|
|
Post by npsbuilder on Mar 21, 2020 1:14:16 GMT -5
. A three-year-old could go there, probably would need some help. If you believe that the poem route is the most direct route then you will need to reconcile no place for the meek with a place a three-year-old could go. Some of the ideas presented could do that. Although I think the poem line the end is ever drawing nigh tends to indicate that no place for the meek is more like a dangerous place. What if we were to think of the 3 year old as a race horse. Typically this is the age for horses competing for the Triple Crown. Thinking this way helps with ...the end is ever drawing nigh...possibly I have not used this thinking for any of my worthless solves though. |
|
|
|
Post by me9 on Mar 31, 2020 18:03:33 GMT -5
What was your favorite Hike/Trail Yellowstone.? Trails are not favorites of mine. I always hiked off trails. Why go where everyone else had gone. The rangers didn’t like that, but I did and I was the one doing it. Do you see my logic? dalneitzel.com/2017/02/08/forrest-gets-mail-13/ |
|
|
|
Post by ironwill on Apr 1, 2020 12:18:13 GMT -5
"The treasure is hidden where a person would not normally go. Uh, I guess you could call that an isolated location – yeah. f" It's being discussed in another thread here that this could be no place for the meek meaning. I put on my thinking cap for this. Let's try to explore how Forrest said that. He stressed the would not " normally go", and then seemed to slightly stammer " Uhhh....I 'guess' you could call that..." By what we all know of Fenn over these last 10 years ( for those who didn't know him beforehand ), We understand that when he stammers or pauses to think... he is looking for 'wiggle room' to answer the question without: 1- being false in his wording. 2- giving any special hints away to the interviewer. In his quote, he had Uh and I guess...and even had to reaffirm himself with yeah at the end. This means he's trying to make sure the treasure fits Cynthia's isolated definition as best as possible. You also mentioned its possible relation to no place for the meek. Meek means: meek (miːk) adj 1. patient, long-suffering, or submissive in disposition or nature; humble 2. spineless or spiritless; compliant3. an obsolete word for gentle So, submissive, compliant, timid or spineless, and spiritless. Let's look at " ...where a person would not normally go." What could satisfy that definition? Let's make a list, and I hope you understand these are not all, but just what come to my mind at the moment. A patch of forest with No Trespassing signs posted all around its edges. Another person or entity's private property. Up in a pine tree (I use pine as kids love climbing deciduous trees) In a dark cave (I'm not sure I agree with this as I go in every cave I see) The edge of a cliff to look down Into the woods off of a prescribed trail with no distinctive reason. (this means seeing a waterfall 200 feet from your trail does not count as everyone would leave the trail to walk over to it.) Anywhere you see a sign that says STAY OUT. Wow....this is harder that I thought. I was expecting to have a list of about 20 such places but can only think of 8 and some of them are "iffy." Note please, that I wanted to mention other things like train tunnels, mines, etc...but I subconsciously ruled out anything Forrest has already mentioned. I believe all of the above qualify to no place for the meek. So lets apply what SeanNM brought up about Forrest saying that he was lucky no one was around when he hid the treasure. What Forrest has effectively done here is create a paradox of the treasure's location, at first glance. There should've(lucky comment) been people around where he hid the treasure, but it's in a place people would not normally go(isolated comment). This means either one of his two statements are false (which I don't believe), or his isolated statement to be applied to a place that you would not normally go, in the public view. This is why I included private properties, No tresspassing, STAY OUT, and in a tree. If anyone was around and saw you at any of those places, things would complicate quickly. So does anyone know of other places? Remember it has to be the place where the treasure is hidden, not en route to it. Look forward to any other ideas. Will |
|
|
|
Post by goldilocks on Apr 1, 2020 13:02:42 GMT -5
What about No Trespassing in this sense of the phrase...“Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us” (trespass=a violation of moral or social ethics, a sin).
|
|
|
|
Post by goldilocks on Apr 1, 2020 13:22:12 GMT -5
I'm reminded of the quote in My War For Me, "Forgive a sinner and smile at a homely girl". Did Forrest feel like a sinner for his part in the "hateful, wasteful, losing war"? A war zone would be a place people wouldn't normally go. No idea how this would translate to a place in the Rockies however.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jenny on Apr 1, 2020 13:26:46 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by ironwill on Apr 1, 2020 17:57:28 GMT -5
OOH! That adds another isolated location to my list I didn't think of at the time. My example is specific but it could be viewed in general. I have a solution from my earlier days that takes Mammoth Hot springs down the G. river to the confluence of sheep eaters canyon, following the river south around Bunsen Peak. If you've been wise and found the blaze... Bunsen burner. If you look straight down(south) from that peak you see a circled "MARSHY" area just south of the bike trail. Forrest could've drove his sedan on that bike trail (no one was around) and walked down into the marshy area in the CENTER of that circle of trees (if you look on the map). " It's not in a tree but surrounded by trees. f" I don't believe its there, but you just made me think of another isolated place Jenny, thanks  |
|
|
|
Post by woollybugger on Apr 2, 2020 19:51:54 GMT -5
A patch of forest with No Trespassing signs posted all around its edges. Another person or entity's private property. Up in a pine tree (I use pine as kids love climbing deciduous trees) In a dark cave (I'm not sure I agree with this as I go in every cave I see) The edge of a cliff to look down Into the woods off of a prescribed trail with no distinctive reason. (this means seeing a waterfall 200 feet from your trail does not count as everyone would leave the trail to walk over to it.) Anywhere you see a sign that says STAY OUT.
I actually think the statement that it's not somewhere a person would normally go about as useful as saying it's under 10,200' in elevation. Just about anywhere that is off-trail in the wilderness qualifies as a place a person would not normally go, depending on your definition of normally. He clearly went there for a reason, so a person can and have gone, but to me, about all that it eliminates are tourist destinations and places people go regularly. I tend to file this comment as one that's juicy in the way it sounds, but too vague to be of much use.
|
|
|
|
Post by ironwill on Apr 3, 2020 8:18:57 GMT -5
A patch of forest with No Trespassing signs posted all around its edges. Another person or entity's private property. Up in a pine tree (I use pine as kids love climbing deciduous trees) In a dark cave (I'm not sure I agree with this as I go in every cave I see) The edge of a cliff to look down Into the woods off of a prescribed trail with no distinctive reason. (this means seeing a waterfall 200 feet from your trail does not count as everyone would leave the trail to walk over to it.) Anywhere you see a sign that says STAY OUT.
I actually think the statement that it's not somewhere a person would normally go about as useful as saying it's under 10,200' in elevation. Just about anywhere that is off-trail in the wilderness qualifies as a place a person would not normally go, depending on your definition of normally. He clearly went there for a reason, so a person can and have gone, but to me, about all that it eliminates are tourist destinations and places people go regularly. I tend to file this comment as one that's juicy in the way it sounds, but too vague to be of much use.
Then allow me to explain and possibly change your mind on two points. You said, " Just about anywhere that is off-trail in the wilderness qualifies..." Yes you are right it qualifies for that reason. Yet it is DISQUALIFIED because other people would not be around. Try to look at just one explanation of his methods and reasoning but apply them all together. Forrest said he was "lucky" that no one was around. This implies people normally would've been there. With that in mind, think about walking on a trail that crosses "Rainbow Bridge" over "Dry creek" (making this up for context). Well you are below the home of Brown (color in the rainbow), and below it in Dry creek. From there its no place for the meek...heading upstream on that creek. Forget the rest of the clues, because by Forrest's words there should be no direction there. Because, normally 200 feet or more from that bridge on the trail and up the creek bed... People would not go. Forrest is saying people WOULD go there by his "lucky" comment. Now lets look at tourist destinations. I will use for an example the town of West Yellowstone. I'd like you to go look at my "The Trouble With Confidence" post on Dal's. dalneitzel.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Photo-6.pngThe linked photo is in that post. Its of a lone pine tree. But what is important is in the background. See that patch of forest? That is a southerly view from what I called the FF blaze on the street in TAR. That patch of woods has NO TRESPASSING signs all around it. Yet...it is in a tourist destination town. People would not normally trespass in those woods, because they are meek or "compliant." Do I think its there? No. But I needed to show you there is a patch of woods in a tourist spot that people would not normally go, but he was lucky no one was around to see him trespass. Hope this takes my post off the "too vague to be of much use" list o.o |
|
|
|
Post by woollybugger on Apr 3, 2020 8:33:06 GMT -5
Ah, my apologies ironwill if my comment was misleading. I wasn't saying your post was too vague to be of much use, I meant Forrest's reference to a place someone normally go is. I think your logic could certainly be correct, I just don't share the belief that it can be narrowed down to a handful of situations. I think we agree that the poem describes an area, perhaps a large area. If it's an area not frequented by a lot of people, an individual would (could) stand out. Forrest would also have been a reasonably well known person in certain areas, adding to the good fortune that he does not believe he was seen. |
|
|
|
Post by woollybugger on Apr 3, 2020 8:44:33 GMT -5
Actually... that kind of helps me with something I've struggled with for a while, the "15 years" comment from when he was diagnosed with cancer to when he hid the treasure, and reconciling that with claiming he was 79 or 80. I've always felt he was being genuine with his 15 years comment. Perhaps he only says he was 79 or 80 when he hid it so, if he was seen, enough time has passed where a person would likely have long forgotten. Of course the Mimi Sloane consideration could be at play as well...
|
|
|
|
Post by goldilocks on Apr 3, 2020 8:48:07 GMT -5
...or simply an area in a park which says "keep off the grass" or a park that closes at dusk. If you violate these minor offenses it's not like you'd be hauled off to jail so he wouldn't be asking us to do something dangerous. They are places a person normally wouldn't go and he'd be lucky nobody saw him...
|
|
|
|
Post by susb8383 on Apr 3, 2020 9:01:29 GMT -5
To me, a place people wouldn’t normally go just means off-trail. He could have parked in a lot, started walking on a trail, and then veered off-trail through the woods at a certain point. That would fit in with feeling lucky nobody was around (for the on-trail portion).
I think associating meek with this may be a wrong conclusion. Meek may refer to something else. If it’s a place a 70 year old man could get to, I don’t think “no place for the meek” has a literal meaning.
|
|
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 Apr 3, 2020 9:09:02 GMT -5
The treasure is hidden where a person would not normally go.
Without over thinking it, I guess that he is saying it is hidden off-trail.
People normally go one way and follow the trail to wherever it leads.
He continued the other direction.
You see this all the time hiking. A felled tree is positioned to keep people on the "normal" trail.
But if you step over the tree, there is still a path to follow.
Maybe he was "lucky" because no one saw him leave the main trail.
There is also the "in there" part of the poem.
When people reach some landmark, the may normally go around, over, or under "there". But he stepped over the barrier and went in.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2020 14:32:22 GMT -5
The "No Place For Biddies" chapter has three poem words in a row, just as "From there it's no place for the meek. It's obvious that Forrest did this purposely. If you combine biddies with meek, you're a chicken. Evidencing little spirit, which is a meek meaning. Forrest does state that you'll be surprised of where its at. Its going to be a hike of hell, which is where someone would not normally go. That is the correct take-away in my opinion: that the No Place for Biddies (chickens) chapter is a deliberate parallel to the poem line, and that "no place for the meek" could be something as simple as leaving the safe, comfortable confines of your vehicle, crossing a road (again with the chickens?, lol), and striking your own trail. Forrest actually tells about crossing the road (like chickens) in the "No Place For Biddies" chapter: "He'd run away from home but he's not allowed to cross the street," I walked to school almost every day didn't I? And cars were whizzing every which way weren't they? Forrest tells you what "meek" means by reading between the lines in this chapter. He crossed the street to get to the other side like the chicken/biddy joke. |
|
