|
Post by ILLUMINATINPS on Nov 15, 2018 13:40:20 GMT -5
I just thought I would throw this out there since I have spent a boatload of time on Mr Old Fops page. I figured maybe some process of elimination may get us to solving this sub riddle of the hunt. So being that we are dealing with "one of four, the last in line, tradition carries , all in a name", maybe we can break down some of the impossibles.
Mostly likely nots:
1) Ponds- The back map shows far more than 4 2) Lakes- The back map only names 2 3) Bridges- There are 17 I believe, and knowledge of history would be needed to know that any way. 4) JDRockefeller Jr- Knowledge of history required, and he is the 5th, not 4th, despite being "last in line" 5)Harbors- There are more than 4 shown in the book map. 6) The Porcupine Islands- This one is something I thought I nailed because Bar island is technically part of the Porcupines, but outside knowledge would be needed to know this. Of all the possibly nots, this does have potential becuase Bald, Sheep, Burnt all have an allusion to the name. The tradition of them all having the name Porcupine, fit well too. I sent Bar Island in a solution email a while ago and was lucky enough to get a repsonse saying i was incorrect.
Feel free to add more, or comment. This is just an opinion and observation. My hands are empty like everyone else
|
|
|
Post by stiparest on Nov 15, 2018 16:15:51 GMT -5
I just thought I would throw this out there since I have spent a boatload of time on Mr Old Fops page. I figured maybe some process of elimination may get us to solving this sub riddle of the hunt. So being that we are dealing with "one of four, the last in line, tradition carries , all in a name", maybe we can break down some of the impossibles.
Mostly likely nots:
1) Ponds- The back map shows far more than 4 2) Lakes- The back map only names 2 3) Bridges- There are 17 I believe, and knowledge of history would be needed to know that any way. 4) JDRockefeller Jr- Knowledge of history required, and he is the 5th, not 4th, despite being "last in line" 5)Harbors- There are more than 4 shown in the book map. 6) The Porcupine Islands- This one is something I thought I nailed because Bar island is technically part of the Porcupines, but outside knowledge would be needed to know this. Of all the possibly nots, this does have potential becuase Bald, Sheep, Burnt all have an allusion to the name. The tradition of them all having the name Porcupine, fit well too. I sent Bar Island in a solution email a while ago and was lucky enough to get a repsonse saying i was incorrect.
Feel free to add more, or comment. This is just an opinion and observation. My hands are empty like everyone else
I considered the 'people' in the illustrations, but there are 7 of them, and 10 pictures of foxes - all very different by the way. They don't even look like the same fox.
Are there 4 of anything else in the book? There are elevations and dates that have 4 numbers; the 4 symbols on Neptune's treasure chest: *X+C ; there are 4 letter 'C's: on the treasure chest, on the magic square, on Zodiose's belt, and on the Indian's pants. There is also MC from the date on the fire page, but it is not by itself. There are 4 gold skeleton keys: next to the treasure chest, hanging behind the lobsterman, with the fairies, and on the Indian's pants.
Just some ideas - I may have miscounted the keys and C's too. There are a lot of different versions of keys, so I'm not sure of the validity of counting just the skeleton keys.
|
|
|
Post by ILLUMINATINPS on Nov 16, 2018 13:27:46 GMT -5
There are more than 4 letter Cs. There technically supposed to be 4 balls on Old Fops page, but the orange one is missing.
|
|
|
Post by susb8383 on Nov 17, 2018 17:16:30 GMT -5
There are Cs on the signpost.
|
|
|
Post by stiparest on Nov 17, 2018 20:48:02 GMT -5
There are Cs on the signpost. Yes, there are a lot of C's...I wasn't counting all C's, just the ones that stand alone, without any other letters, not part of a word or Roman numeral. The C in the middle of the magic square, where each square holds a single letter (or two for AS & QU). The C on Zodiose's belt buckle. The C on Neptune's treasure chest: *X+C. And the C on the Indian's pants.
I have no idea whether these are important in any way, I was just observing that there are 4 of them, and that there are no other prominent single letters repeated on multiple pages.
|
|
|
Post by astree on Nov 18, 2018 6:39:34 GMT -5
. Lots you can do with the “one of four” phrase, both on its page, and through the book.
1 of 4
P. 4 begins the story. Word 1 is “I”, roman for 1.
For starters.
|
|
|
Post by astree on Nov 18, 2018 7:29:54 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by astree on Dec 5, 2018 6:23:06 GMT -5
illuminatinps,
Would you mind posting your e-mail exchange with the author. We get so little information from them.
Thanks, astree
|
|
|
Post by ILLUMINATINPS on Dec 5, 2018 7:26:10 GMT -5
Hey Astree,
Unfortunately I no longer have that email. The main gist of the email was a Bar Island Solution using the 4 Porcupine Islands as the One of Four. Bar Island would be the last in line because it is technically called Bar Porcupine, but again that would have required knowledge of history. I used the Indians pants as instructions from left to right. Regardless, the solution was wrong. I believe you may have been to the spot I was referring to and so has Jenny, the fire place on the island. It would make total sense considering the fire page has that nice final walkway going to the fireplace that is identical, not to mention fandango using the word "cinder" which is a burnt piece of wood.
Either way, Ive moved on to a much more simple meaning of One of Four based on the story itself. Where I am a bit perplexed is why did he go out of his way to use the Burton Publishing logo on the white book next to Harleys right eye. In real life it is meant to be a seagull, but is Pel using at as a seagull or is it meant to have any purpose at all?
|
|
|
Post by astree on Dec 5, 2018 9:09:13 GMT -5
Hey Astree, Unfortunately I no longer have that email. The main gist of the email was a Bar Island Solution using the 4 Porcupine Islands as the One of Four. Bar Island would be the last in line because it is technically called Bar Porcupine, but again that would have required knowledge of history. I used the Indians pants as instructions from left to right. Regardless, the solution was wrong. I believe you may have been to the spot I was referring to and so has Jenny, the fire place on the island. It would make total sense considering the fire page has that nice final walkway going to the fireplace that is identical, not to mention fandango using the word "cinder" which is a burnt piece of wood. Either way, Ive moved on to a much more simple meaning of One of Four based on the story itself. Where I am a bit perplexed is why did he go out of his way to use the Burton Publishing logo on the white book next to Harleys right eye. In real life it is meant to be a seagull, but is Pel using at as a seagull or is it meant to have any purpose at all? Thanks for the reply. Well, at this point, it looks like this hunt may have been compromised. The "may have" is because we don't have the e-mail, so can't judge the exact words. As far as I know, it is against hunt ethics to communicate with individuals and rule out search areas. We do not know how many other searchers the authors have communicated with. So, those who have this private information are able to move onto other areas / solves, while those that don’t will continue to work and maybe travel, to areas that have been ruled out to other individuals. This is not unique to Fandango. Masquerade had a bad ending. Another example - For the past several years, there is a stigma hanging over “The Thrill of the Chase” hunt (still active), because there are numerous claims that Forrest Fenn (the author) has privately given hints to some favorites. I would like to give the Fandango authors the opportunity to offer explanation. Would you publish their e-mail here? I will e-mail them a request to make a public statement. And / or – Jenny, would you be willing to make this effort? Thank-you, astree
|
|
|
Post by stiparest on Dec 5, 2018 14:14:16 GMT -5
astree - interesting point.
I have sent in suggestions and have never received anything where they told me the location was wrong, right, close, way off...nothing. Once, a long time ago, I did get a response that said they couldn't comment on my theory, but that the hunt was still on and good luck - that was it.
The fact that they have now told someone their location was incorrect does seem to give one person an advantage over the rest of us. How many other people have had similar responses but haven't shared that information with us? After all our efforts, this is very disappointing if this is happening.
|
|
|
Post by ILLUMINATINPS on Dec 5, 2018 18:55:58 GMT -5
We need to relax here a a bit, astree and stiparest. 1)The solution I gave wasn't an inquiry asking if i was correct, I was telling him I was correct and gave the solution as well as an inquiry on if I was able to complete the deposit box stuff in Maine etc.. I was that sure. 2) The response I received to the best of my knowledge read something like this "thank you in your interest in Fandango, Unfortunately you are incorrect but we can not comment further on details". Very general, in fact not the first time this response was given. I saw it from another hunter on tweleve years ago. Why is it such an issue now?? I guess I got lucky, if you want to call being incorrect, lucky. Here are the facts: 1) The rules do not state that the authors do or do not respond to emails regarding solutions. All it says is you can solve the riddle from home and have to go to Mt desert to get it. This means the authors can respond to who they want as they please. Bossall Treasure had the same system, they only would respond to claims that seemed somewhat legitimate. Maybe Fandango does the same. 2) To say my email "compromises the hunt" is ridiculous in itself. I gave you my solution publicly, and thats more than you can say for yourself. All everyone knows now is that its not inside the fireplace on bar Island. That doesn't rule out the whole island. 3) This isn't the first time a claim has been made that the "hunt has been compromised". This was also stated on tweleve when a searcher, who made multiple trips to the same spot, decided that because their spot didn't contain the key, that it was "tampered with", instead of giving into to confirmation bias. On a side note, that solution wasn't posted publicly. I get it, some of you spent some money going there and are frustrated. I encourage you to direct it right back at the book, its obvious at this point no one needs to ask if they are right or wrong, they will just go right to it.
But, to demand a "public statement" is a tad bit childish. The authors are bound only by the official rules themselves. All else is here-say, including your own interpretation of "hunt etiquette". If the author wanted to make a public statement or do a Six Questions, he would have by now. If he wanted it to be solved quickly "so he can do one every year", then he he had the opportunity to engage more with the community in a more consistent manner. Good examples of this are The authors of Oracle and Map of the Dead. The fact is, the author held back engaging. Why? who knows. If it was me, its probably because my grandiose vision of new hunts every year were deflated by poor book sales. It doesn't make economical sense.
So in the words of the the great, late George Carlin, "It ain't gonna get any better. Be happy with what you got".
|
|
|
Post by stiparest on Dec 5, 2018 20:54:15 GMT -5
We need to relax here a a bit, astree and stiparest. 1)The solution I gave wasn't an inquiry asking if i was correct, I was telling him I was correct and gave the solution as well as an inquiry on if I was able to complete the deposit box stuff in Maine etc.. I was that sure. 2) The response I received to the best of my knowledge read something like this "thank you in your interest in Fandango, Unfortunately you are incorrect but we can not comment further on details". Very general, in fact not the first time this response was given. I saw it from another hunter on tweleve years ago. Why is it such an issue now?? I guess I got lucky, if you want to call being incorrect, lucky. Here are the facts: 1) The rules do not state that the authors do or do not respond to emails regarding solutions. All it says is you can solve the riddle from home and have to go to Mt desert to get it. This means the authors can respond to who they want as they please. Bossall Treasure had the same system, they only would respond to claims that seemed somewhat legitimate. Maybe Fandango does the same. 2) To say my email "compromises the hunt" is ridiculous in itself. I gave you my solution publicly, and thats more than you can say for yourself. All everyone knows now is that its not inside the fireplace on bar Island. That doesn't rule out the whole island. 3) This isn't the first time a claim has been made that the "hunt has been compromised". This was also stated on tweleve when a searcher, who made multiple trips to the same spot, decided that because their spot didn't contain the key, that it was "tampered with", instead of giving into to confirmation bias. On a side note, that solution wasn't posted publicly. I get it, some of you spent some money going there and are frustrated. I encourage you to direct it right back at the book, its obvious at this point no one needs to ask if they are right or wrong, they will just go right to it.
But, to demand a "public statement" is a tad bit childish. The authors are bound only by the official rules themselves. All else is here-say, including your own interpretation of "hunt etiquette". If the author wanted to make a public statement or do a Six Questions, he would have by now. If he wanted it to be solved quickly "so he can do one every year", then he he had the opportunity to engage more with the community in a more consistent manner. Good examples of this are The authors of Oracle and Map of the Dead. The fact is, the author held back engaging. Why? who knows. If it was me, its probably because my grandiose vision of new hunts every year were deflated by poor book sales. It doesn't make economical sense.
So in the words of the the great, late George Carlin, "It ain't gonna get any better. Be happy with what you got".
I am not stressing over this email and and I still plan on working on the hunt as I always have. You have to admit, by simply telling sombody that their idea is incorrect gives that person information others don't have. By process of elimination, one could narrow potential sites while others, not knowing certain sites have been ruled out, continue to work on the same - wrong - theory. I wouldn't go so far as to say the hunt is compromised, but the authors are obviously sharing information with some people and not others even if they don't mean to, and that leads to bad feelings.
On the other hand, we each have the book, so we all have the same chance of deciphering it and getting it right. So, no, i'm not freaking out or anything, I just think astree has a valid point that they shouldn't be commenting at all about whether a solution, location, or even a general theory is right or wrong. The rules don't say they can't communicate with anybody, but Pel has said he would not give out clues to individuals or post anything because it would not be fair to players without access to that information. He hasn't broken the official rules, but he has broken his own pledge.
As far as Bar Island, the book does specify the key is on Mount Desert Island, so that seems to rule out Bar Island. But everybody has to work their own theories and let others do the same. At this point, I say the key is still fair game and I will be happy if anybody solves it before the end date!
|
|
|
Post by astree on Dec 5, 2018 22:44:18 GMT -5
. Illuminatinps,
The biggest thing that stuck out to me in your response is the word “etiquette”. That really comes off like a downplay. I didnt say etiquette, I didnt say hunt rules in the book. Telling individuals where the key isnt is just a basic violation of fair play. It doesnt matter if the area is Bar Island, Sieur de Monts Spring, whatever,
I “demanded” a public statement? In fairness, I am interested in giving the authors a chance to explain this type of communication, in public so everyone has access to the same info.
Let me ask you this. Lets say you continued to work an area for years, made multiple trips there. Then you find out that area has already privately been ruled out to another searher, who could then go on to search another area. You’d be okay with that, so long as it wasnt written in the official rules?
I began this by asking you for the email because i was interested in the exact wording so as to NOT automatically assume that your recollection of what the authors said was correct.
I would have felt better if the authors response had been something like “the key is hidden on Mount Desert Island” proper, and then made a public statement to that effect. Here an example of how tha sort of thing is handled in The Thrill of the Chae
“Many searchers have thought that warm waters halt at a dam because water being released through flues near the bottom of the dam is much colder than water on the surface of the lake. I have discussed around that subject with several people in the last few days and am concerned that not all searchers are aware of what has been said. So to level the playing field to give everyone an equal chance I will say now that WWWH is not related to any dam.”
Forrest makes the information public so there is no question as to fairness (note, there are other fairness questions raised by searchers, so im not saying there are not issues). The point is, the authors need to exercise caution if they want their hunt to continue to be percievd as fair.
|
|
|
Post by ILLUMINATINPS on Dec 5, 2018 22:57:57 GMT -5
Like I said before, astree. He told me my solution was wrong, which means the fireplace in Bar Island was wrong. That is a fireplace, not an entire search area.
Any author worth there salt would be able to pick up multiple solution attempts in an intentional effort to narrow down. Heck, on the Oracle people are literally throwing spaghetti against the wall, and the author replies weekly
To answer your question, no I would not be mad. I totally understand your frustration because it’s not a cheap trip, but it’s obvious whatever your solution was, you still decided to take that risk regardless of how “complete” and dead on it was. I’d write it off as a learning lesson.
I’m assuming this has a lot to do with the both of you not receiving replies. I can’t speak for the author or why he chooses to sporadically answer people over the years. A good example is Fenn, you could have the most perfect theory, but if it’s too long, he won’t read it or respond.
|
|