omni
Junior Member
Posts: 74
|
Post by omni on Sept 1, 2019 18:20:41 GMT -5
The following Question was posted on MW on 7/1/2014: Mr. Fenn: In the past when you have said that several people had figured out the first two clues and then went right past the other clues, would you say that they got lucky and just happened to go to the correct starting area, not fully understanding the poem, or would you say that they did indeed solve the first two clues by understanding the poem and clues? C
Searchers have routinely revealed where they think the treasure was hidden and walked me through the process that took them on that course. That’s how I know a few have identified the first two clues. Although others were at the starting point I think their arrival was an aberration and they were oblivious to its connection with the poem. Playing a hunch is not worth much in the search and those who start out by looking for the blaze, are wasting their time.fWhat I find curious is the part: 'Although others were at the starting point I think their arrival was an aberration and they were oblivious to its connection with the poem'..... What does that part sound like to you? Do you feel WWWHH is in some very remote location? ..."they were oblivious to its connection with the poem". He didn't say its connection to me, but its connection with the poem, as if the answer can be "seen" in the poem. I do not think WWWH is remote. I think it and the treasure is in or very near a public place and that is why he laughed on his way back to his car. I think that while the number of people who have solved the first 2 clues is small, the number of people who have been in the area is large.
|
|
|
Post by van on Sept 1, 2019 19:54:03 GMT -5
Could be the water (stahls) stalls = Stahl Peak Mt Is it possible that the poem should be repeated, so there are multiple WWWH within the solve. or maybe having to reverse track through the poem so at the end there is another WWWH. I believe that letters a-l-o-n-e, will appear in the final area where the chest if found. Dang, I was just thinking no one would ever think about Stahl Mnt. And there you go posting about Stahl mnt.
FF said searchers were within 500 feet about 7 years ago, so I imagine that the correct location of wwwh must be already be posted in one of the many forums by now. There are thousands of solves to look at. If you are looking in a very unique place that is never mentioned; then you may be in the wrong location; just a thought. I also find it strange/silly that people feel the need to keep information secret or talk in codes. Even if you post the correct location(s); no one will believe it, its just noise at this point. I tend to post information that I find interesting, and typically someone will reply with a comment that I find useful. I believe getting feedback on particular items is much more important/useful than keeping items secret.
|
|
|
Post by Jenny on Sept 9, 2019 14:37:43 GMT -5
Dang, I was just thinking no one would ever think about Stahl Mnt. And there you go posting about Stahl mnt.
FF said searchers were within 500 feet about 7 years ago, so I imagine that the correct location of wwwh must be already be posted in one of the many forums by now. There are thousands of solves to look at. If you are looking in a very unique place that is never mentioned; then you may be in the wrong location; just a thought. I also find it strange/silly that people feel the need to keep information secret or talk in codes. Even if you post the correct location(s); no one will believe it, its just noise at this point. I tend to post information that I find interesting, and typically someone will reply with a comment that I find useful. I believe getting feedback on particular items is much more important/useful than keeping items secret.
I agree that most likely the location for WWWH has been mentioned somewhere in discussions on the Chase..... and it brings us back to the question, what will cause WWWH to be recognized as being correct or wrong?......obviously there are some locations which hold better possibilities than others for being the right spot. Maybe we should take a WWWH's solution each day and consider 'Pro's and Con's' for it..... For example..... what about WWWH for where the Firehole meets with the Madison? What is for or against this being WWWH? And not just by the poem, but by any of Forrest Fenn statements and comments since the Poem's release. For myself..... it seems 'too popular', used, and thought about. When Forrest started saying the first two clues were 'solved', it was only by a few searchers. At that time it seemed like there were lots (more than just a few) who felt WWWH was where the Firehole flows into the Madison.....suggesting this can't be the correct WWWH? what do you think?
|
|
|
Post by zaphod73491 on Sept 9, 2019 17:11:55 GMT -5
Jenny -- I think that's a valid criticism of Madison Junction. A whole lot of searchers have been using it for a long time. It's similar to my argument that Forrest's "word that is key" is unlikely to be one of the poem's 166 words (or quite a bit less than 166 if you don't count the duplicates). Most of the poem's words are so simple as to be useless for providing "key" information. For example, in the first stanza alone I would say none of the following words would be unique enough to help: As, I, in, there, and, with, my, where, and of. Once you remove the articles, pronouns and conjunctions, the list of remaining words that could be reasonable candidates for a keyword will number less than 100.
Now divide that 100 into the (presumably) hundreds of thousands of emails Forrest has received over the last 9 years. Odds are, every one of those poem words has been offered up as a possibility by at least 100 people (and for words like Brown, treasures, meek, brave, wood and blaze, perhaps hundreds of people). Yet Forrest has said only a few are in tight focus with a word that is key. That fact alone should eliminate "Brown" and "blaze" as the potential "word that is key" that Forrest searches emails for, since I would imagine nearly everyone has considered those at one time or another.
|
|
|
Post by goldilocks on Sept 9, 2019 17:45:58 GMT -5
Jenny -- I think that's a valid criticism of Madison Junction. A whole lot of searchers have been using it for a long time. It's similar to my argument that Forrest's "word that is key" is unlikely to be one of the poem's 166 words (or quite a bit less than 166 if you don't count the duplicates). Most of the poem's words are so simple as to be useless for providing "key" information. For example, in the first stanza alone I would say none of the following words would be unique enough to help: As, I, in, there, and, with, my, where, and of. Once you remove the articles, pronouns and conjunctions, the list of remaining words that could be reasonable candidates for a keyword will number less than 100. Now divide that 100 into the (presumably) hundreds of thousands of emails Forrest has received over the last 9 years. Odds are, every one of those poem words has been offered up as a possibility by at least 100 people (and for words like Brown, treasures, meek, brave, wood and blaze, perhaps hundreds of people). Yet Forrest has said only a few are in tight focus with a word that is key. That fact alone should eliminate "Brown" and "blaze" as the potential "word that is key" that Forrest searches emails for, since I would imagine nearly everyone has considered those at one time or another. More specifically he said, "Every word is placed in there strategically, and you can't ignore any of the nouns in that poem." If you consider that each noun has multiple meanings, your Math is actually off by quite a bit. Even if someone mentions the word "blaze" in an e-mail, they would need to use it in the context that Forrest intended. I can't eliminate any words with confidence.
|
|
|
Post by kaotkbliss on Sept 9, 2019 21:24:42 GMT -5
Jenny -- I think that's a valid criticism of Madison Junction. A whole lot of searchers have been using it for a long time. It's similar to my argument that Forrest's "word that is key" is unlikely to be one of the poem's 166 words (or quite a bit less than 166 if you don't count the duplicates). Most of the poem's words are so simple as to be useless for providing "key" information. For example, in the first stanza alone I would say none of the following words would be unique enough to help: As, I, in, there, and, with, my, where, and of. Once you remove the articles, pronouns and conjunctions, the list of remaining words that could be reasonable candidates for a keyword will number less than 100. Now divide that 100 into the (presumably) hundreds of thousands of emails Forrest has received over the last 9 years. Odds are, every one of those poem words has been offered up as a possibility by at least 100 people (and for words like Brown, treasures, meek, brave, wood and blaze, perhaps hundreds of people). Yet Forrest has said only a few are in tight focus with a word that is key. That fact alone should eliminate "Brown" and "blaze" as the potential "word that is key" that Forrest searches emails for, since I would imagine nearly everyone has considered those at one time or another. My guess is you've used the word that is key (well a derivative of) in the last sentence of your post...
|
|
|
Post by zaphod73491 on Sept 9, 2019 21:58:35 GMT -5
Not "alone," if that's what you were thinking, though good catch. ;-) I have no doubt that the keyword isn't a poem word.
Synonyms of poem words opens up an endless rabbit hole: I sympathize with poor searchers who have been sucked into that black hole.
|
|
|
Post by foolsgold on Sept 10, 2019 16:54:18 GMT -5
Not "alone," if that's what you were thinking... Why not? Just to demonstrate: Alone, Castaway, Deserted, First, Hermit, Lone, Lonely, Loneliness, One, Outcast, Pioneer, Solitude, Solo. And these are just the obvious interpretations. How about more, if you add "gone... in there" context? Bathroom, Bath, Casket, Cockpit, Coffin, Grave, King, (Vision) Quest, Sarcophagus, Scapegoat, Sepulcher, Spearhead, Tomb, Tub, Washtub, Zeus Everyone, feel free to add more... And this is just 1 single word from the poem. It might, as well be the word that is key.
|
|
|
Post by goldilocks on Sept 10, 2019 18:23:28 GMT -5
How remote is wwwh? Actually, it may be very remote. Warm water's hauled in the Navajo Nation in Northwestern NM. Residents who live in very remote areas have to haul their water in.
|
|
|
Post by zaphod73491 on Sept 10, 2019 19:44:47 GMT -5
It can't be *that* remote with so many people showing up there--some by design, some oblivious. I think over a million people have been there in the last 9 years.
|
|
|
Post by Jenny on Sept 11, 2019 6:55:15 GMT -5
Is it a 'tourist' location or a popular place?
While I don't mind the idea of that, the fact only a few searchers had identified the first two clues by 2013 seems to suggest it might not be. Wouldn't more searchers have considered a well known location by that time in the Chase, and mentioned it to Forrest??
|
|
|
Post by goldilocks on Sept 11, 2019 9:46:08 GMT -5
It seems to me that people have found the right location but don't know what they are looking for once they get there. Maybe there's a blaze of sorts at each clue to confirm one is on the right path.
|
|
|
Post by richard on Sept 13, 2019 22:22:48 GMT -5
Is it a 'tourist' location or a popular place? While I don't mind the idea of that, the fact only a few searchers had identified the first two clues by 2013 seems to suggest it might not be. Wouldn't more searchers have considered a well known location by that time in the Chase, and mentioned it to Forrest?? It is in a highly visited area is my belief. In that he said only a couple were with in 200 feet, there had been many, and he said he was not even certain they were searchers, were with in 500 feet. Then you must conclude it was a popular tourist area. But he was certain few would go to it's location close enough to find it. NPFTM is my take.
|
|
omni
Junior Member
Posts: 74
|
Post by omni on Sept 16, 2019 0:04:03 GMT -5
Is it a 'tourist' location or a popular place? While I don't mind the idea of that, the fact only a few searchers had identified the first two clues by 2013 seems to suggest it might not be. Wouldn't more searchers have considered a well known location by that time in the Chase, and mentioned it to Forrest?? Forrest only counts those who have solved the clues. I get the impression that many people have been to this place. But only a few got there the correct way.
|
|