Futility Closet - 178-Lateral Thinking Puzzles

Episode Date: November 20, 2017

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. Here 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 adapted from the 2000 book Lateral Mindtrap Puzzles. Puzzle #2 was contributed by listener Dave Lawrence. Puzzle #3 was devised by Greg. Here are three corroborating links. Puzzle #4 is from listener Andrea Crinklaw. Here are two corroborating links. Puzzle #5 is from Greg. Here are three corroborating links. Puzzle #6 was inspired by an item on the podcast No Such Thing as a Fish. Here are three corroborating links. 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. 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's another special episode of Lateral Thinking Puzzles. These are puzzles where one of us describes a strange-sounding situation and the other has to work out what's going on, asking only yes or no questions. And thanks so much to everyone who's been sending in puzzles to us. We're always glad to get them, so please keep sending them to podcast at futilitycloset.com. So enjoy these, and we'll be back next week with another dose of quirky history and another lateral thinking puzzle. This is adapted from the 2000 book Lateral Mind Trap Puzzles. When Dan Manley was told that his job had been eliminated, he reacted angrily.

He'd been a model employee at the One Mile nuclear power plant for 30 years, and now they'd just dropped him. Though he had a violent temper, he was widely admired by his neighbors and often one of the first to volunteer for community events. Two nights after his termination, he broke into the power plant wielding an axe, hooked up a hose, and sprayed the office computers, records, and files, causing hundreds of thousands of dollars damage. Within hours, the plant managers found out about Dan's destruction, but rather than punish him, they agreed to hire him back. Why? Did he prevent some kind of an accident by spraying everything with water? Yes. So was he doing this for a good reason? Like he thought something bad was about to happen, and so he actually broke in and sprayed everything with water?

I mean, was he deliberately trying to be helpful? Yes. Yes, he was. So, like, he had reason to think something bad was about to happen. Like, something was overheating and he needed to spray things with water? No, I wouldn't say that. Did he think somebody was sabotaging something? No. I'm trying to figure out what he thought he was doing by spraying everything with water but he was he was doing this for a benevolent reason yes um so he was fired and he didn't work there anymore but he had reason to think something was going wrong or about to go

wrong yes um and i need to work out why he thought that? Yes. Yes. Was it something he saw? Something he saw after leaving his job? I guess I'll have to say no. Was this knowledge he'd gained before he left his job? No. Does this have anything to, is it connected in any way to his firing? No. No.

Okay. So the firing is incidental. That was just to lead me to think that he was breaking in to sabotage things yes okay all right um uh okay so this was not connected to knowledge he gained after he left his job it was connected to knowledge he gained i mean not connected to knowledge before is connected to knowledge he gained after he left his job that's right yes okay so he left his job gained some knowledge you. Yes. Okay. So he left his job, gained some knowledge. You said sort of by something he saw?

I'm going to say no to that. Something he heard? Yes. Yes. Something he heard on the news? Possibly. Does he live near the plant? Like, was this something that he could have heard from his own house, you know, like like because he lived near the plant or in the area or in the vicinity of Yokosawa?

But something he possibly heard on the news? Yes. Hmm. Was what he heard on the news directly about the plant? Yes. Huh. So the news, let's say the news reported, they just did a report on the plant and he thought, oh, no, that's very bad. I need to break in and save the day. Yes.

Something along those lines. Not, not probably not on the news, but he was informed about it. He was informed about it. So maybe he heard about it from a friend or a co-worker? Yes. Okay. Did this have to do with with um information about another person no another group of people no information about equipment oh how do you mean um at the plant

equipment at the plant yes um i don't think in the sense that you're thinking. Okay. Were they bringing in something new, some new piece of equipment? No. No. Were they changing something? No. Did the people who reported this to him, were they aware that they might be telling him something that's sort of telltale that was, you know, ominous? Yes. Yes. sort of telltale that was um you know ominous yes yes so so let's say co-workers people who worked there were talking to him uh possibly possibly but probably not necessarily people

who lived near the plant no it doesn't matter who told this to him um trying to figure what to go after it would it would be helpful but it might take you a while to dig that out. Okay. All right. Work on what the actual thing he was trying to accomplish. What he was trying to accomplish. Okay. Was he deliberately trying to ruin the computers?

No. You said, by spraying water, usually I think of, okay, you're trying to put out a fire. Yes. He was trying to put out a fire. Yes. So he, oh, he heard fire sirens? He heard that there was a fire? No.

He heard that there was a fire. He heard that there was a fire. You're almost there. He heard that there was a fire. He heard that there was a fire at the plant? Yes. And he thought, oh, no, something bad is going to happen because it's a fire at a nuclear reactor plant. I better run in and put out the fire.

Was he now a firefighter? Yes. He'd gotten a new job as a firefighter. No, he was a volunteer firefighter. He was a firefighter all along. So the fact that he'd been a previous employee there just meant that maybe he knew specifically where to go better. But all you need to know is he broke in with an ax and sprayed the whole place with water. It could be completely unrelated.

And they rehired him because he'd saved the whole place from burning. Oh, gosh. Okay. This puzzle comes from Dave Lawrence. One of my colleagues is slowly dying. If we don't try to cure him, he should be fine. But if we do, he's unlikely to survive. What's happening?

All right. One of my colleagues is slowly dying. Is this a human being? Yes. By dying, we mean approaching death. No. Good for me. Good for you.

Got right to the heart of it there. Yes. All right. Is slowly dying. If we don't try to cure him, he should be fine, but if we do, he's unlikely to survive. What's going on? All right. There's a bunch of ways to do this. Would you say dying... The word dying here is used as a figure of speech, like the way a comedian dies, for example? No. That's a good thought, though thought though okay but you're saying dying doesn't mean approaching

death correct would it behoove me to find out what the colleague does for a living yes um although that might be tricky but if you could put it all together yeah occupations are hard yeah uh does that is it a medical profession or something related to that no one of my colleagues is dying um yeah i probably shouldn't go after the job that'll take two yeah but it it it is germane if that helps you solve the puzzle the whole thing fits together around the guy's occupation did i ask if his colleague is human? His colleague is human. One of my colleagues is slowly dying. If we don't try to cure him, he should be fine. But if we do, he's unlikely to survive.

If we do try to cure him. All right, does the word cure, is that used in its conventional sense, that that's not an odd meaning? I don't know. can you be more specific cure meaning to treat a medical condition no all right so that that and dying are both not what you would think at first not what you would think at first blush well cure the only other meaning i can think of offhand is like curing tobacco or something uh-huh is it like that Uh-huh. Is it like that? Uh-huh. Really? One of my colleagues is slowly dying.

Oh, dying, like applying dye. Yes. Yes. So, what industry would this be? One of my colleagues

is slowly dying. Say it again, I'm sorry. If we don't try to cure him, he should be fine. But if we do, he's unlikely to survive.

Try to cure him. Do you want to. But if we do, he's unlikely to survive. Try to cure him. Do you want to guess the industry, at least? Or roughly? I can almost work this out. A human being is slowly dying something. Yes. If you say, if we don't try

to cure him, you're talking about the colleague, the person who is dying? Right. I think you've got the meanings of the words, no? Yeah, I don't know how you cure a person. That's what I'm having a hard time. Well, that's the thing. You don't cure a person. That's why.

If we don't cure him, he should be fine, right? But if we do, he's unlikely to survive it. Because you're curing him. Yes, yes. So I'll just tell you, they work in a factory making leather goods, right? He's dyeing the leather different colors, right? And if you tried to cure him. Yes, I actually looked up what exactly curing means for this puzzle. And it means to basically dehydrate something like a food or an animal skin, basically in order to preserve it so that it's-

Fair enough. Right? So the co-worker isn't likely to do really well if you attempt to cure him like leather. I can't argue with that at all. So thanks so much to Dave for that puzzle in which someone did die, but in a nice non-fatal kind of way. During the German occupation of France in World War II, fugitives and members of the French Resistance found a safe haven on the upper floor of the Hotel Arbès. Nazis might enter the floor below, but they never climbed the stairs. Why?

Were the stairs visible? Yes. Did they put some kind of warning sign on the staircase or near the entrance to the staircase? No. Like warning that the top floor had been blown out or something? No. Or there were alligators up there? Okay.

Beware of alligators. Okay, so the stairs were visible to anybody. Yes. But the Nazis never went up the stairs. That's right. The Nazis were on the first floor of the stairs. That's right. The Nazis were on the first floor of the hotel. That's right. Did they, when I say visible, they were understood to be stairs?

They weren't camouflaged in some way, so they did not appear to be stairs? They appeared to be stairs. Yes, they did. Was it because the Nazis believed there was something in particular up on the second floor? No. Something in general up on the second floor. Was it because of what they believed they would find if they did climb the stairs? No.

Okay. All right. No Nazis ever went up the stairs? No. Was there some superstition involved? No. Some German superstition that they were taking advantage of that I don't know off the top of my head. You know, those German superstitions.

No Germans ever go upstairs. Well, they had, you know, there were 13 stairs and the Germans are terrified of the number 13. Okay, so, okay. Let's back up. um okay so okay well let's back up would you say that the main reason that the germans didn't go up the stairs had something to do with the sense of vision with something they saw or did not see no i wouldn't say that something they heard or did not hear um. Something they believed. Uh, well, yes. I'd have to say yes to that. Or something they'd been told.

Yes. Closer to something they'd been told? Yes. Was an order given that they were never to go up those stairs? I'll say yes. So an order was given by what they at least believed to be some ranking authority, some authority that would rank over them in the Nazi party.

Was it truly given by this member of the Nazi party? Yes, you could say they knew something. Okay, okay. Because I mean, I just thought like maybe they were given a fake message, you know. But okay, so some highest, highest ranking member of the Nazi party told everybody else they were not to go up these stairs. Basically, yes. Okay. Was that, do I need to go up these stairs? Basically, yes. Okay.

Was that, do I need to know who that specific person was? No. And we can say it's one specific person? Or group of people? You could, but it was a fact. I mean, there was something, how can I say this? Okay. Let me just keep going. Okay.

All right. okay let me just keep going okay all right so was it was it that the nazis themselves or at least some nazis were trying they were doing something up on the second floor of this hotel that they did not want other people to to other nazis to see or know about no okay so it wasn't like a commander was having an affair up there and he didn't want anyone to know um there's can i give you a hint sure there's there's something about this particular staircase something about this particular staircase that they knew about that they knew it was booby trapped no um did they feel that the staircase was dangerous in some way no there was something that it was bugged no No. Like they thought they knew something about this particular staircase.

Let me say. What kinds of things can you know about a staircase? Something about the hotel itself. Okay. But it's not a question of that they thought it was like bugged or something equivalent to bugged. No. Or dangerous in some way. No danger.

It wasn't danger. They weren't concerned about danger. Something about some history of the hotel or believed history of the hotel. Like it was famed for something or some legend or... It is known for this characteristic. It's known for this characteristic. Okay. Did this have anything to do with previous wars? Like something had happened in World War I?

No. Okay, it's not like they thought it was haunted or something? No. Did they think if the Nazis went up on the second floor that they would be in any kind of danger in any kind of way? No. Did they think that it would be that they would be somehow visible or audible or overheard or something? They knew a fact about the hotel. Can I give you another hint?

Yeah. Work on the location of the hotel. It's in France. Yes. It's not in France? You said that. I'll say I can't answer that. There's a hint.

Oh, oh, is it on the border between France and something else? Yes. Oh, wow. I wasn't even thinking the right way at all. Okay. So if they were on the second floor of the hotel, they might be in a different country? Almost. You're very close.

A different geopolitical territory somehow? You've basically got it. Do I need to figure out what it's on the border of? Yes, that would help. Okay. Is it on the border between France and another country? Yes. Do I need to figure out which country?

Yes. This is World War II. Okay. My geography sucks. Let me think. I'm trying to think of a general hint. Switzerland? So it would be neutral?

Yes. Okay. I was trying to come up with what would make sense. The Hotel Arbès straddles the border between France and Switzerland, and the border crosses the stairway. Oh. The foot of the stairs is in France, but the head is in Switzerland. German soldiers in occupied France couldn't enter neutral Switzerland, so they couldn't climb to the top of the stairs is in France, but the head is in Switzerland. German soldiers in occupied France couldn't enter neutral Switzerland, so they couldn't climb to the top of the stairs,

which made the entire upper floor inaccessible to them. I can add, too, that the hotel is still there. The border runs through the dining room and a few of the guest rooms, including the honeymoon suite, where it runs right down the bed. You can write your own lateral thinking puzzle about that. Okay, yeah, I wasn't on the right track at all. Well, it's a very hard thing to guess. That's an amazing fact, though. Absolutely amazing.

This episode is brought to you by our patrons and by Harry's, who remind you that men can be hard to shop for. It can seem impossible to find a gift that's thoughtful and special, but is also useful and practical. That's why Harry's razors make a great gift. I've been using them for a while now. The blades are well-made, and they really do give a great shave. This holiday season, Harry's is offering custom and limited-edition shaving sets that make perfect gifts. Sets come with German-engineered five-blade cartridges,

foaming shave gel, special limited-edition winter chrome and emerald green handles, and you can even personalize them with engraving. Sets come in beautifully designed gift boxes and start at just $10. Harry's also has great stocking stuffers. No matter what you're looking for, Harry's has you covered. You can even just get something for yourself, because as a special offer for our listeners, Harry's will give you $5 off your order when you go to harrys.com slash closet. This offer is only available for the holidays. This holiday, give Harry's and give Handsome.

Get your holiday shopping done early and take advantage of free shipping. To get a limited edition holiday shave set while supplies last, go to harrys.com slash closet right now. That's harrys.com slash closet. This puzzle comes from Andrea Krinklaw from Yukon, Canada. A man travels across the country with his companion who experiences nothing. That the whole thing? That's the whole puzzle. Is his companion dead?

No. Is his companion unconscious? No. Is the companion human? No. All right. The man's human. Yes. I hope.

Yes. All right. A man travels across, you said across the country? Yes. With a non-human companion who experiences nothing. Is this true? Yes. Do I need to know the man's identity? No.

Do I need to know the country? No. Odd puzzle. Experiences nothing. All right. Would it help me to know the species of this creature? I don't know. Is it alive?

Yes. Do you say it's an animal? I would say it's an animal. Do I need to know the reason he's traveling across the country? Not necessarily. All right,

so it's just that simple. The reason he's traveling across the country is connected to the whole thing, but I don't know if that would be a useful avenue to try to pursue.

Okay, you say experience to pursue. Okay. You say experience is nothing. Correct. Meaning receives no sensory stimulation? Yeah. Because if it's conscious, it's sort of awake and alert. Yeah. You know, this is tricky about answering whether it's conscious or not.

I don't know how to answer that question. Is it, okay, we said it's not human. Is it, whatever it is, it's an animal. Is it full grown? it's not human is it whatever it is it's an animal is it full grown like it's it's full grown full grown animal that's alive and conscious but experiences nothing i'm not sure if it's conscious or not i can't really answer that i i rescind my answer to that question okay are there other people involved no are there other whatever this is other creatures involved no um is that is that can i call it an all right it is an animal is it a pet uh no it wasn't originally i guess you could

sort of call it a pet now um would you say he owned it? Yes. He owned an animal. Yes. If it's not dead, not unconscious, but experiences nothing. Do we need to know the mode he's using to get across? I mean, like, are they? It's irrelevant. They're probably driving. They're not walking. Could they walk?

Could this animal walk under its own power? Yes. But experience nothing? Yes. Would it still experience nothing if it did that? Yes. Okay, let's talk about experiencing things. I take that to mean that it didn't receive any sensory stimulation on the way across. I would say it's probably receiving little to no sensory stimulation on the way across. I would say it's probably receiving

little to no sensory stimulation. So no vision, no hearing. Correct. Is that because of its circumstances? Like is it in a box or something? No, that's not it. That's not it.

So other people who observe them could see this is a llama or whatever it is. Right. Yes. And it would look like a llama in a pickup truck. Yes. Right?

Not wearing a llama blindfold. Right. Not wearing a llama blindfold or in a box, in a llama box. Let's say that happens. I don't know if you can answer this. Does a llama appear to be alert and looking around? No. But it's not unconscious?

It's not unconscious. But you'd be able to tell. That it couldn't perceive its surroundings. Yes. Because it's been prevented? Like, is someone, not an actual blindfold, but has someone arranged for this to happen deliberately so that the llama can't see or hear?

And it's not actually a llama. Right. That's kind of a stand-in, yeah. Does he know that it can't? Yes yes does he want that state of affairs to be the case no i don't think i'd answer i'd say he wants it to be the case does he have any particular feelings about it i mean is he taking it somewhere to get treated no okay so how do you keep a llama or anything else from experiencing anything? He's taking it around the country to exhibit it, if that helps you. That's why they're traveling around the country.

Is this a scientific, is he a scientist in any way? No. Or a medical man? No. So is this like a neurological thing where that it's just i guess you'd say it's a neurological thing but but i mean it's like it's a curiosity in that sense it's it's definitely a curiosity he's exhibiting it because it can't experience the the that's not the reason he's exhibiting it it's because of the reason it's not the reason he's exhibiting it. It's for the reason that it's being exhibited

that it can't experience anything. So it's being... Wow, really? Yes. Does this have to do with safety? No. So he's going to exhibit it to someone. Yeah.

And for that reason, it's been prevented from... No, it hasn't been... No, uh-uh. No. Okay, he's going to exhibit it, though, to someone and... To crowds of people who are going to come see it

because it's a curiosity. And just to pin this down, the thing that makes it a curiosity is the fact that it can't experience its surroundings? No. It's something else. Right, and that's what makes it not be able to experience its surroundings,

is the something else that it's being exhibited for. Would you call it dangerous? No. I mean, if it could experience? No. No. I'll tell you call it dangerous i mean if it could experience no no i'll tell you it's a chicken oh is this um do you remember you actually did this on your blog there's a headless chicken called mike exactly i don't remember the whole story, though. It's Mike the Headless Chicken, right. Mike was a headless chicken who lived headless for 18 months.

You had written about this on the blog in 2005, and I thought, well, maybe you won't remember it. It was so long ago. I just remember that much of it. And it made such a good story. Yeah, what happened in 1945 in Fruita, Colorado, Mike the Chicken survived a decapitation that was supposed to end with him becoming dinner. Apparently, it was a botched decapitation, and he was left with a brain stem. But was still alive. But he was still alive, right. And the bird didn't die.

And the owner, Lloyd Olson, ended up feeding Mike with an eyedropper and touring with him around the country. He was like, well, if the chicken's not going to die, I mean, I'm going to try to keep him alive. So they traveled around for 18 months. And so, I don't know, do you call it unconscious? He had a brainstem, but... That's kind of a philosophical question. Yeah. I don't know. But clearly he couldn't see or hear anything, right? But he was able to walk after a fashion

somewhat clumsily. And I don't know, apparently he even gained weight and appeared to be healthy until he finally died 18 months later. I thought this was cute. In his honor, Fruta holds a Mike the Headless Chicken Day every year with events such as the 5k run like a headless chicken race and pin the head on the chicken. And there will of course be links in the show notes for those who want to see a photo of Headless Mike. In 2005, hundreds of Italians began to choose the number 53 in the Venice lottery. Some ran up debts, went bankrupt, and lost their homes. Four people died in incidents related to choosing 53. In all, more than 3.5 billion euros was spent on that number.

What attracted them to the number 53? Okay, is it germane that this was in 2005 as opposed to a different year no okay does it have something to do with sports no i thought maybe there was some player whose jersey number was 53 that's a good guess um does it have to do with like what 53 means in italian or roman numerals or something no okay because you said this happened in Italy, right? Yes. Is it relevant that it was in Italy? No.

Oh, so it could have happened in a different country? Yes. Ah. Okay. The number 53, and it doesn't have to do with it being the year 2005. Had some event occurred, would you say, 2005. Had some event occurred, would you say? Previous to... Oh, does this have to do with fortune cookies with it being put down as the lucky number in a fortune cookie? No, although that is another... You should tell that story sometime. No, this isn't that.

Darn. Just for the listeners, there was another lottery where people were choosing a number that would recommend it in fortune cookies. Right, yes. It was said, these are your lucky numbers. And a whole bunch of people did win. So when that number came up, there was a huge windfall. Yeah.

Okay. So, because you were hesitating on when I said, did some event occur? Did some series of events occur? I think I have to say yes to that. Series or singular? Series. Okay. I think I have to say yes to that. Series or singular? Series. Series. Okay, so some series of events occurred that helped contribute to this craze for the number 53?

Yeah, I think that's accurate. Did something happen 53 times or there was 53 of something? No. No. Okay. Did 53 refer to a year in any way? No. Or a date?

No. Did it refer to something? No. Okay. It was just the number 53. Yes. And this didn't have to be in Italy. So it's not some cultural belief in the luckiness of certain numbers? Or was it something similar to fortune cookies, like it was predicted in a horoscope or something to do with astrology?

Or, you know, like some source said, this is going to be a lucky or significant number? No. No. Okay. Does it have religious or cultural significance? No. Okay. And you would say this was, the number was played by a whole bunch of different people.

Yes. Did those people all have something in common? No. That I should work out? But they were all in Italy. They happened to be, yes. They happened to be in Italy. I mean, it was an Italian lottery, but they didn't have to be.

Right. For this, in principle, for this to still happen. Had this number, did. Had this number... Did people believe this number was particularly lucky for some reason? No. Less unlucky than other numbers. That's a little tricky to answer. Yeah, yeah. Did it have to do with, like, that this number hadn't come up in a while?

Yes. Is there more to it than that? It was just people... Somebody had observed that 53 hadn't come up in a while? Yes. Is there more to it than that? It was just people, somebody had observed that 53 hadn't come up in a really long time and they thought, ah, the odds are higher that it's going to come up now? That's basically it. And it's that simple. Basically, it just hadn't come up in a long time. Here's a paragraph from the Washington Post.

In 2004, in lottery-crazed Italy, the number 53 failed to pop in a two-digit game for 152 consecutive draws. The whole country was slowly gripped by 53 fever. Four deaths were blamed on 53-related wagering, including a woman who drowned herself and left a note confessing she'd frittered away her family's money playing 53. A man was arrested for beating his wife out of 53-related frustration. When the number was finally drawn in February of 2005, one newspaper ran a headline that said number 53 puts Italy out of its lottery agony. I should add this is an example of the so-called gambler's fallacy. People believe that because the number 53 hadn't turned up in an unusually long time, it was somehow overdue and thus more likely to turn up in the future.

That's just not how it works. 53 is equally likely to turn up in each drawing no matter how long it's been since its last appearance. This puzzle is based on a fact that I heard on the podcast, no such thing as a fish. In 1973, there were dozens of dead birds lining the route that Richard Nixon rode along to get to his inauguration. Why? Okay, where do you start with that?

Does this have to do with some security provision that they took to prepare for the parade? No. Dead birds. Do I need to know what kind of birds they were? No. Were they all the same species or likely not? I think they were mostly pigeons. Dead pigeons. Lined the route, and this is, what did you say, the inauguration?

Yes, the route that Richard Nixon rode along to get to his inauguration. Had the birds eaten something poisonous? Maybe. Maybe. Yeah, I'm not actually 100% sure what they died of, but I suspect that it was that they'd eaten something poisonous. Is the weather important? No.

Okay, Nixon's inauguration. Does it? I'm not even sure what to ask. Okay, dead pigeons that may or may not have been poisoned. I think they were poisoned. Let's say they were poisoned. I think that's a good thing to say. Okay, but you're saying that didn't have to do with the preparation for the...

It did have to do with the preparations, but not security. You have to have those security measures. How do you prepare for an inauguration? Some preparation just to handle the crowds that we're going to turn out? No. Was this deliberate, I have to ask? They weren't intending for birds to die.

No, they weren't. They weren't trying to kill lots of birds. Okay, but the organizers of this procession took some measure that wound up inadvertently killing birds. So they deliberately took the measure, but it that wound up inadvertently killing birds. Yes. So they deliberately took the measure, but it wasn't deliberately intended to kill birds. They just happened to do that.

Is the main point here that the birds ate something? I think it's probably that they ate something, but I'm not 100% sure. Poisoned is, in some way, they were poisoned. Were the birds dead before the procession passed? Yes. So it's not like ticker tape or confetti or something. Right. They were already dead.

So he was riding along in his special car and there were like dead birds all on the street. Okay. And what I'm picturing in the inauguration is just like a motorcade or something riding along a street. Yep. I guess in Washington.

Yep. With lots of dead pigeons. And people lining the sides. Yeah. So what kind of preparation would you need to make for that other than like, you know, cordoning off the streets? I'm trying to figure out what the pigeons would have eaten because there's nothing you have to do that involves... Yeah, I mean, this isn't something that is regularly done for inaugurations.

It was something that Nixon had wanted done and was done and killed all the pigeons. So this isn't something like it would have happened elsewhere at some other time? Right. I don't think this has been a problem at anybody else's inauguration. This was specific to this one. And you say it doesn't have to do with security. It does not have to do with security. So what would Nixon want done along the procession route that doesn't have to do with weather and that would involve some material that birds would eat? Yeah, I mean, don't focus on that part.

Nixon was planning on riding in an open-top limo if that helps you figure out. It was intended to be a hint, but I'm not sure it was a good hint. It seems to have confused you. Well, he didn't want to... You said this wasn't targeted at birds. It was targeted at birds,

but they weren't trying to kill them. He just wanted to get rid of birds over the route? Yes, exactly. That's exactly it, yes. He was afraid that the pigeons would soil the inauguration route or his open-top limo that he planned to ride in. So he had the inaugural committee

spend thousands of dollars to spray a chemical bird repellent along the parade route. The chemical was supposed to irritate the feet of the pigeons to keep them out of the trees and such along the route, but it ended up killing them instead. So his route was littered with dead birds. I never knew that. When I was looking for references for this story,

I came across several other references to another presidential inauguration that was fatal for birds. And that was 100 years before Nixon was killing his birds at the inauguration. Canaries were brought in to liven up Ulysses S. Grant's 1873 inaugural ball, but unfortunately they all froze to death in unusually cold temperatures for that date. Wow. So it's funny because it was exactly 100 years apart. So I think that birds in 2073 should plan to stay very far away from Washington, D.C. We are always on the lookout for more lateral thinking puzzles.

So if you have any you'd like to send in for us to try, please send them to us at podcast at futilitycloset.com.