The following, included with John P.'s entry of Dec. 1, 2007, is his response to Robert Goodman's “Get” Lost entry #9:
Conspiracy theories are bound, and perhaps too often defined, by two fallacious pillars. The first, usually favored by establishment personnel, is that if I can spot the conspiracy or any part of it then the conpiracy has failed and cannot be valid. “If conspiracy doth succeed, then none dare call it conspiracy.” — Gary Allen. The second, usually invoked by the theorists themselves, is that if anyone should spot a flaw in the theory then it is because the omniscient masters have put it there to further confound the searchers.
Would the nonbelievers have me think that if I should be “stupid” enough to spot a mysterious anomaly that I should be “smart” enough not to mention it? How much are they paying? If the believers are smart enough to postulate conspirators as omniscient enough to thwart them at every turn, then what makes them believe themselves capable of spotting any flaw in the master plan? Who's paying them? These two fallacies are boundary layers not to be entered by anyone wishing to unravel the mystery. Conspiracies are usually worked by powerful and desperate men who with to get around any sense of social justice-work in the dark. Don't give the game away! Good advice for con men as well. Conspirators are imperfect. They make mistakes. The question is how long can they fool most of the people most of the time?
The quest then should be to discriminate between valid clues and false clues — no easy task. It is not with excess flights of fancy nor a stubborn denial of imagination that the riddle will be solved. Only by assembling clues into an operational or at least partially operational [?] of the conspiracy can we begin to make progress. The key is to constantly compare new information against previous assumptions. Do things fit? How do you assemble a jigsaw puzzle?
I choose to comment on Robert's “Get” Lost at this time because there is time and because he shows a much better level of organization of his information than in previous exposés. He makes many observations of anomalies and parallels in actions of characters. The season/episode numbering was a good idea. After his chronology he has an intriguing list of the use of doubles. Good work!
It is after that when he starts to lose objectivity and rather impatiently fall back on THE MASTER PLAN that he gets fuzzy again (again as in previous “Get” Lost entries). He tried much earlier to follow one or two characters (Kate & Walt especially) with the goal of making them the key insider/infiltrator. His taks failed so now he shifts to multi-conspiratorial players, each with his own hidden agenda so as to disguise the previous errors. Making a conspiracy so complex and convoluted is not in the producers' interest.
The use of obscure analogies to entertainment history is also not helping his attempts at explanation. McGuffin? WMCA/WABC? Smallville? etc. confuse more than they clarify.
He's going to have to clean up his own mess if he hopes to solve the puzzle. However I suspect that if he would choose this task he will not only clarify his errors but begin a completely new plot never intended by the producers. What use are doubles of the major players? Are each of the halves of the double known to each other? What possible use could they have to the “Island Powers” — those who supply? Explanations should create coherence, not hide it.