Editing Talk:1501: Mysteries

Jump to: navigation, search
Ambox notice.png Please sign your posts with ~~~~

Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.

The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then save the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
Latest revision Your text
Line 109: Line 109:
  
 
: Oh lawdy, the tinfoil hat brigade has arrived. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.56.202|173.245.56.202]]
 
: Oh lawdy, the tinfoil hat brigade has arrived. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.56.202|173.245.56.202]]
 
Anyone else reminded of [[Fuck Grapefruit]]? [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.203|199.27.128.203]] 00:19, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 
  
 
;Carly Simon
 
;Carly Simon
  
 
The Carly Simon explanation includes the text "This sets up a paradox in which the song is and isn't about the vain person."  This isn't correct.  The song is definitely about the person.  Carly is thus asserting that the subject's vanity will lead him to a correct interpretation of the song.  Going to change the explanation. [[User:EverVigilant|EverVigilant]] ([[User talk:EverVigilant|talk]]) 14:51, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 
The Carly Simon explanation includes the text "This sets up a paradox in which the song is and isn't about the vain person."  This isn't correct.  The song is definitely about the person.  Carly is thus asserting that the subject's vanity will lead him to a correct interpretation of the song.  Going to change the explanation. [[User:EverVigilant|EverVigilant]] ([[User talk:EverVigilant|talk]]) 14:51, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
: The lyric is "I bet you think this song is about you". The use of the word "think" implies that the conclusion is incorrect. If it were correct, words like "recognise", "know", or "understand" would be more appropriate. [[User:Jkshapiro|Jkshapiro]] ([[User talk:Jkshapiro|talk]]) 01:11, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 
:: Yet the word "you" makes it clear it is addressing someone who thinks the song is about them. That person is being directly addressed and being told that they think the song is about them, which it therefore is, so they actually think correctly - whatever their other faults. All those others who only ''think'' the song is about them, in that sense, aren't even being sung about/to and so the song has no message for them. All those people are clearly only assuming that they are indeed supposed to assume that they are the primary target of the statement. Although they are also clearly vain enough to do that, by definition... ;) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.77|172.70.162.77]] 03:21, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 
  
 
I don't see why this is on Randall's chart. The Wikipedia article is all the explanation the world needs. And Warren Beatty's reaction to the song simply seals it for me. No Big Deal. Move On. ''– [[User:Tbc|tbc]] ([[User talk:Tbc|talk]]) 18:41, 20 March 2015 (UTC)''
 
I don't see why this is on Randall's chart. The Wikipedia article is all the explanation the world needs. And Warren Beatty's reaction to the song simply seals it for me. No Big Deal. Move On. ''– [[User:Tbc|tbc]] ([[User talk:Tbc|talk]]) 18:41, 20 March 2015 (UTC)''
 
The Carly Simon song is about Carly Simon, and how she was mistreated by the vain person. It's only vanity makes the person think it's about them. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.38.210|162.158.38.210]] 14:08, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 
 
In November 2015, Carly Simon confirmed (as part of the publicity for an upcoming memoir) that the second verse is about Warren Beatty, and that the other verses refer to two other men whom she has yet to name. --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.56.41|162.158.56.41]] 14:27, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 
  
 
;WOW signal
 
;WOW signal
Line 139: Line 131:
 
[[Special:Contributions/173.245.55.26|173.245.55.26]] 04:53, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 
[[Special:Contributions/173.245.55.26|173.245.55.26]] 04:53, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 
:Though I can't say anything about supernatural nature of the incident because I don't have proof,(well, I don't have any proof at all because the incident was happened in 1959) I think I can give you an argument about the weapon test and the cover up. Occam's Razor. I mean, weapon test normally done in secured military area, not out in public area. All the more reason if you want to test a secret weapon. Basically, there's no point of doing weapon test there. Furthermore, 1959 was a time when government very sensitive about data, I'd say that they would even declare the recipe of a pie as a national secret. And since we probably read the same source that is Wikipedia, I don't know where they suggest the weapon test theory since the first sentence under the subtitle 'theories' unambiguously say that "avalanche damage is considered one of the more plausible explanation for this incident". Then, about the ball of lightning and (if I may) radioactivity, since I'm pretty sure that none of that stuff turns up in the original documents from the incident, I'll argue that those were added later by people who just can't resist making things spookier than the incident actually are. [[User:Kagakujinjya|Kagakujinjya]] ([[User talk:Kagakujinjya|talk]]) 06:53, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 
:Though I can't say anything about supernatural nature of the incident because I don't have proof,(well, I don't have any proof at all because the incident was happened in 1959) I think I can give you an argument about the weapon test and the cover up. Occam's Razor. I mean, weapon test normally done in secured military area, not out in public area. All the more reason if you want to test a secret weapon. Basically, there's no point of doing weapon test there. Furthermore, 1959 was a time when government very sensitive about data, I'd say that they would even declare the recipe of a pie as a national secret. And since we probably read the same source that is Wikipedia, I don't know where they suggest the weapon test theory since the first sentence under the subtitle 'theories' unambiguously say that "avalanche damage is considered one of the more plausible explanation for this incident". Then, about the ball of lightning and (if I may) radioactivity, since I'm pretty sure that none of that stuff turns up in the original documents from the incident, I'll argue that those were added later by people who just can't resist making things spookier than the incident actually are. [[User:Kagakujinjya|Kagakujinjya]] ([[User talk:Kagakujinjya|talk]]) 06:53, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 
As a semi-professional mountaineer and a last-year medical student, I'd like to point out some commonly and erroneusly believed data. Surely I'm not a professional and I underline that I still can't explain what really happened there. But some facts should be understood. Firstly, I don't think the Avalanche explanation is reasonable. It's very clear that 4 of dead bodies found in a place which about 1.5 kilometers away from the tent. If it's really an avalanche, I assure you, you cannot be able to run away (like 1.5 kilometers!) before it catches and bury you under the snow. Plus, such an avalanche should bury all the tent under the snow level, not particially. Yet, sometimes it isn't an avalanche, I mean, an amount of snow comes down from the peak, makes a loud noise and terrifies you to the bones as you worngly fear that "Avalanche is coming and will bury me alive".. and may partly covers the tent. Yes, this is more reasonable. The tent might have been covered up with the snow and made it all fallen-down, frightening the Dyatlov squad so bad that they tore the tent to get out immediately. But, there I need to object. These nine peole are a group of experienced mountaineers. When got out from the hole of the tent, experienced mountaineers should have easily seen that it wasn't an avalanche. They should have relax and, after enough time, start mocking each other for how he/she pissed off like a kitty. But they ran down the hill for 1.5 kilometers without their suitable clothes and equipment! No sir, I don't think such replacement of snow levels in this amount, would make the Dyatlov squad to act this way. In the diary of the squad, a member of group wrote they had settled the tent on a low degree of slope on the eastern façade of the mountain, which makes the avalanche and snow replacement less possible. By the way, I have seen four different avalanches so far. I have seen a couple mountaineers died of it. Yet, I don't see any possibility of such avalanche may cause a spot and penetrative head injury as it happened in the incident. An avalanche smashes you. The snow gets in your nostrils and ears, makes you paralyzed with permanant necrosis in your extremites, usually damages your urinary tracts, causes mesenteric ischemia due to the shock, applies pressure on your ribs (rarely can make fractures, either) But it doesn't make your skull crashed. It'll be more realistic to say spot injuries on skull needs spot or high-pressured impacts, not blunt ones. (A better and more detailed account for this point is also can be read on the official document)
 
 
 
And secondly, scavenging animal idea can be an explanation for the lost tongue, true. However, in autopsy report (I didn't save the link for the original report, I wish I did), it said that the loss of tongue starts from glottal root, which makes whole thing another debate. During the process of decay, soft tissues like tongue degenerate and regress. It would be normal if a smaller tongue was found. And a missing part in the tongue could mean wolves, rats or pigeons had had a feast of fresh human meat. But even after many years of decay, corpse should still obtain some amount of tongue tissue. And unless you're an animal obsessive with the little red worm in the hunt's mouth, you don't spend extra effort to eat it all starting from the root. You prefer more muscled and delicious parts like femoral area or abdominal organs. In the conclusion, after 56 years, nothing really explains a lack of tongue in the mountaineer's dead mouth. 
 
 
Yet, the general scientific idea for the weird shade of skin is right, I think. All the decay processes includes this so-called "tanning". Furthermore, the radiation issue is explained with Kyshtym disaster happened 18 months before the incident and not very distant to the mountain pass. I don't know how radiation effects on the material like in these occasions, even months later. But it seems satisfying to me. It's not mentioned here but another theory is based on the foamy saliva seen on the perioral region of Igor Dyatlov's dead body. I don't know if we can use Occam's Razor on this finding but when I was a student in Forensic Medicine Rotation, we were tought that most basic explanation for foamy saliva is toxication. So if we'll talk about Occam's Razor, signs of dread and delirium in the squad, panic-caused runaway from the tent, injuries could be caused of it and the foamy saliva may lead us to the toxication of gas, which is compatible with "Soviet weapon" claims.
 
 
I don't want to support any of the theories without many other possible evidences to be declared. But I really can't accept the claim that an avalanche was the reason. You can't escape out of an avalanche and a non-avalanche snow replacement doesn't make you so frightened. Moreover, this explanation is not a real explanation for heavy injuries. Actually, many specialists of the first expedition equip in 1959 thought it had not be able to be an avalanche happened there when they considered the geography of the mountain they discovered the tent (You can have a little trip on Google to find the thoughts of the specialists) While this remains a mystery, how do we think the incident so explainable ?
 
 
I know some people wants such incidents to remain mysterious. Nevertheless, I see sometimes we skeptical people are over-simplistic to have an explanation. So, unlike Randall do, I see no point of marking the Dyatlov Pass Incident as "Very Explainable". However, I guess this all has an explanation in the Russian goverment secret archieves. In 2008, the official TV channel of Russian federation opened up the case again. In many interviews it was told, some curious people during 1980s digged deeper to reach further investigations but all of them was confronted a goverment block and strictly advised to stay out of this case. I don't know, it seems more scientific to say there is some more hidden behind locked doors and document boxes for some reason in this incident than carelessly insisting on avalanche, wolves and paradoxical undressing.
 
I apologize for my bad English grammar. --[[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.74|141.101.99.74]] 18:14, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 
  
 
;Off the chart up and to the right
 
;Off the chart up and to the right
Line 156: Line 137:
 
:Yep. And how to make a star. And how to make a planet. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.249.158|108.162.249.158]] 11:19, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 
:Yep. And how to make a star. And how to make a planet. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.249.158|108.162.249.158]] 11:19, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 
::Hydrogen + Time [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.192|108.162.216.192]] 14:28, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 
::Hydrogen + Time [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.192|108.162.216.192]] 14:28, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
:::Plus... magic? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.249.158|108.162.249.158]] 05:22, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
+
 
  
 
;Inaccurate explainability rating
 
;Inaccurate explainability rating
Line 196: Line 177:
  
 
This is one of the weirdest mysteries I've come across. I'd be surprised if Randall hasn't heard of it, though. See [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taman_Shud_Case Wikipedia]. [[User:Mark314159|Mark314159]] ([[User talk:Mark314159|talk]]) 01:22, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 
This is one of the weirdest mysteries I've come across. I'd be surprised if Randall hasn't heard of it, though. See [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taman_Shud_Case Wikipedia]. [[User:Mark314159|Mark314159]] ([[User talk:Mark314159|talk]]) 01:22, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 
; z axis
 
 
Too bad that comics can't be 3D (or at least not convincingly) since an axis
 
"Time you wasted on googling around on topic X after reading the comic" would
 
be very interesting...I browsed on Songfacts more than all else combined -
 
talk about priorities :-) [[Special:Contributions/198.41.243.240|198.41.243.240]] 16:13, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 
 
Is it worth mentioning that all the articles mentioned are creepy or otherwise likely to keep one up at night? --[[Special:Contributions/172.69.33.71|172.69.33.71]] 18:37, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 
 
== Salish Sea Feet ==
 
 
This has actually been explained quite thoroughly - see [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salish_Sea_human_foot_discoveries]. It's my least favourite thing about the comic, though I understand that Randall wouldn't want to edit past work.
 

Please note that all contributions to explain xkcd may be edited, altered, or removed by other contributors. If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then do not submit it here.
You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource (see explain xkcd:Copyrights for details). Do not submit copyrighted work without permission!

To protect the wiki against automated edit spam, we kindly ask you to solve the following CAPTCHA:

Cancel | Editing help (opens in new window)

Template used on this page: