Sherlock Holmes wrote:

But but but...they can't leave it like that. They have to actually tell us at some point. It would be a really big cop out and a cheat if they didn't.

I totally agree. I don't even want the explanation to be complicated or absurdly clever, I'd be totally happy if the explanation Sherlock gives to Anderson is indeed THE explanation. But I really want it to be crystal-clear what the explanation really is.
I'm pretty sure the first two explanations presented in the episode are utter nonsense - and I love they way in which they were presented, don't get me wrong. But they are just... out of the question.
So, they have to give us a definite answer. Anything else would be a huge disappointment for me.

To be honest, I was initially under the impression that the whole thing was a hallucination what with Sherlock's dissapearance being so... sudden. I'm still not for sure. But is anyone, really? I just hope Anderson doesn't completely lose it.

I think he was telling the truth to Anderson, because I can't see any reason why he would lie to him.  Sherlock has said that he likes showing off.  I liked how he had come up with many contingency plans and had code names for them all.  I felt like that was the 'elegant' part of it.

Last edited by sj4iy (January 2, 2014 6:30 am)

until  (if) he actually  ever explains it to John, we may not get the whole picture.
but then, John is more interested in the why , not the how.

I think the theory Sherlock presented to Anderson is another wrong theory.
The blue airbag is silly and ridiculous. Mofftiss said that the clues were there. But no clue that hints towards a blue airbag. That would be cheating like pulling a rabbit out of a stovepipe hat.  And if I understood correctly (which was not always possible because Sherlock talked much too fast) he said he didn't know that Moriarty was suicidal. That's a lie. And we are still missing the important answer to the question: What are they talking about on the roof? The whole construction needs an explanation. What happend eye-to-eye in the last moment and what triggered Moriarty to kill himself? In one moment Sherlock got the upper hand and nothing about all this is explained (yet). This beautiful scene on the roof between them needs an explanation.
Why would Sherlock tell Anderson of all people?
 

I don´t understand why so many are still doubting - I am sure the explanation to Anderson was the right one! At least it works perfectly with my theories . Whether it was Anderson fantasizing again and finally getting it right or not, doesn´t matter. Moffat/Gatiss play the whole episode with the expectations of the fans (and destroy them or show them even as utter nonsense ), so of course they won´t have a sentimental explanation to John (like everybody has more or less expected). They do it this way, funny, a bit mysterious, elegant. Everything fits, is simple and clever, and of course, as Sherlock says, also a bit disappointing after two years of theorizing. The clue, which "everybody missed" (don´t forget: that was said just some days after the first airing of TRF!), was of course that everything belonging to TRF was plannned in advance by Mycroft and Sherlock and not "just happening" to him. Also this is explained in the new episode.
I doubt that we will get more or other explanations in future, everything is said imo.

Last edited by anjaH_alias (January 2, 2014 9:40 am)

No. I don't think what Sherlock told Phillip was true. You know Sherlock. I'd think he'd always take the simplest option out. Mycroft just used his power to get rid of John's sniper? Why wouldn't he do that for the others as well? It would have saved a lot of trouble. A Sherlock corpse that was replaced by the real Sherlock? First, there was no blood on the corpse, and if Sherlock had the "window-dressing" done on him while he was lying down, he could've just started off there. And in that case, why not just use the corpse. Sherlock wouldn't overcomplicate things, would he? But wait, if he did just want it to be more complicated, Molly still wasn't a key part as the corpse wasn't needed.

In fact, I'm questioning whether that encounter was real or not. I've been trying to figure out when it happened. And it's almost impossible that it happened before Sherlock and John were with the bomb. Sherlock knew it was a plot to blow up parliament, he said so himself, by which time, he had figured most of it out. Sherlock would waste no time. So if that were the case, why would Sherlock visit Anderson of all people. So that leaves 3 possibilities as I see it:

A) It's not real

B) It took place after the events on the train

C) The scene is more important than we think

Last edited by mujie (January 2, 2014 12:55 pm)

There is another strange thing about the Anderson scene - Sherlock knows his first name whereas he mixes up Graham and Greg when meeting Lestrade. So why should he know Anderson's of all people? And why would he let Anderson film this interview? 

I also don´t think that Sherlock was really at Anderson´s flat. But I think Anderson, in his obsession, nailed it finally (like he nailed that Sherlock´s still alive, like several of the fandom more or less nailed it in their theories after some time). And this was the (funny, elegant, extraordinary) way to tell us how Sherlock survived the fall. Through the eyes of his former favourite victim, who´s confused and full of shame. Better than doing it how everybody expects it to be, e.g. through a long and maybe sentimental explanation to John.

Last edited by anjaH_alias (January 2, 2014 1:02 pm)

Swanpride wrote:

I think they did the part with the courpse mostly as an explanation why we did see "Sherlock" landing on the pavement in TRF.

And Sherlock is talking to Anderson mostly because he was the one who staged the Ripper Case. The scene in itself worked just fine. But yes, it was placed very awkwardly into the episode. Especially since it apparently happened after Sherlock solved the bomb-case.

It was placed at a time when John and maybe also Sherlock thought they had to die. Time for the truth imo.