[WiZ] United States v. Shrek

[WiZ]

Why did the U.S. military buy a small swamp in remote North Carolina, then proceed to do absolutely nothing with it?

True story. Caveat Earlispoilor.

[GalFisk]

PM sent.

[Sundowner64]

Did they want to prevent someone else from owning the land?
Relevant who the previous owner was?
Did the previous owner offer the land for sale? or, rather, did the army offer him to buy it?
Were other people interested in the land?
Did the army build a fence around the land?
Does the land have some useful quality? is the location relevant? that it is a swamp?
Is it a historical site? a civil war battlefield?
Does the army own land adjacent to this swamp?
Do they have plans to use it at some point in the future?
Did they have plans to use it but these plans became obsolete?
Did they buy it just recently? more than 10 years ago? more than 50 years ago? more than 100 years ago?

[WiZ]

GalFisk

PM sent. Correct; well done

Sundowner

Did they want to prevent someone else from owning the land? yesish
Relevant who the previous owner was? no
Did the previous owner offer the land for sale? no or, rather, did the army offer him to buy it? yes
Were other people interested in the land? no
Did the army build a fence around the land? likely but irrelevant
Does the land have some useful quality? no is the location relevant? please elaborate on 'location' that it is a swamp? yes
Is it a historical site? a civil war battlefield? no to both
Does the army own land adjacent to this swamp? at the time of the purchase? no
Do they have plans to use it at some point in the future? no
Did they have plans to use it but these plans became obsolete? no
Did they buy it just recently? more than 10 years ago? more than 50 years ago? this more than 100 years ago?

[BitterLemonCurry]

Was there a legal requirement for the Army to own some land in this place?
Was the site a distraction?
Nuclear tests relevant? Cold war relevant? Do they still own this land?

[trebor2]

Geological features of the swamp relevant? Weather? Animals?

[WiZ]

BitterLemonCurry

Was there a legal requirement for the Army to own some land in this place? no
Was the site a distraction? no
Nuclear tests relevant? no Cold war relevant? no Do they still own this land? yes

Trebor2

Geological features of the swamp relevant? yes Weather? Animals? no to both

[BitterLemonCurry]

Is it relevantly dangerous to walk around in the swamp site?

[Sundowner64]

Did the army want to prevent the swamp from being drained? Were there relevant plans to drain the swamp? or to do something else with it? would this have had negative impact on army facilities nearby?
Does the swamp area have minerals or other natural resources of relevance?
Was the swamp purchased during WW II? before? after?

[WiZ]

BitterLemonCurry

Is it relevantly dangerous to walk around in the swamp site? no (although it probably is dangerous)

Sundowner

Did the army want to prevent the swamp from being drained? no Were there relevant plans to drain the swamp? or to do something else with it? the possibility of draining the swamp would likely have been seriously mooted; FAs lurking would this have had negative impact on army facilities nearby? no
Does the swamp area have minerals or other natural resources of relevance? no
Was the swamp purchased during WW II? before? after? after

[Sundowner64]

Was the swamp close to the sea? close to a river? close to a highway? close to another military site? close to a densily populated area?
Did anything relevantly cross the swamp? (a road? a railway line? a phone line?)
Is the geographical shape of the swamp relevant? is it sort of a buffer zone around some object of relevance?
Did relevant animals live in the swamp?

[WiZ]

Was the swamp close to the sea? close to a river? close to a highway? close to another military site? close to a densily populated area? no to all - it wasn't close to anything
Did anything relevantly cross the swamp? yope (a road? a railway line? a phone line?) but no to these
Is the geographical shape of the swamp relevant? no is it sort of a buffer zone around some object of relevance? yes, beware FAs
Did relevant animals live in the swamp? no

[doriana_]

Is the swamp relevantly used as a waterway?

[BalinTheDwarf]

Was the swamp going to be used for nuclear testing?

[WiZ]

Doriana

Is the swamp relevantly used as a waterway? no

Balin

Was the swamp going to be used for nuclear testing? no

[BitterLemonCurry]

Is this swamp in a flight lane?

[WiZ]

BitterLemonCurry

Is this swamp in a flight lane? It is along a flight path, but it is not this in itself that makes them want to buy the land

[Sundowner64]

Is it an airfield where new aircrafts are tested? Would the aircrafts fly into the direction of the swamp when tested? so that they would crash into the swamp in case of a failure?
Is the relevant quality of the swamp simply that it's difficult to cross by foot? so that it is rather unlikely that people would be around there? and there is no risk that people would take damage from crashing aircrafts?

[WiZ]

Is it an airfield where new aircrafts are tested? no Would the aircrafts fly into the direction of the swamp when tested? very few would so that they would crash into the swamp in case of a failure? this is not the idea
Is the relevant quality of the swamp simply that it's difficult to cross by foot? no so that it is rather unlikely that people would be around there? no and there is no risk that people would take damage from crashing aircrafts? no

The most relevant proposal so far has been 'is it a buffer zone around an object of relevance'

[doriana_]

UFOs relevant?

[WiZ]

UFOs relevant? no

[Biograd1]

Globally/generally speaking, is the purpose of owning this swamp to circumvent a restriction that would otherwise be placed on the Army's activities if something were conducted over/near privately owned land? to keep something secret? to keep people away from something with which they otherwise might interfere? to study something about the land in its natural state?

Is the relevant geological aspect of the swamp its dampness? its flatness? the type of plants that grow there? the animals that live there?

[WiZ]

Globally/generally speaking, is the purpose of owning this swamp to circumvent a restriction that would otherwise be placed on the Army's activities if something were conducted over/near privately owned land? no to keep something secret? perhaps, but see next to keep people away from something with which they otherwise might interfere? this, predominantly to study something about the land in its natural state? no

Is the relevant geological aspect of the swamp its dampness? this, of everything suggested its flatness? the type of plants that grow there? the animals that live there

[trebor2]

Does the purchase of the swamp have to do with something the US military learned in a previous war? Are recent wars (recent to the time of the purchase) relevant? If so, relevant what war?

Are they trying to cover up something? Trying to make something inaccessible? Are they trying to keep people from interfering with something that is happening adjacent to the swamp? In the swamp's general area? Are they concerned about: civilians interfering? Other government employees? Certain other workers? An organization? An NGO? Another non-profit? People who might question the legality of what they're doing? The ethics of it? Are they trying to prevent agents from other countries interfering? Are they literally hoping people might get stuck in the mud of the swamp? (Or be dissuaded from interfering with whatever it is because the swamp is impassible?)

[WiZ]

Does the purchase of the swamp have to do with something the US military learned in a previous war? no Are recent wars (recent to the time of the purchase) relevant? yes If so, relevant what war? yes - but a passing familiarity with it will suffice to see the relevance

Are they trying to cover up something? not really Trying to make something inaccessible? yes Are they trying to keep people from interfering with something that is happening adjacent to the swamp? In the swamp's general area? no to both Are they concerned about: civilians interfering? Other government employees? Certain other workers? An organization? An NGO? Another non-profit? none of these to any particular extent People who might question the legality of what they're doing? The ethics of it? these are unlikely to be controversial Are they trying to prevent agents from other countries interfering? not specifically, but it would have this effect Are they literally hoping people might get stuck in the mud of the swamp? no (Or be dissuaded from interfering with whatever it is because the swamp is impassible?) no - this deterrent would exist regardless of who the owner was

[JenBurdoo1]

Was the swamp on or near a bombing or firing range? Were experiments being done with weapons? Anything to do with an ongoing war? Perhaps one that ended before they could use the swamp for its intended purpose, or a weapons system that became obsolete and was no longer needed?

[trebor2]

The recent war: WW2? Korean War? Vietnam? Gulf war? The Iraq War? Testing assumption here: a war fought on American soil?

Possible dumb question, but double-checking: the flight path of man-made aircraft? The flight path of birds?

Object of relevance: is it one object? A location? A project? Multiple objects? A living thing? Multiple living things? A monument? Something relevant to the military? To the US government? To the US populace in general? A historical site? Something with an educational purpose? Cultural? Is it tangible?

[WiZ]

JenBurdoo

Was the swamp on or near a bombing or firing range? Were experiments being done with weapons? no to these Anything to do with an ongoing war? no, going by your examples Perhaps one that ended before they could use the swamp for its intended purpose, or a weapons system that became obsolete and was no longer needed?

Trebor

The recent war: WW2? no Korean War? Vietnam? these two formed a part of it Gulf war? The Iraq War? no to both Testing assumption here: a war fought on American soil? for the most part, no

Possible dumb question, but double-checking: the flight path of man-made aircraft? correct The flight path of birds?

Object of relevance: is it one object? yes A location? A project? Multiple objects? A living thing? Multiple living things? A monument? no to these Something relevant to the military? yes To the US government? yes, by extension To the US populace in general? A historical site? Something with an educational purpose? Cultural? no to rest Is it tangible? yes

[Biograd1]

Does the military believe that there may be remnants of something in the area that fell from military aircraft that previously flew over it? that might give away secret information if examined? Or do they want to avoid people being in close enough range to observe something about current, and future, aircraft that might be gleaned by observing them from within that area?

[Sundowner64]

Cold war relevant?
Did a part of an aircraft/satellite/balloon/other flying object fall into the swamp? a flight recorder? some other object containing secret data?
Did the nature of the swamp make it impossible to retrieve the item immediately? so the army wanted to make sure at least that no-one else gets hold of it?
Does the reason for owning the swamp still exist in our days?

[WiZ]

Biograd

Does the military believe that there may be remnants of something in the area that fell from military aircraft that previously flew over it? yes to principle, no to 'remnants' that might give away secret information if examined? no Or do they want to avoid people being in close enough range to observe something about current, and future, aircraft that might be gleaned by observing them from within that area? no

Sundowner

Cold war relevant? not especially
Did a part of an aircraft/satellite/balloon/other flying object fall into the swamp? no, to go by your examples a flight recorder? some other object containing secret data?
Did the nature of the swamp make it impossible to retrieve the item immediately? yes so the army wanted to make sure at least that no-one else gets hold of it? yes, this was the general idea
Does the reason for owning the swamp still exist in our days? yes

[Sundowner64]

Are there actually object(s) of interest in the swamp? Or is it just that potentially something may fall down there?
Are the objects related to military? to U.S. military?
Are the objects part of something that was flying over the swamp? of something that was fired over or onto the swamp? was the object dropped intentionally? did it fall intentionally? did it fall due to a failure? was the intention that the object comes down in some other place but it fell into the swamp by mistake/failure?
if the object was part of something flying: did the flying object continue its flight? did they even notice on the spot that a part fell off?

[WiZ]

Are there actually object(s) of interest in the swamp? yes Or is it just that potentially something may fall down there? no
Are the objects related to military? to U.S. military? yes to both
Are the objects part of something that was flying over the swamp? no of something that was fired over or onto the swamp? no, but warmer was the object dropped intentionally? no did it fall intentionally? no did it fall due to a failure? yes (further details irrelevant) was the intention that the object comes down in some other place but it fell into the swamp by mistake/failure? yes, more or less
if the object was part of something flying: did the flying object continue its flight? yes did they even notice on the spot that a part fell off? assume yes

[Sundowner64]

Was there a relevant object in the air (not necessarily over the swamp)? or in outerspace? from which a part fell off? and landed in the swamp?
Did the part fall off over the swamp? or rather, flew into the swamp by its trajectory?
Was the object a rocket or missile? a weapon?
Was the intention that the object goes into the sea?

[WiZ]

Was there a relevant object in the air (not necessarily over the swamp)? yes or in outerspace? from which a part fell off? not a 'part' per se and landed in the swamp? but yes
Did the part fall off over the swamp? or rather, flew into the swamp by its trajectory? this
Was the object a rocket or missile? yes a weapon? and yes
Was the intention that the object goes into the sea? irrel

***** SPOILER *****

A cold war B-52 bomber lost a wing in a storm shortly after takeoff from Seymour Johnson AFB. As was procedure, the crew proceeded to drop two of the most powerful U.S. atomic nuclear weapons into the riparian area below, near Pikeville. One bomb floated gently down with its parachute and was soon retrieved. The other bomb plunged headlong into the deep organic soils of Nahunta Swamp. The recovery team managed to excavate some 40′ only to fall short of the unexploded weapon. The call was made to leave-the-bomb-to-be, a permanent protective easement was purchased from Davis family for $1000, and the bomb is still there — no fence, if I recall correctly.

Congratulations, Sundowner, on the solution, and thank you everyone for playing!