Futility Closet - 069-Lateral Thinking Puzzles

Episode Date: August 10, 2015

Here are four new lateral thinking puzzles to test your wits! Solve along with us as we explore some strange situations using only yes-or-no questions. Puzzles 1 and 2 are from Kyle Hendrickson's 1998 book Mental Fitness Puzzles and Jed's List of Situation Puzzles. Thanks to listeners Saber and Tommy Honton for puzzles 3 and 4. Here are two corroborating links -- these spoil the puzzles, so don't click until you've listened to the episode: Puzzle #3 Puzzle #4 You can listen using the player above, download this episode directly, or subscribe on iTunes or via the RSS feed at http://feedpress.me/futilitycloset. Use this link to get video and audio lectures at up to 80 percent off the original price from The Great Courses. Please consider becoming a patron of Futility Closet -- on our Patreon page you can pledge any amount per episode, and all contributions are greatly appreciated. You can change or cancel your pledge at any time, and we've set up some rewards to help thank you for your support. You can also make a one-time donation via the Donate button in the sidebar of the Futility Closet website. Many thanks to Doug Ross for the music in this episode. If you have any questions or comments you can reach us at [e-mail]. Thanks for listening!

Hello, listeners. Here is another special episode full of lateral thinking puzzles. In lateral thinking puzzles, one person is given an unusual-sounding situation and has to try to work out what's going on, asking only yes or no questions. Sharon usually does much, much better than I do. Not always. Anyway, here's four more of them. We're away next week, but episode 70, we'll be back with that on August 24th. Happy anniversary to my mom and dad, and enjoy the puzzles.

This is from Kyle Hendrickson's 1998 book Mental Fitness Puzzles. Okay. In most states, a jury must vote unanimously in order to render a verdict of guilty. In this particular case, when the final vote was taken, one of the people in the room did not vote. However, the defendant was found guilty. How is this possible? Is the person who didn't vote not a juror? Yes. The person who didn't vote was, I don't know, the judge? No. An alternate juror? No. So somebody who wasn't on the jury didn't vote. I think I'm not understanding something here. So it has to be a unanimous vote, but the person who didn't vote for it, he didn't get a vote because he wasn't on the jury.

Right. That's not it? That is it. That is it, but there's more. There's more to it. Oh, okay. All right, let's back up. Is this in the United States? Presumably, yeah.

Does it matter where specifically? No. Does it matter when specifically? No. Okay. Does it matter what kind of a case it was? No. Is everybody involved a human being?

Yes. Not animals on trial? Pigs on trial or something? Okay, everybody's involved as a human being. Is it a regular court case with like a 12-person jury? Yes. Okay. All right.

So did the jurors all vote unanimously? Yes. But somebody else didn't vote, and I have to figure out who this somebody else is? Yes. Somebody who would have deliberated with the jurors? No. No. Somebody who would have been present in the court during the proceedings?

Yes. But not the judge? But it's not the judge? No, it's not the judge. It's not the judge. It's not the defendant. Correct. It's not one of the lawyers. That's right. It's not the plaintiff. Right.

I'm trying to think who else. The bailiff who presides over the whole thing. Somebody else who would have been in the court, though, who would have had a reason to be in the court. Yes. Somebody who would standardly be in a court for these sorts of cases. No. No. Somebody who was in the court for this particular case, but wouldn't typically be in a court. That's right. And he didn't get a vote. That's right. typically be in a court. That's right. And he didn't get a vote. That's right. Whoever he was. Was he in the court because of his profession? Yes. Because of his profession. But his profession wouldn't normally lead him to be in the court. Yes, that's correct. Is he an expert witness? No. Did he take, would you say he had some part to play in the trial itself?

Let's back up. There was a trial. Yes. Correct. Okay. Did this person have some part to play in the trial itself? I think I would say no to that. Okay.

But he was there, let's assume it's a he. He was there, is that okay to assume it's a he? Yes, sure. He was there acting under his occupation, like performing his occupation. Yes. Hmm. But he wasn't a witness. Was he somehow involved in the media covering the trial? Oh, oh, oh.

Was he like some sort of interpreter, like sign language or translating one language to another, something like that? Yes. A sign language interpreter? Yes. Is there more? Do I still have more to go? There's a little bit more, but I think you've sort of got it. So he was there. One of the jurors is deaf. Yes, that's it.

One of the jury members was deaf and required an interpreter to help him communicate. The interpreter was the one person who had no vote. Ah, okay. This comes from Jed's list of situation puzzles. Oh, good. A man tries the new cologne his wife gave him for his birthday. He goes out to get some food and is killed. Naturally.

That's the whole thing? That's the whole thing. Okay. Killed. Naturally. That's the whole thing? That's the whole thing. Okay. Man. Okay. Wife gives her husband some cologne for his birthday. Yes.

The cologne is cologne. By that, do you mean what I think you mean by cologne? Yes. And he goes out. What is he? He goes out for what reason? He goes out to get some food. Some food. Would he have been killed if he'd gone out for some other reason?

Possibly. He was killed and for some reason connected with the cologne. Yes. The cologne attracted something that killed him? No. No, not like an animal or a swarm of bees or something, perhaps. No. Ask a full question.

Did the scent of the cologne attract a living creature? One or more living creatures? No to that question. To the way that question is worded. Very careful answer. All right. He goes out to get some food. Do I need to know more about what kind of food he went out to get?

Possibly. Possibly. Was he going to a restaurant? No. To a store like a grocery store? No. To get some food? To like catch a fish? No. No. To a store like a grocery store? No. To get some food? To like catch a fish?

No. All right. Not to catch a fish. Do I need to know? You don't need to know, but... But it might be helpful. Yeah. All right. Let's look at how he died, shall we?

Okay. Was he killed by a living creature? Yes. A human being? No. An animal? Yes. Oh human being? No. An animal? Yes. Oh, there's a pause there.

A mammal? No. Do you know? Yes. One living creature? No. You killed my group of living creatures. Yes.

Because he was wearing cologne. Yes. But I think I asked if they were attracted by the cologne, and I think you said no. That is correct. That is not a correct assertion that they were attracted by the cologne, and I think you said no. That is correct. That is not a correct assertion that they were attracted by the cologne. Okay. All right. So a group of living creatures killed a man.

Yes. Do I need to know specifically how many of them there were? Were they all of the same species, the same kind of creature? Yes. And they were, would you say, provoked in some way by the cologne? That's closer. Did they mistake him for a threat? Yes.

They did because of the scent of the cologne? Yes. Do I need to know what the specific scent of the cologne was? No. Okay. But they thought he was a threat and that's why they killed him? Yes. Do I need to know where this was?

Not exactly, no. Okay. And so was he fishing? Was he hunting? No. I mean, is that when you say he was out getting food, was he trying to capture some live animal to eat? No. Okay.

So it was like he was wearing a musk cologne and that, they mistook that for a threat? Something like that? Something like that. There's more to it than this? Something vaguely like that. But I don't need to know the setting, like this was in the woods or a field or mountains or something? No, I mean, I think it would mislead you to say you need to know the setting. Okay, so he encountered some animals. Yes.

Would it help me to narrow down what exact kind of animals they were possibly yes uh did i ask you if they're mammals they're not mammals not mammals are they insects yes insects yes he was attacked is it is it bees yes he's attacked by a swarm of bees because he was wearing cologne yes that they interpreted as a threat yes oh. Oh, to get food? Was it honey that he was after? Yes, yes. Is he a beekeeper? Yes. Okay.

You're doing really well. So they thought the bees, I don't know much about bee psychology, the bees wouldn't have attacked him if you weren't wearing cologne. Correct. But because he's now today wearing cologne because his wife gave it to him.

Yes. They think he's a, what, like a bear? No. Or some kind of creature that's attacking the hive no that's not exactly it do they think he's they you say they mistake him for an animal no i didn't say that do they mistake him for an animal no they just think he's a threat yes but not an animal necessarily no right not necessarily an animal it's just the scent that confuses them yes yes well i'm not sure what i'm missing here then yeah he's wearing cologne that confuses the bees

into attacking and killing him why why does the clone do that um okay they don't think they think he's a threat do they think he's related to some other colony of bees or some other no specific do they think he's do they think he's something other than a beekeeper specifically not specifically um so they think he's a beekeeper but the cologne is confusing i'm not, yeah. Okay, let me just tell you. It's basically, they don't recognize his fragrance anymore. The hive doesn't recognize him.

Okay. Apparently they would normally recognize him. The person who added this to, who submitted it to Jed for his list of situation puzzles, said that this is based on something that actually happened to his grandfather, who was a beekeeper and was severely attacked by his bees when he used a new aftershave wow so apparently they just learn to recognize their usual beekeeper and then if you throw them off by wearing something that smells really different you could get attacked by the bees wow i didn't know that really happened yeah apparently well i i can't vouch for it i don't keep bees and i don't know bee psychology either but it makes sense this podcast is brought to you primarily by our awesome patrons who are the reason we can keep on making this show if you enjoy futility closet and would like

to help support the show please check out our patreon campaign at patreon.com slash futility closet thanks so much to everyone who helps support Futility Closet. This was sent in by a listener named Saber. It's pretty simple. A vessel is sitting at anchor on a calm lake when it suddenly capsizes. What happened? A vessel? Yeah.

A boat? Yes. A full-size boat, like boat that people could go onto? Yes. On a lake? Yes. A big body of water? Yes.

Does it matter which lake it is? Not really, no. Does it matter where the lake is more generally? Not really, no. Well, no. Does weather or climate conditions matter? No. Does it matter what kind of boat it is?

Not so as you'd need to pursue that to solve the puzzle. Okay. So a boat is at anchor on a lake, and then it suddenly capsizes. Yes. By capsizes, you mean turns upside down? Yes. And there's, you mean turns upside down? Yes. And there's no weather that caused this? That's correct.

Did somebody do something deliberately to, or a group of somebodies to make this happen? Yes. Okay. Were they attempting to capsize the boat? No. They were attempting to do something else and in that endeavor accidentally capsized the boat? That's right. Okay.

One person alone? No. A group of people working together? Yes. Working together deliberately? No. Well, ask that again. More than one person was involved?

Yes. Were they working together? Okay. Deliberately? Deliberately working together to do whatever they were trying to Okay. Deliberately. Deliberately working together to do whatever they were trying to do. I wouldn't put it that way. Okay. All right.

Does the exact number of people matter? No. Okay. Okay. So more than one person. Do their occupations matter? No. Oh.

Well. Well. Okay. I just cut off a whole fruitful line of questioning there. Do their ages or genders matter? No. Do they have any other distinguishing characteristics that would be important for me to know? I guess not.

Okay. I don't know. I wouldn't say so. I think that'd be... Should I try to work on what they were trying to do? Yes. Were they trying to do something involving the boat specifically? No.

Okay. They were trying to do something nearby the boat. They were trying to do something in an area that is near the boat. No, no. No. They were trying to do something... Were they on the lake at the time? The people.

How do you mean on the lake? On the water? No. In the water? No. On the shores of the water? No. Oh, some distance off?

No. Above the water? In a balloon or an airplane or something? No. And they're not in the boat? They are in the boat. They are in the boat? Yes. Oh, airplane or something. No. And they're not in the boat. They are in the boat. They are in the boat. Yes.

Oh, oh, oh. Okay. Okay, so a group of people are in the boat. Yes. Attempting to do something. Yes. And in that attempt, they end up capsizing the boat. Correct.

The boat is at anchor. Yes. Were they attempting to raise the anchor? No. Okay, were they attempting to do something illegal? No. No. What do you attempt to do while in a boat uh were they attempting to make the boat move in some way no um were they

doing something involving explosives no um hmm what do you attempt to do from a boat um does this involve the boat's motor in any way no uh a motor of something else no um and you said it doesn't matter what kind of boat and it doesn't matter how many people but i need to know what they were attempting to do is this an activity that people would typically tend to do in a boat? I guess I wouldn't say yes. I'd say no to that. You'd say no to that. Okay. So were they attempting to, like, make a movie or something along those lines?

No, no. Okay. Because you could do all kinds of strange things in the name of making a movie. Sure, yeah. Were they on the boat for recreational purposes? Yes. Were they attempting to do something recreational? on the boat for recreational purposes yes were they attempting to do something recreational you could say that but i'd probably lead you down on the wrong direction um um were they

were their substances involved like alcohol or drugs were they all like out of their minds or no no okay i mean possibly but possibly not they didn't need to be in order to do this. Okay. So what do you do on a boat that's not typically done on a boat, and in doing it, you end up capsizing the boat? Did this involve that they all ended up on one side of the boat at the same time? Yes. To see something? Yes. Like a whale or to see wildlife of any kind? Nope. They all ended up on one side of the boat to see something. That's right.

Another boat? No. To see something that was not on the boat. That's right. And it's not wildlife, the sunset or the sunrise. Nope. Something that would be considered natural scenery? No.

No. Something man-made? No. No. They all went to one side of the boat to look at something. And it's not animal and it's not man-made and it's not scenery. Something scary? No.

Something attractive, like beautiful like oh look at that i wouldn't quite put it that way but yes something attractive um a people or a person yes an attractive woman was sunbathing somewhere and all the men rushed to one side of the boat to see her you're very close um was it was it were the were the people on the boat all male um i actually don't know i don't oh so it's not like gender is involved here like i said like an attractive woman sunbathing okay i'm actually not certain about that um but they oh a famous person went by or nope um um does the year matter not really no um but they all they all rushed to one side of the boat to see a person or group of people yes who were doing something unusual uh i'd say so yes who they were on the lake too no they were in the air they were on the shores

yes they were on the shore they were on the shore so there was a? They were on the shores? Yes, they were on the shores. They were on the shore. So there was a group of people on the shore doing something interesting. Correct. It's not who the people were. That's right. Specifically, it's what they were doing. That's right. Did this actually happen?

Yes. Oh, this actually happened. Okay. So were they watching people make a movie? Who? The people on the boat. Were they watching people on the shore make a movie? No, no. were they watching people on the shore make a movie um were they watching was what you would say what was happening was more attractive than like alarming or that's right yes um it's not like there was a fight or a murder no no you know

something like that um um were they dancing i. So there was a group of them. Yes. Doing something interesting on the shore. Yes. And did this have to be on the shore of a lake to be done? No. It could be done anywhere. Yeah. Performing some sort of tricks or stunts or some kind of skill or feat?

No. I'm trying to think of it. Well, it's like people could do all sorts of things, and I have to guess what they were doing. I mean, was it that they were removing their clothing? Yes. Oh, oh, oh, I was closer with the sunbathing then. That's basically it. So they saw a group of nudists or something, and they all rushed. I'll just read.

This is a story from the Associated Press from May 3, 2004. Austin, Texas. Partygoers apparently hoping to catch a glimpse of nude sunbathers crowded on one side of a floating barge, prompting the ship to capsize and dump all 60 people into Lake Travis. Two people were hospitalized with minor injuries Sunday after the rented double-decker barge sank near Hippie Hollow, a lakeside park and the only public nude beach in Texas. The accident occurred during Splash Day, a semi-annual event hosted at the Clothing Optional area by the Austin Tavern Guild, a gay and lesbian bar association. Witnesses said that all of the people aboard the barge moved to one side as it neared Hippie Hollow, creating uneven distribution and making it tilt.

It sank in 50-foot-deep water. Krista Umscheid, a spokeswoman for the Lower Colorado River Authority, said that although everyone aboard was accounted for, Travis County Sheriff's divers were checking compartments of the sunken pontoon boat as a precaution, and Saber, who sent this in, says you'll be glad to know no one was hurt in this one. Everyone just swam ashore. Oh, yay. Okay, no fatalities. Yay! So there's that.

This week's episode is brought to you by our patrons and by The Great Courses, a series of engaging audio and video lectures taught by top professors and experts. They're available on DVDs and CDs or by streaming, digital downloads, or through their app, so you can have all the enjoyment of learning something new however it works best for you, at home, on your commute, or while you're working out.

One of the Great Courses' most popular courses is Fundamentals of Photography, taught by Joel Sartori, a National Geographic photographer. Almost everyone takes photos these days, but do you know how to take good photos or even great photos? This course covers all the fundamentals of taking great photos, teaching you how to use elements such as perspective, dimension, framing, and layering to create extraordinary photos in even the most mundane situations. Whether you want to take photos of landmarks or wildlife or just friends and family, this course is designed to help you see and think

like a professional photographer so you can create truly memorable photos. The Great Courses offers more than 500 courses on many topics including history, science, and philosophy as well as self-improvement subjects like cooking, music, and meditation. They're celebrating their 25th anniversary and they have a special offer for Futility Closet listeners. For a limited time, you can order

from eight of their best-selling courses, including Fundamentals of Photography, at up to 80% off the original price. This is a limited time offer, so order today. Go to thegreatcourses.com slash closet to check out this special offer for our listeners. That's thegreatcourses.com slash closet or see the link in our show notes. This one came from listener Tommy Haunton. And Tommy says, a man obtains a paid sponsorship to enter a race. He easily finishes in first place, but in doing so draws the ire of not only the other racers, but also his sponsor. What's going on? Is this true?

Did this happen? This is true. This happened. Okay. Can you read it again? A man obtains a paid sponsorship to enter a race. He easily finishes in first place, but in doing so draws the ire of not only the other racers, but also his sponsor.

Okay. By, okay. First things first. Okay. By, okay, first things first. Okay. A man, meaning a human being. A human being. A race. Let's talk about that. A race.

Is it a foot race? Yes. Oh, it is. That was easy. Are you done? Do I need to know more specifically than that, like more specifics about the race, like whether it was a marathon or a, you know, something like that?

No, I can tell you it was a marathon but okay wow this is going swimmingly it's wonderful a man obtains a paid sponsorship to enter a marathon yes he comes in first easily yes which angers the other marathon runners uh-huh and his sponsor yes okay let's talk about do i need to know let me back up are there do we need to know... Let me back up. Are there... Do I need to know specifics about what the event was? Like, this was the Boston Marathon or something? No, it doesn't matter which it was. Do I need to know when specifically it happened?

Okay, it's just a guy running a marathon. Yes. Okay. Sponsorship. I take that to mean that someone engaged to pay his expenses? Well, they paid him to enter the race. They paid him? Yes, he was paid a sum of money to enter this marathon.

With some expectation? I mean, were they... I don't know how these things normally work, I suppose. If I sponsor someone to enter a marathon, do I regard that as an investment that will pay off in some way, or am I just doing it because I want someone to be able to run? That's a yes or no question. Did someone do this just so he would be able to run in the race? No. I will say no to that question.

The sponsor, is it one person? No. Is it an organization, would you say? Yes. Like a company? No. Is it an organization, would you say? Yes. Like a company? No. Okay. Some, but not a person.

Right, not a person. And so these people... Not a person acting on behalf of a person. I mean, he may have talked to one person specifically. Yeah, okay. But it's a group of people, can we say that? Sure, sure. Who ponied up the money to give to this guy so he could enter the marathon?

Yes. And without that, he wouldn't have been able to run? No, he could have entered the marathon himself. Well, what I'm trying to get at is, did they do this just out of goodness? No. They were expecting some return of some kind? Not some return of some kind. Not some return of some kind. Well, some, they had some reason to do it.

Yes. Like, you know, sometimes people will buy advertising space on stock cars, things like that. That is true. Does it involve something like that? No. And you wouldn't say it's a company, it's a group of people. I wouldn't call it a company. Is there wagering or betting involved? No. And you wouldn't say it's a company. It's a group of people. I wouldn't call it a company.

Is there wagering or betting involved? No. Would you say that they expected him to not lose but not come in first? Yes. They expected him not to come in first? Correct. And that's why they were mad? Yes. The other racers, though, you said...

...were also mad. Yes. Were they just mad because he beat them? Not just because he beat them, no. So there was more than that. It wasn't just that he came in first in the race. Did they feel that he had cheated? No.

Did they feel that he'd had some unfair advantage? No. So they didn't feel that the win was illegitimate in any way? They thought he'd won it fair and square? When you say they didn't feel that the win was illegitimate in any way, I will say that is not correct. The other racers? Yes. The other racers thought that he had won the race unfairly? No. But yes, that it was illegitimate. Yes, I will say that. I will stand by my answer on that one.

Okay. Is that because they thought he'd used some means to win the race that was, I don't even know how to ask that, unfair? No. They thought he'd run the whole marathon. Yes. And by marathon, we mean what I think of as marathon. Okay. Yes.

But they were angry because they thought it was illegitimate somehow because of the sponsorship in other words did they did they object somehow to the fact that he was sponsored no would they have objected if he hadn't been sponsored no i mean objected on the same grounds that's right he that about that's how i understood your question but yes they would not have objected if the sponsorship thing hadn't happened they would not have objected to his winning okay so that was apart from his beating them that was the source of it so everything comes back to the sponsorship then that's odd so you're saying they he won the race and they said well because you're sponsored by whoever this is, this group of people, that's objectionable somehow. Not exactly, but...

Illegitimate. No, not exactly. Go back to, you asked whether the people that were sponsoring him expected him to win the race. Okay. That's like the most important thing you've uncovered. You're saying, yes, they did. No. No, you're saying, no, they didn't.

They did not. And that's why they were upset. Yes. But it wasn't something like he was paid to throw a fight or something. Correct. He was paid to... They weren't sponsoring him with the expectation that he would contrive to lose the race. Would you say that?

I wouldn't agree to that. They were sponsoring him with that expectation. They were sponsoring him. I'm losing my track here. He was going to run this race, the marathon. Yes. And they said, hey, we'll pay you some money. And either explicitly or not, they wanted him in exchange not to come in first?

Correct. This is weird. Okay, and so when he did come in first, that's why they were upset. Yes. So I think I understand why everyone's upset. But I have to uncover this kind of expectation. Okay, will it help me to know specifically what the organization is?

Does it have a name? Is it just a group of people? I don't know if it has a specific name and I don't know if you'd be able to easily guess it. So it's a group of people?

Sure. It might as well be one guy? Sure. Okay, let's say it's one guy. Let's say it was. It could have been. But there's no wagering, there's no betting.

Correct. But the guy still foots the bill for this guy to enter the race. Not foots the bill, pays him. Pays him to enter the race. Right. Was this in order to get some publicity? No. Pays a guy.

Do I need to know more about the day of the race, like what actually happened? So he's just paying the guy with the expectation that he won't come in first right let's say that had happened let's say the guy had come in further back in the pack okay then everyone would be no one would be angry that still wouldn't have met people's expectations they would expect him to come in last? No, that's not what they expected either. Not to finish? Correct. The guy paid him to enter a marathon. This really happened? Yes, this really happened. Paid him to enter a marathon and not finish at all? Yes. Yes. Is that, are you saying then that maybe they just paid him not to run the race? Is that different? No,

that is different. They were paying him for something something specific um okay so let's say he'd done what they said he would have entered the race yes and started yes but just do i need to know more would just come in just not finished at all not finished at all do we need to know more specifically what he would have done on that day um you could this might just be something that you don't know, so I might just have to give it to you. You've made a lot of progress. Does he feign an injury or some specific... No, nothing like that. Event happens?

No. He just doesn't finish. He's not supposed to finish. Okay, let's say he doesn't finish, and someone asks him why, what happened. Was he expected to give some specific explanation? Sure. And that's what the guy was paying for?

Yeah. So he says... Well, no, he wasn't paying him to give a specific explanation, but he was being paid, and he could say the reason. Would that have been true? Yeah. Oh, it would have. Yeah. I thought you were saying like he was no feigning

so no no he wasn't feigning anything but so he managed to succeed all legitimate and above board and it wasn't that he managed to succeed he was supposed to drop out of the race i see what you're saying so i just need to figure out what that is yeah if you can uh what does that have something to do with his equipment like his shoes or something no no no no he's just supposed to drop out of the race that's all yes and then why would somebody be paid to do that why would somebody be paid to not finish a race so that someone else can win no uh so that he won't win is he do i need to know is he some specific famous marathoner whose people didn't want to win i keep coming back to this betting idea. Yes, but there's nothing to do with that at all. Why would you pay someone not to win a marathon?

Well, to enter it but not finish. But there's nothing specific about what would hold him back? Well, there is, sort of. It's not so someone else? Right. Now, I think you're kind of struggling, but it's basically he was hired to run as a pace setter or rabbit for the race, but he's supposed to run it for half the race and then drop out, which he didn't do. And he ended up winning the race, which he wasn't supposed to.

And that really happened. And that really happened. Apparently, Tommy, who sent in the puzzle, explains, this is based on a true story. In 1994, Paul Pilkington was paid $3,000 to enter the L.A. Marathon. But this wasn't a normal sponsorship because Paul was actually being paid by the organizers of the L.A. Marathon. I get it now.

Paul Pilkington was hired to run as a pace setter or rabbit for the race. Many race organizers bring in rabbits to run at a certain race and ensure race times that are decent and comparable to other races. What makes Pilkington's win unusual is that rabbits are paid to set the pace and then drop out at about the halfway mark. In this instance, Pilkington was so far ahead of the others, he decided to go ahead and finish the race. The racer in second place was so far behind that he couldn't see Pilkington and incorrectly assumed that he had dropped out. When second place crossed the finish line, he actually thought he had finished first, but was surprised there was no fanfare. He claimed

he had slowed his pace since he knew Pilkington was supposed to drop out and was upset that the prize was not his. While the organizers were initially irritated at Pilkington for finishing, the subsequent press it generated for the LA Marathon was huge, and they decided it was good for business, even going so far as defending Pilkington by saying he was never contractually obligated to drop out. That's good. Yeah. That all makes sense now in hindsight. It was just all pretty dramatic because apparently the second place winner was really upset about the whole thing. Because, I mean, like Tommy explained, he thought he had won. I mean, he really thought he had won.

He had even gone so far as to choose the color of the new car he thought he was going to win for winning the race. So he was really mad. article, the other contestants and the second place winner argued that they had been specifically told that Pilkington would be dropping out while race coordinators in Pilkington disputed that anybody had ever specifically said that. And it really got very heated. The LA Times called it one of the more bizarre post-race chapters in the Los Angeles Marathon's history. It certainly sounds that way. So thank you, Tommy. That was really interesting. And if anybody else has a puzzle they'd like to send in for us to use, you can send it to us at podcast at futilitycloset.com.