|
Post by zaphod73491 on Dec 16, 2019 17:23:38 GMT -5
I keep asking it every year - "Are all of the locations that the clues refer to in the same state (or within the search states)?" I'm not Forrest, but I'll answer yes to both questions. :-)
|
|
|
Post by CJ on Dec 16, 2019 18:38:13 GMT -5
I keep asking it every year - "Are all of the locations that the clues refer to in the same state (or within the search states)?" I'm not Forrest, but I'll answer yes to both questions. :-) I personally have hopes that (at least SOME of) the clues aren't even in the search states.....
|
|
|
Post by zaphod73491 on Dec 16, 2019 22:24:55 GMT -5
CJ: it's certainly possible -- Forrest has never ruled out that possibility. Technically, there's no reason that WWWH has to be in the United States -- especially if the chest's location happened to be in northern Montana.
|
|
|
Post by zaphod73491 on Dec 16, 2019 23:37:36 GMT -5
Here's a question that would be interesting for Forrest to address. In the Everything Is Stories EIS Radio interview in August 2013, Forrest at one point said: "Yeah, I have some advice. Read the book. And then study the poem. Over and over. Read it over and over. Maybe even memorize it. And then go back and read the book again looking for hints that are in the book that are going to help you with the clues that are in the poem. That's the best advice that I can give. You have to find out … you have to learn where the first clue is. They get progressively easier after you discover where the first clue is."
So here's the setup for my question. The first two clues were solved in either 2012 or 2013. But even as of November 2015, when Forrest was asked about clue-solving progress, he was only willing to say, "Some may have solved the first four clues, but I am not certain."
It seems clear to me that if the first two clues were solved in the first 2-3 years, and yet two years later he wasn't sure anyone had solved anything beyond those, then the clues evidently do NOT get *progressively* easier. They did not fall like dominoes.
So Q: "Forrest, given the apparent meager progress subsequent to the quick solution of the poem's first two clues so long ago, do you feel you underestimated the difficulty of one or more of the clues beyond those first two?"
|
|
|
Post by davebakedpotato on Dec 17, 2019 2:38:21 GMT -5
So Q: "Forrest, given the apparent meager progress subsequent to the quick solution of the poem's first two clues so long ago, do you feel you underestimated the difficulty of one or more of the clues beyond those first two?" Is it boiling it down too far if we were to ask specifically about the third clue? It seems there is *something* tricky about it if the early searchers went past it and the Little Girl From India can't get closer than the first two? Being devil's advocate, what sort of answer to your question helps you (or anyone) unlock their solution?
|
|
|
Post by goldilocks on Dec 17, 2019 8:03:31 GMT -5
So Q: "Forrest, given the apparent meager progress subsequent to the quick solution of the poem's first two clues so long ago, do you feel you underestimated the difficulty of one or more of the clues beyond those first two?" One shouldn't assume progressively easier means falling like dominoes. They can be on opposite ends of the difficulty rating spectrum. It's all in one's perspective. Progressively easier can still be nearly impossible. In a mathematical equation, if one variable is off the answer is wrong. You may understand how to get from A to B but one wrong move and you are off by a mile. In the end I guess it really doesn't matter the level of difficulty. Forrest knows the correct solve so for him it's easier than us struggling out here. I think the answer lies in the contiguity of the clues. IMO someone underestimated how close in proximity the clues really are.
|
|
|
Post by Jenny on Dec 17, 2019 9:47:46 GMT -5
I'm not sure he would answer, as he didn't answer how far he walked in that one afternoon, other than to say, 'less than a few miles', which didn't specify total or one way--- so might a question asking total distance from the first clue to the last clue be worth asking?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 17, 2019 10:02:57 GMT -5
I'm not sure he would answer, as he didn't answer how far he walked in that one afternoon, other than to say, 'less than a few miles', which didn't specify total or one way--- so might a question asking total distance from the first clue to the last clue be worth asking? I don't think so if we could only ask one question. Total distance walked doesn't help in finding where warm Waters halt. I think any question should be focused on where we should begin because that's what's important. Then the total distance walked will reveal itself. But every little bit of something is better than a lot of nothing, so still yet it may help somebody.
|
|
|
Post by richard on Dec 17, 2019 12:41:48 GMT -5
I'm not sure he would answer, as he didn't answer how far he walked in that one afternoon, other than to say, 'less than a few miles', which didn't specify total or one way--- so might a question asking total distance from the first clue to the last clue be worth asking? I don't think so if we could only ask one question. Total distance walked doesn't help in finding where warm Waters halt. I think any question should be focused on where we should begin because that's what's important. Then the total distance walked will reveal itself. But every little bit of something is better than a lot of nothing, so still yet it may help somebody. Forrest has answered the question of where we start. You won't like what he said, but here it is. " You start by getting in your car and driving to the first clue.", That's all. From the released footage from KThor and Mike Cowlings interviews.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 17, 2019 13:30:43 GMT -5
I don't think so if we could only ask one question. Total distance walked doesn't help in finding where warm Waters halt. I think any question should be focused on where we should begin because that's what's important. Then the total distance walked will reveal itself. But every little bit of something is better than a lot of nothing, so still yet it may help somebody. Forrest has answered the question of where we start. You won't like what he said, but here it is. " You start by getting in your car and driving to the first clue.", That's all. From the released footage from KThor and Mike Cowlings interviews. Richard I like FF's redundant answer, It gives a lot of insight into the man's thinking.
|
|
|
Post by zaphod73491 on Dec 17, 2019 16:26:26 GMT -5
So Q: "Forrest, given the apparent meager progress subsequent to the quick solution of the poem's first two clues so long ago, do you feel you underestimated the difficulty of one or more of the clues beyond those first two?" One shouldn't assume progressively easier means falling like dominoes. They can be on opposite ends of the difficulty rating spectrum. It's all in one's perspective. Progressively easier can still be nearly impossible. Progressively means 2 is easier than 1, 3 is easier than 2, 4 is easier than 3, etc. 1 and 2 were solved comparatively quickly. 3 did not follow suit. Therefore, the evidence suggests Forrest's claim is mistaken. That's my argument in a nutshell. I might add that since Forrest didn't confide in anyone else, he can't know the comparative difficulty of the clues for someone who doesn't know the answer.
|
|
|
Post by zaphod73491 on Dec 17, 2019 16:34:44 GMT -5
So Q: "Forrest, given the apparent meager progress subsequent to the quick solution of the poem's first two clues so long ago, do you feel you underestimated the difficulty of one or more of the clues beyond those first two?" Is it boiling it down too far if we were to ask specifically about the third clue? I'd be fine with that. After all, there is clearly a bottleneck at that point. I certainly believe my third clue is far, far harder than the second. I'm on the fence whether it's harder than WWWH. At least with clues 2 and beyond you have a prior, contiguous clue reference point, so in that sense you are far better off because the problem has been geographically constrained by orders of magnitude. Thus, Forrest is perfectly correct in saying you are more than halfway to the treasure, metaphorically speaking. (And from the starting point of the vast majority of searchers' homes, the statement is literally true as well.)
|
|
|
Post by richard on Dec 17, 2019 16:35:25 GMT -5
So Q: "Forrest, given the apparent meager progress subsequent to the quick solution of the poem's first two clues so long ago, do you feel you underestimated the difficulty of one or more of the clues beyond those first two?" One shouldn't assume progressively easier means falling like dominoes. They can be on opposite ends of the difficulty rating spectrum. It's all in one's perspective. Progressively easier can still be nearly impossible. In a mathematical equation, if one variable is off the answer is wrong. You may understand how to get from A to B but one wrong move and you are off by a mile. In the end I guess it really doesn't matter the level of difficulty. Forrest knows the correct solve so for him it's easier than us struggling out here. I think the answer lies in the contiguity of the clues. IMO someone underestimated how close in proximity the clues really are. IMHO Forrest is saying Once you have found the Correct answer the rest become easier because you are on the right track. Not saying finding it is easier, but you have a location from which to seek the next correct spot in stead of arm chair guessing. But even then you will not know your choices will be correct until you find the TC.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 17, 2019 16:41:32 GMT -5
One shouldn't assume progressively easier means falling like dominoes. They can be on opposite ends of the difficulty rating spectrum. It's all in one's perspective. Progressively easier can still be nearly impossible. Progressively means 2 is easier than 1, 3 is easier than 2, 4 is easier than 3, etc. 1 and 2 were solved comparatively quickly. 3 did not follow suit. Therefore, the evidence suggests Forrest's claim is mistaken. That's my argument in a nutshell. I might add that since Forrest didn't confide in anyone else, he can't know the comparative difficulty of the clues for someone who doesn't know the answer. FF said, 1 or 2 were solved comparatively quick. Are you sure that they were solved, or was someone playing a hunch? To me if someone solved a couple or a few they should know that they solved them and would probably not give up until they had it in hand. Even if they determined a certain place warm Waters halt and canyon down and home of brown, can that person say that they solved anything? To me it was a by chance lucky choice.
|
|
|
Post by zaphod73491 on Dec 17, 2019 17:03:15 GMT -5
Progressively means 2 is easier than 1, 3 is easier than 2, 4 is easier than 3, etc. 1 and 2 were solved comparatively quickly. 3 did not follow suit. Therefore, the evidence suggests Forrest's claim is mistaken. That's my argument in a nutshell. I might add that since Forrest didn't confide in anyone else, he can't know the comparative difficulty of the clues for someone who doesn't know the answer. FF said, 1 or 2 were solved comparatively quick. Are you sure that they were solved, or was someone playing a hunch? To me if someone solved a couple or a few they should know that they solved them and would probably not give up until they had it in hand. Even if they determined a certain place warm Waters halt and canyon down and home of brown, can that person say that they solved anything? To me it was a by chance lucky choice. In my opinion, anyone who was "in tight focus with a word that is key" back then probably truly solved WWWH. I also think it's possible to have an educated guess as to the identity of WWWH without having discovered that key word from the poem, only because its possible to solve the WWWH riddle and then have only a limited number of "canyon down" possibilities. However, absent that key word, I don't know if a searcher would stay put if further clues continued to elude them.
|
|