|
Post by zaphod73491 on Jan 12, 2020 18:00:30 GMT -5
Hi crm114: I still think an Occam's Razor approach to the totality of clue-solving and treasure-distance quotes is most easily explained by 500- and or 200-footers being two-clue solvers. For instance the Jon Lackman interview in May 2015:
Jon: "Last month, you indicated that still nobody has correctly solved beyond the first two clues. Is this correct? Still nobody has solved beyond the first two clues?"
FF: “Very few people tell me exactly where they are searching so there is no way for me to know. Some searchers have been within 200 feet."
Here, the subject of Jon's question is progress *beyond* solving the first two clues. Why mention 200 feet at all when Jon's question was about clues being solved, not proximity to the treasure?
|
|
|
Post by goldilocks on Jan 12, 2020 18:49:05 GMT -5
Hi crm114: I still think an Occam's Razor approach to the totality of clue-solving and treasure-distance quotes is most easily explained by 500- and or 200-footers being two-clue solvers. For instance the Jon Lackman interview in May 2015: Jon: "Last month, you indicated that still nobody has correctly solved beyond the first two clues. Is this correct? Still nobody has solved beyond the first two clues?" FF: “Very few people tell me exactly where they are searching so there is no way for me to know. Some searchers have been within 200 feet." Here, the subject of Jon's question is progress *beyond* solving the first two clues. Why mention 200 feet at all when Jon's question was about clues being solved, not proximity to the treasure? I'll tell you why I think 200 feet was mentioned. I think it's more of a standard distance for example a setback from a public way or property line or other zoning or land use measurement. Forrest had 15 years to do his homework and educate himself on the legalities of where to place the treasure IMO.
|
|
|
Post by crm114 on Jan 12, 2020 19:16:46 GMT -5
Zap, my only argument is Forrest seems to go off on a tangent from one sentence to the next a lot in more examples than just this. He's simply adding extra information, imo. The 200/500 footers and 2 clue solvers were simply lumped together as people that were close for different reasons (clues VS distance)
If you haven't guessed, my solve is not compatible with your interpretation. To make mine make sense, I have to assume the 2 clue solvers were different people than the 200 footer and they had no reason to be that close if they only solved two clues. In my interpretation, the 200 footer was simply sightseeing at 200 feet and not searching.
|
|
|
Post by fundamentaldesign on Jan 12, 2020 20:09:39 GMT -5
I think f’s quote of 500 and 200 footers leaves plenty of doubt of Zap’s claim. 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. Yes, and that’s why I stand by my opinion. Maybe 500 feet from a dirt road.
|
|
|
Post by zaphod73491 on Jan 12, 2020 23:47:24 GMT -5
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. Yes, and that’s why I stand by my opinion. Maybe 500 feet from a dirt road. I get the resistance to the WWWH proximity theory under your circumstances. I'm sure I'd be making the same argument if I had your solution. :-)
|
|