|
Post by NMA on Apr 1, 2007 9:50:10 GMT
AA, Abir: what I originally said was She was still wearing the sunglasses as she got off the train. She didn't take the sunglasses off during the journey. Sana: This is why I asked Shayan to explain why he asked those particular questions. Yes actually. the best way to describe it is she slipped off the train. And not as in losing balance. As in, sneak out. wslm NMA
|
|
|
Post by Sana :) on Apr 1, 2007 16:20:26 GMT
There was something on the train that she was terrified of. Was it a big scary dog?
Other less likely explanations include: she was a fugitive or did something bad on or off the train. Maybe there was a ticket inspecter there and she didnt have a valid ticket. IT could be someone famous, trying to be recognised. I suggested celebrity before, but I guess not all 'famous' people are 'celebrities'.
Wassalam
|
|
|
Post by NMA on Apr 4, 2007 20:46:26 GMT
AA, Big scary dog? you jest, right? please? Why is that less likely? This is actually less likely, as the available evidnece is largely contradictory to it. Regardless of whether they are trying to be recognised or not, the actions don't match the suggested motive. If she was famous and trying to avoid recognition, then why not wear the sunglasses on the platform also? And if she was trying to be recognised, why put on sunglasses that will reduce recognisability? You currently have more than enough information to answer this puzzle. It is true there are a few more important pieces of information that will help exclude some possibilities. If stuck, try following this suggestion I made earlier: or try the differential list. Both methods work in most situations, and used together they are increadibly useful. wslm NMA
|
|
|
Post by Sana :) on Apr 4, 2007 21:36:52 GMT
salaam
wrt to the ''someone famous'' idea, i meant trying NOT to be recognised.
why is big scary dog a joke suggestion? if u were sitting nxt to something u had a phobia of im sure ud try ur best not to move or do anything... to avoid being attacked or something, then slip off the train as quietly as possible. so far it seems the most fitting explanation to me.
the fugitive theory is less likely because it dznt explain why the person is trying so hard not to move.
i'll continue guessing here in a month, after my exams...that is if no-one else has figured it out by then.
wassalam
|
|
|
Post by Shayan on Apr 4, 2007 22:52:40 GMT
AA,
In response to NMA's question about why I chose to ask the questions I did (see post on page 2 of this thread) unfortunately I can offer no deeply profound explanation.
As it happens they seemed to me to be the most important things to ask at the time as we hadn't been given this information at that time. The reasons I chose to ask each question are as follows:
Whilst on the train, besides keeping still did she say/do anything else?
I thought it was important to know this in order to find out if her decision to wear the sunglasses was associated with any other behaviour or peculiar mannerism as this could include/exclude certain diagnosis & maybe reveal her mental state/anyother physical illness etc. Also to know if she had interacted with other passengers in any way - which could possibly rule out the paranoia/avoiding recognition thought amongst other things.
You stated she left the train before you, did she remove the sunglasses before she left the train or was she still wearing them as she left?
I thought it was important to know this because I wanted to know if wearing the sunglasses was something she did exclusively whilst on the train. If so, then the reason for her wearing sunglasses was specifically to do with being on a train and the answer to this problem could be confined to the carriage of the train or being on a moving train per se.
Did she walk off the train normally?
I asked this question to see if she had any problems with her gait and or balance etc and as such a need to try and keep still whilst seated, or to see if there was any evidence that she might have been under the influence of alcohol etc.
As things stand I haven't drawn any firm conclusions as yet but I would like NMA to please answer some more questions for me.
1) What time of day did this incident occur i.e. was it morning, afternoon, evening or night?
2) Was the station she boarded the train at overground (since many tube stations are in fact not underground)?
3) If the station where she boarded the train was overground, did the train remain overground for the duration of her journey or did it go underground?
I must admit NMA saying "she sneaked off the train" has confused me a little because it would seem to go back to the paranoia/avoiding recognition angle. Was there any possibility she may have had a mental illness i.e. was she schizophrenic (paranoid or otherwise)? I guess the fact she exhibited no other particular behaviour other then keeping still would probably rule this out (I was thinking talking to herself etc).
Anyways that'll do for the time being - I need to spend a bit of time thinking about this more carefully.
WS,
Shayan
|
|
|
Post by abir on Apr 5, 2007 12:45:31 GMT
Salaam
I want to know if the train started off underground and ended up over ground? because that could explain the need for sun glasses. I have been thinking to writing this for a while so I'm sort of gutted that Shayan beat me to it.
Abir
|
|
|
Post by NMA on Apr 6, 2007 9:16:08 GMT
AA, Sana: It is true that someone wanting to avoid the attentions of a potential attacker might sneak away. However, with regards to sitting next to a big scary dog, of whom she had a phobia: 1. If she was so gripped by fear that she froze, leaning back in her seat to get as far away as possible, then it is rather unlikely that she would be able to get out of said seat and quietly slip off the train. 2. If, on the other hand she was less terrified, then why leave the train at all? Or why stay in the seat? Why not move to the door earlier? A dog is unlikely to have been able to follow. 3. If her actions were a result of fear from a dog next to her, then even if she doesn't interact with it, animals sense fear and the dog should have interacted with her. Owners sometimes pull dogs away, and apologise. It has already been revealed that she had no obvious interaction with any other passenger, and as a dog would have been a passenger, that means dog included. 4. How does a big scary dog explain sunglasses? The other reason I admit and apologisefor being slightly bemused was how you zoomed in to such a specific explanation. Think in more broad terms. Shayan: Thank you fo rthe explanations. You will be relieved to know that I was not looking for anything profound, just what you gave. I like t osee the reasoning behind the questions :-). wrt the reason for the sunglasses being confined to the carriage, this is neither proved nor disproved by her wearing sunglasses as she gets off the train. We do not know how quickly they were removed, as I stayed on the train to complete my own journey. As for your new questions: 1. good question. It was a little after 4 pm on a spring afternoon, just before the start of the 'rush hour'. It was therefore, daylight outside. Questions 2 and 3, and indeed Abirs question, are ok questions. Here and elsewhere, though, you have identified that there are some aspects of the journey you do not know. A better question is 'where did she board and leave the train?' I shall answer this oine instead, if it's alright with you- the answers to your questions can be derived from the answer to this, but it gives other useful information besides. We boarded the train at Warren Street. She departed at Euston. I kinda expect this one to be solved soon. You have all the information you require to answer it. If stuck, I have already suggested methods of how to approach the problem. Have fun Wslm NMA
|
|
|
Post by abir on Apr 7, 2007 0:34:58 GMT
Salaam
Well im probably looking to much into the two stations but i just happen to know that those they are only one stop apart on both the northern and victoria line so did the person by any chance get on the wrong line and thus put the glasses on out of embarrassment?
Wsalaam
Abir
|
|
|
Post by NMA on Apr 7, 2007 8:06:04 GMT
AA, 1. No one would know if she got on the wrong train. No one would even know if she was embarrassed. 2. How does that explain the staying still part of things? But yes, they are just one short stop apart, and it was a good thought. wslm NMA
|
|
|
Post by mrakhtar on Apr 19, 2007 10:18:26 GMT
As she was only one stop away from her destination, perhaps she wore the sunglasses to adjust/prepare her eyes to a darker scene, rather than go out into the sun and then put the sunglasses on?
Pathethic attempt i know, and still doesnt explain her sitting still...
|
|
|
Post by NMA on Apr 20, 2007 17:12:07 GMT
AA, Try a differential list, or list all known data, as suggested earlier more than once. The point about 1 stop... how many people take the tube from Warren Street to Euston??? wslm NMA
|
|
|
Post by yasmin on May 29, 2007 2:23:26 GMT
asalam al alaikum, it would be pointless and waste of money to go for one stop - its walkable distance, so prob she was travelling somewhere via a line that stops at warren st and then wanted to change to a line that goes from euston and not warren st., so she could continue her journey, so maybe she was getting tired and a headache from all the switching/travelling/thinking and so put on the sunglasses (she already had them in her handbag since it was spring possibly), and stayed still just coz tired and to try and get some v short rest before continuing the tiring journey, or maybe she just came back from archway hospital/uch (uch advertised on warren street, so maybe she only knows the way from there) and maybe she wasnt in a good mood, so she wanted to jus cover up her eyes incase wanted to cry, or jus tired/stressed again so lying still to get rest. still waiting answer, someone please get it! or NMA give it away, this could continue for years!! wasalam
|
|
|
Post by NMA on May 29, 2007 21:13:21 GMT
AA I truely hope this does not continue for years. The last ten months have been tough enough on me, thanks Give it away- I don't need to. The answers are all within the thread. Or atleast the questions are. Stop using 'maybes'. Maybes don't help much in analysing situations, as they do not provide anything further to go on. And all I then do is consider your points in an 'if... then' fashion, and demonstrate they cannot be true. Stick to what you know, and be aware of the ambiguities. Once you know what you know, the rest becomes easy. The knowledge available to you in this puzzle comes in 3 different categories: The information given in the thread, the information you have from experiance, and common sense. The answer to the puzzle is so simple that you will probably want to challenge me that you all had gotten it already by this point, and yet it has not been correctly stated. Now to your suppositions: yes, it is a waste of money, yes it is walkable, and yes, it makes more sense to walk. THATs the point. However, every line that goes through Warren Street also goes through Euston, unless my memory is failing, or there has been a massive reconfiguration of the London underground in the last couple of years/ months. Now about lyinig still to get rest. We have discussed this before earlier. I beleive I asked how easy it is to stay still on the underground. Simply, the train moves, right? Physics says that unless an amount of effort is put into keeping an object still, if within a moving container and in contact with a part of said moving container some of the movement will be transferred to the object, which will then move, i.e. NOT stay still. Ignoring Physics, have you ever tried to stay still on a moving underground train? Ever seen anyone dose off in their seat? they dono't stay still... they bop along to the rhythm of the train. So if thats what people do when relaxed, then staying still cannot be relaxing. In summary, if she was staying still, pressed back in her seat, then she was being very active, putting an awful lot of energy into, staying still. Re read the thread. This may seem blunt, or harsh, but I have made recommendations in more than one place on how to approach this problem. I have seen a few differential lists, and no lists of known facts/ actions in a chronological order. Quite frankly, I am rather bored of recommending methods to approach a problem that people are struggling with, only to have them ignored and instead recieve more requests for help. There is no point in me just saying the answer, and help has already been offerred but not accepted. Right, a brief moan aside, then, keep going! the answer is more than within your grasp, and even though you have all the necessary information, you can still ask for more details to assist you! wslm NMA
|
|
|
Post by Shayan on May 29, 2007 21:58:51 GMT
AA,
Rest assured NMA your advice has not been ignored - I intend to give it my best shot at solving this problem - and hopefully in weeks rather than years.
I say weeks as I have been busy of late and just haven't got round to answering this properly - and as it happens the next couple of weeks will be quite busy too.
I will try to get something sensible posted up asap - unless someone beats me to it!
This really MUST be solved soon as it's dragged on far too long.
WS,
Shayan
|
|
|
Post by NMA on Jul 9, 2007 22:49:56 GMT
AA, if this makes it to a year, which by the way is in 2 weeks time, I will simply answer it myself, lock the thread, and hang my head in shame on all of your behalfs. Like I said before, I wouldn't have put this in here if I didn't think it might be of some benefit to you, but there we go. *sigh* wslm NMA
|
|