Comments on: Proof the Man In Black is NOT Smokey. http://www.theoriesonlost.com/2009/05/proof-the-man-in-black-is-not-smokey/ A place to write and read Lost Theories Thu, 17 May 2012 19:43:17 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: found74 http://www.theoriesonlost.com/2009/05/proof-the-man-in-black-is-not-smokey/#comment-17311 found74 Fri, 29 May 2009 22:59:40 +0000 http://www.theoriesonlost.com/?p=5276#comment-17311 Remember in Left Behind, we saw the smoke monster as three parts that combine to be one. So it is possible that, if "Locke" is now the smoke monster, that Smokey can be in three places at once! Remember in Left Behind, we saw the smoke monster as three parts that combine to be one. So it is possible that, if “Locke” is now the smoke monster, that Smokey can be in three places at once!

]]> By: ilieintheshadowofthestatue http://www.theoriesonlost.com/2009/05/proof-the-man-in-black-is-not-smokey/#comment-16769 ilieintheshadowofthestatue Sun, 24 May 2009 17:40:08 +0000 http://www.theoriesonlost.com/?p=5276#comment-16769 The fact that "Locke" looked surprised when Ben told him about "Alex" doesn't prove anything. Of course "Locke" is able to act looking surprised whenever he wants to. The fact that “Locke” looked surprised when Ben told him about “Alex” doesn’t prove anything. Of course “Locke” is able to act looking surprised whenever he wants to.

]]> By: Chris63084 http://www.theoriesonlost.com/2009/05/proof-the-man-in-black-is-not-smokey/#comment-16754 Chris63084 Sun, 24 May 2009 10:46:05 +0000 http://www.theoriesonlost.com/?p=5276#comment-16754 The title of this says there is proof, but I don't see anything near proof here. Only speculation. I still think that the chain of events points to them either being the same, or at least mib being in control of the smoke monster. The idea that the man was captive in the cabin is possible, but not definite. The title of this says there is proof, but I don’t see anything near proof here. Only speculation. I still think that the chain of events points to them either being the same, or at least mib being in control of the smoke monster. The idea that the man was captive in the cabin is possible, but not definite.

]]> By: BoboFatt http://www.theoriesonlost.com/2009/05/proof-the-man-in-black-is-not-smokey/#comment-16726 BoboFatt Sat, 23 May 2009 13:51:32 +0000 http://www.theoriesonlost.com/?p=5276#comment-16726 I also agree...more proof...If we accept, and most of us do, that the man in black was held captive in the cabin ("help me") and not "set free" until some time in season 3, then how in the world was smokey puffing around for the first 2 seasons? Also when hurly stumbled upon the cabin, there were 2 people in their. "christian" and the eye. Smoky is the man in black are 2 differnt things. I also agree…more proof…If we accept, and most of us do, that the man in black was held captive in the cabin (“help me”) and not “set free” until some time in season 3, then how in the world was smokey puffing around for the first 2 seasons? Also when hurly stumbled upon the cabin, there were 2 people in their. “christian” and the eye. Smoky is the man in black are 2 differnt things.

]]> By: maureensd http://www.theoriesonlost.com/2009/05/proof-the-man-in-black-is-not-smokey/#comment-16718 maureensd Sat, 23 May 2009 08:35:03 +0000 http://www.theoriesonlost.com/?p=5276#comment-16718 i see where you're coming from - but john was not in the temple when ben was being judged. smokey only appeared AFTER locke left ben to himself. i see where you’re coming from – but john was not in the temple when ben was being judged. smokey only appeared AFTER locke left ben to himself.

]]> By: Damon Cuse http://www.theoriesonlost.com/2009/05/proof-the-man-in-black-is-not-smokey/#comment-16713 Damon Cuse Sat, 23 May 2009 06:07:16 +0000 http://www.theoriesonlost.com/?p=5276#comment-16713 You and I are of the same mind my friend. I have two additions to support your thoughts. 1) When Ben explains the circumstances of his judgment with Smokey and his daughter, UnLocke seems surprised at the outcome. In fact he states that it will now be easier to convince Ben to kill Jacob. If UnLocke is a manifestation of Smokey. What Smokey told Ben would not come as news. 2) We have yet to see any of the manifestations of Smokey eat anything. i believe the scene where UnLocke is given a mango by Ilana is significant. I believe she had already seen his body in the coffin and offered him a mango to see if he could eat it. It's just like the story of Thomas the Apostle (which was explained by Ben just a few episode ago in 316). When Christ appeared to the 10 Apostles (Thomas was not present and Judas was dead) he ate a fish and honeycomb to prove he was not a ghost. UnLocke's devouring (watch it ago, that's what it was) of the mango proves he is flesh and blood. In my opinion, not a mere manifestation. Great post PMO! You and I are of the same mind my friend. I have two additions to support your thoughts.

1) When Ben explains the circumstances of his judgment with Smokey and his daughter, UnLocke seems surprised at the outcome. In fact he states that it will now be easier to convince Ben to kill Jacob. If UnLocke is a manifestation of Smokey. What Smokey told Ben would not come as news.

2) We have yet to see any of the manifestations of Smokey eat anything. i believe the scene where UnLocke is given a mango by Ilana is significant. I believe she had already seen his body in the coffin and offered him a mango to see if he could eat it. It’s just like the story of Thomas the Apostle (which was explained by Ben just a few episode ago in 316). When Christ appeared to the 10 Apostles (Thomas was not present and Judas was dead) he ate a fish and honeycomb to prove he was not a ghost. UnLocke’s devouring (watch it ago, that’s what it was) of the mango proves he is flesh and blood. In my opinion, not a mere manifestation.

Great post PMO!

]]>