|
|
Post by luckylarry on Feb 13, 2020 12:50:16 GMT -5
In a recent interview didn't he say that you tarry scant because you've found the treasure? That's right after the line about the blaze. So if the blaze isn't the last clue, can we not be fairly comfortable that if we find it we are very close to finding the treasure? Can we be brave and say we are very likely less than 200 feet from the treasure? I thought tarry scant was the last major clue also. You look down to spot a location you wouldn't want to stay at for very long. Like a mosquito infested swampy area. |
|
|
|
Post by zaphod73491 on Feb 13, 2020 12:58:50 GMT -5
Without revealing what I believe Forrest's blaze to be, if it is intimately tied to the location of the treasure (a feature I imagine most searchers are comfortable with), would it not be best if ONLY a Fenn searcher could discover it? And to be clear, I don't mean that it would be merely ~unlikely~ for a non-searcher to find it. I mean literally impossible. Not a waterfall, not a mark on a tree or a rock wall, not an "X marks the spot." Rather, something only a Fenn searcher armed with the poem could possibly find. Yes. Assuming it's a physical object, how can that be achieved? I don't know that it ~is~ a physical object. To use another poster's example, is a projected light beam (e.g. sunlight through a hole or slot in a distant rock) a physical object? Yes, it's real, it's not theoretical. It exists. It's something you can look at. But I would not say it's a physical, macroscopic object. Such a blaze would not be without its problems, not least of which is the date and time element: these would have to be provided by the poem, and it would obviously place a severe limitation on the dates/times the blaze could serve its intended function. Now suppose Fenn came up with a better solution: one that doesn't have date or time requirements? |
|
|
|
Post by davebakedpotato on Feb 13, 2020 13:58:04 GMT -5
Yes. Assuming it's a physical object, how can that be achieved? I don't know that it ~is~ a physical object. To use another poster's example, is a projected light beam (e.g. sunlight through a hole or slot in a distant rock) a physical object? Yes, it's real, it's not theoretical. It exists. It's something you can look at. But I would not say it's a physical, macroscopic object. Such a blaze would not be without its problems, not least of which is the date and time element: these would have to be provided by the poem, and it would obviously place a severe limitation on the dates/times the blaze could serve its intended function. Now suppose Fenn came up with a better solution: one that doesn't have date or time requirements? It's a bit abstract, but I'm sure you have something in mind. For some reason I'm reminded of Forest holding up his thumb and covering up a city. Maybe geographic features lining up in that manner... |
|
|
|
Post by brianu on Feb 13, 2020 14:00:45 GMT -5
Like high noon sun, rising in East over one mountain and setting down over the next and linig up with the Creek and noon time lining up Creek spot and wwh. Like that? Maybe lining up nsew on a solar day like soltice?
|
|
|
|
Post by brianu on Feb 13, 2020 14:03:23 GMT -5
I heard they used to measure time and location by the sun, and the Greenwich mean time in England. That's how Lewis and Clark figured out how much dirt America owned and where they were driving their crew( except for Sacagawea when they were needi g help).
|
|
|
|
Post by brianu on Feb 13, 2020 14:41:22 GMT -5
I checked my own theory for sun. Only works at noon roughly, certain times of year, glad I don't have to use compass all day wheww
|
|
|
|
Post by Bownarrow on Mar 21, 2020 3:56:42 GMT -5
www.dsl.ac.uk/entry/snd/blaizeBlaze, Blaise, n. "A blow"
"Blow" is an anagram of "bowl". So the "blaze" can be a "bowl".
This idea is consistent with what is found at the blaze. When one looks quickly down from the blaze, there is a marvel gaze to be seen.
|
|
|
|
Post by astree on Mar 21, 2020 9:46:20 GMT -5
Yes. Assuming it's a physical object, how can that be achieved? I don't know that it ~is~ a physical object. To use another poster's example, is a projected light beam (e.g. sunlight through a hole or slot in a distant rock) a physical object? Yes, it's real, it's not theoretical. It exists. It's something you can look at. But I would not say it's a physical, macroscopic object. Such a blaze would not be without its problems, not least of which is the date and time element: these would have to be provided by the poem, and it would obviously place a severe limitation on the dates/times the blaze could serve its intended function. Now suppose Fenn came up with a better solution: one that doesn't have date or time requirements? Do you mean like the searcher having a flashlight or carrying a laser pointer, or perhaps using in situ objects to make a line of sight? |
|
|
|
Post by jdiggins on Mar 21, 2020 11:15:59 GMT -5
www.dsl.ac.uk/entry/snd/blaizeBlaze, Blaise, n. "A blow"
"Blow" is an anagram of "bowl". So the "blaze" can be a "bowl".
This idea is consistent with what is found at the blaze. When one looks quickly down from the blaze, there is a marvel gaze to be seen.
Bowl or B owl... |
|
|
|
Post by astree on Mar 21, 2020 12:23:31 GMT -5
www.dsl.ac.uk/entry/snd/blaizeBlaze, Blaise, n. "A blow"
"Blow" is an anagram of "bowl". So the "blaze" can be a "bowl".
This idea is consistent with what is found at the blaze. When one looks quickly down from the blaze, there is a marvel gaze to be seen.
Bowl or B owl... I like that, jdiggins. Do you recall when the wherewarmwatershalt website had an owl (faded, right hand side) on their markup of the Winter Man painting? (attached) Attachments:
|
|
