Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 16, 2019 20:39:06 GMT -5
Simply put, and I'm not going to quote, but I'm asking anyone including Jenny, Zap,Nps, Richard, Goldilocks, I really don't know anyone on mysterious writings Proboard, so I'm asking everyone that reads this thread. What is it that Forrest said about, no quote.. there's one thing nobody has thought about and if they had the treasure may have been found.? And another thing he said that nobody has analyzed one important possibly. So my question is, what has changed since the dates he said this stuff? Especially for someone to figured out a couple of the first clues. What's new? And " no specialized knowledge needed, that has to coincide with the knowledge of Forrest, I think he is so smart with his life experiences that he ponders why if he is/was able than why not anyone to have the same knowledge. Even if it turns out to be specialized to us because of circumstances in life, it's simply not the road traveled. So does anyone know what's changed since the two statements that seem prominent to the chase that got people closer? Because all I can find is the same as from the beginning. What is different?
|
|
|
Post by zaphod73491 on Nov 16, 2019 21:37:17 GMT -5
Simply put, and I'm not going to quote, but I'm asking anyone including Jenny, Zap,Nps, Richard, Goldilocks, I really don't know anyone on mysterious writings Proboard, so I'm asking everyone that reads this thread. What is it that Forrest said about, no quote.. there's one thing nobody has thought about and if they had the treasure may have been found.? And another thing he said that nobody has analyzed one important possibly. So my question is, what has changed since the dates he said this stuff? Especially for someone to figured out a couple of the first clues. What's new? And " no specialized knowledge needed, that has to coincide with the knowledge of Forrest, I think he is so smart with his life experiences that he ponders why if he is/was able than why not anyone to have the same knowledge. Even if it turns out to be specialized to us because of circumstances in life, it's simply not the road traveled. So does anyone know what's changed since the two statements that seem prominent to the chase that got people closer? Because all I can find is the same as from the beginning. What is different? Hi Tommy: you might be referring to the solution to the Special Words from Forrest cipher at the end of Jenny's "Armchair Treasure Hunts" book: “If you are in the right spot, something you probably haven’t thought about should be obvious to you.” But the other Forrest quote you paraphrased is similar: "What surprises me a little is that nobody to my uncertain knowledge has analyzed one important possibility related to the winning solve."
So when you ask what has changed, I would ask "Since when?" The first two clues were solved a LONG time ago (2012 or 2013), and then Forrest indicated no progress for at least a couple years. The only definitive statement he's made about progress beyond solving the first two clues was a little over four years ago (11/2/2015) in Forrest Gets Mail #9: “Are there signs that people are getting closer to solving your puzzle? How many clues have people solved now?” FF: "Searchers have come within about 200 feet. Some may have solved the first four clues, but I am not certain." Forrest has never said definitively that four clues have been solved (though I think most believe that to be the case by now), and he certainly has never said more than 4.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 16, 2019 21:52:59 GMT -5
Simply put, and I'm not going to quote, but I'm asking anyone including Jenny, Zap,Nps, Richard, Goldilocks, I really don't know anyone on mysterious writings Proboard, so I'm asking everyone that reads this thread. What is it that Forrest said about, no quote.. there's one thing nobody has thought about and if they had the treasure may have been found.? And another thing he said that nobody has analyzed one important possibly. So my question is, what has changed since the dates he said this stuff? Especially for someone to figured out a couple of the first clues. What's new? And " no specialized knowledge needed, that has to coincide with the knowledge of Forrest, I think he is so smart with his life experiences that he ponders why if he is/was able than why not anyone to have the same knowledge. Even if it turns out to be specialized to us because of circumstances in life, it's simply not the road traveled. So does anyone know what's changed since the two statements that seem prominent to the chase that got people closer? Because all I can find is the same as from the beginning. What is different? Hi Tommy: you might be referring to the solution to the Special Words from Forrest cipher at the end of Jenny's "Armchair Treasure Hunts" book: “If you are in the right spot, something you probably haven’t thought about should be obvious to you.” But the other Forrest quote you paraphrased is similar: "What surprises me a little is that nobody to my uncertain knowledge has analyzed one important possibility related to the winning solve."
So when you ask what has changed, I would ask "Since when?" The first two clues were solved a LONG time ago (2012 or 2013), and then Forrest indicated no progress for at least a couple years. The only definitive statement he's made about progress beyond solving the first two clues was a little over four years ago (11/2/2015) in Forrest Gets Mail #9: “Are there signs that people are getting closer to solving your puzzle? How many clues have people solved now?” FF: "Searchers have come within about 200 feet. Some may have solved the first four clues, but I am not certain." Forrest has never said definitively that four clues have been solved (though I think most believe that to be the case by now), and he certainly has never said more than 4.
Hi Zap Thank you! So exactly when did he say the treasure is 8.25? Was it 2012/2013? Or later? And has he ever once indicated that San lazaro is not wwwh?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 16, 2019 21:56:19 GMT -5
I might have a alternative solution to take the canyon down.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 16, 2019 22:05:15 GMT -5
Zaphod74391 Is it okay I call you zap? And if you know about San lazaro is it in a valley or canyon of sorts? Or do you think I'm in a rabbit hole?
|
|
|
Post by zaphod73491 on Nov 16, 2019 22:49:24 GMT -5
Zaphod74391 Is it okay I call you zap? And if you know about San lazaro is it in a valley or canyon of sorts? Or do you think I'm in a rabbit hole? Zap is fine. I'm pretty sure San Lazaro is south of Santa Fe, but others more familiar with the area would know better than I. The "more than 8.25 miles north of Santa Fe" figure wasn't originally used by Forrest, but rather computed by others after Forrest's post on Richard Saunier's site about Land Measures. Forrest wrote "more than 66,000 links north of Santa Fe." But later, he did eventually use 8.25 miles. I'm on my phone, but if you need to know the dates he first used each figure I've got that on my computer.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 17, 2019 0:26:06 GMT -5
Zaphod74391 Is it okay I call you zap? And if you know about San lazaro is it in a valley or canyon of sorts? Or do you think I'm in a rabbit hole? Zap is fine. I'm pretty sure San Lazaro is south of Santa Fe, but others more familiar with the area would know better than I. The "more than 8.25 miles north of Santa Fe" figure wasn't originally used by Forrest, but rather computed by others after Forrest's post on Richard Saunier's site about Land Measures. Forrest wrote "more than 66,000 links north of Santa Fe." But later, he did eventually use 8.25 miles. I'm on my phone, but if you need to know the dates he first used each figure I've got that on my computer. Has he ever discounted San as not wwwh that you are aware of?
|
|
|
Post by davebakedpotato on Nov 17, 2019 7:27:29 GMT -5
Zap is fine. I'm pretty sure San Lazaro is south of Santa Fe, but others more familiar with the area would know better than I. The "more than 8.25 miles north of Santa Fe" figure wasn't originally used by Forrest, but rather computed by others after Forrest's post on Richard Saunier's site about Land Measures. Forrest wrote "more than 66,000 links north of Santa Fe." But later, he did eventually use 8.25 miles. I'm on my phone, but if you need to know the dates he first used each figure I've got that on my computer. Has he ever discounted San as not wwwh that you are aware of? The treasure is in the mountains North of Santa Fe and F has stated it is not hidden at the pueblo, which is South anyway. That does not mean that the starting point to your search can't be South of Santa Fe, but the final resting place is.
|
|
|
Post by astree on Nov 17, 2019 8:09:13 GMT -5
. youtu.be/O9czRin3TasQ4: Has anyone determined the nine clues and what they represent? FORREST FENN: Well there’s about 250,000 people that think they have. I don’t know that anybody has told me the clues in the right order. I think part of the problem is, they don’t, they don’t focus on the first clue. If you don’t know where the first clue is, you might as well stay home because you’re not going to find the treasure chest. You can’t go out looking for the blaze and expect to find the treasure chest. There’s 10 billion blazes out there. So you have to start with the first clue and let it take you to the blaze. ( above found using www.tarryscant.com , “ right order” ) I found it a bit confusing. There could be a weak implication that Forrest has been given all the clues, but not in the right order ( if he was initially trying to answer the question instead of misdirect ). Then he seems to switch to the need to idetify the first clue to progress to the blaze; but if all the clues had been given to Forrest, even if not in the right order, he would know that somebody had identified the first clue and through the blaze and beyond, if the blaze is not the final clue. At the same time, it would be understandable to be a bit confusing since it was a live interview
|
|
|
Post by davebakedpotato on Nov 17, 2019 13:01:42 GMT -5
. youtu.be/O9czRin3TasQ4: Has anyone determined the nine clues and what they represent? FORREST FENN: Well there’s about 250,000 people that think they have. I don’t know that anybody has told me the clues in the right order. I think part of the problem is, they don’t, they don’t focus on the first clue. If you don’t know where the first clue is, you might as well stay home because you’re not going to find the treasure chest. You can’t go out looking for the blaze and expect to find the treasure chest. There’s 10 billion blazes out there. So you have to start with the first clue and let it take you to the blaze. ( above found using www.tarryscant.com , “ right order” ) I found it a bit confusing. There could be a weak implication that Forrest has been given all the clues, but not in the right order ( if he was initially trying to answer the question instead of misdirect ). Then he seems to switch to the need to idetify the first clue to progress to the blaze; but if all the clues had been given to Forrest, even if not in the right order, he would know that somebody had identified the first clue and through the blaze and beyond, if the blaze is not the final clue. At the same time, it would be understandable to be a bit confusing since it was a live interview I've always been intrigued by that quote, how can you solve them in the wrong order? He's said multiple times the clues are in order in the poem...no idea!
|
|
|
Post by goldilocks on Nov 17, 2019 13:19:15 GMT -5
Simply put, and I'm not going to quote, but I'm asking anyone including Jenny, Zap,Nps, Richard, Goldilocks, I really don't know anyone on mysterious writings Proboard, so I'm asking everyone that reads this thread. What is it that Forrest said about, no quote.. there's one thing nobody has thought about and if they had the treasure may have been found.? And another thing he said that nobody has analyzed one important possibly. So my question is, what has changed since the dates he said this stuff? Especially for someone to figured out a couple of the first clues. What's new? And " no specialized knowledge needed, that has to coincide with the knowledge of Forrest, I think he is so smart with his life experiences that he ponders why if he is/was able than why not anyone to have the same knowledge. Even if it turns out to be specialized to us because of circumstances in life, it's simply not the road traveled. So does anyone know what's changed since the two statements that seem prominent to the chase that got people closer? Because all I can find is the same as from the beginning. What is different? Another similar quote from an e-mail from Forrest to Jason Dent (responding to Jason's request when he was looking for ideas for his show) was: “Talk about the one good clue that searchers can think of themselves but haven't. f”
|
|
|
Post by zaphod73491 on Nov 17, 2019 15:25:17 GMT -5
Zap is fine. I'm pretty sure San Lazaro is south of Santa Fe, but others more familiar with the area would know better than I. The "more than 8.25 miles north of Santa Fe" figure wasn't originally used by Forrest, but rather computed by others after Forrest's post on Richard Saunier's site about Land Measures. Forrest wrote "more than 66,000 links north of Santa Fe." But later, he did eventually use 8.25 miles. I'm on my phone, but if you need to know the dates he first used each figure I've got that on my computer. Has he ever discounted San as not wwwh that you are aware of? There is nothing that Forrest has said or written that requires WWWH to be in any one of the four search states. In fact, it technically doesn't even need to be in the U.S., though that would complicate the matter of the clues being contiguous if it wasn't. Personally, I believe in addition to the treasure, all clues are within the highlighted region of the map in TFTW, and I think nearly all searchers have been assuming that.
|
|
|
Post by Jenny on Nov 18, 2019 9:35:18 GMT -5
Zap is fine. I'm pretty sure San Lazaro is south of Santa Fe, but others more familiar with the area would know better than I. The "more than 8.25 miles north of Santa Fe" figure wasn't originally used by Forrest, but rather computed by others after Forrest's post on Richard Saunier's site about Land Measures. Forrest wrote "more than 66,000 links north of Santa Fe." But later, he did eventually use 8.25 miles. I'm on my phone, but if you need to know the dates he first used each figure I've got that on my computer. Has he ever discounted San as not wwwh that you are aware of? My husband and I had the extreme pleasure of visiting San Lazaro with Forrest (I wrote about some of that- link below)....While he loves this location, he is very protective of it, and I don't feel any of the Chase's clues relate to it.... mysteriouswritings.com/chatting-with-forrest-fenn-medicine-rock/
|
|
|
Post by zaphod73491 on Nov 18, 2019 22:16:47 GMT -5
Thanks, Jenny, for posting the link to your story about you and your husband visiting San Lazaro Pueblo. What a privilege to not only see it in person, but to have Forrest with you as your own personal docent!
|
|