|
Post by zaphod73491 on Jan 18, 2020 23:36:27 GMT -5
As time has gone on, I have found that fewer and fewer of his statements are confusing to me, and many are not helpful in solving the clues. The sedan admission to me is *at most* an indication that it is not difficult to get to the location he parked. The ATF is probably only bothersome to searchers who have solutions that involve taking forest service roads requiring high clearance and/or 4wd, so they quibble about definitions of a sedan. The more excuses a searcher feels they have to make for their spots, the less likely they're correct. I agree that once you've got some clues figured out, a number of things are going to click that mean nothing to those searching the wrong locations. Re: "I don't think he ever said anything about whether the box or the treasure were first in those two trips...and I'll bet if you ask he'll say something like "does it really matter?" Forrest did actually say it was the treasure first and then the chest. (I'll post a link later when I'm on my computer.) I don't know that Forrest has been 100% consistent about the order, but it would be most logical to take the contents in first since the car location is not going to be as secure as the hiding spot.
Adding quote about the order he took the chest/gold:
From Richard Eeds radio show (5/29/2015): Eeds asks: "Okay. Um, how much does it weigh?"
FF: "The gold in the treasure chest weighs 20.2 troy pounds. And the chest weighs forty, uh, twenty-two pounds. So the whole thing, I think, is around 42 pounds. It was heavy enough that I made two trips to hide it. I took the gold in one time, and then I took the treasure chest in the second time."
|
|
|
Post by CJ on Jan 19, 2020 6:09:14 GMT -5
As time has gone on, I have found that fewer and fewer of his statements are confusing to me, and many are not helpful in solving the clues. The sedan admission to me is *at most* an indication that it is not difficult to get to the location he parked. The ATF is probably only bothersome to searchers who have solutions that involve taking forest service roads requiring high clearance and/or 4wd, so they quibble about definitions of a sedan. The more excuses a searcher feels they have to make for their spots, the less likely they're correct. I agree that once you've got some clues figured out, a number of things are going to click that mean nothing to those searching the wrong locations. Re: "I don't think he ever said anything about whether the box or the treasure were first in those two trips...and I'll bet if you ask he'll say something like "does it really matter?" Forrest did actually say it was the treasure first and then the chest. (I'll post a link later when I'm on my computer.) I don't know that Forrest has been 100% consistent about the order, but it would be most logical to take the contents in first since the car location is not going to be as secure as the hiding spot.
Adding quote about the order he took the chest/gold:
From Richard Eeds radio show (5/29/2015): Eeds asks: "Okay. Um, how much does it weigh?"
FF: "The gold in the treasure chest weighs 20.2 troy pounds. And the chest weighs forty, uh, twenty-two pounds. So the whole thing, I think, is around 42 pounds. It was heavy enough that I made two trips to hide it. I took the gold in one time, and then I took the treasure chest in the second time."
Thanks for that one too - I don't know why I missed that. I'm sure I've read or listened to that interview many times.
|
|
|
Post by heidini on Jan 25, 2020 22:52:28 GMT -5
As time has gone on, I have found that fewer and fewer of his statements are confusing to me, and many are not helpful in solving the clues. The sedan admission to me is *at most* an indication that it is not difficult to get to the location he parked. The ATF is probably only bothersome to searchers who have solutions that involve taking forest service roads requiring high clearance and/or 4wd, so they quibble about definitions of a sedan. The more excuses a searcher feels they have to make for their spots, the less likely they're correct. I agree that once you've got some clues figured out, a number of things are going to click that mean nothing to those searching the wrong locations. Re: "I don't think he ever said anything about whether the box or the treasure were first in those two trips...and I'll bet if you ask he'll say something like "does it really matter?" Forrest did actually say it was the treasure first and then the chest. (I'll post a link later when I'm on my computer.) I don't know that Forrest has been 100% consistent about the order, but it would be most logical to take the contents in first since the car location is not going to be as secure as the hiding spot.
Adding quote about the order he took the chest/gold:
From Richard Eeds radio show (5/29/2015): Eeds asks: "Okay. Um, how much does it weigh?"
FF: "The gold in the treasure chest weighs 20.2 troy pounds. And the chest weighs forty, uh, twenty-two pounds. So the whole thing, I think, is around 42 pounds. It was heavy enough that I made two trips to hide it. I took the gold in one time, and then I took the treasure chest in the second time."
Thanks so much for the quote. I tried to find it for “Theoretical” the person, but I could not.
|
|
|
Post by fennzenn on Jan 25, 2020 23:56:51 GMT -5
Am I dreaming, or did I see a video clip somewhere from early on where he said he put a blank check made out for $100,000 in the treasure chest, and so assuming the finder was a rational person and would want to cash that, he would know once it hit his bank?
|
|
|
Post by heidini on Jan 26, 2020 0:21:22 GMT -5
Am I dreaming, or did I see a video clip somewhere from early one where he said he put a blank check made out for $100,000 in the treasure chest, and so assuming the finder was a rational person and would want to cash that, he would know once it hit his bank? I think it was forrest thought about putting $100,000 cash in the treasure box but was worried the moisture would ruin the paper money so he took it out. (Took it out of the treasure box.)
|
|
|
Post by davebakedpotato on Jan 26, 2020 0:56:23 GMT -5
Am I dreaming, or did I see a video clip somewhere from early on where he said he put a blank check made out for $100,000 in the treasure chest, and so assuming the finder was a rational person and would want to cash that, he would know once it hit his bank? Yes, I'm sure someone can post the link. I believe it goes on to say he couldn't guarantee his bank would be around in the very long term, so he reconsidered.
|
|
|
Post by davebakedpotato on Jan 26, 2020 1:27:16 GMT -5
Ok, I really don't like this solution, but it would have been possible even ten years ago for someone to rig up something like this: youtu.be/aH76nTdZsdUIt relies on the spot having daylight and a mobile phone signal.
|
|
|
Post by astree on Jan 26, 2020 6:53:17 GMT -5
. www.eisradio.org/item/003/FENN: There’s something that I don’t know whether it’s in the treasure chest or not. It was a crazy idea. But, going about the question you asked earlier, “Did I want to know if someone had found the treasure chest?” So I said, “Yeah, I do.” One reason is so people won’t be spending all their money looking for something that isn’t there any more. So I put an IOU - I wrote out an IOU. “Take this IOU to my bank in Santa Fe, and collect $100,000.” I figured for $100,000, the guy that found the treasure chest would not want to keep it secret anymore. So now the IRS is getting in the act and everybody knows. But if someone finds it 1,000 years from now, my bank won’t be there, and there won’t be any money in the account even if they did, so, I think I took that IOU out. But I don’t remember whether I did or not. It’s in there in spirit. this is how he would know whether the treasure was found. But even without it, he should be able to figure if the treasure is still there. One way is to use Google Earth.
|
|
|
Post by zeudonomei on Jan 26, 2020 13:12:46 GMT -5
He has most likely left contact information. Even if he were to pass before the treasure chest is found, there are many friends and family who he could have left contact information for. Could be a lawyer or law firm. Or possibly a GPS device which could be switched on and left in the location when it is found. That could easily be checked daily by computer. The man is smart and funny. If he says he would know you better believe it! I will let you know what he did when I have the treasure chest in my possession. LOL! Happy hunting everyone!
|
|
|
Post by woollybugger on Jan 27, 2020 19:25:38 GMT -5
I don't really buy his reasoning, this seems to be more Fenn saying one thing and meaning another. We've already heard about how he's sealed his autobiography with wax - there are solutions to moisture. As for the $1,000 bill, I find it interesting that Grover Cleveland happens to be on it. Not the first time he's come up in the chase.
|
|
|
Post by davebakedpotato on Jan 28, 2020 1:54:57 GMT -5
. this is how he would know whether the treasure was found. But even without it, he should be able to figure if the treasure is still there. One way is to use Google Earth. I don't think either of those statements are correct, a disciplined searcher who wished to remain anonymous would just not bank the cheque, or wait for Forrest to pass on. It makes the difference between say $2m and $2.1m, so not enough to guarantee action on behalf of the searcher imo. Reading the quotes it does seem to me that Forrest can monitor the chest remotely or has some other definite 'flagging' system, as he seems pretty sure he can tell if it's still there. Google Earth probably doesn't feature either in monitoring the chest - it isn't updated very often, and "doesn't go down far enough" to see the chest. On the latter point, presumably you think that retrieving the chest will destructively disturb *something*, so that could be seen from an updated GE picture, rather than the chest itself. Side Note: With GE Pro you can track back through earlier snapshots of Earth, often taken in different seasons.
|
|
|
Post by astree on Jan 28, 2020 5:44:19 GMT -5
. this is how he would know whether the treasure was found. But even without it, he should be able to figure if the treasure is still there. One way is to use Google Earth. I don't think either of those statements are correct, a disciplined searcher who wished to remain anonymous would just not bank the cheque, or wait for Forrest to pass on. It makes the difference between say $2m and $2.1m, so not enough to guarantee action on behalf of the searcher imo. I somewhat agree. This was Forrests reasoning, according to the quote. There are other quotes where he says that the finder may not reveal that they have found the treasure because of the IRS. There is a further aspect that forest may be required to pay the IRS taxes on the treasure if he is considered the giver, thus invoking the gift tax. I did not find anything in the quotes that implies remote monitoring equipment although it could be listed as a possibility. Even though we may not be able to see the treasure box using Google earth, you should be able to tell that the treasure is still there if you know where to look. Saying that he will absolutely know when indulgence is found versus knowing that a treasure is still there can be two different things, and having searchers conflate things he says seems to be an f forte.
|
|
|
Post by pacman on Jan 31, 2020 9:49:10 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. Simple, if the chest contains instructions to find another valuable item hidden in a public place, likely close to Forrest. A large diamond secreted where retrieval would be clearly evident, say. This method does not rely on the continued existence of any institution. It also explains why he doesn't want to share. How would retrieval be clearly evident? Think entropy. Sealed inside a pot is one method. You can either break or take the pot, but you can't easily take the diamond and leave the pot intact. But something more natural looking I imagine, so that a passerby does. Pacman
|
|
|
Post by davebakedpotato on Jan 31, 2020 11:32:57 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. Simple, if the chest contains instructions to find another valuable item hidden in a public place, likely close to Forrest. A large diamond secreted where retrieval would be clearly evident, say. This method does not rely on the continued existence of any institution. It also explains why he doesn't want to share. How would retrieval be clearly evident? Think entropy. Sealed inside a pot is one method. You can either break or take the pot, but you can't easily take the diamond and leave the pot intact. But something more natural looking I imagine, so that a passerby does. Pacman This also requires action by the finder, which you can't be certain will happen at all, or certainly within Forrest's lifetime. He sounds very sure the treasure is still there. Part of the answer is the bracelet, which also relies on the actions of the finder.
|
|
dalby2020
Full Member
Whatever you do, or dream you can, begin it. Boldness has genius, power and magic in it. Begin it.
Posts: 212
|
Post by dalby2020 on Jan 31, 2020 14:42:54 GMT -5
Is the chest locked? It's a beautiful chest. Maybe the finder wouldn't want to pry it open so contacts Fenn for the key.
|
|