|
|
Post by zaphod73491 on Mar 5, 2020 4:07:25 GMT -5
Hi Dave: I get what you were trying to show with the Ouray example, and am familiar with all the proximal geographic elements that align with pieces of the poem and of Forrest's life. But I like how you worded it: unsatisfying. It's not a nice forehead-slapping solution. (I do like your "Ironton" a lot better than Brown mountain -- that at least requires a little bit of thought to make the Brown connection.)
As you say, no serious searcher is going to share their best ideas in a public forum. (I still find it funny that some searchers won't even reveal their search state, as if that would reveal anything.)
"A related frustration is that you're deep into confirmation bias territory."
Only for statistical purposes. I can compute how often certain patterns will appear in large volumes of text, and if the target(s) I'm looking for appear far more often than statistical chance (say 3-sigma or 4-sigma), then it's a strong argument that the feature is purposeful rather than random.
"Doesn't mean your solution is wrong, but what if you make multiple trips to your location and come up empty handed?"
I think multiple trips are pretty much unavoidable -- nobody is going to find the chest on their first trip out, because the odds are that newbie excitement over believing one has correctly solved the first couple clues is often sufficient motivation to send most searchers to the mountains. People just hope they'll figure out the rest when they get there. In my opinion, they won't -- even if they've got the first two clues correct.
I'm sure many people DO walk away from the Chase when they don't find it the first time out. Success requires persistence and commitment and the willingness to make adjustments.
"Which leads me to your statement about having hundreds of confirmers. Just because someone mentions a state, or favourite part of the Rockies many times, doesn't mean it's a hint!"
The hints I track are far more geographically specific than just the state (though I think he occasionally hints at that, too). In my line of work, I'm quite cognizant of probability of detection (Pd) vs. probability of false alarm (Pfa), so I recognize situations where I may be prone to fooling myself by attaching significance to features that can (and will) arise randomly. Sometimes intuition fails on this score, which is why I write software programs to dispassionately explore the null hypothesis. Still, statistics does not provide certainty, though it can sure go a long way toward boosting confidence.
"I hope someone finds it this year, it's driving me loopy! Best of luck with your search."
You as well. I'm ready to move on to another challenge -- 5 years is time enough spent hacking away at a 24-line poem. I'm impressed with those who have been at it for over 9 years now -- that's commitment!
|
|
|
|
Post by thrillchaser on Mar 5, 2020 7:26:30 GMT -5
you say- 5 years is time enough spent hacking away at a 24-line poem. I'm impressed with those who have been at it for over 9 years now -- that's commitment!
forrest spent over 15 years on that 24 line poem. he said we need resolve. it could take us longer to find it. searchers shouldn't expect a get rich quick over and done hunt. I think that's why many leave the chase. they do. sounds like you are that why saying 5 years is time enough. glad forrest didn't think that when writing the poem since it took him longer.
|
|
|
|
Post by jdiggins on Mar 5, 2020 7:33:01 GMT -5
Today Mark's the end of year 6 for me. Start year 7! I will never stop. I enjoy it too much.
|
|
|
|
Post by zaphod73491 on Mar 5, 2020 19:37:43 GMT -5
you say- 5 years is time enough spent hacking away at a 24-line poem. I'm impressed with those who have been at it for over 9 years now -- that's commitment! forrest spent over 15 years on that 24 line poem. he said we need resolve. it could take us longer to find it. searchers shouldn't expect a get rich quick over and done hunt. I think that's why many leave the chase. they do. sounds like you are that why saying 5 years is time enough. glad forrest didn't think that when writing the poem since it took him longer. Each person's "resolve" is defined by their own circumstances. I agree that no would-be searcher with realistic expectations should be thinking they're going to solve this thing in a weekend. That would be tantamount to believing one is orders of magnitude smarter than all of the hundreds of thousands who have preceded them.
On the other hand, would you work 50 years on a puzzle for a couple million dollar payoff (before taxes)? Even at just the 5-year point, I estimate I'll have invested about 10,000 hours on the problem. I have no regrets about that, since irrespective of whether I ever find Indulgence I have mentally challenged myself, met a bunch of cool, like-minded people, and in the process have learned a great deal that has little to do with Forrest's puzzle or his treasure. So I have the puzzle-designer to thank for that. But I can't thank Forrest for getting me off the couch and into the mountains -- I've been doing that my whole life.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2020 22:35:34 GMT -5
you say- 5 years is time enough spent hacking away at a 24-line poem. I'm impressed with those who have been at it for over 9 years now -- that's commitment! forrest spent over 15 years on that 24 line poem. he said we need resolve. it could take us longer to find it. searchers shouldn't expect a get rich quick over and done hunt. I think that's why many leave the chase. they do. sounds like you are that why saying 5 years is time enough. glad forrest didn't think that when writing the poem since it took him longer. Each person's "resolve" is defined by their own circumstances. I agree that no would-be searcher with realistic expectations should be thinking they're going to solve this thing in a weekend. That would be tantamount to believing one is orders of magnitude smarter than all of the hundreds of thousands who have preceded them.
On the other hand, would you work 50 years on a puzzle for a couple million dollar payoff (before taxes)? Even at just the 5-year point, I estimate I'll have invested about 10,000 hours on the problem. I have no regrets about that, since irrespective of whether I ever find Indulgence I have mentally challenged myself, met a bunch of cool, like-minded people, and in the process have learned a great deal that has little to do with Forrest's puzzle or his treasure. So I have the puzzle-designer to thank for that. But I can't thank Forrest for getting me off the couch and into the mountains -- I've been doing that my whole life.
Zaphod I'm curious if in these program deciphers have you ever replace the (I , my, with his name? |
|
|
|
Post by zaphod73491 on Mar 6, 2020 1:11:16 GMT -5
Each person's "resolve" is defined by their own circumstances. I agree that no would-be searcher with realistic expectations should be thinking they're going to solve this thing in a weekend. That would be tantamount to believing one is orders of magnitude smarter than all of the hundreds of thousands who have preceded them.
On the other hand, would you work 50 years on a puzzle for a couple million dollar payoff (before taxes)? Even at just the 5-year point, I estimate I'll have invested about 10,000 hours on the problem. I have no regrets about that, since irrespective of whether I ever find Indulgence I have mentally challenged myself, met a bunch of cool, like-minded people, and in the process have learned a great deal that has little to do with Forrest's puzzle or his treasure. So I have the puzzle-designer to thank for that. But I can't thank Forrest for getting me off the couch and into the mountains -- I've been doing that my whole life.
Zaphod I'm curious if in these program deciphers have you ever replace the (I , my, with his name? Hi 3rd-eye-1st: short answer is I haven't. I fear that arbitrary substitution is probably dangerous and likely running afoul of Forrest's famous "don't mess with my poem." And to clarify, I'm not running code to try various decryption ideas on the poem -- Forrest has been pretty clear that ciphers are not involved. Rather, I run my software against the statistics of the English language, drawn from many sources that Forrest has never mentioned (which is a subtlety that is easy to forget). The intent is to gather data on how frequently certain patterns occur by chance, and compare that with the subtle "signals" that I believe are hidden within Forrest's writing.
I'll give you an example -- one that Forrest freely acknowledges. He uses the word "I" a lot -- he would say, too often. It's something that's very easy to just write off to personal writing style. And that could very well be all there is to it. Same goes for using, "dumb," "stupid" and the numbers 3 and 50. They are mildly statistically anomalous in Forrest's writing, but could still be nothing more than quirks that are specific to him. Now imagine expanding that sort of anomaly searching to patterns distributed across consecutive words, sentences or paragraphs. This makes it harder to explain away a repeating pattern as just personal writing style. If a wide variety of words, used in the proper sequence, yield the same hidden message, then it starts to raise an eyebrow.
|
|
|
|
Post by davebakedpotato on Mar 6, 2020 1:42:15 GMT -5
I'll give you an example -- one that Forrest freely acknowledges. He uses the word "I" a lot -- he would say, too often. It's something that's very easy to just write off to personal writing style. And that could very well be all there is to it. Same goes for using, "dumb," "stupid" and the numbers 3 and 50. They are mildly statistically anomalous in Forrest's writing, but could still be nothing more than quirks that are specific to him. Now imagine expanding that sort of anomaly searching to patterns distributed across consecutive words, sentences or paragraphs. This makes it harder to explain away a repeating pattern as just personal writing style. If a wide variety of words, used in the proper sequence, yield the same hidden message, then it starts to raise an eyebrow.
We have the benefit that Forrest is quite a prolific writer - have you compared the chase-related books to the non chase-related books for those patterns (the downside being the subject matter is different)? |
|
|
|
Post by zaphod73491 on Mar 6, 2020 19:19:17 GMT -5
I'll give you an example -- one that Forrest freely acknowledges. He uses the word "I" a lot -- he would say, too often. It's something that's very easy to just write off to personal writing style. And that could very well be all there is to it. Same goes for using, "dumb," "stupid" and the numbers 3 and 50. They are mildly statistically anomalous in Forrest's writing, but could still be nothing more than quirks that are specific to him. Now imagine expanding that sort of anomaly searching to patterns distributed across consecutive words, sentences or paragraphs. This makes it harder to explain away a repeating pattern as just personal writing style. If a wide variety of words, used in the proper sequence, yield the same hidden message, then it starts to raise an eyebrow.
We have the benefit that Forrest is quite a prolific writer - have you compared the chase-related books to the non chase-related books for those patterns (the downside being the subject matter is different)? Good thinking, Dave, which is why I ordered two of Forrest's non-Chase books a couple weeks ago: $17 a Square Inch and his Nicolai Fechin book. They haven't arrived yet, but I requested signed copies on each, with instructions that I realized Forrest has many demands on his time and that there was no hurry. |
|
|
|
Post by davebakedpotato on Mar 7, 2020 2:59:53 GMT -5
Good thinking, Dave, which is why I ordered two of Forrest's non-Chase books a couple weeks ago: $17 a Square Inch and his Nicolai Fechin book. They haven't arrived yet, but I requested signed copies on each, with instructions that I realized Forrest has many demands on his time and that there was no hurry. I thought about doing similar, the problem I have is that the things that are probably of the most use are probably well disguised (e.g. if Hint of Riches is a nod towards Sloane) or in pictoral form in the books and blogs. We can expect the language in a memoir to be different to more technical writings too. I admire the effort and would love to know what you found! (And here was me thinking you were about to give up!..) On a side note, I wouldn't be surprised if there is a second hunt being planned, I would also be all over H Charles Beale's hunts if I was stateside, so there's plenty to keep you busy if you're flagging on this one. Always appreciate your posts as calm/rational/logical and really would be sad if you were to move on to other things though. Go get it Zaph! |
|
|
|
Post by thrillchaser on Mar 9, 2020 6:38:30 GMT -5
coincidences taken as fact are misleading
|
|
|
|
Post by edgewalker on Mar 9, 2020 7:50:10 GMT -5
coincidences taken as fact are misleading Sometimes even facts taken as facts can be misleading. |
|
|
|
Post by Jenny on Mar 9, 2020 8:24:14 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Jenny on Mar 29, 2020 7:50:39 GMT -5
What about hints from illustrations of other books Forrest has mentioned in TTOTC? Like this map in Journal of a Trapper?  |
|
