Did the small business find out the lie was the truth, after the non-lie was told?
Did the owners of the small business always know the lie was the truth?
Is the oil company’s motivation relevant to solving the puzzle?
Did the oil company’s motivation concern the stock price of the company?
Did it concern any stock price?
reply to j666: (with additional explanation on a couple of answers because I don’t know how to fairly answer otherwise)
Did the small business find out the lie was the truth, after the non-lie was told? No. They always thought the non-lie was the truth.
Did the owners of the small business always know the lie was the truth? They thought the lie was the truth.
Is the oil company’s motivation relevant to solving the puzzle? It is a possible inroad to the truth.
Did the oil company’s motivation concern the stock price of the company? No
Did it concern any stock price? No
Clarification:
The small business people thought the lie was true. It wasn’t a case of them finding out the lie was true. They encountered the report and naturally assumed that the report was truthful and never thought otherwise.
Did the lie involve whether it was possible to travel across the land or transport something across the land in a particular way?
reply to SpoilerVirgin:
Did the lie involve whether it was possible to travel across the land or transport something across the land in a particular way? No
Did the lie involve a particular law - that something was or was not legal?
** Yes and No***
*Define “involve.”
Was the lie that some particular action (or not taking some action) would be legal?
Was the lie that some particular action (or not taking some action) would be illegal?
Was the lie that some particular action (or not taking some action) would result in a civil lawsuit?
reply to SpoilerVirgin
Was the lie that some particular action (or not taking some action) would be legal?
Was the lie that some particular action (or not taking some action) would be illegal?
Was the lie that some particular action (or not taking some action) would result in a civil lawsuit?
No to all.
I am going to work now, so further responses will not be immediate.
“… how what happened could have happened.”
But what did happen?
The oil company commissioned an unnecessarily fraudulent report …
If the fraud was not necessary, the oil company either did not know or was mistaken about some fact …
And none of this involved (a) natural resource(s), including oil.
Those are ruminations, not questions.
Was the transportation infrastructure of the time relevant to the incident?
Was the communication infrastructure of the time relevant?
Did the general store owners all ready own their land when the report was published?
I’m really curious about this answer, and would like to follow up.
Can you confirm that the oil company expected no monetary gain from the lie?
Did Otto and Ernest expect any monetary gain from the lie?
Did the oil company expect to gain in prestige or reputation from the lie?
Did Otto and Ernest expect to gain in prestige or reputation from the lie?
Did the oil company expect some other non-monetary benefit from the lie?
Did Otto and Ernest expect some other non-monetary benefit from the lie?
Was the motive that Otto and Ernest had for the lie substantially different from that of the oil company?
reply to j666:
Was the transportation infrastructure of the time relevant to the incident? Yes. But only marginally.
Was the communication infrastructure of the time relevant? Again, marginally. Thought this incident could happen today, it would play out differently because the transportation infrastructure and especially the communication structure are very different from the 1930’s.
Did the general store owners all ready own their land when the report was published? **No **
**reply to SppilerVirgin **
I’m really curious about this answer, and would like to follow up.
Can you confirm that the oil company expected no monetary gain from the lie? The oil company did not expect monetary gain from the lie.
Did Otto and Ernest expect any monetary gain from the lie? **No **
Did the oil company expect to gain in prestige or reputation from the lie? **No **
Did Otto and Ernest expect to gain in prestige or reputation from the lie? **No **
Did the oil company expect some other non-monetary benefit from the lie? No. I don’t think so.
Did Otto and Ernest expect some other non-monetary benefit from the lie? **Yes. **
Was the motive that Otto and Ernest had for the lie substantially different from that of the oil company?** Not sure. It depends on the legal relationship between the oil company and the two men. It’s possible the oil company got the same benefit. I am not sure.**
Is the type of job of Otto and Ernest had highly relevant in your opinion?
Is the job they had still a job for people today?
reply to Mahaloth:
Is the type of job of Otto and Ernest had highly relevant in your opinion? **Yes **
Is the job they had still a job for people today? **Yes **
Is the land in question located in a city?
A large metropolitan area? No
After reading around at least some sources indicate that the oil company enjoyed the non-monetary benefit of the lie.
And I must offer one other correction. While the lie was spread by Ernest and Otto (with the backing of the oil company) in the 1930’s, the lie was not discovered (as described in the original problem) until the 1950’s. Biotop regrets the error.
Were Ernst & Otto surveyors?
Geologists?
Botanists?
Civil engineers?
reply to j666
Were Ernst & Otto surveyors? No
Geologists? No
Botanists? No
Civil engineers? No