|
Post by Jenny on Sept 12, 2019 14:03:49 GMT -5
In Cynthia Meachum's book, on page 23, she shares a story about Forrest and that comment about 'The hidden treasure is not associated with any structure'. She relates how she was talking to Forrest about her solution for 'home of Brown' was a CCC Cabin, and in her words in the book, "he immediately said, "don't you remember, I said it can't be associated with any structure." This suggests, as she concluded, None of the clues are to be associated with a structure......not just the location of the treasure chest. Which does go along with Forrest saying they are geographic.... and all clues would last 'hundreds of years'....structures might not... but is it none? So, what is "it" in the second reported quote? Forrest doesn't help individual searchers, yet suddenly he rules out structures for all 9 clues where the 9 clues are "it" for Cynthia? Also, he is reminding that he said this before when the only known structure quote from before is about the chest not being associated with a structure. This is akin to the "did you dip your toe in it"comments to searchers on their wwwh. I'm guessing he's pulling their legs, like the more obvious ___ miles west of Toledo "hints." He clearly ruled out structures for the treasure so people would stop digging up outhouses or whatever else they may have been doing. He has zero incentive to rule out structures as clues. It seemed to me that Forrest felt he already ruled 'structures' out for everyone, and was just reminding Cynthia he did so. I'm not so sure it was said in jest. This is one of those quotes that seems if your solution doesn't include any structures, you're ok with. However, if your solution does include the use of a structure or two, then it is debated because it would influence your solution. It should be debated either way--
|
|
kk
Junior Member
Posts: 89
|
Post by kk on Sept 12, 2019 16:24:02 GMT -5
I think they are two different features, with one connection between the two forming a single clue.
|
|
|
Post by Jenny on Sept 13, 2019 5:46:46 GMT -5
Whether or not others approve of Forrest chatting with searchers is irrelevant. It happens. And the debate is not about that.
It is about whether Forrest felt he ruled out structures for all clues when he said,'the treasure is not associated with any structure.' His conversation with Cynthia suggests he did. And if he does feel that way, (whether or not he stated it correctly to pass searchers examination of that meaning), then he wasn't giving out 'inside info', he was just commenting on something he felt he already said.
I feel this seems very likely to be a possibility. I take it at face value-- a relaxed conversation between friends. And there is nothing wrong about that. He wasn't giving out information when he felt he already stated the fact- in his mind.
How do you find the treasure? You find it by following all 9 clues in the poem. I can understand that when Forrest said 'the treasure is not associated with any structure' he might have meant none of the clues in the poem are associated with a structure.
It is possible. It depends on how you see 'the treasure'. The whole poem is about the treasure- so saying 'the treasure' can suggest all 9 clues. Forrest might think that.
And then there is support for that idea--- we have issues of how would we marry the clues to a 'structure'? We are told to marry it to a map. There is also the issue of time. Structures deteriorate rather quickly compared to geographic locations. He planned for the possibility it would be hidden for hundreds of years.... etc...
But again..... I understand it can be thought as 'just the chest', especially when not considering the conversation between friends-- and just sticking to the poem. Ultimately, the poem reveals all. So all good....
|
|
|
Post by goldilocks on Sept 13, 2019 7:25:27 GMT -5
Things Forrest tells searchers in private can be misinterpreted. Hearsay is just that and cannot be verified it for it's accuracy.
|
|
|
Post by crm114 on Sept 13, 2019 12:13:08 GMT -5
I appreciate Drifter's post explaining my argument better than I did, but for the record, I trust Forrest not to treat those with special access to any hints.
Having known some people of Forrest's generation, I know they like to pull legs. Maybe I am fooling myself about knowing when Forrest is pulling a leg or not - it's a lot easier to tell when he is caught on film or at least audio. I am using it in this case to argue that he didn't give out any new hints, not that anything improper occured.
There was a fenn tuber a while back that explained a solve where he ended up in the desert. As I was watching, I said to myself that's in the desert, it's not there. Sure enough the Fenn tuber said Forrest replied back to him in email, saying essentially the same thing. Forrest also released that to Jenny or Dal right away... It was the (paraphrasing) "If your solve is in the desert, get a new solve" quote. This gave me confidence that even the slightest possible hint would be revealed to all.
When I first came into the chase, I was a little perturbed that there were all these quotes scattered around the internet. Knowing things eventually disappear from the internet, I was feeling it wasn't totally fair to new searchers. I've since come to the conclusion that all this extra information makes for great discussions, and it's replicated around enough that if you do your research, you will run across it, eventually. Forrest himself seems to repeat the same information elsewhere anyway.
To new searchers, I would say the times where Forrest truly rules something out are long past and not really in dispute. WWWH is not a dam, the chest is not in the Rio Grande, not in a mineshaft, the chest is not associated with a structure, etc. Many of these were associated with safety or to keep people from doing dumb things. Whether a structure is associated with clues 1 to 8 or not, I repeat that Forrest has no incentive to rule it out, just like he won't rule out a lot of other things.
I like Cynthia, but I think being close to Forrest is likely more of a detriment to solving the poem than a benefit, seeing how people have latched on to things he says as vital hints. To her credit, she published it. Even recently, people are reading way too much into the "did you dip your toe in it" supposed inside information about WWWH, imo. I have to chuckle along with Forrest that people are probably out there taking off their shoes now. Hopefully they have the sense to not dip their toes in something scalding. The fact that Forrest did not come out publicly with a "dip your toe in it" or "none of the clues are associated with a structure" comment is a dead giveaway he was having a west of Toledo chuckle with those people and his private comments had zero hints in them.
|
|
|
Post by TxTH on Sept 13, 2019 13:04:48 GMT -5
I think of this line and like to keep it simple. I like keeping things simple at my age. To me, Forrest is simply saying the heavy loads of the contents of the chest are located up this stream (the correct one). You will encounter high water along the way as you travel up it, be that what it may be, whether a water fall or deep water that is high on your legs. We will know when we see it. Or is that "I will know when I see it." lol Don't faint Jenny! I know. I actually posted in the Forrest Fenn Chase topic. I couldn't help myself. Two days until my wife and I leave on our treasure hunt!
|
|
|
Post by richard on Sept 13, 2019 14:50:42 GMT -5
Whether or not others approve of Forrest chatting with searchers is irrelevant. It happens. And the debate is not about that. It is about whether Forrest felt he ruled out structures for all clues when he said,'the treasure is not associated with any structure.' His conversation with Cynthia suggests he did. And if he does feel that way, (whether or not he stated it correctly to pass searchers examination of that meaning), then he wasn't giving out 'inside info', he was just commenting on something he felt he already said. I feel this seems very likely to be a possibility. I take it at face value-- a relaxed conversation between friends. And there is nothing wrong about that. He wasn't giving out information when he felt he already stated the fact- in his mind. How do you find the treasure? You find it by following all 9 clues in the poem. I can understand that when Forrest said 'the treasure is not associated with any structure' he might have meant none of the clues in the poem are associated with a structure. It is possible. It depends on how you see 'the treasure'. The whole poem is about the treasure- so saying 'the treasure' can suggest all 9 clues. Forrest might think that. And then there is support for that idea--- we have issues of how would we marry the clues to a 'structure'? We are told to marry it to a map. There is also the issue of time. Structures deteriorate rather quickly compared to geographic locations. He planned for the possibility it would be hidden for hundreds of years.... etc... But again..... I understand it can be thought as 'just the chest', especially when not considering the conversation between friends-- and just sticking to the poem. Ultimately, the poem reveals all. So all good.... Even though F said the TC is not associated with any Man Made Structure, we have to take in what he defines as a structure. We know from his own words it is not a bridge, an out house, or a mine. So from his inferral we can eliminate those but some others I think are not considered included in that statement. We can believe that the TC is not hidden in, or under any structure, but we can not assume that it has noting to do with any man made object. By it's very definition a structure is an object that cannot move. Forrest did not state a man made object, he said very clearly a structure. Two different things all together. He also as I believe was only referencing the location where the TC is placed, and not all clues. I think his conversation with Cynthia was taken out of context with what she was saying. I think that in it self may be an unintended clue to the location of the TC.
|
|
|
Post by goldilocks on Sept 13, 2019 16:02:30 GMT -5
Even though F said the TC is not associated with any Man Made Structure, we have to take in what he defines as a structure. We know from his own words it is not a bridge, an out house, or a mine. So from his inferral we can eliminate those but some others I think are not considered included in that statement. We can believe that the TC is not hidden in, or under any structure, but we can not assume that it has noting to do with any man made object. By it's very definition a structure is an object that cannot move. Forrest did not state a man made object, he said very clearly a structure. Two different things all together. He also as I believe was only referencing the location where the TC is placed, and not all clues. I think his conversation with Cynthia was taken out of context with what she was saying. I think that in it self may be an unintended clue to the location of the TC. He said it's not under a man-made object. dalneitzel.com/2017/06/29/safety_first/
|
|
|
Post by richard on Sept 13, 2019 16:18:47 GMT -5
Even though F said the TC is not associated with any Man Made Structure, we have to take in what he defines as a structure. We know from his own words it is not a bridge, an out house, or a mine. So from his inferral we can eliminate those but some others I think are not considered included in that statement. We can believe that the TC is not hidden in, or under any structure, but we can not assume that it has noting to do with any man made object. By it's very definition a structure is an object that cannot move. Forrest did not state a man made object, he said very clearly a structure. Two different things all together. He also as I believe was only referencing the location where the TC is placed, and not all clues. I think his conversation with Cynthia was taken out of context with what she was saying. I think that in it self may be an unintended clue to the location of the TC. He also has said it's not under a man-made object. dalneitzel.com/2017/06/29/safety_first/If you read my post I believe I said that. He did not say object, he said structure, if you listen to the Interview from collected book works. Dal was inaccurate when transferring that information to his site.
|
|
|
Post by goldilocks on Sept 13, 2019 16:30:33 GMT -5
Makes me wonder how often something is inaccurately transcribed.
|
|
|
Post by zaphod73491 on Sept 14, 2019 2:15:02 GMT -5
If a manmade structure plays any part in your solution, then stay home and play Canasta. ("Zapster analysis of the compendium of Forrest's relevant remarks")
|
|
|
Post by astree on Sept 14, 2019 7:20:57 GMT -5
If a manmade structure plays any part in your solution, then stay home and play Canasta. ("Zapster analysis of the compendium of Forrest's relevant remarks") Are you the "Zapster"? If so, please so indicate. I could not find anything at Tarry Scant to corroborate your assertion. Provide documentation of Fenn's "relevant remarks", please. And then explain why those remarks are not included at Tarry Scant under the keywords "structure" or "manmade" or "Canasta". I second drifters question. zaphod, it may be that you have additional private information based on your research, interpretation, poem study, or subtle / unrecognized connections between forrests quotes that you dont want to give in detail. If so, please just acknowledge that is the case. as with many topics under discussions, and as an individual relying on the poem, i believe the answer to this thread question and many other thread topics, comes from the poem. There can be countless guesses and possibilities about where warm waters halt / treasures bold / take the chest and go in peace / heavy loads and water high, etc. .. but the guesses will not be fruitful unless there is a way to confirm them.
|
|
|
Post by Jenny on Sept 14, 2019 8:28:38 GMT -5
@drifter..... You ask 'which is it?' The fact is I'm not sure anyone, even you can say for sure it's one or the other...and so I keep either option open. For myself, that is the best route. False interpretations, and adhering to them, is a searchers flaw.
We've had many, many statements where Forrest contradicts himself....about many different things. In each we would have to ask ourselves, which is it? We each have to choose or not choose. I don't see an issue with that. You can interpret the way you like, but just because you interpret one way, doesn't make you right and others wrong-- which it seems is what you are suggesting.
Without the chest, no one knows.... I'm fine with saying, 'it is not clear whether Forrest meant all clues or just the treasure'.....based on his many and varied statements- public or private.
|
|
|
Post by crm114 on Sept 14, 2019 13:00:22 GMT -5
False interpretations, and adhering to them, is a searchers flaw. Well said. I sure would not rule out a structure, except for Clue 9 (and a dam for WWWH) if it otherwise fits well.
|
|
|
Post by npsbuilder on Sept 14, 2019 13:41:24 GMT -5
Whether or not others approve of Forrest chatting with searchers is irrelevant. It happens. And the debate is not about that. It is about whether Forrest felt he ruled out structures for all clues when he said,'the treasure is not associated with any structure.' His conversation with Cynthia suggests he did. And if he does feel that way, (whether or not he stated it correctly to pass searchers examination of that meaning), then he wasn't giving out 'inside info', he was just commenting on something he felt he already said. I feel this seems very likely to be a possibility. I take it at face value-- a relaxed conversation between friends. And there is nothing wrong about that. He wasn't giving out information when he felt he already stated the fact- in his mind. How do you find the treasure? You find it by following all 9 clues in the poem. I can understand that when Forrest said 'the treasure is not associated with any structure' he might have meant none of the clues in the poem are associated with a structure. It is possible. It depends on how you see 'the treasure'. The whole poem is about the treasure- so saying 'the treasure' can suggest all 9 clues. Forrest might think that. And then there is support for that idea--- we have issues of how would we marry the clues to a 'structure'? We are told to marry it to a map. There is also the issue of time. Structures deteriorate rather quickly compared to geographic locations. He planned for the possibility it would be hidden for hundreds of years.... etc... But again..... I understand it can be thought as 'just the chest', especially when not considering the conversation between friends-- and just sticking to the poem. Ultimately, the poem reveals all. So all good.... Having not finished reading this thread in its entirety but what if "the treasure is not associated..." only means the treasure (contents) itself. For me, I haven't taken this into consideration and let clues take me where they take me. What are the clues is the hardest part for me.
|
|