|
|
Post by crm114 on Jul 12, 2020 10:28:27 GMT -5
I agree that Fenn used virtually every word in the poem to describe the location. Just when you thought you had an explanation for every one, you need to go back and check you weren't missing any.
|
|
|
|
Post by goldwatch on Jul 12, 2020 11:48:44 GMT -5
Hi all, you know what amazed me most about the way people approached this treasure hunt?, it was the lack of using any system ... indigo I would agree with you on your point that searchers generally did not use any "system". There was a tendency to pick RANDOM factoids from TTOTC or from Forrest's interviews or some other resource to come up with a solution, because these searchers never could make heads or tails of the poem. They still can't. Another problematic approach was to latch on either to high-profile message board posters and use variations of their approaches (which usually amounted to group-approved approaches), or to the approaches of high-profile YouTubers searching less for the chest than for their 15 minutes of fame. The false assumption here was that people who posted a lot on message boards or attracted a wide following on YouTube knew more than searchers who never or rarely commented. I think there was indeed a system, specifically a methodology, that one could use, and was valid from the poem's first line to the last line. The method was not based on "the key word" or any specific factoid (like "omegas" or "rainbows", or "astronomy" or a thousand other RANDOM ideas mentioned through the years). The methodology was simple and straightforward, but required some hard work. It was holistic and internally consistent. And it had nothing to do with anagrams or manipulating rows or columns in the poem. And the method did not require any resources outside the poem to solve. The method led from a general area to a very specific spot. And while separate words and phrases that searches constantly dwelled on (like "blaze", "HOB", "in the wood", "water high") were not misleading or incorrect, it was the generally ignored parts of the poem that allowed this methodology to reveal specific, precise geographic directions that would get searcher to the hiding spot. The poem's methodology also provided SEPARATE CONFIRMATION of the entire trek. Of all the hundreds or thousands of verbal comments Forrest made through the years, the one that helped me the most and was the basis for this methodology was his comment (paraphrasing here) >>> "there are a few words in the poem that are not helpful in finding the chest... but it is risky to discount any of them." I don't think searchers ever took this Forrest Fenn comment seriously. Ken (in Texas) A lot of searchers seemed to catch on to the origins and meanings of names. Names and word definitions, the biggest "system" that I can think of at the moment. Edit: And strings. It all ties together on the map with strings. |
|
|
|
Post by zaphod73491 on Jul 12, 2020 18:31:31 GMT -5
Hi Goldilocks: this KeninTexas is almost certainly the same as the one who was on Dal's by thay same name based on the content of his posts here. But he's distinct from "ken" on Dal's who had the cowboy avatar, and who went radio silent at least a month before Forrest's June 6th announcement that the chest had been found.
I think it's unlikely cowboy Ken was the finder, his mysterious silence notwithstanding. He just doesn't strike me as the type who would take the post-retrieval route the finder has so far, though I think ken once posted years ago that he did favor anonymity. Still, I don't think I would use the word "shy" to describe him, and Forrest certainly "knew" him from the blogs.
|
|
|
|
Post by kenintexas on Jul 12, 2020 22:07:02 GMT -5
I would agree with you on your point that searchers generally did not use any "system". There was a tendency to pick RANDOM factoids from TTOTC or from Forrest's interviews or some other resource to come up with a solution, because these searchers never could make heads or tails of the poem. They still can't. Another problematic approach was to latch on either to high-profile message board posters and use variations of their approaches (which usually amounted to group-approved approaches), or to the approaches of high-profile YouTubers searching less for the chest than for their 15 minutes of fame. The false assumption here was that people who posted a lot on message boards or attracted a wide following on YouTube knew more than searchers who never or rarely commented. I think there was indeed a system, specifically a methodology, that one could use, and was valid from the poem's first line to the last line. The method was not based on "the key word" or any specific factoid (like "omegas" or "rainbows", or "astronomy" or a thousand other RANDOM ideas mentioned through the years). The methodology was simple and straightforward, but required some hard work. It was holistic and internally consistent. And it had nothing to do with anagrams or manipulating rows or columns in the poem. And the method did not require any resources outside the poem to solve. The method led from a general area to a very specific spot. And while separate words and phrases that searches constantly dwelled on (like "blaze", "HOB", "in the wood", "water high") were not misleading or incorrect, it was the generally ignored parts of the poem that allowed this methodology to reveal specific, precise geographic directions that would get searcher to the hiding spot. The poem's methodology also provided SEPARATE CONFIRMATION of the entire trek. Of all the hundreds or thousands of verbal comments Forrest made through the years, the one that helped me the most and was the basis for this methodology was his comment (paraphrasing here) >>> "there are a few words in the poem that are not helpful in finding the chest... but it is risky to discount any of them." I don't think searchers ever took this Forrest Fenn comment seriously. Ken (in Texas) Can't wait until Zap wakes up and asks you if you are THE Ken from Texas! Hi goldi ...
One of the characteristics of this chase I did not like was the inference that people who posted incessantly on message boards or who had a large following on YouTube had more credibility by fellow searchers than lurkers or non-commenters.
And your comment above which addresses the screen name "Ken from Texas" rather than the CONTENT of my message exemplifies that characteristic.
I am therefore delighted that the finder was presumably an unknown searcher.
Searchers never seemed to learn that those who talked the loudest or couldn't stop talking were as much of a distraction to finding the chest as some of the chase resources that those people tried to promote.
One of the hunt characteristics that I LIKED the most is that Forrest Fenn never required (nor even encouraged) any searcher to be a big-wheel on some internet message board or to be some YouTube creator with tons of "followers".
Anonymity is a wonderful thing. 
Ken (in Texas)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2020 23:20:29 GMT -5
Ken, I disagree with what you say. You can't paint with a broad brush like that.
Some of us (me) were not concered with making any money on Youtube or Fame. We posted a lot because we liked to discuss real solutions, and not the kind of stuff you read on Dal's blog where everyone is dipping toes in the Firehole river. We knew the solve was going to be hard. So why do it? Because we wanted to build a TEAM, we wanted to attract people who took it serious and were not simply jumping from thermal to thermal, and wandering aimlessly around streams.
There was NO good place to discuss it. Dal banned anyone he didn't agree with, especially if it "messed with the poem" which was in iteself a VERY misleading and incorrect statement to begin with. CC was a place to do nothing but argue. Jenny's was good, but people are easily intimidated for no good reason. And THOR, well thats probably the least useful forum.
So again, some of us were simply trying to build a team.
You speak of lurkers, personally I find lurkers annoying and removed them from my FB group due to complaints from other users. People did not like the fact that only a handful of folks would openly discuss a theory, and the lurkers would simply take, take take and never give.
Finally, we do not know that the "finder" was unknown in the community. Forrest simply said he doesn't know the finder. Forrest does not know all the people on the blogs, and technically he only *really* knows those he met in person such as Cynthia, Dal, and a few others.
Regarding Youtube, IMO the top two channels have the least to offer. The only reason one of the is popular was due to the "Moby Dickens" and "Collective Works" interview videos. The other one was popular simply because they tried to make it look like they had "inside hints" when none of the information they got "inside" was of any use - because Forrest did not give private hints, and I believe that. If I didn't trust FF, I never would have looked.
So anyway, I am not beating on you, I am just asking that you not group people together like that and make assumptions. Its simply not true, definately in my case anyway.
PS: I think you grouped yourself too because you posted VERY often on Dals. I like to believe some people had a following not because they were flashy and talked the talk, but some of us WALK the WALK and bright people tend to stick together. Team building is a good thing. Being a wall flower and taking without ever giving is not what a community is for. These groups are technically called "Discussion Groups", so why participate if one has no intention of talking. And if they do talk, people don't want to hear the same stuff over and over (i.e. Madison Junction, Taos NM, Browns Park, CO, Molly Brown etc... those are not good ideas and we all been there, many years ago, so it gets old). hehe
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2020 23:25:07 GMT -5
Hi Goldilocks: this KeninTexas is almost certainly the same as the one who was on Dal's by thay same name based on the content of his posts here. But he's distinct from "ken" on Dal's who had the cowboy avatar, and who went radio silent at least a month before Forrest's June 6th announcement that the chest had been found. I think it's unlikely cowboy Ken was the finder, his mysterious silence notwithstanding. He just doesn't strike me as the type who would take the post-retrieval route the finder has so far, though I think ken once posted years ago that he did favor anonymity. Still, I don't think I would use the word "shy" to describe him, and Forrest certainly "knew" him from the blogs.
I agree on all |
|
|
|
Post by kenintexas on Jul 13, 2020 4:48:10 GMT -5
ogitsumyw ... My criticism relates to the false assumptions that searchers made on forums and in videos. One of those false assumptions is that high-profile searchers had more credibility about the poem and chase than searchers just reading or listening in. Yet, the finder of the chest was clearly NOT one of those high-profile people. What was important to most searchers though seemed to be recognizing a searcher's name, not the quality (or lack thereof) of their message. In goldi's response about "Ken in Texas", for example, her interest was not on the content of my message (above) but on >>> name recognition. And, unbelievably, she asked a frequent poster here (zap) about "Ken in Texas". Apparently, zap could give a more credible response about this "Ken in Texas" person than "Ken in Texas" could.  I don't mean to be critical of goldi; I merely use her response to highlight an example of a false assumption that most searchers apparently never considered. I'll say it again: searcher name recognition carried far more weight in the various forums than message quality. Another assumption that apparently proved to be false was that some "team" can do a better job at finding the chest than a lone individual. Yet, the actual finder evidently was a lone searcher unconnected to some multi-person expedition. And so I need not elaborate on the dubiousness of the hyped "team approach". Closely related to this is the pressure that group-think exerted on readers and listeners. You admitted that: Yet those chase destinations permeated the forums, with name-recognized "leaders" trying to SELL them by way of encouraging discussion about them. In all the years that I have been on this hunt, never once did I see or hear "Trappers Lake" area of Colorado mentioned, or "Lolo Pass" Montana ... ever. Group-think dictated mostly the Yellowstone/Gallatin area and the Taos/Red River area, and a few other areas. And it's not a matter of where the chest ended up being. It's a matter of searchers collectively THINKING that Yellowstone or Taos was the right area. That's what group-think is. Group think also permeated treasure hunt approaches in a similar manner, as follows >>> In another thread I indicated that the methodology I used was unlike any I had encountered. My ideas did not "emphasize" the usual poem words and phrases that searchers routinely discussed, like >>> "the blaze", "warm waters halt", "in the wood", "Home of Brown". I would have been laughed out of the forum, or at the very least ignored, had I published such an unconventional approach. Group-think and searcher popularity were, and still are, the norm on Forrest Fenn internet discussion sites. I would argue that internet forums conveyed mostly conventional, unimaginative ideas and theories that were superficial, random, and derivative. Forums also made it easy for a few people to promote themselves; in so doing these "popular" searchers achieved semi-cult status, which in retrospect was completely undeserved. My impression is that the finder of the chest approached the treasure hunt in an unconventional way, and that his anonymity proves how smart his choices were. Ken (in Texas) |
|
|
|
Post by goldilocks on Jul 13, 2020 6:25:39 GMT -5
Can't wait until Zap wakes up and asks you if you are THE Ken from Texas! Hi goldi ...
One of the characteristics of this chase I did not like was the inference that people who posted incessantly on message boards or who had a large following on YouTube had more credibility by fellow searchers than lurkers or non-commenters.
And your comment above which addresses the screen name "Ken from Texas" rather than the CONTENT of my message exemplifies that characteristic.
I am therefore delighted that the finder was presumably an unknown searcher.
Searchers never seemed to learn that those who talked the loudest or couldn't stop talking were as much of a distraction to finding the chest as some of the chase resources that those people tried to promote.
One of the hunt characteristics that I LIKED the most is that Forrest Fenn never required (nor even encouraged) any searcher to be a big-wheel on some internet message board or to be some YouTube creator with tons of "followers".
Anonymity is a wonderful thing.
Ken (in Texas)
Appropriately my response is under the thread "Just Amazed". Firstly, I did not respond to your comment because I really had nothing to say regarding it's content. I addressed the topic of using a "system" on page one of this thread and didn't have any more to add. I tend to ignore comments which like a rooster state all things the poster knows and how all others are wrong. You made false assumptions throughout your comment IMO and continued to do so in your response to my comment. I disagree with your statement that "searchers generally did not use any "system"." You can only base that opinion on what you have read from searchers who post. Also, you must be aware by now that not all searchers post all methodologies they employ. You say, "One of the characteristics of this chase I did not like was the inference that people who posted incessantly on message boards or who had a large following on YouTube had more credibility by fellow searchers than lurkers or non-commenters." Couldn't be farther from the truth and if you knew anything about me or my position you would know that what you say regarding "big-wheel" YouTubers does not pertain to myself. Simply because a person chats or participates does not mean they hold anyone up on a pedestal. My comment clearly pushed one of your buttons. My comment involving Zap was an innocent comment based on speculations over on Dal's about Ken as the potential finder. That's it. I will agree with you on one point, anonymity sure is a wonderful thing, says Goldilocks behind a head full of blonde curls and innocent long-lashed cartoon eyes. |
|
|
|
Post by astree on Jul 13, 2020 7:02:49 GMT -5
In another thread I indicated that the methodology I used was unlike any I had encountered anywhere else on the internet. My ideas did not "emphasize" the usual poem words and phrases that searchers routinely discussed, like >>> "the blaze", "warm waters halt", "in the wood", "Home of Brown"; those words were way too vague for me. But I would have been laughed out of the forum, or at the very least >>> ignored, had I published such an unconventional approach. Group-think and searcher popularity were, and still are, the norm on Forrest Fenn internet discussion sites. Ken (in Texas) Ken, I’m catching up on forum posts but didnt see the post / thread you mention. Could you point me to it. Im intrigued by some of the things you have written. Would you care to mention acword you found to be important, without giving away too much? Thanks, astree |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 13, 2020 9:37:06 GMT -5
I never considered AGK, Cow or Kpro a leader. I don't think they had even one clue right...
|
|
Apple
Full Member
Posts: 160
|
Post by Apple on Jul 14, 2020 17:03:09 GMT -5
Hi jeff, thanks for your thoughts. I cannot prove the 40 degrees from the poem or elsewhere except to say that all you would need to find is the RED angle as BLUE gets automatically included when you research it, and linking it to water temperatures is cut and dried for me. Another big reason for it to be the BLUE angle you require appears in 'Teachers with Ropes' where Forrest blatantly shows us by use of another color in the text 'DO NOT TOUCH' RED that is a big clue to me, in other words use BLUE. The remarks about where Forrest left his car in Northern Arizona University car park and the later changed version to Denver Museum of Nature and Science car park was another outside of the book clue. Find both on the maps and pin them using Google Maps. You will see that 40 degrees of angle links the two and passes through 'Four Corners Monument' a clue to corners. Only two of our states feature in 'Four Corners Monument' New Mexico and Colorado, hence my use of Colorado linked to the rainbow. To me there is plenty in what he has given us to point us in the right direction. Once you embark upon the geometry course it is self driving if you know you need to construct a prism. To further this discussion jeff what about my geometry taking me directly to Adelaide and a cistern, only to find that Forrest had used the word Cistern on Page 106 which is planted there in the text for you to understand if you arrive at one. The blaze was in full view all the time and he links it to 'ideas and opportunities', to me it confirms that you are expected to find a cistern at the end. indigo
I first got into treasure hunting with the advent of 'Masquerade' and have worked on these kind of hunts since then. My belief has been to look for things that connect. Like a lot of these puzzles if you don't find the end of the string that leads you into them you can be lost forever. The mind cannot easily cleanse itself of what it has at first fallen upon, it is hard to discard it and throw your thoughts out and start again. Of course that applies to me also but it does seem very logical. A big plus is that the location is very accessible and hard to believe it as dangerous, I have posted photos of the site to prove this. My belief is that you needed to dig in the center of the cistern to unearth the Bracelet that contained confirmation as to where the chest was waiting. The circle would be easy to lead you to in a puzzle whereas a tree in a pine forest would not be.
indigo
Hi Indigo, I'm slowly working through your solution. Thanks for your posts, thanks for your patience.
I see that a line drawn on Google Maps / Caltopo from NAU in Flagstaff to DMNS in Denver passes close to the Four Corners (within 0.5 or so miles depending on where exactly one starts and ends the line). I don't exactly recall the NAU reference but will take your word for it. As a "hint" pointing to the Four Corners that works but I don't understand how to logically arrive at this process. Fenn doesn't need to provide this, but in my opinion a good puzzle will not rest solely on guesswork. Did something in Fenn's writings point you to this process or was it just trial and error on your part?
I'm having trouble arriving at Colorado Springs by projecting 40 degrees from the Four Corners. I assume you mean an angle of 40 degrees from the line that is the southern border of Colorado. Using Google Maps / Caltopo, a line that is projected from the Four Corners at an angle of 40 degrees from the southern Colorado border passes substantially north of Colorado Springs (hits the southern Denver suburbs). I need to use a line at an angle of between 30 and 32 degrees from the southern Colorado border to pass through any part of Colorado Springs. Can you explain your method in a little more detail? What am I doing wrong? Has anyone else checked this out and would like to weigh in?
|
|
annie
Full Member
Posts: 174
|
Post by annie on Jul 14, 2020 17:35:45 GMT -5
Where are the drawings you posted Indigo ? it was easier to explain with them and the 40degree angles.
A.
|
|
Apple
Full Member
Posts: 160
|
Post by Apple on Jul 14, 2020 18:11:31 GMT -5
Hi Indigo and Annie, perhaps draw a 40 degree line from the southern border of Colorado starting at the southeast corner of Colorado? Where's the logic for that choice? Especially in light of the Four Corners "hint" you provided. If using that SE corner starting point, my 40 degree line using Google Maps / Caltopo gets me closer to Colorado Springs. It passes just south of Colorado Springs and just south of Cheyenne Mountain. Is this what you mean? If so, I suppose one needs to decide if close but not quite at is good enough. What are your thoughts on that? Is it an elegant solution to get from "rainbow" to Colorado Springs? Given it is almost but not exact, I would answer "no." Of course, Fenn created the puzzle, not me, so perhaps close was good enough for him. Has anybody else checked my angle/line projection from the SE corner of Colorado? It does raise the question of what degree of precision are we looking for in the solution to Fenn's puzzle? The looser he lets it play out, the more guesswork and uncertainty falls on the shoulders of us players. For me, a precise solution is an elegant solution.
|
|
annie
Full Member
Posts: 174
|
Post by annie on Jul 14, 2020 18:20:13 GMT -5
I think the locations are specific in the first few clues - general location, Boundary line etc. But further in they hone in to a more accurate location. Like ‘How high is it that i must go?’ Where you need to drill down into the poem to find clue eight (Know height).
|
|
|
|
Post by indigojones on Jul 14, 2020 23:01:12 GMT -5
As a few extra thoughts on this jeff, have you seen the photographs of the cistern I posted? If you haven't take a look and notice the photo that shows three iron pins around the stone circumference, they replicate the constellation of 'Triangulum' in the blaze itself. The reason I am certain about this is that I found an old photograph of the cistern before it was obviously levelled to the ground. It bore two iron pins only. So why after that work would anyone add an extra one opposite the two? it does not make sense, I believe it was put there as a confirmer of the blaze. This is the only solution as I have read that leads directly to a spot where the blaze is unmistakeable.
I first got into treasure hunting with the advent of 'Masquerade' and have worked on these kind of hunts since then. My belief has been to look for things that connect. Like a lot of these puzzles if you don't find the end of the string that leads you into them you can be lost forever. The mind cannot easily cleanse itself of what it has at first fallen upon, it is hard to discard it and throw your thoughts out and start again. Of course that applies to me also but it does seem very logical. A big plus is that the location is very accessible and hard to believe it as dangerous, I have posted photos of the site to prove this. My belief is that you needed to dig in the center of the cistern to unearth the Bracelet that contained confirmation as to where the chest was waiting. The circle would be easy to lead you to in a puzzle whereas a tree in a pine forest would not be.
indigo
Hi Indigo, I'm slowly working through your solution. Thanks for your posts, thanks for your patience.
I see that a line drawn on Google Maps / Caltopo from NAU in Flagstaff to DMNS in Denver passes close to the Four Corners (within 0.5 or so miles depending on where exactly one starts and ends the line). I don't exactly recall the NAU reference but will take your word for it. As a "hint" pointing to the Four Corners that works but I don't understand how to logically arrive at this process. Fenn doesn't need to provide this, but in my opinion a good puzzle will not rest solely on guesswork. Did something in Fenn's writings point you to this process or was it just trial and error on your part?
I'm having trouble arriving at Colorado Springs by projecting 40 degrees from the Four Corners. I assume you mean an angle of 40 degrees from the line that is the southern border of Colorado. Using Google Maps / Caltopo, a line that is projected from the Four Corners at an angle of 40 degrees from the southern Colorado border passes substantially north of Colorado Springs (hits the southern Denver suburbs). I need to use a line at an angle of between 30 and 32 degrees from the southern Colorado border to pass through any part of Colorado Springs. Can you explain your method in a little more detail? What am I doing wrong? Has anyone else checked this out and would like to weigh in?
Hi jeff, if you go to Page 2 and to the thread 'The beginning of the Rainbow' you will see the geometry projection there and also the completed geometry taking you to 'Adelaide' The NAU reference came from early in the hunt, I believe it was mentioned by some journalist who interviewed Forrest at the time. It was not trial and error at all jeff, I read the intro leading up to the poem's beginning which ends with a colon: which means that it is to be taken as part of what follows. Forrest mentioned the words "my rainbow" before the word treasure and I believed the rainbow was the means to unlock the puzzle, I held onto that belief from the very beginning. It began with RED as 42 degrees and BLUE as 40 degrees, I used the BLUE as the COLD. These two numbers manifest themselves in a clock face to Zodiac comparison at the very end. Hope you can follow this more clearly now with this info. It's good to discuss with you on this topic, and welcome your continued thoughts and questions. indigo. |
|
I don't mean to be critical of goldi; I merely use her response to highlight an example of a false assumption that most searchers apparently never considered.