|
|
Post by kaotkbliss on Jul 21, 2019 11:20:16 GMT -5
Just to be perfectly clear I know I could be wrong on this, which is why I still look for solves in all 4 states. But if I come up with a complete solve in NM or CO, I will check those out before complete solves in WY or MO (I will still check out a WY or MO solve if a NM or CO solve proves wrong)
Lots of good thought processes out there, years of thousands of people analyzing, many BOTG searches, and it has yet to be found so I can't discount anything just on a hunch or because I think something might be a clue (or un-intended clue).
|
|
|
|
Post by richard on Jul 21, 2019 15:14:43 GMT -5
They only grow in the Southern Search area:  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 22, 2019 3:08:11 GMT -5
lol....and the 50% who say it is a misspeak latch on to that because their solutions take them to the more northern areas...... It's one of those things that we can't be sure of...... was he speaking from the heart and thought of pinyon nuts....or was he just spewing words and mis-spoke? We won't know until the chest is found.... Bingo. It's interesting to read the rationales of searchers who take Forrest's later refutation that he didn't mean to say pinyon nuts as the truth. But without the chest being recovered, how will we ever know? One could argue either way on this verbal contradiction. So if a searcher has spent bookoos of time and effort in Wyoming or Montana, the "pinyon nut" reference was nothing more than a simple mistake, which Forrest later "corrected". Ergo, continue searching in Wyoming or Montana, discarding his initial statement. Problem is, that rationale smacks of confirmation bias, as in "I want the chest to be in Montana since I have spent all my searching time there, so I will take his second statement as the truth and discard his first statement." There's a larger issue here … Searchers are prone to take almost all of Forrest's verbal comments at face value, and discard contradictory comments or comments that tend to disprove searchers' assumptions. Which is an invitation to a dead-end search. He's human, not some robotic computer. As involved as he is with the search community, he's bound to say things that are only partially correct, or make comments that are either unintentionally misleading or could be misconstrued. That's not the case with the poem. You're safe with just using the poem, which took him 15 years to write. The poem says exactly what he wants it to say; nothing about it is impromptu, impulsive, careless, ad-libbed, or extemporaneous. There are no contradictions in the poem. It leads inexorably to one, and only one, place. |
|
|
|
Post by heidini on Jul 22, 2019 16:59:51 GMT -5
You're safe with just using the poem, which took him 15 years to write. The poem says exactly what he wants it to say; nothing about it is impromptu, impulsive, careless, ad-libbed, or extemporaneous. There are no contradictions in the poem. It leads inexorably to one, and only one, place. I totally agree that searchers are completely safe by using in the poem. His poem is handcrafted with a positive spirit. |
|
|
|
Post by zaphod73491 on Jul 22, 2019 20:47:28 GMT -5
I still parse this as written words trumping spoken. People unavoidably make verbal mistakes during the course of answering unscripted questions. Even Forrest has said he buried the treasure at one point -- he did not correct himself, and yet when later questioned had no idea he had said it. People are human.
A written response is different. It allows time for reflection and correction. So when Forrest "back-pedals" and writes the retraction about pinyon nuts, it ought to carry a bit more weight than the extemporaneous verbal response. Furthermore, to accept the original verbal response in FAVOR of the retraction requires one to be okay with Forrest deliberately lying. And if he'd lie about this, then why draw the line with any other statement?
To think it was a mistake that Forrest tried to cover up means the searcher can no longer trust anything he says ... or *has* said, in which case why search at all?
|
|
|
|
Post by Jenny on Jul 23, 2019 7:04:31 GMT -5
I still parse this as written words trumping spoken. People unavoidably make verbal mistakes during the course of answering unscripted questions. Even Forrest has said he buried the treasure at one point -- he did not correct himself, and yet when later questioned had no idea he had said it. People are human. A written response is different. It allows time for reflection and correction. So when Forrest "back-pedals" and writes the retraction about pinyon nuts, it ought to carry a bit more weight than the extemporaneous verbal response. Furthermore, to accept the original verbal response in FAVOR of the retraction requires one to be okay with Forrest deliberately lying. And if he'd lie about this, then why draw the line with any other statement? To think it was a mistake that Forrest tried to cover up means the searcher can no longer trust anything he says ... or *has* said, in which case why search at all? Hi Zap, it's clear you feel Forrest's words were a mistake...... Thanks for your thoughts...... I understand and appreciate them. I am still not completely convinced, though, of either 'yes or no' to the answer........ I don't believe it can ever be stated as a 'fact' that it was a mistake -- or not a mistake. For me, speaking from the heart about a location he had always known he wanted to hide the treasure chest, and in his mind for years, doesn't exactly seem like a 'put on the spot' question/answer. And 'Back Pedaling' is a bit different than 'deliberately lying'-- especially involving such a 'possible mistake' and in this situation... from my experience of working with Forrest over the years in Q's, Words, etc., I know he doesn't always feel he has to be completely transparent. Doesn't mean he is lying... Sort of like the old scenario of when someone asks if they look 'fat in this dress'-- and the person says 'no' when it obviously isn't the most flattering. This isn't considered 'deliberately lying', it's doing what is thought of as 'acceptable' under the circumstances. Plus, when I look at the quote you offered.... the word 'I think' is very curious...... it's not very supportive of his earlier 'acceptable' reply of 'I didn't say what I was thinking'. IMHO. However, even moreso, it's funny that his reasoning is because pinon nuts don't smell-- NOT because they are not seen in the area. His reasoning for the mistake was they don't smell... He could have offered a different reason for why what he said was a mistake...like they are not in the area. He didn't say that.. and so in Fenn Speak, he would not be lying, if they are in the area...just that you can't smell them. Maybe you can see them though? He doesn't say you can't. Play of words again, and something we shouldn't dismiss totally. Here's that quote: "... I share the following post from Forrest (Forrest Fire) on 2/5/2015 @ 11:22 am at Dal's blog under the topic "Forrest LIVE on HuffPost": "Halogetter, I just watched that New Mexico Tourism video again and must say that I didn't say what I was thinking. You cannot smell a pinon nut, but those who pick them know that in doing so you get pine pitch all over your hands, and pine pitch smells about the same no matter what kind of pine tree you are talking about. Looking back I think I wanted to say I could smell pine needles, not pinon nuts. Sorry I kicked a hornet's nest with that comment. There is no clue there. Incidentally, when I get pine pitch on my hands I rub butter on the spots and that solves the problem. Of course then I have trouble getting the butter off. f"
Link: dalneitzel.com/2015/02/03/huffpost/#comment-73812And then his other comment you shared-- says he didn't INTEND..... of course he didn't...and of course he wasn't TRYING to narrow down the search area... (And again, not saying it makes either answer to whether it was a mistake conclusive, just the opposite really) "You are right Ed, that New Mexico tourism video is getting a lot of exposure. I did not intend for my comment about pinon nuts to be a clue, and certainly no one should believe I was trying to say the treasure is hidden in New Mexico. Shame on me for saying that. f"In my opinion...none of his retractions seem clear cut to offer a conclusion one way or the other.... they actually make me more suspicious.... and the reason for the question.... ... |
|
|
|
Post by zaphod73491 on Jul 23, 2019 17:07:12 GMT -5
Well, Jenny, we agree on this point: the statement and its retraction introduce uncertainty, and that's probably exactly how Forrest wanted to leave it. This way we have no more reliable information than we did before he said anything about pinon nuts. Clearly he didn't want to eliminate two states (either northern or southern), yet writing or saying anything declarative in his "correction" -- or even saying nothing at all -- would probably have done so. I guess a good exercise is to put yourself in Forrest's shoes in these two scenarios:
1. If the chest is in New Mexico: what do you say in your retraction to not eliminate Montana and most of Wyoming?
2. If the chest is in Montana: what do you say that doesn't tip your hand that your misspeak erroneously eliminated the correct state?
|
|
|
|
Post by littlegirlfromindia on Jul 25, 2019 11:35:59 GMT -5
My first post here. Been playing around with this fun hunt on/off for over a year. I like zaphod's post. The fact that Forrest bothered to make a correction of his original statement seems pretty significant. I felt that he wouldn't bother to do that unless he thought that he made a serious error. I would think that misleading people away from the correct state is a much more serious error for him than leading them too much to the correct one. Furthermore, in his correction he specifically says he doesn't want us to only think that the trove is in New Mexico. So this line of reasoning has me thinking that the trove is less likely to be in NM ,or Colorado for that matter, and more likely in WY or MT. Nothing is 100% sure. of course.
I've never seen anybody mention another weird thing about these FF statements. He's describing what someone would see at his special place: trees, wildlife, mountains but,surprisingly, he doesn't mention seeing any body of water. No creek, river, lake, etc at a special place? Yet the chest is probably wet and the poem mentions water. What's going on?
Have fun.
|
|
|
|
Post by firesnake on Jul 25, 2019 12:25:30 GMT -5
It’s an awkward one, but I really hope he clarified the mistake to keep the northern states in play. His regret tells another story though.
Hello littlegirlfromindia, a great first point about him not mentioning a body of water, that passed me by. My first in-depth solve was nowhere near a river but I’ve gravitated towards one for this summer. Maybe by saying that would narrow it down too much. I would say that the majority of searchers are imagining an idillyc, meandering river and meadow setting, but who knows?
In my ealier workings I had the chest sitting on a rock out on a lake, half submerged and away from raging currents. That would surely be too easily spotted when the sun is shining.
|
|
|
|
Post by zaphod73491 on Jul 26, 2019 1:33:17 GMT -5
Welcome LGFI! Perhaps now that you're here we'll finally get to the bottom of those curious Fenn answers suggesting disadvantages in your ability to solve all his cryptic clues (or get "closer" than the first two).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2019 7:25:48 GMT -5
I think he goofed and tried to backtrack. He knew immediately that he goofed on this one.
|
|
|
|
Post by jdiggins on Jul 27, 2019 13:06:30 GMT -5
In my opinion, if you made a mistake, he would have stayed quiet and not draw attention to it.
That said, he was drawing attention to something...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2019 13:39:26 GMT -5
In my opinion, if you made a mistake, he would have stayed quiet and not draw attention to it. That said, he was drawing attention to something... Correct. "I’d smell wonderful smells of pine needles or Pinon nuts.... Along with pineapple pie and other similar hints... ∏ + ∏ = 1/2 circle + 1/2 circle >>> a circle with a line through the center.  |
|
|
|
Post by jdiggins on Jul 27, 2019 15:22:29 GMT -5
I meant to say if HE made a mistake, he would not draw attention to it. Does that change your reply ralph?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2019 16:51:39 GMT -5
I meant to say if HE made a mistake, he would not draw attention to it. Does that change your reply ralph? Not at all, and I think I understood your post. You were correct in the sense that he was (deliberately) calling attention to something. The fact that, after the video, someone subsequently pointed out that pinon nuts don't grow in all of the possible search areas simply gave him an excuse to refocus attention on the hint. I don't think he was really very worried about treasure hunters ditching a few search areas. For the record, here was his "retraction": “I just watched that New Mexico Tourism video again and must say that I didn’t say what I was thinking. You cannot smell a pinon nut, but those who pick them know that in doing so you get pine pitch all over your hands, and pine pitch smells about the same no matter what kind of pine tree you are talking about. Looking back I think I wanted to say I could smell pine needles, not pinon nuts. Sorry I kicked a hornet’s nest with that comment.” Forrest drops hints like an oak drops acorns in the fall. |
|
