-
Posts
-
Nice one, Mr Q.
You do have talent – in numbers.
I was too busy doing something important or I would have solved it real easy
Honest…
2 members liked this post.
Misterq
Me too was reading, was a little stumped myself. Math my most weakest point in the beginning at questions, except the 100, which shocked myself indeed.. took me a bit…
But impressive as well at your extra talent…
So now wait hopefully to see next new challenge. Make sure Sceptical Guy not too busy, up to the challenge. Hee hee…
The questioner also very impressive. Agree, nice change of forum.
Thanks everyone…1 member liked this post.
Sceptical Guy…
Hee hee, well now most certainly wait for this new challenge… see how you are with talent in numbers..Know you too can be impressive at times with politics, so we have to make sure the questioner stays away from this area….may get answer too quick. Hee hee..
LindaIt’s important with any logical deduction to separate circumstantial evidence from actual solid proof or as the courts would say ” the smoking gun” in proving a case either way. We know there is a traveller and a cloaked figure standing next to a pile of bones. We also know that to the right of the cloaked figure (the travellers left) there is a signet ring with “grandfather” written on it and to the left of the cloaked figure there is an old saddle that may or may not have belonged to a wretched donkey at some stage. We also know as the figure speaks that he points to his left ( the travellers right) to where the bones lie which is the same direction as the saddle.
At this juncture there is no evidence of anything, the circumstantial evidence may point to the bones belonging to the donkey as a saddle is in the vicinity but given the weather conditions as mentioned, time elapsed after death it would be like throwing a cat collar on a gravestone stating felix must lurk in there. The location of the bones is simply to distract from the real hardcore evidence which is indisputable … the words of the figure that states
” Brothers and sisters I have none,but that mans father is my fathers son”. Clearly he has no siblings. The last part of the sentence ” my fathers son”..clearly any individual stating that is talking about himself. Therefore he is pointing at the bones stating “that mans father is himself” making the bones the son of the cloaked figure.
Mister Q is indeed correct once again
1 member liked this post.
TheNorfolkMafia
Thank you for this thread, and the awesome ability to make us go out of the normal to consider the conclusive piece or possible right final answer… this inquiry mind was appreciative. My results challenged me a few times. Hee hee….
Linda x2 members liked this post.
good thread this,its got “legs” should run a while
can I have a go?
easy one to start with
kevins parents had 5 sons in total,their names are ,bab,beb,bib,and bob
what was the fifth childs name?
bee
bub
kevin.
1 member liked this post.
bub although it could have been Rupert according to the milkman
1 member liked this post.
Funny you both…so guess if said Kevin, most obvious, think! ? Applying parents, all same mum?? Hee…
Thing is about question 1,2,3 and Orson’s add on is that a maths riddle or logic riddle, or like follows a sequence. Sequences are interesting in the sense that one has to see the first connection that connects 2 facts in your brain. Once you have made a connection in the item presented, every thing soon falls into place. So the formula to work out a riddle is…don’t look for the answer first…look for the connection which ties the whole thing together. You can start at the front , the back or in the middle. the main thing is to find what connects and your brain will piece it all together.
In my opinion, i feel this is what Sherlock Holmes meant when he said to Watson…’Elementary’.
1 member liked this post.
Get involved in this discussion! Log in or register now to have your say!