Futility Closet - 135-Lateral Thinking Puzzles

Episode Date: December 26, 2016

Here are six new lateral thinking puzzles to test your wits and stump your friends -- play along with us as we try to untangle some perplexing situations using yes-or-no questions. Below are the sources for this week's puzzles. In a few places we've included links to further information -- these contain spoilers, so don't click until you've listened to the episode: Puzzle #1 is from Dan Lewis' Now I Know newsletter of April 28, 2016. Puzzle #2 was contributed by listener Jon Sweitzer-Lamme, who sent these corroborating links. Puzzle #3 is from listener Jonathan Knoell. Puzzle #4 is from listener Nick Hare. Puzzle #5 is from Paul Sloane and Des MacHale's 2014 book Remarkable Lateral Thinking Puzzles. Puzzle #6 was devised by Greg. Here's a link. You can listen using the player above, download this episode directly, or subscribe on iTunes or Google Play Music or via the RSS feed at http://feedpress.me/futilitycloset. Please consider becoming a patron of Futility Closet -- on our Patreon page you can pledge any amount per episode, and we've set up some rewards to help thank you for your support. You can also make a one-time donation on the Support Us page of the Futility Closet website. If you have any questions or comments you can reach us at [e-mail]. Thanks for listening!

Hello, listeners. This week we have a special episode full of lateral thinking puzzles, which has become sort of a holiday tradition for us. Thanks very much to everyone who's been sending in puzzles. We're always glad to get them, so please keep them coming. We're off next week, but we'll be back on January 9th with our usual mix of quirky history and a new lateral thinking puzzle. It's Greg's turn to try to solve a lateral thinking puzzle. I'm going to present him with an intriguing-sounding situation, and he has to work out what's going on asking only yes or no questions. Today's puzzle was adapted from one of Dan Lewis's Now I Know email newsletters. In 1972, President Nixon went to China for an historic meeting with Mao Zedong in an attempt to improve relations between the two countries.

Given the high levels of tension around the trip, Nixon's administration sent an advanced team to China to make sure that everything would go as well as possible. The advanced team discovered that the wooden toilet seats in the hotel were varnished with a compound that was causing a red, itchy rash for many of the party. They feared offending or embarrassing the Chinese

if they broached the subject with them or if they did something obvious like switching the toilet seats themselves. So what did they end up doing that didn't embarrass the Chinese or leave President Nixon at risk for getting a rash? That's a great puzzle. This is all true?

This is true. Okay. I was worried you might already know it. I was worried as I was reading it, you're going to say, oh, I already know that one. All right. So they found a workable solution? They did. That didn't involve removing the existing toilet seats?

Is that true? That's correct. Okay. Did the solution involve just covering the surface of them? Well, what did the advance party do? Because if they did something obvious like that, they were afraid they would embarrass the Chinese. So the advance party comes in and does whatever they do and then leaves before Nixon arrives? Is that what you're saying? Yeah, the advance party

did something that enabled the Chinese to take care of the situation. Because if they did something themselves, they could embarrass or offend the chinese okay so they are but they were afraid to broach it with them so they managed to get the chinese to do something without actually broaching the problem right to them yes so they okay so the chinese when we say the chinese we mean like the owners of the hotel the proprietors the people who run the hotel where they nixon would be staying um yeah those are the people who did whatever was done? Yeah. Okay.

They did... All right, well, let me go back to that same question then. Did they somehow induce those people, the Chinese hotel people, to cover the surface of the toilet seat somehow? Yes, but I would say very indirectly. All right. You mean induce them indirectly or they...

They induce them indirectly. Yeah, no, I understand that. They didn't just come to them and explain what the problem was. Right. All right. But I'm just getting to that's what the solution was. Yeah. Do I need to know more specifically what they covered the seats with?

No. Okay. Does it matter that the toilet seats were wooden as opposed to something else? Well, I mean, that's where the problem was coming with, was that the wood was varnished with something that was irritating to american bottoms but i'm saying was the solution that they told the chinese that the americans had some aversion to wood or something no nothing like that no so this would have worked equally well if they were made of something else yes um did this did that okay could would we say that they told a story to the Chinese?

I mean, they told them something that wasn't true? No. Like something about American customs that just wasn't the case? Right, that's incorrect. But you're on the right lines, right? They had to come up with a way to do this very diplomatically without, I mean, because it was an embarrassing, difficult topic. Yeah, I understand. Did it come down to some cultural difference between the two nations?

No. Okay. Okay. Do I need to know? And it doesn't come down to any particular specific person or identity. Right. Correct. It's just they're just saying, we need this to happen.

Or did the Chinese who made this change make it believing that they had to apply it all throughout the hotel for everyone or just for Americans? Just for the Americansicans all right and just for this team the diplomatic team like they wouldn't keep doing this forever probably that's correct all right that's helpful um so and they cover them with something but i don't need to know specifically what right um why would you do that and it doesn't have to do with the wood in particular um this hinges on how did they convey this to the chinese without embarrassing them or offending them was it done actually directly verbally i mean in some way or was they just sort of leave some indication or hint that this i would say closer to the first part of that. The first part, like a direct sort of verbal or written?

I would say verbal for sure. The direct part, I'm not sure I'd say yes to. Okay. Of direct verbal message to the Chinese, or just something that they would overhear? The latter. So indirect in that sense? Yes.

Did the Chinese think they heard someone reacting to the toilet seat? No. An indirect hint about a toilet seat. But it's not really, no, it's not an indirect hint. It was an indirect communication that was overheard, but very direct in its message. Was it in words? Yes, it was in words. Now, think about 1972, China, America, very tense relationships between the two countries.

It all hinges on that. very tense relationships between the two countries. It all hinges on that. And if you wanted the Chinese to overhear something. Some diplomatic channels, like an overheard? No. Nothing like that? Nothing like that. A message that they intercepted somehow.

That's close. Yeah, that's actually kind of. But not that like Chinese spies overheard this on some back channel that they weren't supposed to be listening to that's actually in the ballpark did this happen in the hotel yes okay well it sounds like i'm fairly close to this yes but it's not that—so the Chinese thought they heard a message that was passed between Americans? Yes. They overheard that?

Yes. Explicitly about the toilet seat? Yes. Yes. And that was what they needed to realize that they had to make some change? Yes. Okay, so the message was something like one American telling another that we can't use this hotel? I mean, something like that.

Yes, that there was a problem with the toilet seats and they didn't know how to solve it. Yeah. Is there more to it than that? Because that would be enough. Yes, but there's more to it. The Americans counted on what for how this is going to get back to the Chinese officials? Counted on what? Yes.

Do I need to know specifically the channel, the means of communication? No. Like whether it was a written message or a radio transmission? It was just verbal, two Americans speaking. Talking? Yes.

In a hotel somewhere? Yes. That the Chinese overheard? Yes, in a manner of speaking, yes. Yes. Do I need to know physically where this was located in the hotel, this conversation? It was in their room. Oh, so it was bugged? The room was bugged? Yes. And they were counting on the room being bugged. So they just had a conversation in the room about these toilet seats, knowing that the Chinese would intercept it. Yes. And apparently, so they did it

counting on, okay, they're probably bugging our rooms, so if we just have a really explicit conversation about the problem here, and they had the conversation and then they went out, and when they came back, they found that each toilet had a lace doily covering the seat. Which is what they needed. Yes.

This is from listener John Schweitzer LeMay. In 1968, police visited the house of Raymond Rust of London and asked him to bite into a piece of cheese. When he refused, they arrested him. Why? They wanted to see if his teeth marks matched something from a crime scene? Yes. Do I need to figure out more than that? You want me to figure out more than that?

So they had a victim with teeth marks, maybe, or bite marks? No. No. Okay. Oh, did it have something to do with dentures or false teeth? No, good guess. Okay, they were actually testing his own teeth. So they had a crime, and one of their germane pieces of evidence was teeth marks or bite marks. Yes. But it's not on a human. Right. Is it on another living thing? No. Is it in food?

Yes. Okay. Actual edible food? Yes. Food that had been stolen? No, actually, no. Okay. Somebody had broken into a place normally associated with food, like a restaurant or a grocery store?

No, but... A home? Yes. Okay. There had been a burglary in a home? Yes. And the burglar had eaten part of something but hadn't finished it. Yes.

That's basically the whole story. A house on the outskirts of the city had been burgled and the criminal had taken a bite out of a cheese on a table. The forensic laboratory determined that the biter was missing a front tooth and had some other notable dental characteristics. Police checked the records of regular criminals with unusual teeth and found that the description matched Raymond Rust. They visited his house where they said they found some stolen goods. They asked him to bite into a piece of cheese, and when he refused, they arrested him.

In the end, he pleaded guilty to three burglaries and was sentenced to three years. Amazingly, John, who submitted this puzzle, found similar cases of incriminating teeth marks all in cheese in Germany in 1905, in England in 1906, in Missouri in 1939, and in Nebraska in 1961. In all five cases, burglars with distinctive teeth bit cheeses on the premises they were robbing, leading to their arrest. I'll put the links in the show notes. So is the moral of the story, if you're committing a crime, eat the whole piece of cheese? Don't just eat part of it? All of it or none. This one comes from listener Jonathan Knoll.

A man with a famous face commits a crime on television but is never caught. Is this true? Yes. Wow. A man with a famous face commits a crime on television but is never caught. Yes. Is there any fiction involved? Is he an actor?

I mean, he commits a fictional crime in some drama somewhere? No. It's not that simple. A man with a famous face. Would I know this man's name? Do I need to? Are you thinking of a specific person? How could you hesitate with that question?

Okay, wait. Phrase your question carefully. You said this actually happened. This actually happened. So the man with the famous face, that's a specific person you're thinking of. Is that right? I'm having trouble answering this question. All right.

Okay. You said a man with a famous face. Yes. That's one person. Yes. A human being. Yes. A male human being.

Yes. Committed a crime on television. Yes. So my question is, the male individual human being who committed this crime. Yes. That's a specific person with a real, a real person with an actual specific identity who you committed this crime. Yes. That's a specific person with a real, a real person with an actual specific identity who you're thinking of. Yes.

I think so. If I understand your question. It's a, well, uh, it's an act. I mean, he,

every person has a specific identity, right? Right. But it's okay. I guess what I'm asking is since this really happened, do you know, do you have a name in mind? Do I have a name in mind? Yeah, do you have the name of this man?

Do I know the name of this man? Why are you so serious about that? No, I'm going to say no. Like if Conan O'Brien killed someone, you'd say yes, because you have his name in mind. You're thinking of a specific person. I am thinking of a specific person. All right, if you can't answer it, don't try to. That's a very stranger's fun.

Committed a crime on television. By television, we mean what I think you mean by television. Yes. Meaning like broadcast out into the homes of millions of people. Yes. Who witnessed this, the crime? Did people see the crime on television? Yes, they did.

Did they realize they were seeing a crime at the time? Some of them even? Yes, yes. Do I need to know when this happened specifically? No. Committed a crime. Do I need to know when this happened specifically? No. Committed a crime. Do I need to know what the specific crime was? Yes, but I think the puzzle turns on more—

That he wasn't caught. Yeah. Why weren't they able to catch him? All right. Well, let me just finish up that last one. Sure. People saw him do this. Yes.

Did they know at the time that it was a crime probably or at least some of them would have really so some people saw a man committed crime but he still wasn't caught yes did he die no did he would you say he escaped after the crime like he the he was being sought by the authorities but they just didn't succeed in getting him as opposed to i mean yeah you'd have to say that that the authority authority, right, the authorities never caught him. Okay, but they were pursuing him. I mean, in other words, the people, people recognize this as a crime and that means that

the people who would normally have pursued criminals would have gone after this guy, right? Yeah. Okay. And they just didn't succeed. Yes. For some reason. Yes.

Would you say it was a technicality that prevented them from prosecuting him or catching him? No. They actually literally couldn't catch him. Is that right? Um, I wouldn't phrase it like that. Would you say he was fleeing? Uh, I don't know. Was the crime deliberate?

Yes. Okay, okay. I don't know, there's so many different ways to go with it. Um, okay. Deliberately committed a crime on TV. Did he know he was on television at the time this happened yes wow really yes was this um okay i asked is there fiction involved in this was this like a fictional tv drama or something was there it wasn't it wasn't fiction as opposed to like a news report or a documentary or something that's being represented as i'm not i'm not sure what

you're asking was he playing a role at the time that he committed the crime as an actor um i'll say no okay so it's more that he was just committing a crime and that and the television cameras happened to catch him doing it would you say say that? That's incorrect. All right. Does it matter where this happened, specifically? No. And you said it doesn't matter when. Would it help me to know what, do you know what specific television program or airing or event was involved?

I do, but that wouldn't help you. All right. So the question is, why he wasn't, would you say, apprehended? Yeah. Okay, so he commits a crime. Yeah. At least some people recognize it as a crime.

Yes, yes. He would normally have been prosecuted if he'd been caught doing this in some other surroundings. If he'd been caught. Okay. Yeah. Yes. Yes, if they could catch the guy, they would prosecute him.

Does it have to do with geography? Like he was just... No. In a different location where they couldn't apprehute him. Does it have to do with geography? Like he was just... No. In a different location where they couldn't apprehend him? No. All right. Commits a crime. The authorities recognize this as a crime, would you say that? Yes. Yes.

And desire to catch him for that reason? Yes. And are prevented for reasons, for some reasons? Yeah. Okay. But not geographical and not, oh, is it related to time? Like this didn't air until after some statute or something at the last? No, that's a good thought, but no. Are there other people involved besides this man?

Not importantly. Okay. Okay, location to even, is this in the United States? Yes, it was in the United States. It's a crime. Is it? Okay. Okay, but time isn't involved?

Like, it's not that the thing became a crime after he committed it, anything funny like that? It was a crime at the time he did it. It was a crime at the time he did it. Was it the fact that he had a famous face, a particular appearance, that was itself a crime or involved somehow in the crime? I don't even know quite what that's in there. That was involved. That's important. Was he mistaken for someone else?

He was not mistaken for someone else. Was someone else mistaken for him? No, not really, but the puzzle kind of turns on what you're pursuing now. Man with a famous face commits a crime. But you said it's not technicality. It's not that the law somehow... Right. There's no technicalities involved.

Because if it doesn't involve time or space or law or even um you say this whole thing could have happened without the the medium of television involved like this it's no it would then the element of television has to be there for the element of television has to be there for this to have been a crime the time the crime involved television specifically doing something on television. Was it something he said? That's not specific, no. That's not. I mean, he violated some standards or some convention

that you're not supposed to do something on television specifically? Oh, that's not what the crime was exactly, but he did do that, but that's not what the crime was really. I'm still hung up on why you couldn't answer that first question yeah that's kind of important why i couldn't answer if you try phrasing it different ways i might be able to answer some of them a man with a famous face meaning a man who had the appearance of a famous man yes but who wasn't actually that man yes committed a crime on television yes oh i see

all right so he was he was either made up as an actor or wearing a mask or something that made him look like someone famous and that prevented that height hid his actual identity yes so that why couldn't they catch the guy was he wearing a mask was like a robbery or something and he was wearing it wasn't a robbery but he was wearing a mask so like of a president or something yeah i i don't know that you'll get further than that but that's what the the puzzle turns on is they don't actually know who did it because he was wearing a mask. This was apparently a famous incident involving Max Headroom, who was a on two Chicago television stations, WTTW and WGN, on the evening of November 22, 1987. On this evening in particular, a man wearing a Max Headroom mask pirated the signal of WGN-TV in the middle of their 9 o'clock news sportscast. Only a minute or so was seen

of the hacker, but it still caught viewers and newscasters alike off guard. And I was looking this up and apparently, yeah, I mean, they were like stunned. They had no idea what was going on. They still don't know how he did it technically. But then later that evening, going back to Jonathan's account, the hijacker returned on WTTW, local pbs affiliate in the middle of a doctor who rerun this time the intrusion was not only longer about four minutes but this time he had sound he referenced a variety of topics in a bizarre distorted voice and by the end of the broadcast was being swatted on his exposed buttocks with a fly swatter the intrusion ended on its own and returned to the same doctor who episode a federal

investigation was conducted immediately but it was too late by that time the trail had gone cold next year will be the 30th anniversary jonathan says i find this particular piece of television history fascinating the mystique of the unknown hacker and the somewhat nightmarish nature of it has always excited me in a rather macabre way hope Hope you enjoy the puzzle. Clips of both intrusions can easily be found on YouTube. That's great. So apparently the whole thing was just a really bizarre incident and they still don't know how he did it or who it was who did it. That's amazing. And I wasn't familiar at all with Max Headroom or any of this. So when I was actually looking this up to find out who Max Headroom was, I found out that although he was touted as being the world's first computer-generated TV host, he was actually played by actor Matt Frewer wearing a lot of prosthetic makeup that took four and a half hours to apply. Frewer described the process as being

grueling and not fun and likened it to being on the inside of a giant tennis ball. So just for anybody who wanted some Max Headroom trivia. This is from listener Nick Hare. In the 9th century, the Viking leader Sigurd Æssteinsson challenged the Pictish nobleman Mael Brygti to a fight to settle their differences. They agreed on 40 men to his side, but Sigurd treacherously brought 80

and quickly destroyed his opponents. But though Sigurd Æsste 80 and quickly destroyed his opponents. But though Sigurd Eistensen killed Mael Brigty, today history also records that Mael Brigty killed Sigurd Eistensen. How is this? Okay, can we give them simpler names? We got a Viking and a Pict guy, is that what it is? You can call a Viking a Pict or Sigurd and Mael. Okay, Sigurd and Mael. So it's basically, how did Sigrid kill Male, but Male also killed Sigrid? Yes.

In a nutshell. Well, did Male do something to Sigrid that caused his death later, after Male had already died? No. Oh, because he could have wounded him, and then he died of the wound. See, that would work. That would work. That would work. That's not it. That would work.

Okay. Is there anything here about confusion of identities of who is actually whom? Are they the same person? Are there Siamese twins? Oh, that's good. These are all good. No, none of those. Okay.

Siamese twins. Wow, that'd be great. I have no idea. Is the exact time period important no not really anything about the location that i need to figure out no okay so there isn't there isn't are we going to say that there's not some historical confusion would you say it is accurate to state that male killed Siegfried? Sigurd. Sigurd.

Maybe. I'm not sure I can answer that. Okay. Okay, let's try this again. Male died. Yes. As a result of something Sigurd did. Yes.

Sigurd died, presumably at some point. He's not still alive. That's right. Would you say that his death was a result of something male did? I think I would have to say no to that question. Something male did not do? No.

Okay. Should I try to figure out what Sigrid died of? Do you know the cause of death? Yes. Would that be fruitful for me to try to figure out what Sigrid died of? Do you know the cause of death? Yes. Would that be fruitful for me to try to work on? Yes, it would. I'm trying to think how easy it would be to guess.

Okay, all right. It's possible to guess. So you're saying that some historians claim that Mayle killed Sigrid. No. Phrase it again. How did you say it in the puzzle? That history records that male killed Sigurd. And is there some confusion in the historical record?

Not confusion in the record. It comes down to what's meant by killing exactly. Like, is it legitimate to say that male did this? Okay. As opposed to somebody connected with mail? Would you say that Sigrid died as a result of somebody's actions? That's why I'm hesitating. I'd have to say yes to that, but I don't want to mislead you.

Okay, because I mean, somebody connected with mail did something that in some way contributed to Sigrid's death? No, we could say it was just these two. In fact, this I mean, somebody connected with mail did something that in some way contributed to Sigrid's death? No, we could say it was just these two. In fact, this result could still have happened if it was just the two of them. Two people. Okay. Okay, if Sigrid had never met mail, they did meet, right?

Yes. Let's assume they met. They confronted each other in some way. If they had never met, would Sigrid have still died the way he did no ah the real let me say this the reason i'm hesitating is that there could be some question about whether male could be said to have intended to kill him right but you can still kill somebody whether you intended it or not i suppose, but the question turns on why that's a question. Why that's a question. Okay.

So you're saying that male may not have intended to kill Sigrid. Right. But somehow did. Somehow did. But obviously not directly. You would say not directly? I can't even figure out what to ask you here. You're giving me such weird answers.

Sigurd killed male. That's unambiguous. Right. That definitely happened. And some people say, or some people would show or suggest that male killed Sigurd. Afterward. Afterward. After he was already dead.

How can a dead man kill a living one? Did he eat the guy? Oh, no. You're just full of great solutions. No, I wish that were the answer, but it ain't. That has happened. I've heard of that. Okay, so male is dead. Yes.

Did Sigrid die shortly after? Yes. Okay. At the moment that Male was dead, was Sigrid already, would you say, dying? No. Okay. Did something happen during the funeral or burial of Male that was germane? No, it happened before that. It happened before that. So very soon after Male died, something occurred that resulted in Sigrid dying. That's right. Okay. I feel like I'm getting somewhere. Yeah, you are. You're almost there. I won't make you go all the way to get all the details. Okay. So what happened? Would you say

this happened within a day? Yes. Within an hour? Possibly. Okay. So it happened really immediately. Would you say that Sigrid injured himself or was wounded or injured in some way? Yes. Trying to recover the weapon out of Male's body. No, but you're very close. Okay. Does it have something to do with a weapon? No.

No. He injured himself on Male's body, fell over it. Yes. I won't make you go any further. Apparently this is true. After the battle, Sigurd called for the enemy's heads to be strapped to his men's saddles as trophies. But as Sigurd rode home, Male Briggty's buck tooth scratched his leg. He was known as Male Briggty the Buck Toothed.

The leg became inflamed and infected and Sigurd died. So you could say that Mayle killed Sigurd. Well, he did, yes, definitely. Nick writes, I wonder how many other examples there are of people being killed by their already dead enemies. Especially by their teeth. This puzzle comes from Paul Sloan and Des McHale's Remarkable Lateral Thinking Puzzles. John and George stood in a field facing each other from 50 yards apart.

Both men had excellent eyesight and neither was wearing anything on his head. John could see George, but George could not see John. Why? John could see George, but George could not see John. Is George blind?

No. They're both standing in a field. They're facing each other. Yes, and both had excellent eyesight and not wearing anything on their heads. Are they both human? Yes. Is this on Earth?

Yes. Is there anyone else involved? No. You say they're staying in a field. Yes. Is there anything between them? No. You said there aren't anyone else involved is there anything more to the situation do i need to know this you know the their occupations or anything what they're doing

there they're just standing in a field sure one can see the other and the other can't see him back yes um does it have anything to do with with visual impairment i wouldn't say visual impairment no the the thing says they both have excellent eyesight. Mm-hmm. So why can't one person see another? Is this simultaneous, meaning one can see the other? Yes, at the same time, right. Did it ask if they're human?

They are human. Why can't you see another person? That's all it comes down to. There's... I suppose you could say visual impairment in a really broad sense. Well, the fact that he can't see him, sure. But he can see everything around him. That's not the problem.

No, I would say he can't see everything around him. Can he see anything around him? No. Can he see anything at all? No. That makes it easier. Okay, so you said John can see George just the way I can see you now. Yes.

George can't see John. Right. But you wouldn't say he's blind or that he's visually impaired. You wouldn't say either of those things. But it sounds like you would say he's prevented from seeing him. Like someone else could see him from the same vantage point. Yes. All right. So the question is, what's preventing him from? Yes.

Or his eyes closed? Yes. Ta-da! You have to ask everything. You do. After a two-week journey, a ship returned to port with nearly 200 dead passengers. How's that for morbid? The captain and crew were healthy, and the dead were not victims of crime, illness, or attack. What had happened to them?

Were they like some kind of animals? No. Like dead cows that they were going to eat? I don't know. That's a perfectly good question. Okay, were the passengers dead before they got on the ship? Because they're just transporting dead from one place to another. They're transporting corpses from one place to another.

I will have to think, say yes to that, I think. Oh, let me back up. Were the dead passengers people? Yes, they were. Oh, okay. I thought maybe you were hanging up because I said were the people dead. No, no, no. They weren't actually even people. No, they're people. They, people. Yes, they were. Oh, okay. I thought maybe you were hunging up because I said where the people dead. No, no, no. And they weren't actually even people.

No, they're people. They're people. But you don't know if they were dead or not before they got on the ship. I have to ask you to rephrase it. Okay. Okay. You said that the ship came into port with 200 dead passengers, right? That's right. That's right.

200 dead people. Yes. Were these people dead before they got on the ship? I'm not sure how to phrase this. I can't answer that the way you got it phrased. Oh, man. Were some of the people dead before they got on the ship? I can't answer that.

Well, they didn't get on the ship. They were put on the ship if they were dead, right? Was the ship built around dead people? They were dead and they built a ship around them. Okay. Were the captain and the crew perfectly aware that these passengers were dead when they got into port? Like when they arrived at port, they knew that these were dead people. Yes, that's right, yes.

And they were not upset or alarmed by this? That's right. And they were not upset or alarmed by this. That's right. See, I still keep thinking like they were transporting sick or dying or dead people from one place to another, which is something you would need to do sometimes. That's accurate. That is accurate. Okay, let's back up.

Time period important? Yes. Ah, during some kind of war? No. During some kind of mass epidemic? No. Time period is important. Okay. 1900s? Yes. But not during a war? Correct. Location important? Yes. Europe? No. North America? Yes. Okay. The United States? No.

For where they arrived at port, let's go with. Canada? Yes. Okay. Was the place of origin the United States? No. Canada? Yes. Okay. So the ship started, you would say, basically from a Canadian port. Halifax, yeah. And ended up in a Canadian port.

Same place, yeah. So it ended up in Halifax. Yes. Were the people dying? Like they were like on some last voyage, you know? No. Okay. All right.

Something happened in the 1900s involving Halifax. And it's not some kind of epidemic. It's not during a war. Did these 200 people, would you say they all died of the same thing? Yes, I would. Some kind of natural disaster? Man-made disaster? A disaster?

A disaster. A disaster. Man-made disaster? I a disaster a disaster man-made disaster i i suppose i'd have to say yes yes i don't want to mislead you was their occupation important no oh so they weren't like in a mining accident or something um and a disaster were they explorers of some kind no were they sailors no they had no occupation in common they had no occupation in common um okay was their gender important no their age no no but they all died of the same thing yes uh i'm trying to say whether give you a hint okay would you say that they died from something related to fire or explosions no um illness no asphyxiation

uh close close to asphyxiation they were strangled no were they criminals no um so they weren't hung let me let me give you a hint okay a hint uh the ship arrived they drowned yes wow i was trying to think of something similar to asphyxiation and i finally came up with something let me give you the hint anyway okay they have 200 people that drowned oh it was a submarine no never mind the ship arrived in halifax with 200 dead passengers but it hadn't departed with them it hadn't departed they they they picked him up from a shipwreck yes so there was a shipwreck and a ship rescued a bunch of people from the shipwreck they were in the ocean and some of them were alive and

some of them were dead no they scooped up all the dead people to bring them back for burial yes is that it there's a there's a bit more this really happened it was in the 20th century oh oh the titanic yeah oh oh okay in april in april 1912 after Oh, oh, the Titanic. Yeah. Oh, oh, okay. In April 1912, after the Titanic sank, the White Star Line contacted the cable repair ship C.S. McKay-Bennett to recover the victims still floating in the North Atlantic. The ship took aboard an embalmer, a priest, 100 coffins, and 100 tons of ice and arrived on the scene a week after the sinking. They returned to Halifax with 190 bodies, nearly twice the number of coffins they'd brought. they returned to Halifax with 190 bodies nearly twice the number of coffins they'd brought among the bodies they retrieved were John Jacob Astor the fourth the richest man aboard and Isidore Strauss the owner of Macy's department store both of them were buried in New York City so it arrived with 200 dead passengers it just hadn't set out with them why didn't you know if

their passengers were dead when they got on board the ship because some of them were still alive well I thought you were suggesting that they'd gotten on the ship themselves in Halifax before it departed. I don't want to make sure that wasn't what you were thinking. Oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, gotcha. Okay, if anybody else has a puzzle for us to use, and it doesn't have to be fatal, although apparently we have a penchant for fatal ones,

please send it to us at podcast at futilitycloset.com.