|
Post by zaphod73491 on Jan 10, 2020 15:43:23 GMT -5
We can both get "closer" *and* solve more clues than L'il Indy because we aren't restricted to the map Jenny specified: a map of the entire US Rocky Mountains. We can use a more detailed map appropriate to the treasure's location. The most valuable information learned from Jenny's question is that despite Indy's large scale map, she nevertheless can still solve the first two clues without ever leaving India. You're assuming lil Indy has a paper map. Lil Indy is a modern child and has Google Earth on her phone, which is also a valid map, of variable resolution. If Little Indy has an arsenal of maps at her disposal, then she can solve as many clues as any of the rest of us. I don't know about you, but I would never leave home having solved only 2 clues.
But that's a sidebar. She can't get "closer" than the first two clues was how Forrest worded his answer. He didn't actually specify that she could "solve" anything. But here's a thought: suppose solving the first two clues will get you within 200 feet of the treasure. If that's the case, then Little Indy is doing just as well as everyone else, apparently!
|
|
|
Post by davebakedpotato on Jan 10, 2020 15:49:18 GMT -5
"But here's a thought: suppose solving the first two clues will get you within 200 feet of the treasure. If that's the case, then Little Indy is doing just as well as everyone else, apparently!"
I don't see any evidence that 2 clues = 200 feet.
|
|
|
Post by zaphod73491 on Jan 11, 2020 2:09:29 GMT -5
There is a quote from Forrest that leaves little doubt that's true. I can post from my computer (posting from my phone).
|
|
|
Post by fundamentaldesign on Jan 11, 2020 11:42:02 GMT -5
All, So again his advice to new searchers is to study the poem. Nothing about the book itself. Seannm Hi Sean, Firstly, I don't think that advice applies to just "new" searchers. Secondly, studying just the poem hasn't been all that fruitful so no harm in looking elsewhere for any information that could aid one in narrowing down the possibilities IMO. Thirdly, in SB 62 he said "Excellent research materials are TTOTC, Google Earth, and/or a good map. f" Fourthly, where've you been?? Goldilocks I think that advice just applies to “new” searchers just like f said. New searchers and non-new searchers are two different things. Advice from someone and that person’s best advice can be two different things. I know which one of the following I will follow especially if I’m not participating in the Chase for a month or less- f’s advice to new searchers is to study the poem. -or- Yeah, I have some advice. Read the book. And then study the poem. Over and over. Read it over and over. Maybe even memorize it. And then go back and read the book again looking for hints that are in the book that are going to help you with the clues that are in the poem. That’s the best advice that I can give. You have to find out - you have to learn where the first clue is. They get progressively easier after you discover where the first clue is.
|
|
|
Post by zaphod73491 on Jan 11, 2020 21:01:10 GMT -5
Hi Dave: re: "I don't see any evidence that 2 clues = 200 feet," here's the quote I was alluding to yesterday: Julius Brighton video on vimeo (August 2013) at vimeo.com/128361901, at the 6:23 minute mark, Forrest says: "There have been a few people within 500 feet. I think there have been people within a couple hundred feet. They figure the first two clues, but they don't get the third and the fourth and they go right past the treasure chest." In the context of that string of three sentences, it seems reasonably clear that the 500-footers and (possibly) couple-hundred foot searchers were ones who also figured out the first two clues. What can't be determined from his words is whether solving the first two clues is ~all~ that you need to do to assure getting within 500 feet.
|
|
|
Post by goldilocks on Jan 11, 2020 21:10:24 GMT -5
Hi Dave: re: "I don't see any evidence that 2 clues = 200 feet," here's the quote I was alluding to yesterday: Julius Brighton video on vimeo (August 2013) at vimeo.com/128361901, at the 6:23 minute mark, Forrest says: "There have been a few people within 500 feet. I think there have been people within a couple hundred feet. They figure the first two clues, but they don't get the third and the fourth and they go right past the treasure chest." In the context of that string of three sentences, it seems reasonably clear that the 500-footers and (possibly) couple-hundred foot searchers were ones who also figured out the first two clues. What can't be determined from his words is whether solving the first two clues is ~all~ that you need to do to assure getting within 500 feet. Zap, you truly are the Fenncyclopedia of The Chase. I think I speak for all of us when I say we appreciate your boundless knowledge, valuable input and continued effort to keep the facts straight.
|
|
|
Post by zaphod73491 on Jan 11, 2020 21:55:23 GMT -5
Thanks very much, Goldilocks! It's been a labor of love building a database of quotes and links over the last 4 years, and since I find myself consulting it a lot, I figure it can be a helpful resource for sorting fact from fiction or correcting a misremembrance.
And yet my data is far from complete. Locolobo on many occasions has provided valuable links and quotes from the early years of the Chase that had escaped my notice-- particularly early comments on Dal's buried deep in the archives.
|
|
|
Post by davebakedpotato on Jan 12, 2020 2:31:29 GMT -5
Hi Dave: re: "I don't see any evidence that 2 clues = 200 feet," here's the quote I was alluding to yesterday: Julius Brighton video on vimeo (August 2013) at vimeo.com/128361901, at the 6:23 minute mark, Forrest says: "There have been a few people within 500 feet. I think there have been people within a couple hundred feet. They figure the first two clues, but they don't get the third and the fourth and they go right past the treasure chest." In the context of that string of three sentences, it seems reasonably clear that the 500-footers and (possibly) couple-hundred foot searchers were ones who also figured out the first two clues. What can't be determined from his words is whether solving the first two clues is ~all~ that you need to do to assure getting within 500 feet. Thanks Zaph. Assuming there isn't an edit in that video (note when the scene changes, but also listen to Forrest - on balance I think it is one complete sentence), then I think we can say 2 clues = at least 500 feet, but not conclusively that 2 clues = 200 feet, which is what I meant by my first comment. Anyways, 2 clues = pretty close, which is always an exciting thought. Bonus question - why then, do we need 7 further contiguous clues to travel at most 500 feet? Superbonus questions - which paper maps would resolve down to 6 or 7 named items within 500 feet of each other? And what sort of location would that be? Do we throw away our maps after clue two, and just use the poem? I'm warming to Jenny's suggestion that perhaps the later clues confirm the spot rather than form a trail, although this jars with other comments from Forrest.
|
|
|
Post by fundamentaldesign on Jan 12, 2020 8:38:52 GMT -5
I think f’s quote of 500 and 200 footers leaves plenty of doubt of Zap’s claim.
|
|
|
Post by zaphod73491 on Jan 12, 2020 11:59:59 GMT -5
I think f’s quote of 500 and 200 footers leaves plenty of doubt of Zap’s claim. There is doubt about the minimum distance, yes, but I don't see any non-red-herring wiggle room in Forrest's association of those getting within 500 feet also solving two clues. Besides, there aren't many scenarios under which a searcher gets within 500 feet of the treasure, has solved nothing, and told Forrest enough in an email for him to know they got that close. I think the only uncertainty is whether the folks that got that close "knew" they had solved WWWH. (By "knew" I mean they are so confident in it that they would never consider another alternative. Obviously no one can *know* anything without solving the whole shebang.) The best exception I can come up with is if the treasure is within 500 feet of a heavily traveled spot *and* WWWH is far from that location.
|
|
|
Post by crm114 on Jan 12, 2020 12:23:42 GMT -5
Hi Dave: re: "I don't see any evidence that 2 clues = 200 feet," here's the quote I was alluding to yesterday: Julius Brighton video on vimeo (August 2013) at vimeo.com/128361901, at the 6:23 minute mark, Forrest says: "There have been a few people within 500 feet. I think there have been people within a couple hundred feet. They figure the first two clues, but they don't get the third and the fourth and they go right past the treasure chest." In the context of that string of three sentences, it seems reasonably clear that the 500-footers and (possibly) couple-hundred foot searchers were ones who also figured out the first two clues. What can't be determined from his words is whether solving the first two clues is ~all~ that you need to do to assure getting within 500 feet. Zap, I think you have to be careful with your interpretation. Note that he switches tenses in the middle of thought. This implies to me he might be talking of different groups of people. Clearly the 200 and 500 foot groups are specific people in the past. The two clue people seem to be an ongoing subset of people. It's not necessarily true that these groups overlap. Remember that little Indy could be a two clue person (minimum) without ever leaving home, so we already have a potential rulebreaker.
|
|
|
Post by zaphod73491 on Jan 12, 2020 12:45:52 GMT -5
If the "They" that starts the third sentence isn't either a 500-footer or a couple-hundred footer, then that pronoun has no antecedent. That's what I meant by bringing up the red herring business: if that "They" refers to a separate set of people, that would be deliberately misleading.
|
|
|
Post by crm114 on Jan 12, 2020 13:37:48 GMT -5
If the "They" that starts the third sentence isn't either a 500-footer or a couple-hundred footer, then that pronoun has no antecedent. That's what I meant by bringing up the red herring business: if that "They" refers to a separate set of people, that would be deliberately misleading. Can't the antecedent be in whatever question prompted that response? Unfortunately we don't know what that question was. For sake of argument, what if the question was "Can you tell me about the searchers you know of who have been close, either physically or mentally or both?"
|
|
|
Post by zaphod73491 on Jan 12, 2020 16:39:40 GMT -5
If the "They" that starts the third sentence isn't either a 500-footer or a couple-hundred footer, then that pronoun has no antecedent. That's what I meant by bringing up the red herring business: if that "They" refers to a separate set of people, that would be deliberately misleading. Can't the antecedent be in whatever question prompted that response? Unfortunately we don't know what that question was. For sake of argument, what if the question was "Can you tell me about the searchers you know of who have been close, either physically or mentally or both?" Okay, crm114, you actually have a good point there. I wonder if Julius recorded what he (or Dallas Campbell, or whoever) actually asked that led to that response, and the lead up question was left out in the editing process?
|
|
|
Post by crm114 on Jan 12, 2020 17:14:22 GMT -5
Can't the antecedent be in whatever question prompted that response? Unfortunately we don't know what that question was. For sake of argument, what if the question was "Can you tell me about the searchers you know of who have been close, either physically or mentally or both?" Okay, crm114, you actually have a good point there. I wonder if Julius recorded what he (or Dallas Campbell, or whoever) actually asked that led to that response, and the lead up question was left out in the editing process? Zap, I don't know. After 7 years, some of my work starts to become unfindable. I concede the answer could support either of us if this info can be recovered, but where would we be? Maybe he misspoke. Is it fair to hold his (Forrest) feet to the fire for his response when the implications are pretty large? I think his interview answers must be taken with grains of salt, because Fenn hardly has any control over the process. Jenny's six questions are much more bankable because we can see the whole question, the whole response, and we know Forrest had time to think about his response carefully.
|
|