if that is him, I don't think he would near a teddy bear to comfort him. He may need it though to bring a Grizzly bear to the island!!!! (sorry for the rambling, thinking while I write, and haven't had coffee yet).

Definately dirty feet

And finally, what else have we learned? Can teh others actually be survivors from the back of the plane and they have all gone mad? Why can't Anna-Lucia take two mins to explain to Mike what the problem is (and they can do this w/o telling us....show her start to tell him, and fade out of scene, have music and no dialogue - limiting us to seeing the fear register on his face, etc). Point is, why would Mike, Jin or Sawyer bother to follow them without knowing what they are running from? They may be "Lost," but they are still people and I for one would not move without getting some answers.

Ok.....thoughts??


AGREED 100%!!!!!!!!!

dirty feet.....

Re bear bandage:
Remember how some people seem to conjur things to happen (Walt/polar bear) when they are concentrating on them enough on the island?

Maybe the bandage on the leg of the bear is an effort to heal...who, I don't know....

Shoes? What shoes? No I don't see them. I see a foot with an ankle that has a lot of dirt on it. I'm older and I don't see shoes. Maybe I'm so old I need glasses. Ha ha. Seriously I don't see any shoes. I taped it so I'll watch it when I get home.

Could he be trying to heal Boone's leg wound? Perhaps the others are people that were once on the island.....ALIVE, and now they are DEAD? Zombies?

sorry but i kinda see the shoes
i dont know what to say
sorry

but no way thats walt
and whats with echo going frum his jungle clothes to regular clothes
was he trying to appear scary in the hugo episode

Trick or Treat
Dirty Feet
Give me Dharma food to eat.

i want some dharma food too

Definately dirty feet. I have a question though that may be a little off topic. Mr. Eko says something to the effect that "they don't leave tracks". I thought immediately to the fire on the beach scene when Sayid and Charlie can't figure out how they lit the fire with no tracks. When I woke up this morning though the thought occured to me that we've pretty much accepted that Ethen was one of the "Others" Jack and Kate tracked him when he took Claire and Charlie, right?

so what are you thinking ethan is from someplace else?
or maybe he wanted to be tracked

I don't know what to think. I don't think Ethan wanted to be tracked because it was really annoying him when he threatened Jack. He kept trying to lose him. I don't know, maybe they were able to track him because Claire and Charlie were with him and they actually tracked the two of them. When Mr. Eko said it, it sounded like it was signirficant information and I'm just trying to understand it.

Ethan Rom = Other Man. I believe he wanted to be tracked. Better yet "they" wanted him to be tracked. Ethan, bait? Hmmmmm, interesting.

locke said 3 distinct tracks

I have watched the scene where the Others pass in the jungle at least a dozen times. I have skimmed through the messages to see if anyone else caught this, and have found nothing so far.

When the person carrying the bear passes, it is clear that this person is MUCH smaller than the rest. The knees are much lower. The child looks about the size of a 6 - 7 yer old. The pants are longish (much nearer the ankle than the knee) and the feet are bare. The kid has the teddy bear dangling from a rope.
Then, as the same kid passes and we see him/her from a different angle, still holding the bear, suddenly the pants are much shorter, the legs are longer and he/she is wearing shoes!

WHAT THE HECK WAS THAT!!!!!

Did we have an episode of missing time....like 5 years?? It was as if the person outgrew their pants in mere seconds! The shoes are hard to see on my old tv, but they remind me of the athletic shoes of the 70's. Very trim cut - not bulky, blue striped with a tan, rubber-band colored sole. You see the shoes when the person has passed by and we are just seeing him/her the second time. But as the foot moves back, you see only the sole fom behind and it blends in with the skin color. I watched this frame-by-frame.

It seemed impossible to count the Others. We would see them from one point of view, then again as they looked from Jin and Eko's point of view.

Then we have the bears bandaged leg. Another for the list of missing or injured limbs.

Why was the bear bandaged? Sometimes a favorite bear will get an imaginary injury to match the childs. Or perhaps this child was used to witnessing lots of injured limbs. They seem to be plentiful on this island.

I am curious if anyone with HD TV can check this scene and comfirm what we saw here on my crappy old tv. Was this just a huge error in editing, or did the little Other grow a foot taller and acquire some retro footwear?

Excellent find. I totally see the runner on the left foot,
http://www.lost-media.com/modules.php?name=coppermine&file=displayimage&album=757&pos=360
but the right foot looks like only part of the runner is visible??? If the boy changes within a few steps, why couldn't the runners be only half way there?

Bandaged left leg on bear. I thought of a bear loosing it's stuffing from being old.

As to how many passed. I looked at pants also and tried to eliminate the same pants as they passed Jin. I thought there was 12 others. (Also looked like the same two passed at the front and end of the line------that may have been just the use of extras...don't know.)

I got 12 too. Anyone else?

Are you people looking at the same picture I am?
http://www.freeimagehosting.net/9f14ae8d8f.jpg

The shoes are very clear. You can see that the uppers are blue and you can see the dark trim around the ankle. The sole of this style of shoe wraps up around the sides slightly. They are old style track shoes. I think they are specifically for sprinting. They don't make them like this anymore with the wrap around gum soles. You would have to be older to recognize the style.

If you cant see it in the picture, watch the scene frame-by-frame.

What's with the right one? I see the bare bottom of the foot. When you look at it shot by shot, do you see it as the sole of a runner?

I'm with the dirty feet brigade.

And I have to say, I don't think the legs changed from one shot to another, at least from the screen grabs posted here. I think with his right foot forward, the pant leg came down lower on the leg; it's hidden behind the bear; and his foot is sinking deeply into the foliage. This all gives the illusion that his pants are longer. That is just my perception.

I can see - if I shift my eyes a little - where you would see shoes. However, these are just dirty feet. Trust me.

I do see the change in pants though. I noticed something confusing when I watch the show, and I think this was it. So, either there are two Others with two identical bears, OR they are passing the bear back and forth. I can't explain it any other way. I can't imagine that this is just a flub.

hmmm. I am wondering if Ethan might actually be Kelvin/Calvin. Otherwise he just sticks out like a sore thumb!

From the screenshots posted, it does look like shoes. But I just watched the scene again on Tivo, in slow motion, frame by frame, and it is just dirty feet.

What I want to know is, who carries a teddy bear LIKE THAT? If it was a child, or ANYONE...and if it was a beloved toy, it would be carried cradled against the body, held close. This bear is being strung along carelessly.

The bear was strung along like that so that we'd see it and question that s**t outta it without being able to see any more of The Others. It's to irritate us!! LOL

What I want to know is, who carries a teddy bear LIKE THAT? If it was a child, or ANYONE...and if it was a beloved toy, it would be carried cradled against the body, held close. This bear is being strung along carelessly.

Hmmmmmmmmmm ... sort of like walking a dog on a leash?

First: Dirty Feet

Second: SAME PANTS

Look at this screenshot. HERE (http://www.freeimagehosting.net/7cb419e906.jpg)

Right leg, right at where the ferns in the foreground at the bottom of the picture: You can see the cut-off fabric and a tiny snippet of the person's leg. They are clearly the same pants and the same person.

No editing error, simply pants dropping lower when the leg is extended, and the knee pulling them up higher on the leg when the leg is bent.

Also, NOT WALT, because the leg is WHITE.

I found screencaps on Lost-media.
Hope this works!

First view of Other with bear - long pants, can't see the feet in this cap:
http://www.freeimagehosting.net/7cb419e906.jpg

After he/she passes - now with shoes, long legs and short pants:
http://www.freeimagehosting.net/9f14ae8d8f.jpg

Another:
http://www.freeimagehosting.net/290a026313.jpg


it looks like the same person to me, in the same pants.
in the 1st picture, he/she is wearing the same pants, you can see the cut offs below the leaf on the right. i think he was just walking and when he changed legs, his pants rose a little. it happens, or many they were sagging and he simply just pulled them up. you guys look too much into stuff lol

Umm... the picture you're referring to does not look IN ANY WAY like the same pair of pants in this picture (http://www.freeimagehosting.net/290a026313.jpg). You can see there that BOTH pant legs are just below the knee as opposed to the one you posted where you can see the pant leg extends WAY below the knee.

i think we all look way too into it
but thats why they do this weird stuff
i hear if you play jins korean backwards he says
PAUL IS DEAD PAUL IS DEAD
lol

Definately dirty feet. I have a question though that may be a little off topic. Mr. Eko says something to the effect that "they don't leave tracks". I thought immediately to the fire on the beach scene when Sayid and Charlie can't figure out how they lit the fire with no tracks. When I woke up this morning though the thought occured to me that we've pretty much accepted that Ethen was one of the "Others" Jack and Kate tracked him when he took Claire and Charlie, right?

Do you realize that your username is a derogatory nickname for black people?

Dirty feet

When I first watched this scene the way the legs looked struck me as odd.
The first set of bare legs looked like they were almost CGI'd into the shot. Then I noticed the long short pants and was like , OK, something is amiss here. I don't have this on tape or tivo so I can not re watch it.
I can not express well how it looked to me, almost as if they were there but not there.
For all you Star Trek fans , Out of phase comes to mind.

I really don't see shoes either. Its dirty feets.

FEETS!!!!

I don't think this is "The Others" either. The folks on the boat were too clean, and they had shoes and clean cloths on. Oh yeah, plus they had GUNS.

Njc----------------

If the pants were tight enough in the right places, it is possible for them to rise up above the calf like that, I guess.

And those are dirty feet! I thought the whole idea was they're walking barefoot to leave less of a trail and be more silent...



Also, NOT WALT, because the leg is WHITE.

I know... I keep scratching my head in wonder at people who think that it's walt....

FEETS!!!!

I don't think this is "The Others" either. The folks on the boat were too clean, and they had shoes and clean cloths on. Oh yeah, plus they had GUNS.

Njc----------------

maybe the people on the boat werent the others?

that is not walt

From the screenshots posted, it does look like shoes. But I just watched the scene again on Tivo, in slow motion, frame by frame, and it is just dirty feet.

What I want to know is, who carries a teddy bear LIKE THAT? If it was a child, or ANYONE...and if it was a beloved toy, it would be carried cradled against the body, held close. This bear is being strung along carelessly.

Didn't you ask this in another thread?

I see shoes...

By the way, I know I've seen that teddy bear before but I can't remember what episode and where? Anyone remember?

- Not Walt, Danielle's son I think. He's dirty, but clearly white.
-I think that the DeGroots have Walt, the people on the boat looked VERY SIMILAR to the people in the video Locke & Jack watched
-The angle where it's clear and from the top/side the pants look baggier, but it's also a different angle, so...

i'm so late on this comment, but to the person that said they don't make editing mistakes, they do. i'm sure this has been brought up in the past, but i just joined the site and am too lazy to find it. in season one, there was a scene where jack went to talk to sawyer, i think it was the ep. where sawyer's eyes were bad. jack had a backpack on in the scene, in one shot it was a canvas backpack, in the next, it was a leather backpack. there was no reason for the backpack to change between camera angles in the same scene. it was an editing error, so i know for a fact that they do miss some things. i think the pants in this shot, are probably the same thing.

I know there are editing errors. I can see clearly from the shot that this is not one of those errors. It's two different shots to be sure. You can see that in one screen you see almost above their waist, and in the other you see no part of the waist. In the final screen, you see above the waste again.

On top of that, the person is a different distance from the camera in each, giving the impression that the pants are different lengths. Not only are they the same color, you can see clearly in the shot I linked before that the edge of the pants hangs a few inches below the knee when the leg is fully straight, just like it would if you were walking. If your leg was bent almost in half like it is in the shots where it is higher up by the knee, your pant leg would rise.

Yes, they make editing errors. No, this isn't one of them. Same pants, same person, same teddy bear, period.

Definitely no shoes in that pic. Watched it frame by frame as well. No shoes just dirty feet. The pants are not different either. It's the same person with an angle to the side and one a little bit behind. It's obviously the french woman's son all grown up now. Just kidding.

Danielle's Alex is a girl.

Definitely feet. I can see how some think it is a shoe because the top of the foot is very dirty and there is a shiny spot on his ankle that makes it look like he is wearing high tops with a logo at the ankle but if you look at the side of the base of the foot you can see the wrinkles that prove it is a bare foot.

It was my first thought that it wasn't Walt. I could understand the confusion if Walt were light skinned but he's pretty dark so no way it could be him.

Pants different. Hmm, will require more rewatching.

I'm in the Dirty Feet, Different Pants camp.

Recall that a similar trick was pulled on us in MOSMOF with the opening sequence. It was very subtle and most people, including hardcore viewers, didnt even notice the changes until there was extensive discussion here. Sure enough, the changing hatch hypothesis was supported three episodes later in Orientation.

MPMom, thanks for brightening up the pics. Can I use them on the LLL?

I also see dirty feet. As for the pants length...I'm not sure what to make of it. I see both sides of the argument...that it could be just the angle and I also think it could be a mistake (intentional or not). I guess I need to rewatch that frame by frame for myself.

Perhaps the bear was on a "leash" to make it easier to carry.

:desmond:

Perhaps the bear was on a "leash" to make it easier to carry.

:desmond:

That I agree with. When a kid is carrying something, they get tired of it very quickly. My daughter loves her doll, but will usually pass it off to me if she has to carry it more than a few minutes. The bear could just have a rope attached so that way he can "drag" it instead of carrying it in his arms the whole time. Plus if you are crossing rough terrian, you might drop it. The rope would make it easier to use both hands when having to climb up or down things.

I saw this on earlier on this thread and am not sure if someone mentioned it, but someone said something about this being Danielle's son. Danielle said she had a daughter, not a son. Just wanted to clarify that.

~Amy

Danielle's Alex is a girl.


Ok, that's for posting this. I saw where someone mentioned Danielle's son and meant to mention that she had a daughter, but had to run out!

Ignore the last paragraph of my previous post!:)

~Amy

Not only are they the same color, you can see clearly in the shot I linked before that the edge of the pants hangs a few inches below the knee when the leg is fully straight, just like it would if you were walking. If your leg was bent almost in half like it is in the shots where it is higher up by the knee, your pant leg would rise.

Yes, they make editing errors. No, this isn't one of them. Same pants, same person, same teddy bear, period.

Umm... I'm still not sure how you could even THINK that his pants rose up THAT MUCH... You're talking about a leg being bent in half - In the first link, the leg is HARDLY BENT. Definitely not enough to make the pant leg rise up THAT FAR.


Short Pants (http://www.freeimagehosting.net/7d53c8e0b3.jpg)

Long Pants (http://www.freeimagehosting.net/0d25be2d9d.jpg)

Same pants, sure... But on a different person or fast-forwarded five years...

Are you people looking at the same picture I am?
http://www.freeimagehosting.net/9f14ae8d8f.jpg

The shoes are very clear. You can see that the uppers are blue and you can see the dark trim around the ankle. The sole of this style of shoe wraps up around the sides slightly. They are old style track shoes. I think they are specifically for sprinting. They don't make them like this anymore with the wrap around gum soles. You would have to be older to recognize the style.

If you cant see it in the picture, watch the scene frame-by-frame.

I'm sorry, but it definitely appears to just be muddy feet. I can see what you think you are seeing, but, no disrespect intended, your mind is playing tricks on you.

From the screenshots posted, it does look like shoes. But I just watched the scene again on Tivo, in slow motion, frame by frame, and it is just dirty feet.

What I want to know is, who carries a teddy bear LIKE THAT? If it was a child, or ANYONE...and if it was a beloved toy, it would be carried cradled against the body, held close. This bear is being strung along carelessly.

My immediate thinking is that it was almost being strung along or moved like bait...like they were almost trolling for something...?

Point is, why would Mike, Jin or Sawyer bother to follow them without knowing what they are running from? They may be "Lost," but they are still people and I for one would not move without getting some answers.

Ok.....thoughts??

Faith? Why would some idiot start forming shifts of people to push a button without anything being explained to him? :undecide:

Umm... the picture you're referring to does not look IN ANY WAY like the same pair of pants in this picture (http://www.freeimagehosting.net/290a026313.jpg). You can see there that BOTH pant legs are just below the knee as opposed to the one you posted where you can see the pant leg extends WAY below the knee.

I don't see it. Compare your link to this one: http://www.freeimagehosting.net/7cb419e906.jpg Look at the lowest point of the bear relative to the bottom of the pant leg: about the same in both. Are you claiming the string got longer, too? :smile:

What I want to know is, who carries a teddy bear LIKE THAT? If it was a child, or ANYONE...and if it was a beloved toy, it would be carried cradled against the body, held close. This bear is being strung along carelessly.

Well it reminded me of the youngest boy from the Disney animated Peter Pan. He kinda carried his teddy bear like that. I think he even bandaged it at one point too.

Faith? Why would some idiot start forming shifts of people to push a button without anything being explained to him? :undecide:

Some idiot didn't start forming shifts, a great man of faith and integraty, not just some man, the man, John Locke the wise did. His wisdom will be revealed to you sooner or later.

And Sun losing her ring and Locke telling her the story about you just have to stop looking in order to find whatever it is you are looking for, theres some more Locke wisdom for ya. I mean what happened when Sun stopped looking....just like Locke said, she found it.

Some idiot didn't start forming shifts, a great man of faith and integraty, not just some man, the man, John Locke the wise did. His wisdom will be revealed to you sooner or later.

And Sun losing her ring and Locke telling her the story about you just have to stop looking in order to find whatever it is you are looking for, theres some more Locke wisdom for ya. I mean what happened when Sun stopped looking....just like Locke said, she found it.

Er, except she didn't stop looking. She and Kate were digging up the bottle specifically to look for the ring. She was only momentarily distracted by Kate's sudden nosy rifling through the bottle.

Because he already witnessed that nothing BAD would come of pushing the button, so he may as well just to ensure that nothing BAD comes from not pushing the button.

On the other hand, Mike, Jin and Sawyer KNOW that there are Others out there, haven't had anything explained, and seem to be perfectly safe and happy in Hatch #2. Why wouldn't they expect answers before going any further?

Er, except she didn't stop looking. She and Kate were digging up the bottle specifically to look for the ring. She was only momentarily distracted by Kate's sudden nosy rifling through the bottle.

Yes a moment.....I don't know where I'm going with this. I was origianlly hoping that Locke would tell her to look in her pocket or something and there it would be. But................long silent pause...........no still got nothin

Because he already witnessed that nothing BAD would come of pushing the button, so he may as well just to ensure that nothing BAD comes from not pushing the button.

On the other hand, Mike, Jin and Sawyer KNOW that there are Others out there, haven't had anything explained, and seem to be perfectly safe and happy in Hatch #2. Why wouldn't they expect answers before going any further?

Maybe they just don't want to suffer the embarrasment of being b!tch slapped by Ana again.

Yes a moment.....I don't know where I'm going with this. I was origianlly hoping that Locke would tell her to look in her pocket or something and there it would be. But................long silent pause...........no still got nothin

My interpretation of the symbolism of the bottle and finding of the ring are here on this thread (the bottle is a symbolic parallel to the ongoing theme of Pandora's box as represented literally in the hatch. The survivors put their personal hopes inside that bottle, when Sun buried it she was literally burying her hope. Finding her ring there was a symbolic return of hope, the only thing left after Pandora's box was opened.
). (I was going to copy it here but don't want to get too far OT).

I don't see it. Compare your link to this one: http://www.freeimagehosting.net/7cb419e906.jpg Look at the lowest point of the bear relative to the bottom of the pant leg: about the same in both. Are you claiming the string got longer, too? :smile:

What I see is that I should be seeing a cut off pant leg in the pic you posted, right near the bottom of the teddy bear. I don't see the end of the pant leg ANYWHERE. What I do see is about 8 inches of pant leg below the knee.

Again, in the short pants picture there is about 3 inches of pant leg below the knee.

All else aside, in reference to the string getting longer -- It's a lot easier to lower and raise your arm, for whatever reason, than to just have your pant legs raise and lower like that. I guess I'm also just supposed to believe that his pants went from really baggy to excessively tight because of the few degrees that his leg is bent?!? WHAT?!?

Maybe they just don't want to suffer the embarrasment of being b!tch slapped by Ana again.

Thats what I was thinking. Who would ask her anything :box:

Man and what about those others, they were silent as.......I don't know they were just silent, I mean it was silence, see where I'm goin with this, silence.

Kate was helping look for the ring like she was helping make Jin sick so he wouldn't leave on the raft.
Kate was searching the notes for messages about her being a criminal, IMHO

Man and what about those others, they were silent as.......I don't know they were just silent, I mean it was silence, see where I'm goin with this, silence.

Umm...No not really :dizzy:
But if you say so
:biggrin:

Maybe they just don't want to suffer the embarrasment of being b!tch slapped by Ana again.

Good point! =)

Kate was helping look for the ring like she was helping make Jin sick so he wouldn't leave on the raft.
Kate was searching the notes for messages about her being a criminal, IMHO

I thought it was Sun that tried to make Jin sick and accidentally made Michael sick. Sun didn't want Jin to leave but Jin and Michael got their water bottles switched and Michael ended up getting sick. As I recall Jack confronted her about it and she admitted to it.

Umm...No not really :dizzy:
But if you say so
:biggrin:

All I'm sayin is, they were quiet like they had plenty of practice. Kinda like an indian sneeking up on a deer while is sips water from the stream.

Could they all be children or teens in that group? Definitely no really big guys feet or calves in the group. Looked all young to me.:undecide:

Are you people looking at the same picture I am?
http://www.freeimagehosting.net/9f14ae8d8f.jpg

The shoes are very clear. You can see that the uppers are blue and you can see the dark trim around the ankle. The sole of this style of shoe wraps up around the sides slightly. They are old style track shoes. I think they are specifically for sprinting. They don't make them like this anymore with the wrap around gum soles. You would have to be older to recognize the style.

If you cant see it in the picture, watch the scene frame-by-frame.

that's definately a bare foot

What I see is that I should be seeing a cut off pant leg in the pic you posted, right near the bottom of the teddy bear. I don't see the end of the pant leg ANYWHERE. What I do see is about 8 inches of pant leg below the knee.

Again, in the short pants picture there is about 3 inches of pant leg below the knee.

All else aside, in reference to the string getting longer -- It's a lot easier to lower and raise your arm, for whatever reason, than to just have your pant legs raise and lower like that. I guess I'm also just supposed to believe that his pants went from really baggy to excessively tight because of the few degrees that his leg is bent?!? WHAT?!?

One shot is far away. The other is very close. That is the same person carrying the same bear wearing the same pants shot from two different angles and more than twice the distance.

Forget about the scale issue which is what is confounding your "number of inches" theory. Look at the string for the bear. It is relatively straight down in both pictures. It is swinging slightly, but not enough to make any huge difference in height, being shot in near-bottom of its swing in both shots. Now look at where the pant leg ends in relation to the bottom of the bear's foot that hangs down. You can see clearly in both shots that the bottom of the bear's foot is essentially right at the cuff of those cut-off pants.

What's throwing you off is the scale. In one shot, you are like 12" away from this leg and bear. In the other (your first link), you are a good 3-4 feet away.

Unless you can explain why or how Jin and Mr. Eko were sitting camped in that bush for 5 years...

Definitely not enough to make the pant leg rise up THAT FAR.

Short Pants (http://www.freeimagehosting.net/7d53c8e0b3.jpg)

Long Pants (http://www.freeimagehosting.net/0d25be2d9d.jpg)

Same pants, sure... But on a different person or fast-forwarded five years...

On the second shot, I don't think the knee is where you think it is. That would make for a weird leg.

Umm... I'm still not sure how you could even THINK that his pants rose up THAT MUCH... You're talking about a leg being bent in half - In the first link, the leg is HARDLY BENT. Definitely not enough to make the pant leg rise up THAT FAR.


Short Pants (http://www.freeimagehosting.net/7d53c8e0b3.jpg)

Long Pants (http://www.freeimagehosting.net/0d25be2d9d.jpg)

Same pants, sure... But on a different person or fast-forwarded five years...

Ok I cant read all of the posts here but here is my $0.02 worth.

Dirty feet. You can see the wrinkles in the skin just in front of the heel.

I think these are two separate pairs of pants. I think we are focusing in on the wrong area. Look at the back pocket on the long pants pic. Then look at the back pocket on the short pants pic...........Oh wait there is no back pocket. Refer to MarineOnes posted photos. Thanks

What I see is that I should be seeing a cut off pant leg in the pic you posted, right near the bottom of the teddy bear. I don't see the end of the pant leg ANYWHERE. What I do see is about 8 inches of pant leg below the knee.

Again, in the short pants picture there is about 3 inches of pant leg below the knee.

All else aside, in reference to the string getting longer -- It's a lot easier to lower and raise your arm, for whatever reason, than to just have your pant legs raise and lower like that. I guess I'm also just supposed to believe that his pants went from really baggy to excessively tight because of the few degrees that his leg is bent?!? WHAT?!?
You can see the frazzled threads hanging off the front of the pantleg in the link I posted (right side as you look at the pic, nearly level with the bottom of the bear, as I indicated). It is pretty clear, unlike the imaginary knee that you are seeing. :biggrin:

I thought it was Sun that tried to make Jin sick and accidentally made Michael sick. Sun didn't want Jin to leave but Jin and Michael got their water bottles switched and Michael ended up getting sick. As I recall Jack confronted her about it and she admitted to it.

It was but then Sun told Kate that Jack knew but she had not told Jack it was Kate's idea. Kate knew Sawyer would be blamed and wanted his spot on the raft, thus planted the idea in Sun's head.

NO SHOES JUST FEET!!!!! ...and what does it matter weather or not the kid is wearin shoes! i really cant see where so many people are seein shoes here...as for the pants bein all baggy, and then bein all tight and short....umm...im not really sure what the heck happened there...maybe in the two seconeds that we couldn't see the others, someone took the bear off the kid??? i don't know...just an idea..:frown:

Ok, apart from the dirty feet, what do people think of the pants changing length and bagginess?

I personally think its just some pants rising up the leg action. The leg in the background does not appear to not have pants going all the way down.

Could they all be children or teens in that group? Definitely no really big guys feet or calves in the group. Looked all young to me.:undecide:

They all looked young to me too. :undecide:
"IF" there are two pairs of pants with the teddy bear, I might guess that an older person picked up a tired younger one, who continued to drag poor teddy along, perhaps tied on a stick to be carried like a fishing pole.
(I only guess this as I have witnessed my daughter doing just that to a beloved stuffed critter years ago)

Could they all be children or teens in that group? Definitely no really big guys feet or calves in the group. Looked all young to me.:undecide:

Not to play devil's advocate, but I think what you mistake for young is really only being skiny and fit, because they live on a tropical island and are probably semi nomadic. Also, everyone says these people all look young, I remember seeing someone with such hairy legs they look like a damn sasquatch...

Love the speculation, but no one who walked by is a child, except for the one with bear, which is Danielle's kid.

Cant make out what the hell is going on with the long cutoffs, short cutoffs. Seems to be two different sized children to me - what that is supposed to mean, I have no idea, but a little spooky.

Dirty feet though ;)

but no one who walked by is a child, except for the one with bear, which is Danielle's kid.

Isn't Alex 15-16 by now? "If" there is a child on the island, it's more likely to be the offspring of The Others, born on the island, as at some point a combination of a natural urge to breed and no birth control would produce a few children.

Umm... I'm still not sure how you could even THINK that his pants rose up THAT MUCH... You're talking about a leg being bent in half - In the first link, the leg is HARDLY BENT. Definitely not enough to make the pant leg rise up THAT FAR.


Short Pants (http://www.freeimagehosting.net/7d53c8e0b3.jpg)

Long Pants (http://www.freeimagehosting.net/0d25be2d9d.jpg)

Same pants, sure... But on a different person or fast-forwarded five years...

I absolutely agree. These two photos appear to be of the same pants, but on two differently sized persons. I know how a leg is constructed. I know about perspective, ratio, and all that. On the Long Pants photo, the knee is exactly where MarineOne has marked it. You can tell that by the hinge folds in the pants, which would fall directly behind the knee. If you look closely in the Short Pants photo, you can see these same type folds behind where MarineOne has marked the knee.

Forget about the scale issue which is what is confounding your "number of inches" theory. Look at the string for the bear. It is relatively straight down in both pictures. It is swinging slightly, but not enough to make any huge difference in height, being shot in near-bottom of its swing in both shots. Now look at where the pant leg ends in relation to the bottom of the bear's foot that hangs down. You can see clearly in both shots that the bottom of the bear's foot is essentially right at the cuff of those cut-off pants.

Dude, you are measuring the length of its pants by how low the string is? The string is a variable. We don't know if it is slung over the kids shoulder, hooked to a stick like a fishing pole, or held in the hand, and if he/she is moving the string.
You have to look at proportions.
Notice the length from the butt to the knee, then the knee to the ankle. Also, notice the horizontal sticks on the ground. The ankle is just out of the shot and the ground is near the bottom of the shot.

http://www.freeimagehosting.net/7cb419e906.jpg

Compare it to this one. See the much greater distance between the butt and the knee?

http://www.freeimagehosting.net/290a026313.jpg

When I watched the procession of Others on the tape, I noticed the knees of each person were near the top of the screen. The camera angle stayed the same. This person passed and his/her butt is at the top of the screen. A much much shorter person. In picture 2, the pants are not inches, but at least a foot from the ground. The distance from the ground to the pants isnt going to change like the unseen hand holding the string.

What this all means, I have no idea. The bear may have been passed off to another person or there are two identical bears on strings. The tiny kid and its bear may have been thrown over the sholder of the person in the second shot.

The shoes, which I refuse to believe are bare dirty feet, unless they have blue dirt on this island, are a moot point. (I had a pair just like them with the wrap-around, skin-colored, gum soles) Whether the kid had on shoes or not seems meaningless.

But the size change could mean something. Danielle's crew was studying time. The actor playing Walt has grown a lot over the summer, which will have to be addressed since only 4 days have passed.

Or it could simply be a stand-in for the actor playing the Tiny Other. Limitations of screen time and all.

When I watched the procession of Others on the tape, I noticed the knees of each person were near the top of the screen. The camera angle stayed the same. This person passed and his/her butt is at the top of the screen. A much much shorter person. In picture 2, the pants are not inches, but at least a foot from the ground. The distance from the ground to the pants isnt going to change like the unseen hand holding the string.

YES! Thank you. I can see the argument (barely) for them being the same pants on the same kid, but, yeh... Knowing ratios and all, it DOESN'T ADD UP. LOL

I'm not sure why so many people find this SOOO hard to believe when tattoos can JUMP TO DIFFERENT ARMS in other scenes... LOL

Anyone have a screen cap of the kid's left foot? Looks to me like it might have a bandage on it. Hmmm.

Anyway, the other foot looks bare to me. And the other legs look like adults - especially the sasquatch ones.

I see dirty feet. Shoeless dirty feet that may have stepped in mud.
As for the pants.. I'm so not sure. Could be the same pants but different pairs of them on different people. Maybe someone was shipping brownish pants in various sizes :) and they wound up on the island. I tried to count the number of little others that passed - and came up with -- more than 4 but less than 12. I'm also not sure if they're all kids or teens - could be, but even after replaying it many times, i'm not sure.

Can someone please re-examine those pics with the bear that MarineOne posted. As I said in post number 97 (http://www.thefuselage.com/Threaded/showpost.php?p=557029&postcount=97). I do believe we are looking at two separate pairs of pants. the reason being is that in the short pants pic there is no back pocket and in the long pants pic you can clearly see the back pocket with the "V" bottom. I copied this pics into PSP and adjusted several settings i.e. Contrast, Brightness and turning the pics into negatives and I just can't seem to see the pocket on the short pair of pants.

I'm not sure what this means except that they could be two separate people. Oh and because I see wrinkled skin just in front of the heel, I think these are dirty feet. Post what you find either way. Thanks.....

Isn't Alex 15-16 by now? "If" there is a child on the island, it's more likely to be the offspring of The Others, born on the island, as at some point a combination of a natural urge to breed and no birth control would produce a few children.

You are assuming its a child because of the teddy bearm what if it is a sixteen year old... much more likely than a 5 year old walking aorund the jungle killing people.

and not if they are sterile from experimentation, would explain why they need to kidnap children (because they can't have their own). Yeah, way to think outside the box.

Do the others remind anyone else of the lost boys from Peter Pan ( remember the youngest dangled his bear behind him)?

I read thru about 1/2 of the posts here....did anyone question the necktie around the teddy bear's leg? can anyone i.d. it to a plane passenger? could it be Sayid's yellow tie he bought at the airport?


Also, just a tip...when you post a pic from lost-media.com..please click the 'enlarge the pic' 1st...then rt. click it and go to properties to copy and paste it's address..it opens much faster and right to the bigger version..like this...
http://lost-media.com/modules/coppermine/albums/ep-caps/season2/2x05-found2/3/andfound-cap362.jpg

I read thru about 1/2 of the posts here....did anyone question the necktie around the teddy bear's leg? can anyone i.d. it to a plane passenger? could it be Sayid's yellow tie he bought at the airport?


Also, just a tip...when you post a pic from lost-media.com..please click the 'enlarge the pic' 1st...then rt. click it and go to properties to copy and paste it's address..it opens much faster and right to the bigger version..like this...
http://lost-media.com/modules/coppermine/albums/ep-caps/season2/2x05-found2/3/andfound-cap362.jpg


Thanks for the info. I wondered how some peeps could do that.

I love the idea that the Teddy is bandaged with a necktie. (I was sure there was another mention of a necktie, besides the cut scene with Sayid. Anyone remember?)

I checked all my notes, but can't find what I'm remembering.

The first and third caption really gives a clear pic that it doesn't look like the same person b/c of the pants. First one pants are all the way down to the persons feet, third one the pants are right below the knees, must have been an editing mistake


I think it's the same pants in both pics...lighting is different, and in the first pic, the leaves cover alot, but if you look directly below that fern leaf, I see skin, not a pant leg...if you look real close you'll see where the cut offs end.....and dirty feet, no shoes :)

I had another chance to go over this scene again. Watched in in slo-mo, normal speed and frame-by-frame. You have to watch frame-by-frame to really catch the details.
When the bear holding Other very first comes into view, his/her short little leg is bent all the way. The hip to knee is completely horizontal, and the knee to leg is vertical. Besides this being a much shorter person, the pant leg does not ride up to just below the knee. The pant leg is twice the size of the leg, very loose like cargo pants, and hanging much closer to the ankle then the knee. This shorter person has to lift their legs much higher than the rest of the group to walk through the underbrush.
Then when we see what is supposedly the same person, the pants are tight, just below the knee. These pants look to be more of a tighter classic cut. This is definately a taller person with longer legs.
The bear looks to be hanging in the same fashion as in the first view, swinging to the right, at the same distance from the body. If the little person was picked up by a taller person, it seems the bear would hang much higher.

This is most certainly a different person and likely a different pair of pants.

I wonder if when we do get to see the Others full view, the one with the bear will be a little tiny Other. But in the shot where we see him more from behind and at a distance, they had to use a stand in so they wouldn't give that away yet. If they had used the little Other in that shot, we would have clearly seen that it was a little kid. We could see up to the rear end of the actor they used, but we would have seen up to the shoulders of the smaller actor.
I just dont think they want us to know quite yet that there is a small child in the group. Its possible that they may all be young, as discussed in another thread. But this extra small tot would have given it away. Or maybe they just dont want us to see who it is.

People.... PLEASE!

Yes, I know Lost encourages looking closer at things and finding hidden details, but THIS IS NOT ONE OF THEM!

Excuse my exasperation, but combined with the Hurley Speaks Korean thread and various other theories that are based on continuity errors (like the record player conspiracy theories), I'm about to lose my mind.

When it's details that are ONLY visible (and even then, highly debateable) by way of freeze-framing and side by side comparison, it's NEVER anything.

It's dirty feet. Period. If it is different pants, it's a continuity thing, or the kid that they were using for the first shot wasn't available for the second shot (kids are only allowed to work a certain number of hours in a day so maybe he had reached the end of his time for that day).

Just imagine trying to explain this to the audience at large. And HOW would you explain it? If it WAS something of import, then Mr. Eko or Jin would have said something at that moment.

The whole point of that scene was the Teddy Bear. You have to look at what was visible to the naked eye on only one viewing. And what did they (the producers) make it a point to show us?

1) Dirty legs and feet, and tattered pants.
2) YOUNG legs.
3) Teddy bear with a bandage.

That's everything that matters.

The legs will be explained in a later episode when we see the rest of their bodies. The teddy bear will be explained in a future flashback, because it obviously has some meaning to it.

It just has to alwasy be kept in mind that this stuff isn't a documentary, and it isn't being shot "as it happens". They do take after take of these shots, and often, they won't match up exactly when edited together. And even if it does match up exactly, sometimes, seconds or even frames have to be trimmed in order to get a scene to 'feel' right, or to meet a certain time constraint.

Again, there is no logical way they could ever explain the pant leg discrepancy to the audience, and even if there IS one, so what? What possible meaning could it have except for a child aging several years mid-step?


It's a dirty foot. (I'm utterly baffled how anyone can see a shoe. It's just a foot with lots of crap on it).

It's (supposed to be) the same pants and same leg.


I'm just a bit cranky today and nitpicky continuity theories are my pet peeve.

I apologize. Well, not really.

Ummmm, what he said.... great post...

:)

Ok, I read through all 12 pages in this thread. There's a lot of going back and forth as to IF he changed, Personally, I'm still undecided. There's just not enough info in the 10 seconds or so to make a conclusive decision.

For arguments sake, lets say the "Little Other" did change, HOW and WHY did he change? IF he had that ability, why choose that exact moment to "Grow"?

Right, continuity errors.

Like when Jack's tat jumped from arm to arm (I KNOW the film was flipped), I'm sure that was for NOO reason, too. Just like with Desmond's little apartment, I'm sure the film was flipped for NOO reason there also.

It obviously WASN'T only visible by frame-to-frame shots or else it never would have been posted on to begin with. I noticed right away that there was something goofy with the scene; I'm sure the editors would notice it too after piecing the films together. They KNOW how much this is scrutinized.

The same argument can be made for the soccer team or whatever in the airport with the numbers on the jerseys. Yeh, it was meant to be there but how many people didn't notice it the first time around? I didn't.

but THIS IS NOT ONE OF THEM!
If you don't think this is, then MAYBE you shouldn't frequent a thread whose title is "The little Other changed as it passed by!" (In fact, I hope you never read this response). You're not going to change peoples minds when they're already made up.

Finally, whether going frame by frame or not, I've got blue jeans that are consistent with how baggy those pants were in the first shot... There's NO WAY those same blue jeans of mine will EVER be as tight as those pants were in the second shot. So, if you're taking the stance that it was MEANT to be the same person but the child actor couldn't continue filming because of labor laws, then fine. But don't come in here and try to tear apart someone's theory. It's their theory and those that like it will follow along. I don't think anyone will change their mind at this point.

For arguments sake, lets say the "Little Other" did change, HOW and WHY did he change? IF he had that ability, why choose that exact moment to "Grow"?

That's a good question. Maybe he 'buffed' up like a scared cat or a puffer fish when he thought he sensed someone nearby.

I'm still wondering how SMOKE can drag people into holes... :biggrin:

Calm down darkpiranha. Dont get your fins in a bunch.

Let me just say that I never truly believed that the kid aged 5 years while passing. That was just sarcasm, which doesn't translate well in print.

Bottom line for me: The kid with the bear is very young, half the size of the rest. We see that kid in the first shot. We see a stand-in in the second shot because the same kid would have been revealed at the greater distance. Whether the stand-in was wearing shoes or not is a moot point - probably a continuity error if he was. (Especially since the first kid had clean feet) But the kid with the bear is tiny. The writers just arent ready for us to know that as fact, or see who the kid is.

I dont consider this nitpicking. It is an observation that the kid with the bear is a very small child - way too young to be Walt or Alex, and that TPTB are trying to hide that fact from us at this point.

The same argument can be made for the soccer team or whatever in the airport with the numbers on the jerseys. Yeh, it was meant to be there but how many people didn't notice it the first time around? I didn't. .

Totally different. The soccer team was put front and center and it was made very clear what was being shown. It was a visual in-joke, not meant as a serious plot-hinging element. And it wasn't anything to do with something changing from one shot to the other. You didn't have to compare one angle of the soccer team to another angle. It was all right there.

If you don't think this is, then MAYBE you shouldn't frequent a thread whose title is "The little Other changed as it passed by!" (In fact, I hope you never read this response).

(sniff) you mean... you mean, I'm not welcome here anymore? (sniffle)


Sighh..... telling someone not to frequent a thread is as pointless as me saying "if you don't want people challenging your theory, then don't come up with a theory." This entire board is about people putting their theories and observations out there and having other people comment on them. Sometimes those theories are totally debunked, sometimes they are validated and even expanded upon by those more knowledgeable. I've had more than a fair share of my theories both debunked and expanded upon. It's part of forum life. Get used to it.

You're not going to change peoples minds when they're already made up.

That was sort of redundant to point out...

But don't come in here and try to tear apart someone's theory. It's their theory and those that like it will follow along.

And those that disagree with it will also say what they want. LOL.. this a forum.. not a blog. Have some fun. It's just a TV show and it's all in good fun.

And MPMom, my fins are NOT all in a bunch, although one is kinda tucked in backwards with the edge of the fin sticking... well.. you don't need all those details...

And I knew you were being facetious about the kid growing, but by the time I got to this thread, there were already a whole mess of posts thinking the kid actually DID grow...

People.... PLEASE!

Yes, I know Lost encourages looking closer at things and finding hidden details, but THIS IS NOT ONE OF THEM!

Excuse my exasperation, but combined with the Hurley Speaks Korean thread and various other theories that are based on continuity errors (like the record player conspiracy theories), I'm about to lose my mind.

When it's details that are ONLY visible (and even then, highly debateable) by way of freeze-framing and side by side comparison, it's NEVER anything.

It's dirty feet. Period. If it is different pants, it's a continuity thing, or the kid that they were using for the first shot wasn't available for the second shot (kids are only allowed to work a certain number of hours in a day so maybe he had reached the end of his time for that day).

Just imagine trying to explain this to the audience at large. And HOW would you explain it? If it WAS something of import, then Mr. Eko or Jin would have said something at that moment.

The whole point of that scene was the Teddy Bear. You have to look at what was visible to the naked eye on only one viewing. And what did they (the producers) make it a point to show us?

1) Dirty legs and feet, and tattered pants.
2) YOUNG legs.
3) Teddy bear with a bandage.

That's everything that matters.

The legs will be explained in a later episode when we see the rest of their bodies. The teddy bear will be explained in a future flashback, because it obviously has some meaning to it.

It just has to alwasy be kept in mind that this stuff isn't a documentary, and it isn't being shot "as it happens". They do take after take of these shots, and often, they won't match up exactly when edited together. And even if it does match up exactly, sometimes, seconds or even frames have to be trimmed in order to get a scene to 'feel' right, or to meet a certain time constraint.

Again, there is no logical way they could ever explain the pant leg discrepancy to the audience, and even if there IS one, so what? What possible meaning could it have except for a child aging several years mid-step?


It's a dirty foot. (I'm utterly baffled how anyone can see a shoe. It's just a foot with lots of crap on it).

It's (supposed to be) the same pants and same leg.


I'm just a bit cranky today and nitpicky continuity theories are my pet peeve.

I apologize. Well, not really.

As Hurley would say......"Dude" relax. This is what these forums are for. You have the right to your opinion. It’s just the way you came off. Being all impatient and sick and tired of the whole experience. I've read hundreds of counterpoints but your just came all whiny. Be constructive not destructive in your criticism and show a little respect. Thanks for listening.... Let the theories roll.

although i agree its a dirty foot, i certainly see where the sneaker people are coming from.

also - someone on lost-tv said that we never actually see anything above the legs of the people - for all we know, they could all be tied by the neck and are being taken as prisoners somewhere

Dirty Deeds done
DIRT CHEAP

Dirty feet done
DIRT CHEAP

although i agree its a dirty foot, i certainly see where the sneaker people are coming from.

also - someone on lost-tv said that we never actually see anything above the legs of the people - for all we know, they could all be tied by the neck and are being taken as prisoners somewhere

That's an interesting thought. Continuing with my belief that the last of the group is smaller, I thought it was worth noting that no one was following behind. If he were some sort of prisoner, or there against his will, it seems someone would be behind him to make sure he didn't slink away and escape. But if they are ALL chained together at the neck, and all prisoners, it wouldn't matter if the little one was in back.

It seems we should see thier hands swinging to the sides, unless they are in use.
Or unless they are all ARMLESS!!!!!
:eek::eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:

Hi, I just had to defend MPMom!

I can clearly see sneakers in two places:

http://www.lost-media.com/modules.php?name=coppermine&file=displayimage&album=757&pos=360

and

http://www.freeimagehosting.net/9f14ae8d8f.jpg

And this is very weird--he definitely seems to have shorter, more ragged pants in this frame:

http://www.freeimagehosting.net/290a026313.jpg
And if you look at where the bear reaches on those legs, it really does look like the bear's tail is higher in that picture.

My first post, and I have to get into a "Yes it is" "No it isn't" discussion! lol Hope no one minds.

Looking at http://www.freeimagehosting.net/9f14ae8d8f.jpg
again, I can see where others could see dirty feet. Hmmm.
It's a mystery, for sure. Either way, it's fun to speculate.
Or at least it should be. FUN. Nothing to get distraught over.

The bear was strung along like that so that we'd see it and question that s**t outta it without being able to see any more of The Others. It's to irritate us!!

LOL I have to agree with that!

Welcome to the Fuselage Lija! You are welcome to jump in anywhere!

I can see the "dirty feet" side of the coin too. The reason it stood out to me so much is the fact that in the first shot, the kid had CLEAN bare feet. Whether its shoes or dirty feet, that along with the pants thing shows a lot of changes from one shot to the next.

Now I am just anxious to see who it turns out to be.

Barefoot

I have watched the scene where the Others pass.....[snipped]....Was this just a huge error in editing, or did the little Other grow a foot taller and acquire some retro footwear?



Hi. I just asked Javi about the "Others" scene continuity errors.
http://www.thefuselage.com/Threaded/showthread.php?p=565451
His reply to my initial question seemed a little bit cagey !


Anyway...Here's a screen-cap composite I knocked up to illustrate the bear carrier issues.
http://img493.imageshack.us/my.php?image=trousers0yf.jpg

About the teddy-bear: didn't Desmond take a toybear when he fled the bunker? (See also: this thread (http://www.thefuselage.com/Threaded/showthread.php?t=23775) )

Maybe he's captured by the Others or maybe he's one of 'em...

Woah.. Pants , no pants, pants ,no pants.. crazy.

I'm still with you, granulated, that there is something with the pants other than just a continuity error, though I'm not sure what it is. Your composite does a lot better job than mine did of showcasing the differences. I've always thought that the differences in pant length was the biggest giveaway, but I still like seeing them side by side and also noticing how the pants in the left picture are baggy ALL OVER THE PLACE while the ones in the right picture are tight all the way up and down.

I'm still with you, granulated, that there is something with the pants other than just a continuity error, though I'm not sure what it is. Your composite does a lot better job than mine did of showcasing the differences. I've always thought that the differences in pant length was the biggest giveaway, but I still like seeing them side by side and also noticing how the pants in the left picture are baggy ALL OVER THE PLACE while the ones in the right picture are tight all the way up and down.

I rewatched this again last night, frame by frame (My husband thinks I'm NUTS BTW) and I think that the "Little Other" did change.

So I pose the question again. HOW and WHY did the "Little Other" change?

Is it a defense mechanisim, like a puffer fish that senses danger? Could they sense Jin and Eko there and "Grow" in anticipation of a possible confrontation?

About the teddy-bear: didn't Desmond take a toybear when he fled the bunker? (See also: this thread (http://www.thefuselage.com/Threaded/showthread.php?t=23775) )

Maybe he's captured by the Others or maybe he's one of 'em...

Funny you should mention that...I posted a screenie earlier to clear up the issue.
Desmonds soft toy was a rabbit.
http://tinypic.com/view/?pic=f00rpf

About the teddy-bear: didn't Desmond take a toybear when he fled the bunker? (See also: this thread (http://www.thefuselage.com/Threaded/showthread.php?t=23775) )

Maybe he's captured by the Others or maybe he's one of 'em...

Desmond took a stuffed bunny.

Ok, I'm still not sure where everbody stands on the the pants issue. Is it the same pair or is it two pairs of pants? I've posted twice in this thread saying it is two different pairs of pants. But I didn't have the pictures to back me up argue no posted comments either for or against. I don't think we have been looking in all the right places. Here is a PSP comparison of the screen caps in question. I've made gamma adjustments to make the area in I'm pointing out better to see:

http://img388.imageshack.us/img388/6704/pants2ed.jpg

You can see that one pair of pants has a pocket while the "other", hehehehe sorry for the pun, does not. I'm beyond the point as to why there are two separate pairs of pants. It's possible that these tweens were part of Dharmas experiments. If Dharma had control of them for a long time I would think that several of them would have been given a stuffed animal for comfort. Now it's possible that two different kids were given the same looking bear. Maybe the two with the bear are related somehow and thats why their bears have the same "bandage" around the same leg.......

(waves hand subtly) "These aren't the pants you're looking for..."

I've posted twice in this thread saying it is two different pairs of pants.

I'm agreeing with you, for more reasons than just the pocket pics you posted. It seems as if more people are in the camp, though, that thinks they're the same pair of pants on the same person. I'm not quite sure why at this point, but it seems as if no one is willing to admit that, pocket or not, there's NO POSSIBLE WAY that those baggy pants became that tight no matter how much they were pulled up. LOL It's just really humerous to me now.

Whether or not it MEANS anything is a completely different story. Continuity error, whatever... that's possible. But it's not the same person with the same pair of pants on.

I believe the only reason they did it was to throw people off that might be looking really closely. It's going to be a kid, but if they would have shown the same kid from the second angle, we would have been able to see more details than they were willing to give at this point. The same kid from the first angle you'd be able to see hair and possibly even the ropes tying them all together.

So for the second angle, they just stuck a different (taller) actor in.

I don't subscribe to the 'puffer-fish' people theory. Even on a show like LOST with all of the crazy things going on, the puffer-fish theory is just plain silly.



"On second thought, let's not go to Camelot. It is a silly place."
-King Arthur, ca. 972

LOL I agree with what you've said above, Piranha. The funny thing is that I threw that puffer fish theory out there and basically was laughing at it, but I didn't realize that there were others who've grabbed onto it. Who knows? We've seen weirder things on LOST.

Can you make someone's legs paralyzed for years and bring them back on your own free will at a later point? May be possible. I don't know. Can something GROW when it senses another being around? May be possible. I don't know. Cats fur sticks out... chameleons change colors. <SHRUG>

I'm agreeing with you, for more reasons than just the pocket pics you posted. It seems as if more people are in the camp, though, that thinks they're the same pair of pants on the same person. I'm not quite sure why at this point, but it seems as if no one is willing to admit that, pocket or not, there's NO POSSIBLE WAY that those baggy pants became that tight no matter how much they were pulled up. LOL It's just really humerous to me now.

Whether or not it MEANS anything is a completely different story. Continuity error, whatever... that's possible. But it's not the same person with the same pair of pants on.

You know maybe all it was was some continuity error. But it seems unlikely a show like this that sneaks in small clues all the time would make a booboo like this. Again who knows. But I like the fact that posters from all over the world can contribute what they think is going on.

But it seems unlikely a show like this that sneaks in small clues all the time would make a booboo like this.

Well that's exactly what I was thinking, too, but I was willing to give a little for the sake of the argument (or peace for that matter...LOL).

Haven't we had show insiders say, on this board, that we shouldn't nitpick little mistakes and stuff in this show? We should be focused on the bigger picture? He said that comment referring to Desmond's bunker changing, but I think it can apply here as well.

Maybe they used two seperate takes to show the "little Other" walking by, and the pants were a little different. So what? Can the Others morph now? Probably not. I think this is way too much nit-picking over something VERY insignificant.

The pocket isn't gone in the second photo, it is just not visible. In the first photo, the pants are so big on the person that the pocket hangs down below the butt...pretty much at thigh level. The second photo doesn't show the butt area where the pocket would be on a larger/older person.

I am a firm believer that this is supposed to be the same person, but that he/she has aged significantly in the clip for some reason. I'm not sure I see any other explanation. Doubtful two different people have teddy bears, so it has to be the same person. Contrary to what others have said, too, the second photo does not show shoes, whereas the first was barefoot.

I will be extremely surprised if it is anything beyond an aging question/issue.

Ok, I'm still not sure where everbody stands on the the pants issue. Is it the same pair or is it two pairs of pants? I've posted twice in this thread saying it is two different pairs of pants. But I didn't have the pictures to back me up argue no posted comments either for or against. I don't think we have been looking in all the right places. Here is a PSP comparison of the screen caps in question. I've made gamma adjustments to make the area in I'm pointing out better to see:

http://img388.imageshack.us/img388/6704/pants2ed.jpg

You can see that one pair of pants has a pocket while the "other", hehehehe sorry for the pun, does not. I'm beyond the point as to why there are two separate pairs of pants. It's possible that these tweens were part of Dharmas experiments. If Dharma had control of them for a long time I would think that several of them would have been given a stuffed animal for comfort. Now it's possible that two different kids were given the same looking bear. Maybe the two with the bear are related somehow and thats why their bears have the same "bandage" around the same leg.......

I am a firm believer that this is supposed to be the same person, but that he/she has aged significantly in the clip for some reason. I'm not sure I see any other explanation. .

I'm utterly stunned that this can possibly be considered a viable theory.

If it was a case of growth or aging, then don't you think Jin or Mr. Ecko's face would have reflected even the tiniest bit of surprise at what was occuring RIGHT IN FRONT OF THEIR FACES? Unless spontaneous growth is something commonplace in Korea where Jin comes from.

Hey... Maybe that's what happened to Hurley. Since he knows Korean (unknowingly), it's not far-fetched that the reason he is so big is that the last time he was in Korea, he grew from a small person to a big person in the span of a second. And because of this massive growth spurt, it messed with his memory and he forgot that he knew how to speak Korean, but fortunately, in his dream, he remembers he can speak Korean, because there's obviously no possible way someone can dream they speak a foreign language unless they actually CAN speak that foreign language...

I think I'm on to something here....



Dudes... it's not an error or a conspiracy. It's just misdirection so we don't know for sure that it's a kid until they are ready to reveal it to us. They've hinted that it's a kid, but showed the taller person from the other angle so we couldn't be sure. "You guys are going to freeze-frame this stuff? Well, chew on THIS for a while... (evil laugh)"


And after it's revealed that there's no such thing as instantaneous spontaneous puffer-fish Other growth, I'm going to go back through this thread and collect all the names of those that were supportive of this theory and create a thread just for the purpose of laughing at you.

(giggle)... bwah HA HAAAAA!!!! ALL WILL KNEEL BEFORE DARK PIRANHA... BWAH!

(clears throat...) Sorry about that... ehem.


Now why don't you guys get on board with a legitimate crackpot theory, like nano-bots, or Nazis, or aliens in a ship trapped under the island?

I'm utterly stunned that this can possibly be considered a viable theory. I'm stunned that you are stunned! :o
If it was a case of growth or aging, then don't you think Jin or Mr. Ecko's face would have reflected even the tiniest bit of surprise at what was occuring RIGHT IN FRONT OF THEIR FACES? Unless spontaneous growth is something commonplace in Korea where Jin comes from. OMG dp are we watching the same show??!!?? I refroze the freeze frames and let me tell you.. it is so obvious! Both Jin and Mr. Eco are in the invisible no reaction zone! It's right there - right in front of our eyes (and ears) and their faces - as they watch the incredibly growing little others bloom they're simply in the zone.
Hey... Maybe that's what happened to Hurley. Since he knows Korean (unknowingly), it's not far-fetched that the reason he is so big is that the last time he was in Korea, he grew from a small person to a big person in the span of a second. And because of this massive growth spurt, it messed with his memory and he forgot that he knew how to speak Korean, but fortunately, in his dream, he remembers he can speak Korean, because there's obviously no possible way someone can dream they speak a foreign language unless they actually CAN speak that foreign language...

Like wow, I was just about to post a thread about this. I also think there's a subliminal message being broadcast throughout the island and it has helped hurley to be fluent in korean while sleeping.

I think I'm on to something here....
Dudes... it's not an error or a conspiracy. It's just misdirection so we don't know for sure that it's a kid until they are ready to reveal it to us. They've hinted that it's a kid, but showed the taller person from the other angle so we couldn't be sure. "You guys are going to freeze-frame this stuff? Well, chew on THIS for a while... (evil laugh)"
And after it's revealed that there's no such thing as instantaneous spontaneous puffer-fish Other growth, I'm going to go back through this thread and collect all the names of those that were supportive of this theory and create a thread just for the purpose of laughing at you. OMG you think we may have been tricked? how could they do this to us? i expect more and if things don't go exactly how i want i will stop watching this show and then they'll be really sorry. how dare they play with me like that. i spend an entire hour - well 42 minutes or so - each week watching their show and they can't cater to me? i'm thinking maybe i should write a petition.
(giggle)... bwah HA HAAAAA!!!! ALL WILL KNEEL BEFORE DARK PIRANHA... BWAH! (clears throat...) Sorry about that... ehem.
Now why don't you guys get on board with a legitimate crackpot theory, like nano-bots, or Nazis, or aliens in a ship trapped under the island?
Did I mention that the aliens control the invisible no reaction zone? They live right under where the action is and they are in control, and resistance is futile as is any hope of reactions when the unbelievable is happening.

:lipsseal:

The whole sequence is weird - repeated shots, changing pants, etc. Looks like dirty feet to me, especially since they're walking so quietly. People say there's no reaction, but Jin looked like he was either 1) surprised at something or 2) recognized someone. I'm curious as to who this group of Others turn out to be. Seems there are different pockets of Others on the island who may or may not be connected to one another. There is still so much we don't know yet.

I watched this again, and it looked to me as though he/she "grew" also... the bear didn't seem as close to the ground, and the pants seemed higher up the leg...

THE FACTS:
The writers wanted to give us a partial peek at the Others, just enough to heighten the mystery. We don't know for sure how many there are, who they are, if they are male or female, or their ages.
They wanted us to know this much. There are several. They walk barefoot. Their pants are worn out and ratty. They are dirty.
They obviously dont want us to see their hands for some reason. The hands should have been visible, but none were shown. So their hands must be either in use, bound up, or they walk like zombies with them out in front. (Another joke! Please don't take this comment seriously!)

THE CLUE:
They wanted to clue us in that the last in line is a smaller child. As the group passes, we view the knee to ankle section of each one. Knee to ankle, knee to ankle.....then, the last one, butt to ankle. Just in case we didn't catch that the last one was small, they throw in a bear on a rope, (can't show the hands) and the super baggy pants, just to make it obvious.

THE MYSTERY:
Now, I was the one to suggest that they used a stand-in for the second glimpse of tinyO, so we wouldn't see too much of him/her in the wider shot. But why the second shot anyway? They set the whole thing up so nicely to show that the last one was little. Why negate the whole scene by showing him/her taller with skin-tight short pants? They could have ended after the first shot of TinyO, or they could have stretched the viewing a bit longer. But they use a different person to hold the bear, and erase everything they just told us about that character.


THE FRUSTRATION:
I dont have an answer for this. I am just saying, it still makes no sense. It's like the writers layed out a nice clue and then jerked it away.

I see dirty feet.

Haven't we had show insiders say, on this board, that we shouldn't nitpick little mistakes and stuff in this show? We should be focused on the bigger picture? He said that comment referring to Desmond's bunker changing, but I think it can apply here as well.

Well it sure would save us alot of time and energy if the show insiders created a thread as to mistakes made while filming. Then we could fucus in the thousands of other things we need to talk about. LOL

I'm utterly stunned that this can possibly be considered a viable theory.

I'm with you piranha, this idea of the Others growing is a little more then I'm willing to accept.

Dudes... it's not an error or a conspiracy. It's just misdirection so we don't know for sure that it's a kid until they are ready to reveal it to us. They've hinted that it's a kid, but showed the taller person from the other angle so we couldn't be sure. "You guys are going to freeze-frame this stuff? Well, chew on THIS for a while... (evil laugh)"

Misdirection........hmmmmmm, that sounds like a good plot device. Probably wouldn't be the first time....

DarkPiranha, LostPack....


Bahahahaha


Thanks! =)

Dudes... it's not an error or a conspiracy. It's just misdirection so we don't know for sure.


Misdirection........hmmmmmm, that sounds like a good plot device. Probably wouldn't be the first time....


*raising hand*
I agree with that notion, for sure.

Welcome to the Fuselage Lija! You are welcome to jump in anywhere!

Thanks, MPmom.

I also only see dirty feet, althoug it does look like different pants to me.

I see dirty feet belonging to numerous children who were/are probably all given the same teddy bear upon entering the "program."...whatever that means. Pretty thin, I know, but I'm on meds recovering from surgery so I might be a little out of it.

I dont know if its because i'm young or anything but the first time I watched this it totally freaked me out even thought it is a bunch of skinny looking people walking with a bear lol ...


I have no theories abour the pants .. im totally confused.

But for people who said about embracing the teddybear in his/her arms is for a much younger person but people of that age like to tie things to string to imagine its walking behind us to feel that the toy has some indipenance. Its like if the toy was actually real would you be embracing it in your arms constantly?

If the toy was some kind of trophy?
spoils of war it might explain it tied to the persons side in such a way.

The teddy bear could be the bear that Walt gave a little girl on the plane when the turbulenc started. I know a couple people have asked about the bear on this thread.

I think I am the only person on this board that doesnt think any of the "others" shown in this episode were kids. They aren't old, but none of them appear to be anywhere near that young.

I found screencaps on Lost-media.
Hope this works!

First view of Other with bear - long pants, can't see the feet in this cap:
http://www.freeimagehosting.net/7cb419e906.jpg

After he/she passes - now with shoes, long legs and short pants:
http://www.freeimagehosting.net/9f14ae8d8f.jpg

Another:
http://www.freeimagehosting.net/290a026313.jpg

If we compare, side by side, the fist and third pix you've listed above, we can clearly see that the pants are shorter and the legs are longer simply by where the bear hangs on each. The first clearly shows that there is much more pant below the feet of the bear and the third pix shows there is much more leg below the bear.

Looks like 2 diff people but same bear to me.

I'm judging the location of the knee by being several inches below the teddy bear's armpit. In the "short pants" image you can see that clearly. The knee lines up with the bear's mid section. In the "long pants" draw an implied horizontal level line from the teddy bear's armpit out to the right where the leg is and several inches below that spot would be the knee. When I do that It becomes clear to me that the distance from the bottom of the pants to the knee does not really change. It's the same actor, same pants. Also on the long pants shot, worn-out pants will show a crimp above the knee when the leg is straightened.

Please dear mercy.... please Lost, please air a new episode so we can stop discussing this topic! Make it come to an end! GAH!




(and yes, I know I can stop reading the thread if it bothers me so much, yada yada yada... tough... I'm going to make whatever comments I want, so there.)

The person with the bear isn't a child by any means. Their thigh is 16-18" long, I imagine them to be 5'8"-5'10".