sebitron asked: Just wanted to comment on the aerogel question, from some quick research it looks like this would be a highly unlikely solution because it's incredibly expensive (several places sell small sample disks for $30) so anything large enough to actually break Sherlock's fall would be prohibitively expensive. Also, regardless of cost, aerogel is a brittle substance, even if it's strong, so the impact of a falling body would cause it to shatter.
Some kinds of aerogel aren’t brittle, but still. I just don’t think that’s what we’re dealing with here.
It’s great for catching space dust, though. So somewhere maybe there’s a little space dust Sherlock and John and Jim…
Anonymous asked:
You’ve already confirmed that the binary code was nonsense. Could you *please* stop the absurdity that is this: bakerstreetconfessionsDOTtumblrDOTcom/post/18737768724 You’ve already nipped the “sos” debacle in the bud and this is just as frustrating…if not moreso!
Hmm. After this post and this post, I’m running out of ways to explain that the supposed “binary code” Jim tapped was nonsense that doesn’t translate to anything.
But I guess I can think of one more way to try proving Jim didn’t tap “there is no key” to anyone who’s still confused. Let’s give it a shot.
Step 1: Look at the screenshot above. Those are the first few digits of “binary code” Jim tapped out when he was in 221B. (Check at about 1 hour and 10 minutes into Reichenbach if you’d like to confirm this.)
Step 2: Go to a binary translator such as this one.
Step 3: Use the translator to convert the text “there is no key” (or “THERE IS NO KEY” or “There is no key” or all three) into binary code.
Step 4: Compare the first few digits of the translated binary with the first few digits in the screenshot above. They won’t match, because Jim didn’t tap out that or any other message.
Anonymous asked: I don't have time to research and calculate this myself, but can aerogel be used to soften a fall? I don't know how hard it is but it's some kind of clear substance.
…are you assigning me science homework?
If so, as much as I love science-ing, I respectfully decline.
Even without doing a bunch of research and math, I can say I don’t think aerogel is very likely as a solution. Here’s the usual three reasons thing, though there are more:
- Clear is not the same as invisible.
- I don’t see how that fits into the idea of “fair clues” at all.
- Any explanation of how Sherlock could have quickly acquired sufficient quantities of aerogel to involve it in his plan in any way would surely be complex enough to raise questions of why he didn’t use those same resources to make simpler and safer arrangements.
dancingsoot asked: I was rewatching ASiB, and something dawned on me. It is a coincidence that both Irene and Sherlock disguise their deaths as head injuries?
I don’t know if I’d even say Sherlock disguised his death as a head injury, exactly… It was more like a jumping off of a building injury that involved a head injury.
Irene did the head injury thing so the corpse couldn’t be easily identified as not-her, but Sherlock had a different goal. He wanted John to see and recognize him. So yes, I think any connection there is coincidence.
howtoquityou asked: Did a quick scan of your lists (brilliant, by the way, absolutely brilliant) and not sure if I missed it, but do you have anything to do with the question of why Sherlock was bouncing a rubber ball when John came to visit him the morning of the Fall? Maybe it's a hint (something stuffed under Sherlock's coat to cushion him from the impact - wouldn't be surprised if Mycroft had access to the technology)?
I think the rubber ball is a much more literal clue than that—Sherlock used it to temporarily stop his pulse. See this post, this post, and this post for a more detailed explanation.
Anonymous asked: Don't you know? The spray paint is how Sherlock survived Reichenbach.
DUDE. NOT COOL.
The first rule of Spray Paint Jetpack Club is: You do not talk about Spray Paint Jetpack Club.
Anonymous asked:
Probably Nothing to Do With Reichenbach: The yellow spray paint from the Blind Baker episode came up a couple times afterwards, in both the Great Game and a Scandal in Belgravia. Do you think this is of any significance, or will be in later episodes? Maybe Sherlock will leave a message to John before he returns?
The yellow spray paint from The Blind Banker was used to paint the smiley face on the wall of 221B in The Great Game.
It took me a minute to figure out what you meant about its reappearance in Scandal, though. Unless I completely missed something, I’m assuming you’re talking about when Sherlock hit the CIA agent in the eyes with cleaning fluid? That was like what Sherlock did with the spray paint at the circus.
I know the yellow spray paint has become a thing in fan culture, especially the #believeinsherlock movement. I also know that some people would love to see that reflected in Series 3.
All the same, I can’t say that I see two uses of the spray paint in Series 1 and a similar use of spray cleaner in Series 2 as being predictive that the spray paint will reappear. And even if they were to find a way to work the spray paint in again, I still don’t think I’d consider the spray cleaner incident a clue. It’s just too different.
Anonymous asked:
RE: the I.O.U thing, I’m not sure if you’ve said it but I understood it that they were threats for each of Sherlock’s three friends - the apple in the flat = John, the office = Lestrade, and the winged one on Baker Street = Mrs Hudson. Don’t know if you agree? Love the blog by the way.
a-scandal-in-spain asked:
Verityburns has written in a fic of hers that the three IOUs are meant to be the three victims: the one in Scotland Yard is obviously Lestrade. The apple was in 221B, that means John. And the one opposite 221B is for Mrs. Hudson. It’s a pretty neat headcanon if you ask me!
While I do get the appeal of this idea as headcanon or as a useful plot point for fanfic, I can’t say I think that was the writer of the episode’s actual intent.
For example, let’s consider the idea that the winged graffiti I.O.U. was for Mrs. Hudson. Why for her? Because she lives on Baker Street? Well, so do Sherlock and John. What makes that message particularly about her? In fact, isn’t it least likely to be about her since of Sherlock, John, Mrs. Hudson, and Lestrade, she’s the only one who wasn’t out on the street with that I.O.U.?
And yeah, you could reassign the apple to Mrs. Hudson and the graffiti to John. But the very fact that you can do that shows that the connections between I.O.U.s and characters weren’t particularly solid to begin with.
The I.O.U. messages were for and about Sherlock. They were “following” Sherlock around. The fact that the I.O.U.s happened to be near Sherlock’s targeted friends was because Sherlock only goes to three places on a regular basis, and those are the places his friends are as well.
And there were three I.O.U.s and three targeted friends just because that episode had three of freakin’ everything.
Which maybe gives another way to approach this idea—there were also three fairy tale clues. The breadcrumbs, the Grimm book, and the gingerbread man. You could say those three things are even more directly connected with John, Mrs. Hudson, and Lestrade—John found the breadcrumbs, the police (Lestrade) found the book, and Mrs. Hudson accepted delivery of the gingerbread man. But do we assume that was a message about which of Sherlock’s friends would be targeted? Because it isn’t as sexy as the I.O.U.s, it seems like everyone’s cool with the idea that those were simply clues for Sherlock that coincidentally got to him via his friends because his friends are naturally going to be around him. (And from an out-of-universe perspective, because it allowed the writer to control the timing of the clue deliveries.)
Of course, by mentioning this at all I’ve probably kicked off a theory about the fairy tale clues and Sherlock’s friends in someone’s mind. Oops. Well, enjoy the headcanon if so, because I’m pretty sure that’s all it will ever be. Not that there’s anything wrong with some entertaining headcanon.
Anonymous asked: What do you mean when you say "unless they troll-edit?" (when talking about Reichenbach cuts) - how would that work? :s (sorry, I'm a little slow today...)
I don’t know precisely how it would work—that’s what would make it trolly.
But let’s just say if they do something crazy—for example, edit out the Molly scenes—I’m not going to immediately turn around and say, “Well, that obviously didn’t matter, then.” (So it’s clear, I don’t actually think this scenario is at all likely.)
doubleadrivel asked: Isn't it obvious? He's installing a plot hole!
WE HAVE A WINNER.
Everyone else go home.
Please remember that if you submit a post for inclusion in the list, you need to tag it #Reichenbach A to Z as well. (That lets me know you actually submitted your own post.)
Anonymous asked: Are you still taking Reichenbach theories? Do you mind helping me with something that's been niggling my mind?
This is a personal blog, so I don’t accept submissions in general. The exception is Reichenbach A to Z theories (ones that walk through Sherlock’s survival trick from beginning to end), which you can submit for inclusion in the master list here.
If anyone’s got a great Sherlock theory they want to spread the word about, I highly recommend checking out this list of theory blogs. Some of them are actively looking for submissions right now.
If you’ve got a question about some kind of theory-related issue, you can go right ahead and send that to me. Just understand that, as I explain on my About page, it might be quite a while before I post your question. (And I don’t mean “a while” as in tomorrow, I mean “a while” as in weeks or months. There’s a longer post about my current inbox status coming soon, but I keep getting so many questions that I’m having trouble finding time to answer questions about questions on top of everything else.)
If you want help working out a theory and don’t want to wait on me, consider checking out something like that new Sherlock forum I posted about earlier today. I’m really nothing special—I bet lots of other people can be just as helpful!
thebaconsandwichofregret asked: I thought you'd like to know that your theories have inspired one of my Sherlock fanfics. It was only after I looked back over your site that I realised that I was basing it on your version of events
Oh, neat!
If anyone wants to play with any theories I’ve posted here—serious, crack, or otherwise—in fanfic, please feel free.
I don’t write fic, so I’m certainly not using them for anything in that arena.
Anonymous asked:
Ooh! Since Moffat-people are making the edits for Reichenbach, you might be able to whittle/refine some theories down.
Indeed! (Again, unless they find some way to troll-edit.)
And on that note, I think we should have a betting pool for what they’ll cut out of Reichenbach for the U.S. edit. (There will be nothing to win or lose but pride, but I’m calling it a betting pool anyway.)
If you want in, respond to this post with what you think Hartswood will cut from The Reichenbach Fall to make it fit the allotted PBS timeslot. Extra points for being the first to suggest a part that actually gets cut, or for being the one to describe the edit with the most exact detail.
So everyone is working with the same information, here’s a list of what got cut from Scandal for the PBS airing (check the notes for added detail).
So, Sherlockians, what’s gonna get cut?
