Futility Closet - 348-Who Killed the Red Baron?

Starting point is 00:00:00 Welcome to the Futility Closet podcast, forgotten stories from the pages of history. Visit us online to sample more than 11,000 quirky curiosities from computer fables to an illiterate indictment. This is episode 348. I'm Greg Ross. And I'm Sharon Ross. In 1918, German flying ace Manfred von Richthofen chased an inexperienced Canadian pilot out of a dogfight and up the Somme Valley. It would be the last chase of his life. In today's show, we'll describe the last moments of the Red Baron, and the enduring controversy over who ended his career.

Starting point is 00:00:46 We'll also consider some unwanted name changes, and puzzle over an embarrassing Oscar speech. April 21, 1918, dawned cold in northern France, with a wind out of the east. Manfred von Richthofen, 11 days short of his 26th birthday, had racked up 80 victories in three years of air fighting, winning a formidable reputation among pilots on both sides. Today, he received word of English planes at the front and took off leading two flights of aircraft. They tangled with two RE-8 reconnaissance planes near the little town of Amel and found themselves attacked by anti-aircraft fire, and the white puffs attracted a formation of eight Sopwith camels led by Captain Roy Brown. As the two groups met, one of May's pilots climbed above the fray. That was 22-year-old Wilfred Wap May, an old school friend of Brown's,

Starting point is 00:01:46 who was relatively inexperienced in combat. Brown had ordered him to stay out of any fight. He could observe from above, but should run for home if attacked. If Wap May sounds familiar, we met him in episode 277. He was the pilot called in to help hunt the Mad Trapper of Rat River in northern Canada in 1932. May stayed above 12,000 feet while Brown led seven camels against the Germans and a full-on dogfight developed, watched by thousands of troops on the ground. May stayed above the fighting as he'd been ordered, but when he saw a German triplane doing the same, the temptation was too great, and May dove after it into what he called a regular beehive of enemy aircraft. He wrote,

Starting point is 00:02:29 The fight was at close quarters. Enemy aircraft were coming at me from all sides. I seemed to be missing some of them by inches, and there seemed so many that I thought the best thing to do was to go into a tight, vertical turn, hold my guns open, and spray as many of them as I could. Unfortunately, he succeeded only in jamming both guns. When he couldn't clear them, he dove out of the fight and headed west for home. He was feeling pleased at having extricated himself when suddenly a plane behind him opened fire. As he tried to dodge the attacker, he saw it was a red triplane. He wrote later,

Starting point is 00:03:04 Had I known it was von Richthofen, I should probably have passed out on the spot. The man May had attacked was the Red Baron's cousin, Wolfram, another inexperienced pilot, and the Baron had seen it happen. He dove after May, who began evasive tactics as the Baron chased him headlong up the Somme Valley and over Allied lines. Back in the dogfight, headlong up the Somme Valley and over Allied lines. Back in the dogfight, Roy Brown saw his friend's danger. He was engaged with two triplanes himself, but he broke away and dove after the pair from a height of 5,000 feet as they raced along the river valley. Richthofen was closing on May as Brown dropped out of the sky. He fixed the Baron in his sights, let go one sustained burst of fire, and thought he saw the German pilot slump in his

Starting point is 00:03:46 cockpit. Then his momentum carried him past and down. He pulled back to avoid the ground and lost sight of the triplane behind a row of trees. He felt sure he'd hit his target, and as he was now low on both fuel and ammunition, he decided to fly home to Bertongl. But the Baron kept chasing May up the river valley, at treetop level now, firing repeatedly and so close that the ground troops below them held their fire for fear of hitting May's camel. May wrote, I kept dodging and spinning down until I ran out of sky and had to hedge hop along the ground. Richthofen was firing continually, and the only thing that saved me was my poor flying. I didn't know what I was going to do, and I don't suppose Richthofen could figure this out either. I started up the Sum

Starting point is 00:04:29 Valley at a very low altitude, with Richthofen close on my tail. I went around a curve in the river, just near Korbi, but Richthofen beat me to it by cutting over a hill, and at that point I was a sitting duck, too low down between the banks to turn away. I felt he had me cold and I had to restrain myself from pushing the stick forward and disappearing into the river. I was sure this was the end. The two had been racing along the north side of the river, the baron's triplane matching May's every turn. As the stream turned away southward, May broke away and roared up Moulin Cour Ridge, and Australian ground gunners finally had a clear shot at the pursuing triplane. As the Baron raced up the slope, gun emplacements and even riflemen below

Starting point is 00:05:10 opened fire. Pieces were seen to fly from the forward section of Richthofen's plane, but he seemed determined to get his kill before turning for home. As few as 30 feet separated the planes as the Baron sought the decisive range. But finally, one of his guns jammed, and he broke off his pursuit and banked east, back toward his own lines. As he did so, the Australian gunners opened up again, firing thousands of rounds, and, in the words of one gunner, a rain of death bespattered him. The triplane pulled up abruptly, and the engine roared. The Baron's head jerked sharply backward, and he tore off his goggles and flung them over the side. Then the triplane dropped into a side slip, glided onto the hill, bounced, and came to rest just off the north side of the Bray-Corby road. May flew on

Starting point is 00:05:56 northward and managed to rejoin Brown about a mile beyond the crash site, and the two pilots flew home together. When Richthofen's body was identified, nearby British squadrons sent wreaths to mark their respect. One read, To our gallant and worthy foe. The British aviation writer C.G. Gray wrote, There is not one in the Corps who would not gladly have killed him, but there is not one who would not equally gladly have shaken hands with him had he been brought down without being killed, or who would not so have shaken hands if brought down by him. After an autopsy, the body was interred in French soil, and on April 23, a British pilot dropped a metal canister over the German lines. It contained two photographs of the Baron in death and one of Australian troops firing a farewell salute over

Starting point is 00:06:40 his grave. A message read, To the German Flying Corps, Rittmeister Baron Manfred von Richthofen was killed in aerial combat on April 21, 1918. He was buried with full military honors from the British Royal Air Force. Almost immediately, a controversy arose as to who ought to receive credit for the victory. The Royal Air Force credited Roy Brown, who had fired a long burst while diving on Richthofen from above. Watt May reported that Brown had shot down a red triplane that had been pursuing him and that May had seen it crash. But these reports don't match the facts. Hundreds of Australians had seen the chase continue past this point as Richthofen pursued May up the Somme Valley. Given the severity of the wound, pathologists say that Richthofen could not have survived more than a

Starting point is 00:07:24 few seconds after the fatal shot. The bullet had entered his right side at about the ninth rib, passed through his chest, and exited slightly higher, near his left nipple. So it seems that he must have been wounded closer to the crash site. But the British doctors who examined the body disagreed as to whether the fatal shot had come from the air or the ground. The bullet was discovered by a medical orderly named E.J. McCarty as he pulled a wallet out of Richthofen's breast pocket. That might seem promising, but as it happens, every likely gunner, both in the air and on the ground that day, was using the same type of ammunition, a 7.7 millimeter round known as the 303 British.

Starting point is 00:08:02 Conceivably, ballistic markings on the individual slug could have linked it to a particular weapon, but McCarty kept the bullet as a souvenir and then eventually lost it, so we're reduced to reconstructing the events of the chase to decide which attacker is most likely to have brought down Richthofen. The first possibility is the two RE-8 observation planes that the Baron encountered that morning. Major Leslie Beavis, commanding officer of the 53rd Battery, suggested that fire from one of these had brought down the Baron. This seems almost impossible, as the wounded man could not have undertaken the whole dogfight and chase that followed. He probably died less than a minute after the bullet passed through his chest.

Starting point is 00:08:40 Next is Roy Brown. Brown's fire as he dove to rescue May would have come from above and behind Richthofen, while we know the fatal bullet entered from below and to the right. A few other airmen claimed to have witnessed Brown succeed, but none of these was in a good enough position to be sure. And again, the Baron continued to fly for two miles beyond that point, so this is still too early for the injury to take place. When Brown left the picture, Australian troops began to fire at Richthofen from the ground. The best candidates were positioned on the Mourlancourt Ridge, which May began to climb as the Sum River turned abruptly south. Robert Buey, a Lewis gunner of the 53rd Battery, wrote to Australian newspapers in 1956 that he and another

Starting point is 00:09:21 gunner, W.J. Evans, had fired at a German plane that was chasing a British one toward their position. He wrote, I started firing at the body of the German pilot directly through my peep sight. Fragments flew from the plane and it lessened speed. It came down a few hundred yards away. But most analysts place Buey and Evans almost squarely in front of the Baron's oncoming plane, which makes it hard for them to have fired the fatal shot which came from the side. Alfred Franklin, an English gunner leading an Australian anti-aircraft battery, claimed to have shot down the Baron with his Lewis gun, but it appears that Franklin was

Starting point is 00:09:54 confusing the downing of Richthofen with that of another German airplane a day later and in a slightly different location. Analysis shows that Franklin had read about Richthofen's death two days afterward, seen the word yesterday in the report, and miscalculated the date. But another gunner on the ridge seems to have a promising claim. Sergeant Cedric Popkin, a Vickers gunner with the 24th Machine Gun Company, had fired at Richthofen's triplane as it came up the ridge. Apparently he missed on his first attempt, but when Richthofen gave up the chase and turned back toward his own lines, Popkin fired again and, as he said, observed at once that my fire took effect. At that moment, Richthofen was banking to his right, and this would have put him in the right position to receive the fatal wound observed in the post-mortem. If it was Popkin who brought him

Starting point is 00:10:40 down, the shot was either very lucky or very skillful, as the distance was about 600 yards, but the fact that the bullet was caught in Richthofen's clothing for McCarty to find suggests that it had been fired from a relatively long range. Popkin told the Brisbane Courier in 1964, I am fairly certain it was my fire which caused the baron to crash, but it would be impossible to say definitely that I was responsible. As to pinpointing without doubt the man who fired the fatal shot, the controversy will never actually be resolved. He's probably right about that because it's always possible that some unknown soldier on the ground had fired a lucky shot with a rifle.

Starting point is 00:11:15 The Lee-Enfield service rifle used the same.303 bullet as the Lewis and Vickers machine guns. Richthofen must have been shot very close to the crash site, and many Australian ground troops were firing on him from the ridge. There remains the question why Richthofen let himself get so deeply into danger that day, needlessly pursuing an aircraft into enemy territory. Generally, he was a disciplined and careful pilot, following the maxims taught by his mentor, Oswald Bulka, one of which read, When over the enemy's lines, never forget your own line of retreat. One factor may have been the wind, which unusually on April 21st was blowing to the

Starting point is 00:11:51 west and might have carried a distracted German pilot quickly into enemy territory, but another might have been a serious head injury that he'd suffered in combat nine months earlier, in July 1917. He landed with a skull fracture and a 10-centimeter groove in the top of his head. In a 2004 article in Human Factors and Aerospace Safety, psychologists Thomas Hyatt and Daniel Orme contend that the injury produced personality and cognitive changes that diminished Richthofen's ability to fly and fight. The Baron returned to duty just 19 days after that incident, perhaps before he was fully fit to fly, and Hyatt and Orm say he went on to display classic symptoms of severe brain trauma,

Starting point is 00:12:30 including an inability to check reckless behavior and perseveration on a given task. On the other hand, Hyatt and Orm's theory requires that the frontal lobe be damaged, and Richthofen's record doesn't specify that his was. In fact, he downed 23 aircraft after that injury. Indeed, he shot down nearly as many enemies in a few months as Eddie Rickenbacker did in his whole career. Though the RAF credited Roy Brown with shooting down Manfred von Richthofen, Brown never said much publicly about the day's events. He wrote later, As far as I am concerned, I know in my own mind what happened. And the war being over, He wrote later, But like other Allied pilots, he respected the fallen ace's accomplishments. After viewing the Baron's body, he wrote,

Starting point is 00:13:22 There was a lump in my throat. If he had been my dearest friend, I could not have felt greater sorrow. After Brown retired from the RAF, his squadron took for its insignia a red eagle falling. This podcast is supported entirely by our wonderful listeners. We are always grateful to everyone who helps support the show. And this week we're sending out a special Futility Closet thank you to Ron Penna, our newest super patron. If you value this show and want to help support it so that we can keep on making it, please check out our Patreon page at patreon.com slash futilitycloset. If you become a patron, you'll also get access to some bonus content, such as extra discussions on some of the stories,

Starting point is 00:14:17 more lateral thinking puzzles, outtakes, and peeks behind the scenes. And thanks so much to all of our incredible supporters. We really appreciate every donation and pledge that we get. In episode 342, I discussed some of the different rules that some places have for regulating people's names. Mike Cowley wrote, Hey guys, as always, love the podcast and what you give the world. Just finished listening to the latest episode and wanted to add Icelandic names to the conversation, just in case you haven't looked at these before. In summary, there's no family names. You are someone's son slash daughter. So instead of Callie, I would be Martinson and my daughter would be Michael's

Starting point is 00:14:59 daughter. And any new first name must be approved by committee to ensure it fits within Icelandic culture. Stay safe and keep it up. So, as Mike says, Icelandic surnames are usually patronymic, meaning based on the father's name, although occasionally they are matronymic. Patronymic naming systems, Wikipedia tells me, used to be much more common than they currently are, although you do still find them in use in some cultures and places. And some common surnames in several languages reflect their origins in patronyms, such as Johnson, Fitzgerald, son of Gerald, Fernandez or Rodriguez, son of Fernando or Rodrigo, Andersson or Gregorovic, son of Grigory. Apparently, Iceland is pretty serious

Starting point is 00:15:43 about wanting its citizens to have surnames based on a parent's name. The Reykjavik Grapevine reported in October 2019 that two Icelandic sisters were fighting to be allowed to create their own surname. The women's mother had killed herself when the girls were nine and ten, and their father neglected them, leaving them to be raised by a grandmother and sometimes in foster care. The women don't want to have either parent's name and instead want to create their own surname that they will share. Currently, their last name is patronymic, and one of them said, I cannot bear the name of this man who is just some other stranger on the street to me.

Starting point is 00:16:19 Unfortunately, Iceland generally doesn't allow citizens to change their surnames, though at the time of the article, the sisters had vowed to keep fighting for this. And I wasn't able to find any other stories on this in English to see whether they'd been successful or not. That has interesting implications for genealogy, you know, an enforced rigorous system, but there aren't family names. Right. So you'd have a different last name than your father would, for example. But it's systematic in a way. It's just different. It is different, yes.

Starting point is 00:16:48 As Mike noted, Iceland is also pretty strict about first names, too. As I mentioned in episode 342, Iceland is one of a few countries that have official lists of approved names for parents to choose from. to choose from. Any name that's not on the list has to be approved by the Icelandic Naming Committee, which bases their decision on how well the name works with the Icelandic language. Usually, to be approved, a name must only use letters found in the Icelandic alphabet, and the name needs to be able to be conjugated in Icelandic so that it can accommodate the endings required by the nominative, accusative, genitive, and dative cases of the language's grammar. As reported in The Guardian in 2014, the names Harriet and Duncan do not meet these criteria, as Tristan Cardew, a British man, and his Icelandic wife, Kristen, learn to their dismay.

Starting point is 00:17:38 The Icelandic National Registry refused to officially recognize the names of the children, who were 10 and 12 at the time of the article, meaning that they couldn't get their passports renewed. Previously, their passports had identified them as girl and boy Cardu. But I was able to find a follow-up on this story as the Iceland Monitor reported in 2015 that the family did successfully appeal the ruling and the children's names were approved, with the article implying that the publicity of the case in international media might have played a role. The article says that the official justification given for the new ruling was that under Icelandic law, children can have a foreign name if both of their parents are nationals of another country. And in this case, the children's father is British and their mother has both Icelandic and American citizenship. And the

Starting point is 00:18:24 Guardian stated that for the approximately 5,000 children born in Iceland each year, the naming committee reportedly receives about 100 applications for different names and approves roughly half of them. It's interesting there's a human committee to decide these matters, at least some of them, it implies that it's not always clear what the right decision is. Yeah, I think in the case of Iceland, they have to decide. There's apparently certain rules, and they have to decide whether the name meets or doesn't meet the rules. But then there are also some grayer areas, like they don't want you to give a name to a child that might embarrass the child.

Starting point is 00:18:58 But that's not quite so cut and dried as whether or not it has the right letters in it or something. and dried is whether or not it has the right letters in it or something. In episode 342, I had also discussed a case in Sweden where parents were engaged in an ongoing battle to name their child Ford, a family name in the Canadian father's family, and I reported that the parents planned to call their child Ford regardless of what his official name had to end up being. Brian Ford wrote about a similar situation in the U.S. regarding the child born in 1969 to musician Frank Zappa and Gail Zappa. Hi, Greg and Sharon. One of those who fell foul of acceptable naming conventions was Frank Zappa. You may recall his children are named Moon Unit, Dweezil, Ahmet, and Diva.

Starting point is 00:19:42 Wikipedia describes the naming of Dweezil thus, Dweezil's registered birth name was Ian Donald Calvin Euclid Zappa. The hospital at which he was born refused to register him under the name Dweezil, so Frank listed the names of several musician friends. Dweezil was a nickname coined by Frank for an oddly curled pinky toe of gales. At the age of five years, Dweezil learned that his legal name was different, and he insisted on having his nickname become his legal name. Gail and Frank hired an attorney,

Starting point is 00:20:11 and soon the name Dweezil was official. If a lawyer could push that through, it seems odd that a hospital could stop it. You know, Dweezil is a name. It's unusual, but it's a name. Yeah. From what I remember when I was looking up the US naming laws from episode 342, we don't have like super codified ones like some countries do. So a lot

Starting point is 00:20:31 of times it comes down to what an official or a judge decides either way. So there's a little bit of subjectivity there sometimes. I also covered in episode 342 how several US states restrict what characters can be used in names so that diacritical marks might not be allowed. And this can cause problems for people who move from one state to another where characters in their names might now be banned and not allowed on official documents. Jose wrote, Hi, Greg and Sharon. On the discussion of difficult names in different states in the U.S. having different conventions, I have a fun personal anecdote. My full name is José Maria de Borja de Mendonça Corte Real. As I am Portuguese, my name is pronounced with a hard J, so it is José. You can probably imagine how many times I've had to explain why my name is not pronounced José.

Starting point is 00:21:22 As you can imagine, this has given me some trouble with both online and physical forms, as it is atypical in the U.S. to have such a long name. I usually just go with Jose Cortreal. When I moved here, the Social Security Office made my official name, in the U.S. at least, Jose Maria de Borja de Mendonca Cortreal, lacking the appropriate diacritical marks and hyphen. This has led to a lot of confusion, such as my first driver's license when I lived in Connecticut, attributing my name as first name, Jose Ma, last name, de Borgia de Mendoc, all squished together as one word. I was able to appeal to the DMV and they allowed my name change to become Jose M. Court Real.

Starting point is 00:22:06 I recently moved to New York and had to get a new license. I was attended to by a particularly ornery DMV employee who could not believe how long my name was and was actually angry about it. In fact, when I asked if they could simply put Jose M. Court Real on my license, I received a thorough dressing down. Jose M. Cortreal on my license, I received a thorough dressing down. The name on my license is thus, first name Jose, last name Maria de Borja de Mendonca Cortreal. You will note the lack of accents or hyphen. I have gradually come to accept that in the U.S. my name no longer includes accents or hyphens on official legal documents, but continue to use Jose Cortreal whenever I can, although as you can see by my name and my signature, I rarely use the accented E on Jose anymore,

Starting point is 00:22:51 for simplicity. The accent on the E has given me much trouble in the past, leading me to receive documents that state my name as J-O-S-A-Y-3-K, or other such combinations of letters and numbers when computers cannot process the accent. I love your podcast and look forward to the new episodes every Monday. Thanks for all that you do. This is like Ellis Island. You hear stories about people arriving with perfectly proper names and just they won't fit into our system.

Starting point is 00:23:16 Oh, and so they got their names changed for them. Arbitrarily. Yeah, so that's what's happened to Jose. Over and over. Their name just ends up being whatever somebody insists on putting down on some official document somewhere. And Roberto Macias wrote, Dear Sharon and Greg, in episode 342, you mentioned people who in different states might need to fill forms using different names. So I finally have a legitimate reason to write you. As a curiosity in this regard, Spanish-speaking countries use two last

Starting point is 00:23:45 names. Since I was born in Mexico, I have two last names accordingly. After acquiring the German nationality, on my German identity documents, both last names count as a single indivisible last name. Yes, despite the blank space with which they're written. The complex part begins with my son. Since my wife is Russian, he has all three nationalities. Given that Mexican law is very particular about last names, my son's last name in Germany is both my Mexican last names. But in Mexico, he has my first last name and my wife's last name. Russia uses patronymics. So in Russia, he has besides his first name, the patronymic, and for some reason, both my last names but with a hyphen. So I'm Roberto Macias B. In Germany, he'll have the

Starting point is 00:24:32 same last name, but in Mexico he'll be Macias K. And in Russia, he'll be Robertovich Macias B. Sounds like a good idea for a lateral thinking puzzle, although requiring knowledge of naming laws in multiple countries won't make it easy to solve. I have shortened the second last name since otherwise the pronunciation tips would require more text than the rest of my mail. Trust me, my wife and I have memorized the NATO alphabet for phone calls in which the correct spelling is important, like for appointments at government offices. And Roberto gave me some nice pronunciation tips for Macias and then said, don't worry, living in Germany, my last name is butchered at least once a week, so I won't take offense if you don't quite nail it and blame it on my pronunciation tips.

Starting point is 00:25:15 Look forward to each episode. Keep up the great work. P.S. Curiously enough, Germans don't use the NATO alphabet as in Alpha Bravo Charlie, but a selection of first names, Anton, Berta, Cesar, and so on. We have also memorized those and use them more often than I care to admit. So his son is three people. Those are three distinctly different names. In each country, he has a totally different last name or a mostly different last name. I wonder if that would land you on a watch list, you know? It looks like you're up to no good. Or they don't think you're the person that you actually are. Right, and you'd have to prove it somehow. Thanks so much to everyone who writes to us. We really appreciate your comments

Starting point is 00:25:53 and follow-ups. If you have anything that you'd like to add, please send that to podcast at futilitycloset.com. It's Greg's turn to try to solve a lateral thinking puzzle. I'm going to give him a strange sounding situation and he's going to try to work out what's going on by asking yes or no questions. This puzzle comes from Kelly Shetland, who thankfully provided pronunciation help for her very intimidating looking last name, or at least it intimidated me. And Kelly's puzzle is, a woman holds an Oscar and gives an Oscar-winning speech where she thanks her closest friends and family. At the conclusion of her speech, instead of proud, she feels only embarrassment. Why?

Starting point is 00:26:36 Okay, when you say Oscar, do you mean an Academy Award? Yeah. In both cases, she's not holding a baby named Oscar. Correct. She's holding an Academy Award and giving an acceptance speech. Yeah. Because she's just won the award. I'm just nailing this down.

Starting point is 00:26:51 No, you're looking at me. No, I won't agree to all of that. Evasively. All right. A woman holding an Oscar and giving an, say it again, Oscar acceptance speech? Where she thanks her closest family and friends. Has she just won the award she's holding? No.

Starting point is 00:27:07 Is it that... Did this really happen? Yes, let's say. So is this a mistake? More in general, no. She mistakenly thought she'd won the award when she hadn't? No. But the speech she's giving is an acceptance speech?

Starting point is 00:27:23 She thinks she's won the award? No. Is this a rehearsal? No. All right, let me back up here. She's holding an Oscar. Yes. An Oscar that hasn't been awarded, intended for her?

Starting point is 00:27:38 That is correct. It's correct that it hasn't been intended for her? That is correct. And in thanking her friends and family, is she under the belief that it was intended for her? No. Is she herself an actress in a scene?

Starting point is 00:27:55 No. Is this whole thing fiction? No. Alright. Okay. She is holding a real Oscarcar yes and she gives a a speech where she accepts it and thanks everybody but then she feels embarrassed embarrassed does that have something to do with the people she thanked or failed to thank no um embarrassed that So she's not embarrassed at something she's just said? Not exactly. Do I need to know more about the role?

Starting point is 00:28:32 She's an actress? She might not be. But she might be. She might be. That's true. I don't know if she is or she isn't. So she won an award... No.

Starting point is 00:28:42 No, no, no. She didn't. So that's why she's embarrassed that she was thanking people and was only mistakenly thinking that she'd won the award? She wasn't mistaken about anything. So she knew she hadn't won the award. Correct. So then the question is, why did she thank anyone? And why is she holding the Oscar?

Starting point is 00:29:03 Is she giving this during the like during the oscar ceremony no and this isn't i keep wanting to go back to a rehearsal idea no it's not she's holding an oscar and thanking people and knows she hasn't won it that's correct and is only afterward embarrassed at something that's happened yeah And is only afterward embarrassed at something that's happened. Yeah. I'm sorry, I just asked you this, but this isn't at the ceremony? It's not at the ceremony.

Starting point is 00:29:34 Why would you do that? Why would you do that? Why would you hold an Oscar and give a thank you acceptance speech? If you're not acting and it's not a rehearsal. Right. And you understand. Yes. Your situation.

Starting point is 00:29:51 Yes. I can't think. I can't think why. Do I need to know where this is? What the venue is? Like of other people? Are other people involved? Anything like that? Do I need to know the wider situation um not exactly or the time period no no no it's not a venue you

Starting point is 00:30:13 wouldn't really call it a venue i can't think of a hint that i can give you she's dreaming no no in what circumstance might somebody do that well as i say i can think of like rehearsals acting some kind of fictional context why would you hold an oscar and was she thanking people on on someone else's behalf no no and this isn't like you know any kind of ceremony or anything like that. Is she just fantasizing, just dreaming of winning an Oscar? Yes. Oh.

Starting point is 00:30:51 I mean, she has an Oscar. But maybe is dreaming of winning a second Oscar? No, no, no, no. She's holding an Oscar, but it's not hers. She's just... It's just someone else's Oscar. It's someone else's Oscar. Exactly, exactly. Apparently, Kelly says, the woman is holding a real Oscar,

Starting point is 00:31:11 but it does not belong to her. She found the Oscar in the bathroom and gave an acceptance speech in the mirror. Upon leaving the bathroom, the woman is embarrassed that she realizes that her pretend acceptance speech was heard. And this is based on a true story. I read an article that Kate Winslet keeps her Oscar in the bathroom so people can give fake acceptance speeches in the mirror. She mentioned that she can always tell when people do it because they take longer to emerge after they flush the toilet and look pink with embarrassment when they exit the bathroom. She said she loves it and it always makes her laugh. And yeah, according to an article in Variety that Kelly sent, apparently Kate Winslet does find it quite amusing that people like to pretend to give Oscar acceptance speeches in her bathroom.

Starting point is 00:31:50 I'd probably do that. So thanks so much to Kelly for that completely harmless puzzle. And if you have a puzzle you'd like to have us try, please send that to podcast at futilitycloset.com. Futility Closet really relies on the support of our listeners. If you'd like to become one of the awesome supporters of our show, please check out the support us section of the website at Futility Closet dot com, where you can find a donate button and a link to our Patreon page. At our website, you can also graze through Greg's collection of over 11,000 obliquing

Starting point is 00:32:24 droleties. Browse the Futility Closet store, learn about the Futility Closet books, and see the show notes for the episode with the links and references for the topics we've covered. If you have any comments or feedback for us, please email us at podcast at futilitycloset.com. Our music was written and performed by Greg's exceptional brother, Doug Ross. Thanks for listening, and we'll talk to you next week.

Futility Closet - 348-Who Killed the Red Baron?

There aren't comments yet for this episode. Click on any sentence in the transcript to leave a comment.