On saturday night I when I watched the ep, on the part where they open the airlock and the doctor goes out alone, Clara has a slightly destorted image of what's going on though the TARDIS console screen. On that scene I was sure I saw, if only for a second, two invisible figures standing/floating in front of the doctor, only noticeable they were there at all from the fact they were wearing clothes.

All week I've not seen any mention of this on here, and people saying the only potential glimpse we got of the creature was in the bedroom scene so I've just checked it on i player to make sure I wasn't imagining things, and it still looks the same to me. For just a second their seems to be an image of the doctor standing their with two invisible figures in front of him. Some people may say 'it was the air pressure flinging clothes around' but that wasn't happening until the next scene. At this point I'm talking about the doctor is standing there perfectly fine and these clothes look ordered as if there is something in them standing in front of the doctor.

The moment I am referring to is at 37:11 on i player if people want to see what they think for themselves. Personally, i'm convinced it was another cheeky scene added to cast further confusion on whether their actually was a creature.

I have just checked the bbc3 repeat I recorded and cannot see anything. Are you sure its not just the clothes that are hung up?

I checked it on i player first, just to be sure of what i though I saw. They are clearly there in front of the airlock floating. Whether it's significant people can decide for themselves, but there wouldn't suddenly be clothes hung up in a place blocking the airlock.

You're crazy.

(I'll now have to check this on rewatch!)

It's very quick, that's why I noted the time on i player, so people could have a look without missing the part I mean. it's on screen for about a second. My eye just happened to catch it on saturday

I'm amazed it took 4 posts and 20 minutes before anyone said it!
I think I agree with Michael though. I've watched that episode 3 times now and never noticed anything. I'll look again though.
The only hint of a monster is when the bedspread falls off the creature behind Rupert, the Doctor and Clara. There is definitely something inhuman about what is very briefly revealed, but it could just as easily be a boy in a mask. I like the ambiguity though. We don't always need to know everything do we?

But it's the kind of thing that's so subtle that if it didnt catch your eye first time then you could probably watch the ep 10 times without noticing it unless it's pointed out. It's like when they do those movie mistakes shows. They can show a blooper or continuity error in a film you've seen many times but never noticed that error until the show points it out.

The fact that people say they haven't seen anything kind of makes me think that people haven't even noticed the scene at all, let alone be able to judge whether it's something or nothing. Not surprising though, because I'm sure if it is there on purpose it's almost meant to be subliminal and add to the psychology of the episode because it is so brief.

Exactly where would the fun be in that? It's the philosophy the Doctor uses.

As for the supposed people OP they look to me as if they are just the cloths that were hanging which is what I initially thought anyway (and yes I looked) I will give you that the one on the right does look as if it could be a woman but I think its safe to say that it was a dress and the "legs" were just the arm straps dangling, now what a dress was doing in the laundry when he's supposed to be alone is a different matter all together but I think you're reading too much into it.

I'm not looking for a definitive answer. happy with the ambiguity. Just more no-one seemed to notice the clothes at all, and I think it is an interesting scene because it add's to that ambiguity. You can see it as just clothes hanging up, whereas I can see it as potentially the creatures if they existed as I find it a little strange clothes would be hanging up in front of an airlock.

My main point was that no one seemed to notice what seems to me to be another purposely done scene to add to the layers of ambiguity that were already present within the episode

How Orson dresses is a life choice and good luck to him.

Ok, take a look at 29:10 on i-player and then tell me that there is still this ambiguity you are talking about. Nothing strange or mysterious that really requires any ambiguity in this particular case as that is exactly what happened he hung his clothes in front of the airlock. The jumper on the right even looks as if it is the "woman" on the right in the later scene when you take into account camera angle and distance. I'm not saying that there weren't other ambiguities in the episode that have been missed but this one I think its safe to rule out.

Just looked and it;s just clothes hanging up and blowing slightly in the breeze (the Doctors coat is as well).


It does seem to be a continuity error though as the clothes don't seem to be there in the real world just on the TARDIS scanner.


It could be the clothes aren't actually hanging in front of the airlock but just look like they are from the angle of the TARDIS camera.

Strangely enough the next time Clara looks at the scanner the image is from a different angle as we see the Doctor being pulled towards the airlock.

Now that's something I didn't notice *skulks away blushing slightly* .

P.s is a bit weird that Orson has womans clothes though, I think that's what added to me thinking they weren't already there.

30.35 is another point you can see them clearly.


There are some points the clothes don't seem to be there (we shouldn't be able to see the writing on the door with the clothes hanging there but we can) or are hanging up higher than in other scenes (the Doctor walks underneath them at one point when others show them hanging lower than his head) though but like I said just a continuity error.

I noticed it during the episode when I first watched it, questioned it, but remembered the hanging clothes and decided it was that, not monsters. But I'll take a closer look when I rewatch it soon...

Looking at the whole scene all the way through the Doctor actually takes a step down off a raised central area when walking towards the airlock which explains why he can walk under the clothes when earlier scenes (when he was standing on the raised bit) showed them hanging down below his head.

He doesn't appear to, I just assumed that the shadowy figure was a dress based on the shape but as it happens when I looked it is just a jumper and not a dress.

Watched again this morning. Couldn't spot anything.

Just had a look.

Just after Orson says "stay here" and before the scanner picture breaks up for the first time, something moves from right to left, and it looks more substantial and less clothing-like than on the next few occasions we see the scanner from Claras pov - it also looks more like someone (something) walking than when we later see Orson's laundry flapping about, and seems to be movingand isn't the whareveritis against the airflow.

All this from three frames!

It could be Orson (but it seems a little soon for him to have got there) and isn' t it going the wrong way?

It might be sowing the seeds for a shock revelation. Or a wholly predictable revelation. Or it might be nothing at all - remember Rory's id card issued in 1990?

Moffat has said that something from that series is going to be explained this year - and we just had a plot opening into the 1990's - so don't write the ID card off just yet.

Seriously - someone may say "the green coat means something" today and be laughed at - or worse - for doing so but they are not WRONG until the very last episode EVER is broadcast and there are no more books or audio adventures. Fact is, absolutely anything can end-up being referred back to - whether than was the original intention or not. The ID card was so widely commented on that it's almost unthinkable that the DW team aren;t aware of the subject - so it won't be that surprising if one of the writers was inspired by that simple thing to create a line or even an entire plot around it.

Never apologise for speculating or be too afraid to say "I think I spotted something interesting". The people here who are abusive towards other members who posts ideas and observations are the ones who should be gagged, not the ones just wanting to chat to other DW fans.

Surely that's the 'mummy on the orient express' that he's only just got to despite saying he was on his way at the end of the series 5 finale ( if I remember correctly). Also ties in with Moffat's pre series comment that the doctor would be 'catching up on his phone calls'

Maybe - but I always keep an open mind and as I just wrote, there's nothing to actually PREVENT Rory's ID being "explained" at any time in the future - mainly cos it's just a TV show and all it takes is a writer to think of a few words and there you go.

I wasn't saying that mention of it MUST appear this year or any other - I'm saying that it's ridiculous in the extreme for anyone to act as though they KNOW that it will NEVER be mentioned. (Hell - in the last few years we've had frequent mention of minor elements from episode decades ago - so it's hardly rocket salad to say that someone may mention that - even if only as a joke)

Oh, of course, wasn't dismissing the possibility, I'm not one of those naysayers who tries to make people feel bad for having an idea. Every theory should be considered and as you say there's no dismissing any possibilities really (although people often try hard on here if you suggest a theory they dislike). Was Just saying what I thought those particular comments were in reference too.

Even the people who say even new female character will turn out to be the rani will probably be right some day

Hope you didn't think I was including you in that (If I thought you were one of the forum nazis I'd not have bothered typing more than two words in reply - no prizes for guessing which two)

Personal feelings and all that but I couldn't care either way about seeing the Rani. She never offered that much for my taste and seemed too much like the Master in a frock - panto villain and very little beyond meaning looks to camera BUT she's clearly loved by a lot of others and a strong female villain is never wasted. Trouble is, we've had some brilliant female villains in recent years - so much so that I'm not sure we "need" the Rani in the way we did back then. If someone wants to write a good story that needs her and they cast the right actress in the role - go for it.

In terms of "Rani spotting" - if someone says "I think it's the Rani because..." and lists something more than "it's a woman" to support the idea, that's great - makes for good reading and discussion whether I agree with their reasoning or not. And if someone DOES do the "Must be the Rani cos she's wearing shoes" level of "reasoning", I just look for a post or thread that better suits me.

The bottom line is - Rory's badge was not right. Regardless of the reason for that, people spotted it and hats off to them. It's something that may or may not be embraced by a DW writer at some point and if a few people want to speculate on that on an internet forum devoted to this show, I see absolutely no justification for anyone to ever subject them to abuse or ridicule.

I have to say, one of my suspicions is that little anomalies and scenes get dropped in either with the intention of becoming a pointer to a future story, but that story gets dropped or revised so drastically that the "hint" is no longer relevant. Or it's introduced without any clear story in mind, but as something to be used once someone thinks of a way to fit it in, but nobody manages to think of a way to do so.

Does speculation have to go into spoiler tags? Oh well, just to be on the safe side.