|
|
Post by seannm on Apr 19, 2020 11:24:37 GMT -5
The shadow over the water, I believe is because of the sun's direction. Also because one of the way to the treasure is by waders and water. Don't forget the walking stick in the shadow......some water is low but has some weight behind it and it's nice to have a stick for support, especially when out running the bears! Remember, no one has found the treasure yet and so much deeper and imaginative thinking is required. It seems like the longer one thinks about the search the more they complicate the problem.f mysteriouswritings.com/six-questions-with-forrest-fenn-and-the-thrill-of-the-chase-treasure-hunt/ |
|
|
|
Post by seannm on Apr 19, 2020 11:26:19 GMT -5
Regardless of where one stands on the 9 sentence 9 clue theory, I think it is an important conversation. I think it is important because it begs the question, what exactly is the order we must put things in-contiguous, continuous, consecutive, chronological? I continue to keep an open mind. Trying to disprove a theory can be just as helpful as trying to prove one however, at some point a person has to start eliminating the least likely possibilities. We have no solid confirmation of what constitutes a clue and what doesn't. We can all pick and choose quotes to support our individual theories but how far does that get us? Is Sean any closer with his 9 sentence 9 clue theory than Zap with his BIWWWH and follow clues consecutively theory? No one can say. I've said this before but is the fact that there are 9 clues really that important or is that just getting some hung up and stuck in the mud? Goldi, Well said. Seannm |
|
|
|
Post by seannm on Apr 19, 2020 11:51:51 GMT -5
Page 26 TTOTC: "What we've learned is that you should always tell the truth, but you should not always tell ALL of the truth" These words and advice from Marvin to Forrest were important enough that Forrest recalled them and put them in his book. So Forrest saying he was not lying is truthful for he may never lie, and him saying that he didn't recall a reporter asking him such a question was more than likely truthful as well, but in no way should this be taken as factual evidence that he in fact said that there are in fact three or four clues in the second stanza. That is a huge stretch in my interpretation, for Forrest has nver definitively stated that there are in fact three of four clues in stanza two. Why do I feel like I'm talking in circles. Hmm, Forrest has never "definitively stated that there are in fact three or four clues in stanza two," therefore that is "a huge stretch"? Has Forrest ever definitively stated that there is one clue in the first sentence/stanza? Has he ever definitively stated that each of the nine sentences in the poem contains one and only one of the nine clues? Personally, I don't think he has, but I'd be happy to consider any relevant statements I might have missed (if you're inclined to share them). Until then, I'll continue to think that he's come much closer to saying that he was not lying when he stated that "there are three or four clues in the second stanza." (And, if anything, his willingness to "tell the truth . . . [but not] ALL of the truth," would suggest that there might be more than three or four clues in the second stanza, not fewer.) Harry, You said: Has Forrest ever definitively stated that there is one clue in the first sentence/stanza?No he has not, but he has never said that it isn't a clue. Again has he not said we cannot ignore any of the nouns? That stanza has upwards of four of them depending on your interpretation. And I'm not saying all searchers are ignoring that stanza, but many don't view it as a clue based on Forrest saying the first clue is "Begin it where warm waters halt" therefore they then interpret that to mean that the first stanza isn't a clue because of their interpretation of Forrest saying that the clues are in consecutive order. But the problem is, at least in my opinion, is that they cannot open their minds to different interpretation of the word first and how it then applies to the order of the clues as we see them versus the order we follow to solve them. But he did definitively say, in the Columbia podcast audio, that after reading the first two stanzas that that was the first few clues, not that it "sounded like" the first few clues, but in fact it was the first few clues. So it is a possibility that the first stanza could be part of those first few clues, in my interpretation. And if the first thing we must figure out before ever leaving home is where we are going, then it should obvious that we must first figure out " where warm waters halt". So yes, it is the first clue in the chronological order we must follow, but it might not be the first clue in the consecutive order of clues as we see them in the poem. Seannm |
|
|
|
Post by seannm on Apr 19, 2020 12:03:09 GMT -5
All,
So if the first stanza is a clue, one of the first few, but not the first, where does it fall within the chronological order of those first few clues and what could it be telling us?
As I have gone alone in there and with my treasures bold, I can keep my secret where and hint of riches new and old.
Seannm
|
|
dejoka
Junior Member
Posts: 70 
|
Post by dejoka on Apr 19, 2020 12:28:14 GMT -5
It was complicated. I started the Chase in 2013 and I thought it extremely difficult for all seven of those years. If persistence equals complicated, then yes, I complicated the problem. |
|
|
|
Post by harrytruman on Apr 19, 2020 18:40:23 GMT -5
but he also told early searchers that some elements of the poem were simply "cannon fodder"LOL, you'll have to source this statement, for I don't believe he has never made such a statement or anything near what it implies. However, he has said : "There are a few words in the poem that are not useful in finding the treasure Phil, but it is risky to discount any of them." That is far from saying some elements of the poem were simply "cannon fodder", if that is what you are referring to I think that again is a huge stretch, in my opinion. Mark Dreyer was an early searcher. Forrest (or whoever) provides a link to his blog from the Old Santa Fe Trading Company web site. I think you only read the poem, but I find early searchers' writings to be interesting and useful in their own way. Anyway, if you want the actual quote (and its context), you could find it on Dreyer's blog fairly easily. Or, certainly, you can continue to believe that Forrest never made such a statement or anything near what it implies. |
|
|
|
Post by seannm on Apr 19, 2020 19:05:23 GMT -5
but he also told early searchers that some elements of the poem were simply "cannon fodder"LOL, you'll have to source this statement, for I don't believe he has never made such a statement or anything near what it implies. However, he has said : "There are a few words in the poem that are not useful in finding the treasure Phil, but it is risky to discount any of them." That is far from saying some elements of the poem were simply "cannon fodder", if that is what you are referring to I think that again is a huge stretch, in my opinion. Mark Dreyer was an early searcher. Forrest (or whoever) provides a link to his blog from the Old Santa Fe Trading Company web site. I think you only read the poem, but I find early searchers' writings to be interesting and useful in their own way. Anyway, if you want the actual quote (and its context), you could find it on Dreyer's blog fairly easily. Or, certainly, you can continue to believe that Forrest never made such a statement or anything near what it implies. Burden of proof lies with you Mr. Truman, either provide the link, to the actual quote, or not. I'm not the quote police, just saying I have not seen it, so prove me wrong. I'm sure we all would love to see this mention from Forrest, so we can discuss it. And please don't provide us all some second hand hearsay mention, but an actual reputable quote from Forrest himself. |
|
|
|
Post by harrytruman on Apr 19, 2020 20:50:54 GMT -5
Mark Dreyer was an early searcher. Forrest (or whoever) provides a link to his blog from the Old Santa Fe Trading Company web site. I think you only read the poem, but I find early searchers' writings to be interesting and useful in their own way. Anyway, if you want the actual quote (and its context), you could find it on Dreyer's blog fairly easily. Or, certainly, you can continue to believe that Forrest never made such a statement or anything near what it implies. Burden of proof lies with you Mr. Truman, either provide the link, to the actual quote, or not. I'm not the quote police, just saying I have not seen it, so prove me wrong. I'm sure we all would love to see this mention from Forrest, so we can discuss it. And please don't provide us all some second hand hearsay mention, but an actual reputable quote from Forrest himself. I actually thought about providing the link, but then I thought that would be a sign of disrespect -- like I don't take you and others on this forum seriously as competitors. But since I do see you and others on this forum as serious, thoughtful, and tenacious competitors, I hope you (and others so inclined) will continue to believe that Forrest never said anything to anyone about any part of the poem being "cannon fodder." Good luck! |
|
|
|
Post by me9 on Apr 20, 2020 7:02:18 GMT -5
The cunning ruse line reminded me of something Forrest said when we spoke with him in his house. He said that there were elements of the poem which he referred to as “cannon fodder” his definition being useless bit throw in or extra items. The funny thing is that’s not the definition of the term: can·non fod·der – noun 1. low-ranking military personnel: members of the lowest ranks of the military, regarded as an expendable resource in wartime 2. expendable person: a person or group regarded as a resource to be exploited or sacrificed Do did he use the term incorrectly? Or was it just a cunning ruse? markrdreyer.wordpress.com/2012/07/24/scotts-back-2/ |
|
|
|
Post by me9 on Apr 20, 2020 7:04:45 GMT -5
mysteriouswritings.com/featured-questions-with-forrest-warm-waters-and-geography/Someone unfamiliar with your poem receives a message that says “meet me where warm waters halt, somewhere in the mountains north of Santa Fe”. Would they be able to work out where to go? If they can’t, would they need the whole poem, another stanza, or just a line or word to help them on their way? ~Phil Bayman . There are a few words in the poem that are not useful in finding the treasure Phil, but it is risky to discount any of them. You over simplify the clues. There are many places in the Rocky Mountains where warm waters halt, and nearly all of them are north of Santa Fe. Look at the big picture, there are no short cuts. f
|
|
|
|
Post by seannm on Apr 20, 2020 9:09:25 GMT -5
The cunning ruse line reminded me of something Forrest said when we spoke with him in his house. He said that there were elements of the poem which he referred to as “cannon fodder” his definition being useless bit throw in or extra items. The funny thing is that’s not the definition of the term: can·non fod·der – noun 1. low-ranking military personnel: members of the lowest ranks of the military, regarded as an expendable resource in wartime 2. expendable person: a person or group regarded as a resource to be exploited or sacrificed Do did he use the term incorrectly? Or was it just a cunning ruse? markrdreyer.wordpress.com/2012/07/24/scotts-back-2/ me9, Thank you for providing the link to that mention. First off, this is a second hand quote from a searcher so it must be considered hearsay as it was not publicly provided by Forrest himself to the community, not to say that it isn't accurate or that this individual isn't reputable, but did they get the wording exact e.g. did Forrest actually used the words "elements of" or "cannon fodder"?. And consider, for a moment how, badly the whole "Brown has nothing to do with brown trout" rumor got misconstrued via Cynthia, not her fault per-say, but just an example how things can get mixed up. So now with all that said, lets now talk about the this. If Forrest considers elements of the poem to be "cannon fodder" what parts, and or elements, of the poem would that be? Would it be whole lines/verses, sentences, single phrases or individual words? Would all of the nouns in the poem be exempt from this "cannon fodder" list? what are your thoughts? Seannm |
|
|
|
Post by simpleson on Apr 20, 2020 9:20:59 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by seannm on Apr 20, 2020 11:03:13 GMT -5
The cunning ruse line reminded me of something Forrest said when we spoke with him in his house. He said that there were elements of the poem which he referred to as “cannon fodder” his definition being useless bit throw in or extra items. The funny thing is that’s not the definition of the term: can·non fod·der – noun 1. low-ranking military personnel: members of the lowest ranks of the military, regarded as an expendable resource in wartime 2. expendable person: a person or group regarded as a resource to be exploited or sacrificed Do did he use the term incorrectly? Or was it just a cunning ruse? markrdreyer.wordpress.com/2012/07/24/scotts-back-2/ me9, Thank you for providing the link to that mention. First off, this is a second hand quote from a searcher so it must be considered hearsay as it was not publicly provided by Forrest himself to the community, not to say that it isn't accurate or that this individual isn't reputable, but did they get the wording exact e.g. did Forrest actually used the words "elements of" or "cannon fodder"?. And consider, for a moment how, badly the whole "Brown has nothing to do with brown trout" rumor got misconstrued via Cynthia, not her fault per-say, but just an example how things can get mixed up. So now with all that said, lets now talk about the this. If Forrest considers elements of the poem to be "cannon fodder" what parts, and or elements, of the poem would that be? Would it be whole lines/verses, sentences, single phrases or individual words? Would all of the nouns in the poem be exempt from this "cannon fodder" list? what are your thoughts? Seannm All, And another thing is: who is Scott? Was this Mark Dreyer given this information from someone named Scott, so then it would be third hand information would it not? Again the old telephone game.... Seannm |
|
|
|
Post by harrytruman on Apr 20, 2020 12:22:18 GMT -5
me9, Thank you for providing the link to that mention. First off, this is a second hand quote from a searcher so it must be considered hearsay as it was not publicly provided by Forrest himself to the community, not to say that it isn't accurate or that this individual isn't reputable, but did they get the wording exact e.g. did Forrest actually used the words "elements of" or "cannon fodder"?. And consider, for a moment how, badly the whole "Brown has nothing to do with brown trout" rumor got misconstrued via Cynthia, not her fault per-say, but just an example how things can get mixed up. So now with all that said, lets now talk about the this. If Forrest considers elements of the poem to be "cannon fodder" what parts, and or elements, of the poem would that be? Would it be whole lines/verses, sentences, single phrases or individual words? Would all of the nouns in the poem be exempt from this "cannon fodder" list? what are your thoughts? Seannm All, And another thing is: who is Scott? Was this Mark Dreyer given this information from someone named Scott, so then it would be third hand information would it not? Again the old telephone game.... Seannm The answer is in Dreyer's blog. Again, not difficult to find. Sean, I really don't understand why you and/or other searchers don't go back and read these early searchers' writings. Obviously you have to analyze context, weigh the likelihood of accurate recollection/transcription, consider whether Forrest was using subterfuge, etc., etc., but I really doubt early (pre-2012) searchers were deliberating misrepresenting any of the things Forrest said to them, and I've found some gems that no one else seems to appreciate (that, or they're smart enough not to share them). In the case of "cannon fodder," I'd lean against giving it too much weight, but I use it to "check" the breathless "Forrest is a genius who crafted every sentence like an architect, therefore every word must get you closer to the treasure" sentiment I sometimes see. I think Forrest himself admitted how silly that sentiment is in the Playboy interview. |
|
|
|
Post by seannm on Apr 20, 2020 12:54:06 GMT -5
All, And another thing is: who is Scott? Was this Mark Dreyer given this information from someone named Scott, so then it would be third hand information would it not? Again the old telephone game.... Seannm The answer is in Dreyer's blog. Again, not difficult to find. Sean, I really don't understand why you and/or other searchers don't go back and read these early searchers' writings. Obviously you have to analyze context, weigh the likelihood of accurate recollection/transcription, consider whether Forrest was using subterfuge, etc., etc., but I really doubt early (pre-2012) searchers were deliberating misrepresenting any of the things Forrest said to them, and I've found some gems that no one else seems to appreciate (that, or they're smart enough not to share them). In the case of "cannon fodder," I'd lean against giving it too much weight, but I use it to "check" the breathless "Forrest is a genius who crafted every sentence like an architect, therefore every word must get you closer to the treasure" sentiment I sometimes see. I think Forrest himself admitted how silly that sentiment is in the Playboy interview. Harry, There is just way too much information out there early or otherwise. Again it is good to discuss these things and I am glad you brought this up so we can review it. There is just so many things that Forrest has said that seem to contradict his own words that in turn make it difficult for us as a community to come to some sort of consensus on anything. And again who do you trust, I don’t know this Mark or half of the other “early” people out there. Forrest has communicated privately with so many people over the years and some of this information has leaked its way into the public purview, but who do you trust? I think there has been good discussions about the validity and priority of information out there like TTOTC being number one then video interviews next followed by SB’s, featured Q & A’s and the list goes all the way down to posts like the one mentioned being last. So we can interject so many different things that either gives one searcher confidence in their solution, but they will then ignore any information that seems contradictory. I personally try to make sense of it all, but it is overwhelming and that is why my solution is solely based upon the words in the poem, anything outside of that can be a check and balance, but nothing more. So we can talk about what elements of the poem we believe is cannon fodder, but it is only conjecture with no confirmation. Seannm |
|
