|
|
Post by Jenny on Jan 10, 2020 8:44:34 GMT -5
Forrest has recently said that even when he passes, there will be a way to know whether the treasure is there or not...but he doesn't want to share how.
What are some possible ways this could be known?
Does he have contact info in the chest? Does he plan to leave someone the location?
|
|
|
|
Post by davebakedpotato on Jan 10, 2020 10:14:29 GMT -5
Forrest has recently said that even when he passes, there will be a way to know whether the treasure is there or not...but he doesn't want to share how. What are some possible ways this could be known? Does he have contact info in the chest? Does he plan to leave someone the location? Ouija board? |
|
|
|
Post by Jenny on Jan 10, 2020 10:40:51 GMT -5
Forrest has recently said that even when he passes, there will be a way to know whether the treasure is there or not...but he doesn't want to share how. What are some possible ways this could be known? Does he have contact info in the chest? Does he plan to leave someone the location? Ouija board? I'm not sure he has a way..... which seems you might agree... |
|
|
|
Post by crm114 on Jan 10, 2020 11:29:52 GMT -5
I'm not sure a proxy item hasn't been ruled out. The poem could take you to forrest's spot on public lands where you find a metal plate directing you how to recover the chest on private land ( which may become yours). I'm not a lawyer, but it seems this might ease the legal burdens and simplify 'knowing.' it would seem to make the 1000 year problem a little harder. There is no guarantee what will happen to private land in 100 years, let alone 1000.
Satellite photos. Forrest could purchase access to high resolution images, and while maybe he can't see the chest, he can tell if the ground has been disturbed. It would not be foolproof, and it would cost money.
Someone else brought this up - It's not impossible given the timing of hiding the chest that one of forrest's pals could have informed Forrest of Bitcoin. Would Forrest put "digital gold" in the chest on a lark? I'm guessing he might. He said he found a better way than the IOU. This would be a better way in hindsight, but Bitcoin was just a curiosity at the time. The interesting thing about Bitcoin is once Forrest passes, the address could be revealed and we would all have a way to know if the chest is found, assuming the finder takes possession of the Bitcoin as well.
None of the above seem completely satisfying, but given that he seems to think of everything, I think there is a way. How will we know after Forrest passes is even more baffling, but I bet Forrest has thought of it.
Probably the key thing to keep in mind is that per Forrest (via Doug) he found something better than an IOU. An IOU pretty much solves all problems except the 1000 year problem, imo, so his solution must be pretty darn good.
|
|
|
|
Post by davebakedpotato on Jan 10, 2020 11:49:52 GMT -5
I'm not sure a proxy item hasn't been ruled out. The poem could take you to forrest's spot on public lands where you find a metal plate directing you how to recover the chest on private land ( which may become yours). I'm not a lawyer, but it seems this might ease the legal burdens and simplify 'knowing.' it would seem to make the 1000 year problem a little harder. There is no guarantee what will happen to private land in 100 years, let alone 1000. Satellite photos. Forrest could purchase access to high resolution images, and while maybe he can't see the chest, he can tell if the ground has been disturbed. It would not be foolproof, and it would cost money. Someone else brought this up - It's not impossible given the timing of hiding the chest that one of forrest's pals could have informed Forrest of Bitcoin. Would Forrest put "digital gold" in the chest on a lark? I'm guessing he might. He said he found a better way than the IOU. This would be a better way in hindsight, but Bitcoin was just a curiosity at the time. The interesting thing about Bitcoin is once Forrest passes, the address could be revealed and we would all have a way to know if the chest is found, assuming the finder takes possession of the Bitcoin as well. None of the above seem completely satisfying, but given that he seems to think of everything, I think there is a way. How will we know after Forrest passes is even more baffling, but I bet Forrest has thought of it. Probably the key thing to keep in mind is that per Forrest (via Doug) he found something better than an IOU. An IOU pretty much solves all problems except the 1000 year problem, imo, so his solution must be pretty darn good. How would you do it? |
|
|
|
Post by davebakedpotato on Jan 10, 2020 11:53:27 GMT -5
Forrest has recently said that even when he passes, there will be a way to know whether the treasure is there or not...but he doesn't want to share how. What are some possible ways this could be known? Does he have contact info in the chest? Does he plan to leave someone the location? There is a way for *who* to know the treasure has been found? Other searchers presumably? |
|
|
|
Post by davebakedpotato on Jan 10, 2020 11:56:41 GMT -5
There are obvious methods that rely on the actions of the finder: sending Forrest his bracelet back in his lifetime for example. I'm not sure he has said that there will be a way for people to know after his passing(?) Still, I like a challenge, so will give it some thought. It might get me in Forrest's frame of mind.
|
|
|
|
Post by astree on Jan 10, 2020 12:17:11 GMT -5
Forrest has recently said that even when he passes, there will be a way to know whether the treasure is there or not...but he doesn't want to share how. What are some possible ways this could be known? I think a decent aerial view of the hiding location should be sufficient. |
|
|
|
Post by crm114 on Jan 10, 2020 12:27:35 GMT -5
I'd probably see what the lawyers could come up with on the proxy item idea or some kind of trust or whatever tricks they do for the wealthy. If it eased the legal burden for the finder, that would be a bonus. We always talk about legal issues for the finder, but Forrest had to consider some legal issues for himself and family too. If my foresight was as good as my hindsight, I'd consider Bitcoin, depending on what the lawyers came up with. On a lark, I would likely put some in just for fun if nothing else, but I would not depend on that alone. For the record, I think there is a slim to none chance Forrest did this. In reality, I would likely not have thought about it and would have to retroactively and secretly go back and correct that under cover of darkness sometime after I hid it. |
|
|
|
Post by crm114 on Jan 10, 2020 12:31:45 GMT -5
Forrest has recently said that even when he passes, there will be a way to know whether the treasure is there or not...but he doesn't want to share how. What are some possible ways this could be known? I think a decent aerial view of the hiding location should be sufficient. So he transfers that burden to Shiloh after he is gone? How and when does he let Shiloh (or someone else) know where it is? |
|
|
|
Post by astree on Jan 10, 2020 12:51:29 GMT -5
I think a decent aerial view of the hiding location should be sufficient. So he transfers that burden to Shiloh after he is gone? How and when does he let Shiloh (or someone else) know where it is? I might have missed something. Why does he need to transfer the burden to anyone ? |
|
|
|
Post by crm114 on Jan 10, 2020 13:00:21 GMT -5
So he transfers that burden to Shiloh after he is gone? How and when does he let Shiloh (or someone else) know where it is? I might have missed something. Why does he need to transfer the burden to anyone ? I'm pretty sure sure he has indicated there is a way to know after he is gone. If so, then for any kind of surveillance to work, someone has to continue it. |
|
|
|
Post by astree on Jan 10, 2020 13:11:56 GMT -5
I might have missed something. Why does he need to transfer the burden to anyone ? I'm pretty sure sure he has indicated there is a way to know after he is gone. If so, then for any kind of surveillance to work, someone has to continue it. Maybe that way to know needs to be discovered by searchers, as opposed to passed on by Forrest. |
|
|
|
Post by Jenny on Jan 10, 2020 13:21:44 GMT -5
There are obvious methods that rely on the actions of the finder: sending Forrest his bracelet back in his lifetime for example. I'm not sure he has said that there will be a way for people to know after his passing(?) Still, I like a challenge, so will give it some thought. It might get me in Forrest's frame of mind. When Forrest was recently asked what will happen when he passes and it was mentioned we won't get confirmation that the treasure is still out there, Forrest says, "“No that’s not true… there’s a way to know, but I’m not going to tell you what it is”. So what is that way? If there is a way.... Is it just him having confidence that whoever finds the treasure will want to share the discovery with others because of certain items in the chest or because how amazing the location is? |
|
|
|
Post by davebakedpotato on Jan 10, 2020 13:55:16 GMT -5
There are obvious methods that rely on the actions of the finder: sending Forrest his bracelet back in his lifetime for example. I'm not sure he has said that there will be a way for people to know after his passing(?) Still, I like a challenge, so will give it some thought. It might get me in Forrest's frame of mind. When Forrest was recently asked what will happen when he passes and it was mentioned we won't get confirmation that the treasure is still out there, Forrest says, "“No that’s not true… there’s a way to know, but I’m not going to tell you what it is”. So what is that way? If there is a way.... Is it just him having confidence that whoever finds the treasure will want to share the discovery with others because of certain items in the chest or because how amazing the location is? Ah ok, that's not quite the same as an automatic notification method to the search community (which would be an interesting technical challenge). So perhaps he means, if you find the spot, it will be obvious if you're not the first to find it. Perhaps the method of retrieving the chest is destructive in some way, for example. If sepulchered under a pile of stones, you would have to dismantle the pile, and would be unlikely to remantle (?) it. It would be obvious to subsequent finders that they had been beaten, even if the finder doesn't go public. Just an example. |
|
