[Haenlomal] To skin a cat Log Out | Topics | Search
Moderators | Register | Edit Profile

Lateral Puzzles » Solved Lateral Thinking Puzzles » Solved Puzzles - July 2005 » [Haenlomal] To skin a cat « Previous Next »

Author Message
Haenlomal (Haenlomal)
Posted on Tuesday, July 12, 2005 - 4:13 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

A very quick puzzle to temporarily round out my quota of three while my other two puzzles are still being solved.

And just a quick disclaimer: despite the title, no animals are harmed in any fashion in the course of this puzzle. :)





Title: To skin a cat

Difficulty: Easy

Type: True Story

Story:
A man works at a place that requires its employees to enter and exit the workplace through a security checkpoint. Due to the nature of work, employees can be expected to enter and exit the premises multiple times a day.

The first two times the man passed through the checkpoint, there was no incident. But when the man tried to pass through the checkpoint a third time, he was detained. The man had done nothing out of the ordinary at work, and had not changed his appearance in any way. Nor was he carrying anything extra on him or with him. There was no security alert issued against the man, so security had no special reason to look out specificly for him. Yet, security decided to take him in for questioning, and rightly so. Why?


To Solve:
Why did security detain the man?

Specialized Knowledge needed:
None needed

Good luck!
Ed Mason (Logician)
Posted on Tuesday, July 12, 2005 - 5:52 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Had he actually done anything 'unsavoury'? Whilst he wasn't carrying anything extra, was there a specific item he wasn't carrying that he should have been?
Did the man even work there?
Haenlomal (Haenlomal)
Posted on Tuesday, July 12, 2005 - 7:19 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Had he actually done anything 'unsavoury'? NoWhilst he wasn't carrying anything extra, was there a specific item he wasn't carrying that he should have been? No
Did the man even work there? Yes
Barbara Johannessen Bailey (Rabrab)
Posted on Tuesday, July 12, 2005 - 7:36 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Is the title relevant at all? if yes, is the relevance "more than one way"?
Haenlomal (Haenlomal)
Posted on Tuesday, July 12, 2005 - 7:43 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Is the title relevant at all? Only very peripherally if yes, is the relevance "more than one way"? Yes, that is the idea I was trying to drive across

While the puzzle title, as is usual in all my puzzles, has some degree of relevance to the situation on hand, in this case the relevance is rather weak and tenuous. I would concentrate on other avenues of inquiry if I were you.
Barbara Johannessen Bailey (Rabrab)
Posted on Tuesday, July 12, 2005 - 9:51 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Well, if you say that it's weak and tenuous, I'll risk a wild guess and hope that I don't $poil.

Were the security guards made suspicious by the direction he was travelling the third time he passed the checkpoint?
Haenlomal (Haenlomal)
Posted on Tuesday, July 12, 2005 - 10:23 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Well, if you say that it's weak and tenuous, I'll risk a wild guess and hope that I don't $poil. Well, this puzzle was meant to be solved very quickly, so don't worry about that. :)

Were the security guards made suspicious by the direction he was travelling the third time he passed the checkpoint? Yope, but good question!
Barbara Johannessen Bailey (Rabrab)
Posted on Tuesday, July 12, 2005 - 11:42 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Were they suspicious at all before he came through the checkpoint the third time?

Did he go in, then come out, then come out again?
Or did he come out, go in, and then go in again? Either of these would indicate that he had another way in and out of the building that bypassed the checkpoint, which should make the guards suspicious.
Lisa (Dlcygnet)
Posted on Wednesday, July 13, 2005 - 1:42 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Does the man work at the airport? Did he say the words "bomb", "fire", "hijack", while he was walking through? Was he simply randomly selected by the computer to be searched and questioned like tons of people are every day? Did they detect (smell?) traces of chemicals on him that probably rubbed off during work? Were they pulling him aside for his own safety? Were they pulling him aside for everybody elses safety?
Veggie-Trunks (Veggie_Trunks)
Posted on Wednesday, July 13, 2005 - 4:27 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Was he ever carrying anything?
Was it what he should have had that had them worried?
Is there an actual cat in this scenario?
Is anything literally being skinned?
Were they suspicious as to why he would continuously be going in and out of the checkpoint?
Was this the checkpoint to enter the place or into another part of the place?
Haenlomal (Haenlomal)
Posted on Wednesday, July 13, 2005 - 4:01 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Rabarb

Were they suspicious at all before he came through the checkpoint the third time? The source doesn't say, but presumably no.

Did he go in, then come out, then come out again? No
Or did he come out, go in, and then go in again? No Either of these would indicate that he had another way in and out of the building that bypassed the checkpoint, which should make the guards suspicious. But this thinking is definitely on the right track! Good quest--urm, statement :)

Dlcygnet

Does the man work at the airport? No Did he say the words "bomb", "fire", "hijack", while he was walking through? No, in fact, he didn't say anything at all during the 3 times he passed through the checkpoint Was he simply randomly selected by the computer to be searched and questioned like tons of people are every day? No Did they detect (smell?) traces of chemicals on him that probably rubbed off during work? No Were they pulling him aside for his own safety? No Were they pulling him aside for everybody elses safety? No

Veggie_Trunks

Was he ever carrying anything? Nothing that is relevant to this puzzle
Was it what he should have had that had them worried? No
Is there an actual cat in this scenario? No, and...
Is anything literally being skinned? ...no -- see my answer to Rabrab's post on Tuesday, July 12, 2005 - 07:36 pm

Were they suspicious as to why he would continuously be going in and out of the checkpoint? Yope. As stated in the puzzle description, employees at this place do have a legitimate reason to come and go from there, so continuously going in and out would not in and of itself raise any red flags. Nonetheless, there was something about this particular man that raised some suspicion. See my answers to Rabrab above for more help
Was this the checkpoint to enter the place or into another part of the place? Yes -- it was the checkpoint for all employees to enter their place of work
Barbara Johannessen Bailey (Rabrab)
Posted on Wednesday, July 13, 2005 - 5:11 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Was his third pass through the checkpoint suspicious because of its timing? was it too soon? or too long? after the second?

Was the guards' suspicion that he did have another way in and out of the building? That he was doing something he shouldn't have been while he was inside? that he was doing something? going somewhere? that he shouldn't have been while he was outside?

Is the technology used by the guards relevant at all? If so, is the tech level
high? (like retinal scanners or fingerprint readers or other biometrics?)
medium? (like card-keys or magnetic badges?)
low? (a sign-in book?)
John Faben (Bentarm)
Posted on Wednesday, July 13, 2005 - 5:29 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Is it relevant what the man's workplace is? A government building?

The first time he went through the checkpoint? Was he going in? Out? second time in? out? Third time in? out?

Were the same guards working all three times he went through the checkpoint? Is the period of time between his passing the checkpoint on each occasion relevant? minutes? hours? days? (now that might be suspicious!)

Oh, and just to be sure - there are no wheelbarrows involved in any way in this puzzle are there?
Veggie-Trunks (Veggie_Trunks)
Posted on Wednesday, July 13, 2005 - 5:35 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Is he in jail by any chance and the reason they were suspicious the third time is because he was going out without permission (Just a guess)?
Haenlomal (Haenlomal)
Posted on Wednesday, July 13, 2005 - 5:54 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Rabrab

Was his third pass through the checkpoint suspicious because of its timing? was it too soon? or too long? after the second? No to all

Was the guards' suspicion that he did have another way in and out of the building? Yes, but beware of FA! That he was doing something he shouldn't have been while he was inside? that he was doing something? going somewhere? that he shouldn't have been while he was outside? No to the rest

Is the technology used by the guards relevant at all? No, but I'd imagine the security would be considered pretty high for its time If so, is the tech level
high? (like retinal scanners or fingerprint readers or other biometrics?)
medium? (like card-keys or magnetic badges?)
low? (a sign-in book?)

Bentarm

Is it relevant what the man's workplace is? Only peripherally A government building? Well, it is a government facility, but calling it a 'government building' is FA'ish.

The first time he went through the checkpoint? Was he going in? This one Out? second time in? This one out? Third time in? This one out? Excellent set of questions -- well done! I believe this will help make things much more clear. :)

Were the same guards working all three times he went through the checkpoint? YES -- another good question! Is the period of time between his passing the checkpoint on each occasion relevant? Not really, except for the fact that it all occurred during one security shift minutes? hours? days? (now that might be suspicious!)

Oh, and just to be sure - there are no wheelbarrows involved in any way in this puzzle are there? No :)

Veggie_Trunks

Is he in jail by any chance and the reason they were suspicious the third time is because he was going out without permission (Just a guess)? Good guess, but sorry, nothing like this
Barbara Johannessen Bailey (Rabrab)
Posted on Wednesday, July 13, 2005 - 6:23 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

"Was the guards' suspicion that he did have another way in and out of the building? Yes, but beware of FA!"
Is the FA that the workplace was a building?

Is the workplace a military base? an airfield? a research facility? a construction area?

And it appears that he had two other ways out, since you said that he went -in- through the checkpoint all three times, but only the third trip was suspicious. So however he left between the first and the second trips must have been acceptable, even though it didn't cross the checkpoint...

Wild guess--Is parachuting involved in any way?


Is he one of the guards, himself?
Haenlomal (Haenlomal)
Posted on Wednesday, July 13, 2005 - 7:09 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

"Was the guards' suspicion that he did have another way in and out of the building? Yes, but beware of FA!"
Is the FA that the workplace was a building? Yes -- FA removed

Is the workplace a military base? an airfield? a research facility? This one -- and quite a famous one at that, if you want to try to guess for backstory purposes. :) a construction area?

And it appears that he had two other ways out, Actually, no since you said that he went -in- through the checkpoint all three times, but only the third trip was suspicious. So however he left between the first and the second trips must have been acceptable Actually, no :), even though it didn't cross the checkpoint...

Wild guess--Is parachuting involved in any way? No, but good thinking


Is he one of the guards, himself? No

I think this one is nearly done...
Barbara Johannessen Bailey (Rabrab)
Posted on Wednesday, July 13, 2005 - 10:38 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

I don't...

So you're saying that he went in, and that was ok, and then he went in again, without crossing the checkpoint again, and that still didn't make the guards suspicious, but when he went in for the third time without going out through the checkpoint, that was when the guards got suspicious?

Did he have an identical twin? who was the person who came in the second time?

And just because I never know what's going to help, was the research facility US government? UK? Canada? somewhere in Europe? Asia? South America? Antarctica?
Lewis Zeiters (Lzeiters)
Posted on Thursday, July 14, 2005 - 1:07 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

was the research facility testing site-to-site matter transport? (like the transporters in Star Trek) i doubt it, but it makes for an interesting thought...

Did the guards receive some sort of information between his second and third passage through the checkpoint to make them more alert?
Veggie-Trunks (Veggie_Trunks)
Posted on Thursday, July 14, 2005 - 7:07 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Did he come in once and then out twice which made them wonder how he came out twice when he only entered once or vice versa of that?
Haenlomal (Haenlomal)
Posted on Thursday, July 14, 2005 - 3:37 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Rabrab

I don't... It could be perhaps you haven't yet fully realized the significance of what you guys have discovered... :)

So you're saying that he went in, and that was ok, and then he went in again, without crossing the checkpoint again, and that still didn't make the guards suspicious, but when he went in for the third time without going out through the checkpoint, that was when the guards got suspicious? Yes, but...

Did he have an identical twin? No who was the person who came in the second time? It was the same guy all three times

And just because I never know what's going to help, was the research facility US government? This one UK? Canada? somewhere in Europe? Asia? South America? Antarctica?

Lzeiters

was the research facility testing site-to-site matter transport? (like the transporters in Star Trek) i doubt it, but it makes for an interesting thought... Sorry, but the so-called Philadelphia Experiment has nothing to do with this puzzle. Recall that this is a true story...

Did the guards receive some sort of information between his second and third passage through the checkpoint to make them more alert? No

Veggie_Trunks

Did he come in once and then out twice which made them wonder how he came out twice when he only entered once or vice versa of that? No....as has been established, the man was observed going in all three times
Ed Mason (Logician)
Posted on Thursday, July 14, 2005 - 4:08 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

To clarify the original question - is the question why he was detained at all? or why the guards waited until he entered the third time to detain him?

Does this event happen during peacetime?

You said earlier that he didn't say anything whilst passing through the checkpoint - should he have said something?

Is it even relevant how the man exited the facility the two times before being detained?

Did the guards say anything to the man the first and second time he entered the facility?

Did the man have a change of attitude between the second and third times of going through the checkpoint? (which would only be spotted if he went past the same guards)
Haenlomal (Haenlomal)
Posted on Thursday, July 14, 2005 - 4:36 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

To clarify the original question - is the question why he was detained at all? This one, but... or why the guards waited until he entered the third time to detain him? ...you might have to dig a little bit into this one in order to answer the first question

Does this event happen during peacetime? Irrelevant, but as it turns out, no

You said earlier that he didn't say anything whilst passing through the checkpoint - should he have said something? Irrelevant, but I don't think so -- the man was sufficiently well known that most of the guards would probably recognize him on sight

Is it even relevant how the man exited the facility the two times before being detained? YES -- good question!

Did the guards say anything to the man the first and second time he entered the facility? Maybe, maybe not, but definitely nothing that's relevant

Did the man have a change of attitude between the second and third times of going through the checkpoint? (which would only be spotted if he went past the same guards) Irrelevant, and no
Ed Mason (Logician)
Posted on Thursday, July 14, 2005 - 5:50 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Did the man exit the building the same way both times? (if not, answer the following questions for each occasion)

Did he exit by air? on foot? by car? by motorised buggy? by scooter? by some other form of transport? underground?

Did he try and make any secret about his method of exiting the building?

Did the guards move from their post at the checkpoint at any time? Is this relevant?

Were his motives for exiting the facility called into question? Was this why he was detained? Did the guards even think that man should be detained?

Did the guards see him when he was exiting the facility?

Did the guards think that anything was amiss when they saw him entering the facility the second time?
Lisa (Dlcygnet)
Posted on Sunday, July 17, 2005 - 11:38 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Did he exit the building carrying anything?
Was he trying to smuggle stuff out?
Is his secret way in/out of the facility one-way?
Does he jump out a window?
Go through a fire exit?
Then has to walk in through the front door to get back to his post?
After doing this the third time, the guards finally got wise to his actions and detained him to see if he'd been getting locked out when he went to smoke a cigarette? Or to figure out his escape route and then figure out if he was taking any secret documents?
Smuggling weapons? Biological weapons?
Letting unauthorized people into the facility?
Haenlomal (Haenlomal)
Posted on Monday, July 18, 2005 - 6:57 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Logician

Did the man exit the building the same way both times? Yes (if not, answer the following questions for each occasion)

Did he exit by air? on foot? This one by car? by motorised buggy? by scooter? by some other form of transport? underground?

Did he try and make any secret about his method of exiting the building? Yope

Did the guards move from their post at the checkpoint at any time? No Is this relevant? Yes -- in order for this puzzle to work, it'd have to be the same set of guards all three times the man passed through the checkpoint.

Were his motives for exiting the facility called into question? No Was this why he was detained? So no to this as well Did the guards even think that man should be detained? Yes -- and as stated in the puzzle statement, the guards were correct in thinking that the man should be detained.

Did the guards see him when he was exiting the facility? NO -- good question!

Did the guards think that anything was amiss when they saw him entering the facility the second time? The source doesn't say -- maybe one or two of them raised an eyebrow the second time he passed through (maybe asking themselves if they saw the guy walking out the facility), but the man wasn't detained.

Dlcygnet

Did he exit the building carrying anything? Nothing relevant
Was he trying to smuggle stuff out? No
Is his secret way in/out of the facility one-way? NO -- good question!
Does he jump out a window? No
Go through a fire exit? No -- nothing so prosaic as that, I'm afraid. :)
Then has to walk in through the front door to get back to his post? No -- if he wanted to, the man could have easily used the 'secret way' to go back in.
After doing this the third time, the guards finally got wise to his actions and detained him to see if he'd been getting locked out when he went to smoke a cigarette? Or to figure out his escape route and then figure out if he was taking any secret documents? This is the closest
Smuggling weapons? Biological weapons?
Letting unauthorized people into the facility?
Lauri Ahonen (Klaivu)
Posted on Tuesday, July 19, 2005 - 3:55 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Did the facility have several buildings? Any buildings? Was it a dig? Bomb test grounds? Was he hazardous to other people unknowingly? Did he have a criminal intent? Radiation involved? Was he a janitor or some other employee of low importance? Was the area fenced?

Just some stabs.
Haenlomal (Haenlomal)
Posted on Tuesday, July 19, 2005 - 4:59 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Did the facility have several buildings? Yes Any buildings? So yes to this as well Was it a dig? No Bomb test grounds? No, but this is in the right forest... Was he hazardous to other people unknowingly? No Did he have a criminal intent? No...quite the contrary, in fact. Radiation involved? Irrelevant, but as it turned out, yes Was he a janitor or some other employee of low importance? No...quite the contrary, in fact... Was the area fenced? YES -- good question!

Just some stabs. And some good stabs they were. You have just cracked this puzzle wide open, in fact. There's only one more step before I can $poil this puzzle....
John Faben (Bentarm)
Posted on Tuesday, July 19, 2005 - 5:23 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Was the facility the Manhattan Project? Was the fella involved a physicist? Feynman? (I don't recall this story, but it seems reminscent of several of his japes)
Was he deliberately making a point by repeatedly going out of the facility without going past the checkpoint? Did he go out through a hole in the fence? Was his aim to get the guards to notice the hole in the fence? Had it otherwise been being ignored?
John Faben (Bentarm)
Posted on Tuesday, July 19, 2005 - 5:25 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

by 'the Manhattan Project', I would, of course, mean 'Los Alamos Research blah blah blah, or whatever it was called)
Barbara Johannessen Bailey (Rabrab)
Posted on Tuesday, July 19, 2005 - 6:10 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

the Oak Ridge facility in Tennesseee?

Was the man the director of the facility? one of the heads of research? the head of security?

Was he checking to see how many different ways he could leave, looking for possible security breaches? checking to see how long it took the guards to get suspicious?
Haenlomal (Haenlomal)
Posted on Tuesday, July 19, 2005 - 8:06 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Bentarm

Was the facility the Manhattan Project? No, but as you alluded later on, it was indeed the Los Alamos Research Facility. Was the fella involved a physicist? Yep Feynman? And yes! It be him. :) (I don't recall this story, but it seems reminscent of several of his japes)
Was he deliberately making a point by repeatedly going out of the facility without going past the checkpoint? YES Did he go out through a hole in the fence? YES Was his aim to get the guards to notice the hole in the fence? YES Had it otherwise been being ignored? YES!!! Well done. Your insightful questions have more than justified me putting a.....

*********** SPOILER **************

The time was World War II, and Richard 'Dick' Feynman was one of many famous physicists working on the Manhatten Project down in Los Alamos.

Due to the important nature of the research, the facility was under heavy security. The area was fenced off, and everyone had to go through a rather time consuming checkpoint in order to get to work.

Apparently, many were unhappy with the delay. So when a small hole was discovered in the fence by one enterprising wag, many people started to use it instead as a shortcut to work.

When Feynman learned of this, he did not approve. However, he did not want to be seen as a "snitch" either. His solution? Make the guards suspicious enough to discover the breach for themselves. This was accomplished by him going through the checkpoint properly, and then exiting through the hole in the fence, and then entering through the checkpoint again and again until the guards clue in that something was wrong. According to Feynman, it took the not-so-observant guards three times before they finally detained him, and find out about the hole in the fence.

Thanks to all who participated, and a special mention to Bentarm for putting this puzzle out of it misery!

Add Your Message Here
Post:
Username: Posting Information:
This is a private posting area. Only registered users and moderators may post messages here.
Password:
Options: Enable HTML code in message
Automatically activate URLs in message
Action: