|
|
Post by zaphod73491 on Aug 28, 2019 16:26:54 GMT -5
People who latch onto the 10 miles remark in TFTW are desperate, and not masters of everything Forrest has written or said. A bit biased, Zap..... I think those who latch onto any interpretation, without the chest in their possession, cannot determine if others are Masters or not, of everything Forrest has written or said. Yourself, myself, and everyone included. What I am getting from your posts is that you feel you have thought of the most perfect interpretation for the line 'Not far, but too far to walk' (for your solution), and feel you are a master of Forrest and all he says. But without the chest, it doesn't seem you have 'mastered' him or should even make that harsh judgement. You have no facts....just opinion- like everyone else. I'm sure there are many searchers with great interpretations for the line 'Not far, but too far to walk'....... which one will be correct? So ok.....let's look at that line of the poem and ask 'Was the line's meaning- 'Not far, but too far to walk' being revealed in the preface? Seems too obvious, yes, and too tempting and easy, but is there any reason why it can't mean that? Jenny, I'm sorry, it's not biased at all. I was trying to get across the point that people who seize the 10-mile comment as a critical clue could only do so by ignoring (or not having been exposed to) the totality of Forrest's comments over the course of the Chase. It would be the very first time that Forrest had provided the answer to any of the clues. It would also mean his answer to Emily in 2013 was a deliberate lie: "Emily, All of the information you need to find the treasure is in the poem." No where in the poem is that ten-mile figure mentioned, or unambiguously hinted at. If 10 miles is the answer to NF, BTFTW, then the earliest searchers toiled for 3 years in vain. If Forrest had passed at the end of 2010, then poof -- no TFTW, no 10-mile comment.
Just to be clear, when I wrote "Masters," I was not referring to people having solved any of the clues -- I was referring to people who have invested the time to read and watch most of what Forrest has put out there over the last 9 years. Doesn't mean they have solved any of the clues, but that time investment has given them insight into Forrest's ethics and sense of fairness. To give away a clue answer in such an obvious way would completely undercut the 15 years he spent designing this thing.
"What I am getting from your posts is that you feel you have thought of the most perfect interpretation for the line 'Not far, but too far to walk' (for your solution), and feel you are a master of Forrest and all he says."
I feel I have a very good answer, yes. Doesn't mean it's right, Jenny, but it is very "Fenn-y", includes an important element of logic, is intimately tied to geography, can be statistically evaluated, and because the solution is quite unexpected it is easy to see why (if correct) it would have eluded discovery for so long. As far as being a "master of Forrest," per my definition above, I am only admitting to a fairly encyclopedic knowledge of what he has said and written w.r.t. the Chase. I am not a master of *him*; I am an expert on the content of his three memoirs, his 200+ Scrapbooks, his Vignettes, Q&A's, your seven years of Six Questions with him, etc.
"So ok.....let's look at that line of the poem and ask 'Was the line's meaning- 'Not far, but too far to walk' being revealed in the preface?
Seems too obvious, yes, and too tempting and easy, but is there any reason why it can't mean that?"
Beyond my reasoning above, one ATF you know:
"I said in an interview that there was a clue in the book, not the preface, that I didn’t realize was there until after the book was printed. Some have discovered it already."
Now, playing Devil's Advocate, I could argue that just because the unintended clue isn't in the Preface, doesn't mean that an INTENDED clue isn't there. But again that comes back to WHY he would do such a thing. It would be an admission of failure on his part -- that the poem wasn't doing its job.
|
|
|
|
Post by van on Aug 28, 2019 16:31:55 GMT -5
I believe, it makes more since if you write the poem out in sentence form (see below).
Begin it where warm waters halt and take it in the canyon down, not far, but to far to walk.
Put in below the home of Brown.
I believe most people read the poem, and naturally combine NFBTFTW and HOB, but there is a period after walk.
The trick is to determine how many "clues" point to map location(s), and how many clues refer to BOTG from the location FF parked his car.
|
|
|
|
Post by davebakedpotato on Aug 28, 2019 16:35:42 GMT -5
Here's a 'con' to the idea of drive for a bit and stop (presumably at HoB): you could easily shortcut the poem by accidentally driving past HoB and realising that it was HoB - you would have shortcut 3 clues (imo). Fenn has said this is not possible. Is this a 'con'? I'm not sure hoB can be identified so easily. Or that by passing by any of the clues, either by driving, walking, etc., are known that way. It seems much more is involved. Consider people drive by/to WWWH and don't realize it is WWWH of the poem....From what Forrest has said, we KNOW people have been at WWWH and did not KNOW it was 'THEE' WWWH. Isn't that incredible? Why can't this be the same case for hoB? Especially since hoB is most likely not a structure (because Forrest is known to have suggested such), and so it doesn't seem like something obvious and easily discovered--- but something that requires interpretation, like the previous clues, and WITH the previous clues. If searchers can be at WWWH, and not know it,.... I would think it's possible that unless you have followed the poem, you might not consider hoB to be 'thee' hoB...and pass it by. I think this is a critical insight. I'll give it some serious thought. This might be the start of how to ride the backwards bicycle. |
|
|
|
Post by Jenny on Aug 28, 2019 16:39:06 GMT -5
A bit biased, Zap..... I think those who latch onto any interpretation, without the chest in their possession, cannot determine if others are Masters or not, of everything Forrest has written or said. Yourself, myself, and everyone included. What I am getting from your posts is that you feel you have thought of the most perfect interpretation for the line 'Not far, but too far to walk' (for your solution), and feel you are a master of Forrest and all he says. But without the chest, it doesn't seem you have 'mastered' him or should even make that harsh judgement. You have no facts....just opinion- like everyone else. I'm sure there are many searchers with great interpretations for the line 'Not far, but too far to walk'....... which one will be correct? So ok.....let's look at that line of the poem and ask 'Was the line's meaning- 'Not far, but too far to walk' being revealed in the preface? Seems too obvious, yes, and too tempting and easy, but is there any reason why it can't mean that? Jenny, I'm sorry, it's not biased at all. I was trying to get across the point that people who seize the 10-mile comment as a critical clue could only do so by ignoring (or not having been exposed to) the totality of Forrest's comments over the course of the Chase. It would be the very first time that Forrest had provided the answer to any of the clues. It would also mean his answer to Emily in 2013 was a deliberate lie: "Emily, All of the information you need to find the treasure is in the poem." No where in the poem is that ten-mile figure mentioned, or unambiguously hinted at. If 10 miles is the answer to NF, BTFTW, then the earliest searchers toiled for 3 years in vain. If Forrest had passed at the end of 2010, then poof -- no TFTW, no 10-mile comment. Just to be clear, when I wrote "Masters," I was not referring to people having solved any of the clues -- I was referring to people who have invested the time to read and watch most of what Forrest has put out there over the last 9 years. Doesn't mean they have solved any of the clues, but that time investment has given them insight into Forrest's ethics and sense of fairness. To give away a clue answer in such an obvious way would completely undercut the 15 years he spent designing this thing. "What I am getting from your posts is that you feel you have thought of the most perfect interpretation for the line 'Not far, but too far to walk' (for your solution), and feel you are a master of Forrest and all he says." I feel I have a very good answer, yes. Doesn't mean it's right, Jenny, but it is very "Fenn-y", includes an important element of logic, is intimately tied to geography, can be statistically evaluated, and because the solution is quite unexpected it is easy to see why (if correct) it would have eluded discovery for so long. As far as being a "master of Forrest," per my definition above, I am only admitting to a fairly encyclopedic knowledge of what he has said and written w.r.t. the Chase. I am not a master of *him*; I am an expert on the content of his three memoirs, his 200+ Scrapbooks, his Vignettes, Q&A's, your seven years of Six Questions with him, etc. "So ok.....let's look at that line of the poem and ask 'Was the line's meaning- 'Not far, but too far to walk' being revealed in the preface?
Seems too obvious, yes, and too tempting and easy, but is there any reason why it can't mean that?" Beyond my reasoning above, one ATF you know: "I said in an interview that there was a clue in the book, not the preface, that I didn’t realize was there until after the book was printed. Some have discovered it already." Now, playing Devil's Advocate, I could argue that just because the unintended clue isn't in the Preface, doesn't mean that an INTENDED clue isn't there. But again that comes back to WHY he would do such a thing. It would be an admission of failure on his part -- that the poem wasn't doing its job.
You're awesome, Zap... thank you..... well explained and understood.... I love these discussions as it helps us all 'think' and not get caught in a rut... or at least me... maybe you all have it more together... |
|
|
|
Post by zaphod73491 on Aug 28, 2019 17:02:41 GMT -5
Thanks so much for your reply, Jenny. :-) I've been stuck in my own rut for a couple months now, and it's all because of one or two pesky statements that Forrest has made over the years -- this one particularly:
"Let's coin a new phrase. You can't have a ‘correct solve’ unless you can knowingly go to within several steps of the treasure chest. Otherwise you have a ‘general solve.’ What do you think? f"
What do I think? I think it means my solution needs to put me on a trajectory that will unavoidably take me to within several steps of your treasure chest at some point. I have a candidate method, and a strawman solution to that method that comes straight from the poem. But it is far from unambiguous; other solutions are equally possible, which means it is inelegant in its lack of uniqueness. That one word "knowingly" prevents me from going BOTG again until I find a unique, precise finish.
|
|
|
|
Post by ironwill on Aug 28, 2019 17:18:41 GMT -5
Thanks so much for your reply, Jenny. :-) I've been stuck in my own rut for a couple months now, and it's all because of one or two pesky statements that Forrest has made over the years -- this one particularly: "Let's coin a new phrase. You can't have a ‘correct solve’ unless you can knowingly go to within several steps of the treasure chest. Otherwise you have a ‘general solve.’ What do you think? f" What do I think? I think it means my solution needs to put me on a trajectory that will unavoidably take me to within several steps of your treasure chest at some point. I have a candidate method, and a strawman solution to that method that comes straight from the poem. But it is far from unambiguous; other solutions are equally possible, which means it is inelegant in its lack of uniqueness. That one word "knowingly" prevents me from going BOTG again until I find a unique, precise finish. I think Jenny needs to get a Featured Question from Forrest (long over due)... "Forrest, by your previous 'coin a new phrase' definition... do you have knowledge of any searcher having a correct solve to your poem up to this point in time?" IWWhat do you think? |
|
|
|
Post by zaphod73491 on Aug 28, 2019 17:29:41 GMT -5
Ironwill: seems to me Forrest's answer would be "No. f" By Forrest's definition, if someone has a "correct solve," then they can *knowingly* walk close enough to find it. So what you're really asking is, "Has someone solved the poem but has not, or for some reason will not, retrieve the treasure?"
|
|
|
|
Post by ironwill on Aug 28, 2019 17:32:41 GMT -5
Ironwill: seems to me Forrest's answer would be "No. f" By Forrest's definition, if someone has a "correct solve," then they can *knowingly* walk close enough to find it. So what you're really asking is, "Has someone solved the poem but has not, or for some reason will not, retrieve the treasure?" Yes of course dummy!  The blogs have been filled with nothing but talk about a "LEAD SEARCHER", and this is the best way to address that. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 28, 2019 17:46:18 GMT -5
I think that each letter of the "Not far, but too far to walk" line represents a mile. Forrest might of exploited his wagon for that same reason, because women and children walked aside the wagon trains at a maximum of of 20 miles a day. Any farther was just too far to walk. There are 21 letters in that line which is too far too walk.
|
|
|
|
Post by davebakedpotato on Aug 29, 2019 1:31:29 GMT -5
Ironwill: seems to me Forrest's answer would be "No. f" By Forrest's definition, if someone has a "correct solve," then they can *knowingly* walk close enough to find it. So what you're really asking is, "Has someone solved the poem but has not, or for some reason will not, retrieve the treasure?" Yes of course dummy! The blogs have been filled with nothing but talk about a "LEAD SEARCHER", and this is the best way to address that. Q - does talk of a 'lead searcher' help us in any way towards overtaking them? Q - where did the subject originate? By definition, some people are further on in solving the poem, but as the rather disturbing saying goes, 'close only counts in horseshoes and handgrenades'. |
|
|
|
Post by davebakedpotato on Aug 29, 2019 2:21:27 GMT -5
I think that each letter of the "Not far, but too far to walk" line represents a mile. Forrest might of exploited his wagon for that same reason, because women and children walked aside the wagon trains at a maximum of of 20 miles a day. Any farther was just too far to walk. There are 21 letters in that line which is too far too walk. One of the issues I have with the idea that NFBTFTW can be resolved to a specific distance is - how do you know which distance? Just from the poem: - I have gone alone. Alone = 1 - I have gONE alONE = 11, or 1+1 - I looks like a 1 in the above = 111 or 1+1+1 - aloNE IN = nein = 9 - lisTEN = 10 Chances of it being a distance are very slim, imo. |
|
|
|
Post by ironwill on Aug 29, 2019 4:56:20 GMT -5
Yes of course dummy! The blogs have been filled with nothing but talk about a "LEAD SEARCHER", and this is the best way to address that. Q - does talk of a 'lead searcher' help us in any way towards overtaking them? Q - where did the subject originate? By definition, some people are further on in solving the poem, but as the rather disturbing saying goes, 'close only counts in horseshoes and handgrenades'. It originated from the "Gut Feeling" comments Forrest made in 2017, the first being that someone was going to find it that summer. Then in the summer it was "wavering". Then later he dropped it entirely. Many people think that there is a "lead searcher" who has solved the poem down to retrieving the treasure, yet they are having some sort of difficulties in either finding it at the spot, or finances, family, etc. That's the gist of what I see on the blogs anyhow. |
|
|
|
Post by davebakedpotato on Aug 29, 2019 5:17:52 GMT -5
[/quote]It originated from the "Gut Feeling" comments Forrest made in 2017, the first being that someone was going to find it that summer. Then in the summer it was "wavering". Then later he dropped it entirely.
Many people think that there is a "lead searcher" who has solved the poem down to retrieving the treasure, yet they are having some sort of difficulties in either finding it at the spot, or finances, family, etc.
That's the gist of what I see on the blogs anyhow.[/quote]
Seems like a distraction to me - thanks for the info. I wondered if it related to the 'lead dog' comment.
|
|
|
|
Post by miracleman on Apr 18, 2020 18:32:44 GMT -5
Is “to far to walk” written like that as a hint to what you should really be focusing on in that phrase?
Is this clue crucial to confirming where you put in below the home of brown? Consider you’re in the correct area - there could still be many possible hobs. You need to know the answer of NFBTFTW, and maybe specifically the TFTW part of it to confirm you have the right hob?
|
|
|
|
Post by johnwayne11 on Apr 18, 2020 23:18:16 GMT -5
Is “to far to walk” written like that as a hint to what you should really be focusing on in that phrase? Is this clue crucial to confirming where you put in below the home of brown? Consider you’re in the correct area - there could still be many possible hobs. You need to know the answer of NFBTFTW, and maybe specifically the TFTW part of it to confirm you have the right hob? I know it's too far to walk for me. Guess I will just stay below and enjoy the view. Greener down here anyway. And more flowers and chipmunks. |
|
The blogs have been filled with nothing but talk about a "LEAD SEARCHER", and this is the best way to address that.