Is this from the finder?

[Jenny]

medium.com/@thefinder/a-remembrance-of-forrest-fenn-1be2a8646ff2

[gnossos]

Omega-Omega

[Jenny]

The new images of the chest and Forrest certainly seem to suggest it is the 'authentic finder'.....

Beautiful write up and deserving winner.... congrats to 'the finder'....

[zaphod73491]

Given all the new photos that can't have been faked, I'd say that closes the book on all the conspiracy theories about someone like Dal or Shiloh retrieving the treasure at Forrest's bequest. An intelligent, well-written man found Forrest's treasure, and other than returning Forrest's bracelet, still has the treasure, ultimately planning to sell it.

[zaphod73491]

However, upon re-reading, the narrative doesn't sound emotionally real. It sounds "crafted." I don't think a self-described "millennial" (do millennials even call themselves that?) would be able to divine in a very short amount of time the general area that Forrest originally intended to end his life and have his bones spend eternity. And yet that's exactly what he's claiming he did -- a man many generations removed from Forrest, and only relatively recently acquainted with his story.

There are people who actually KNEW him for more than a decade, and yet this author claims he figured out the secret location apparently by just reading his memoirs and Scrapbooks. No mention whatsoever of deciphering the poem's clues. Instead, he spends 25 days (and hundreds of hours) brute-force searching the area based only on a self-confirming theory about where he thinks Forrest would have wanted to die. I'm having a very hard time accepting that after even 3 or 4 days of scouring the forest and coming up empty that he wouldn't question the solidness of his theory.

[goldhunter]

I think "crafted" is a good word. I think, possibly, I don't know, maybe a professional writer was asked to put together a story using an outline that contained references familiar to searchers and also specific points to be made. An example of a specific point would be a rental car. It might be a good idea to pick odd sounding phrases and uncommonly used words from the article and google them with any authors you can think of

"myriad permutations" would be a good one to try

[zaphod73491]

One thing for sure is false in the finder's story: this photo caption: "Drying off after a decade in the elements. The Ziploc bags were full of condensation, and these two items were together in one. “Why did I put the scissors in there?” Forrest asked me when he saw them. I didn’t know, of course. I figured they belonged to King Tut or something like that. Nope. Just a pair of scissors. ..."

The dragon coat bracelet certainly was NOT inside that rust-stained cloth bag inside the chest. That bracelet can clearly be seen through its plastic bag in the original finder's field photo -- it is not inside an opaque, rusty cloth bag. So why the fabrication? Ahha -- that's it! It's a FABRIC-ation! ;-)

[astree]

Sept 23, 2020 23:17:25 GMT -5 zaphod73491 said:

There are people who actually KNEW him for more than a decade, and yet this author claims he figured out the secret location apparently by just reading his memoirs and Scrapbooks. No mention whatsoever of deciphering the poem's clues.

Zaphod, could you point to the place that hints that the finder relied on scrapbooks and memoirs? Youre right, (s)he didnt mention the poem clues much, or the level of genius that Forrest incorporated into his poem.

I do remember that Forrest wrote that the finder followed the poem’s clues to the treasure.

Instead, he spends 25 days (and hundreds of hours) brute-force searching the area based only on a self-confirming theory about where he thinks Forrest would have wanted to die. I'm having a very hard time accepting that after even 3 or 4 days of scouring the forest and coming up empty that he wouldn't question the solidness of his theory.

The correct solve is much much more difficult than the general solve. The general solve can get a person into an area where with several weeks of searching they could be able to find the treasure.

[zaphod73491]

Hi astree -- the finder's methodology of apparently brute force searching is not how Forrest said the poem was designed to work. From TTOTC:

"So I wrote a poem containing nine clues that if *followed precisely*, will lead to the end of my rainbow and the treasure"

There doesn't appear to have been anything "precise" about the finder's methodology.

MW 6Q (2/4/2013) Q5's answer: "The person who finds the treasure will have studied the poem over and over, and thought, and analyzed and moved with confidence. Nothing about it will be accidental."

Does the finder's account suggest he moved with confidence? And finally, the ATF you've referenced:

MW Periodic Words (6/2/2017): "Let’s coin a new phrase. You can’t have a ‘correct solve’ unless you can knowingly go to within several steps of the treasure chest. Otherwise you have a ‘general solve.’ What do you think? f"

Clearly the finder started with a general solve. Would you say that his account suggests that he "knowingly" walked to within several steps of the treasure chest, or that ultimately finding the treasure was simply a consequence of stubborn persistence and eventually stumbling close enough that he couldn't miss it?

[astree]

Sept 30, 2020 15:19:42 GMT -5 zaphod73491 said:

Hi astree -- the finder's methodology of apparently brute force searching is not how Forrest said the poem was designed to work. From TTOTC:

"So I wrote a poem containing nine clues that if *followed precisely*, will lead to the end of my rainbow and the treasure"

There doesn't appear to have been anything "precise" about the finder's methodology.

MW 6Q (2/4/2013) Q5's answer: "The person who finds the treasure will have studied the poem over and over, and thought, and analyzed and moved with confidence. Nothing about it will be accidental."

Does the finder's account suggest he moved with confidence? And finally, the ATF you've referenced:

MW Periodic Words (6/2/2017): "Let’s coin a new phrase. You can’t have a ‘correct solve’ unless you can knowingly go to within several steps of the treasure chest. Otherwise you have a ‘general solve.’ What do you think? f"

Clearly the finder started with a general solve. Would you say that his account suggests that he "knowingly" walked to within several steps of the treasure chest, or that ultimately finding the treasure was simply a consequence of stubborn persistence and eventually stumbling close enough that he couldn't miss it?

Zaphod,

I’m thinking the same way as you. In addition to your quotes, Here is what I was referring to in a quote from Forrest, which seems contrary to the narrative posted by the Finder.

I do not know the person who found it, but the poem in my book led him to the precise spot.

dalneitzel.com

[zaphod73491]

Oct 6, 2020 7:18:54 GMT -5 astree said:

Zaphod,

I’m thinking the same way as you. In addition to your quotes, Here is what I was referring to in a quote from Forrest, which seems contrary to the narrative posted by the Finder.

I do not know the person who found it, but the poem in my book led him to the precise spot.

dalneitzel.com

Agreed: not one thing in the purported finder's "Remembrance" suggests the poem directed him "precisely" anywhere. Instead, his account was one of blind, dogged, trial and error. Nowhere does he credit the poem with directing him to even the general area, let alone a specific spot.

[astree]

.
It’s a kind of plot twist at the end, if that’s even the right words to describe it. Forest says the poem led the finder to the precise spot but the finder pretty much clues us in that it was the trial and error you’re talking about. I believe a general solve should get one within 1/4 mile to half a mile of the treasure, depending on how far one goes in the first part of the solution. If the complete solution is known, I think it should get a person within 10 or 20 feet pretty easily

I wonder how many people, perhaps even including the finder, are trying to still complete the solve

[Jeff]

Oct 12, 2020 17:52:41 GMT -5 astree said:

.
It’s a kind of plot twist at the end, if that’s even the right words to describe it. Forest says the poem led the finder to the precise spot but the finder pretty much clues us in that it was the trial and error you’re talking about. I believe a general solve should get one within 1/4 mile to half a mile of the treasure, depending on how far one goes in the first part of the solution. If the complete solution is known, I think it should get a person within 10 or 20 feet pretty easily

I wonder how many people, perhaps even including the finder, are trying to still complete the solve

Hi astree and Zaphod, my thoughts exactly upon skimming his Medium posts, YouTube video, the Outside article, and his email Q&A on Dal's site.  I'm arriving to the discussion a little late, as per usual.

I'm happy for Jack.  I'm saddened that he felt trapped in his previous situation and that he really needed this outlet and outcome, emotionally and monetarily.  It was a big gamble.

I don't think Jack addressed this question: how "good" was this thing that Fenn created?  (Judging from Jack's YouTube video, I'd probably be amiss to call it a puzzle...so I'll just call it a thing.)  I recognize the definition of "good" is open to debate and ultimately not something that will be universally agreed upon.  But regardless of our desires, expectations, or proclivities, we can generally recognize some part of elegance when we encounter it.  Would Jack call it elegant?  Beyond having found the chest (hello money to escape medical school debt!) and even beyond simply having found where the chest was hidden (hello self-esteem!), would he call Fenn's thing worthwhile?  Did it have the right stuff?

It seems very odd to me that something elegant would take nearly a month's worth of days of searching.  It sounds like there was an element of brute force in Jack's discovery.  I wonder if this time intensive step was an intentional design element on Fenn's part?  Some of Fenn's statements seem to imply that it wouldn't be necessary.  In hindsight, I wonder if Jack thinks a month's worth of days in the area was really required.

I come away with an impression of sloppiness on Fenn's part.  25+ days required in the general area?  The blaze was damaged?  The golden frog wasn't in the chest?  But scissors were?  In general sloppiness is antithetical to elegance.  Was this a sloppy creation? 

I can imagine alternate meanings to Jack's few words on the matter, but it sounds most like he somehow figured out the general location of where Fenn had planned on killing himself and then went about applying the poem to this location, with obvious difficulty.  Is there a good reason to think otherwise?  If this was Jack's method, was this method intentional on Fenn's part?  Is this how he intended us to proceed?  If not, and instead Jack intuited the general location by other means (I'm not implying nefarious means, simply things that Fenn didn't intentionally want to reveal), in hindsight does Jack think he would have ever found the chest without intuiting/knowing/guessing the general location?

[zaphod73491]

Hi Jeff: good post covering a lot of the unsatisfying issues. Let me enumerate the main things that bother me most:

1. Imprecision. It sounds like Jack executed a "search-and-rescue" approach to finding the treasure, rather than having the poem precisely navigate him to a spot. No need to post Forrest's numerous quotes on this, but he definitely made it sound like the poem's goal was to take you PRECISELY to the treasure's location. So either Forrest was exaggerating on that score, or Jack didn't solve all the clues and just brute-forced the ending. All's fair in treasure hunting, so I'm not faulting Jack's "it's somewhere within a quarter mile of where I'm standing" approach. I still find it ~questionable~ that someone could still be so sure of themselves after two dozen different days of failure (spread over a couple years) looking in the same general area. What would keep you there after that much failure, coupled with Forrest's frequent statements that the clues would take you right to it?

2. Fake blaze / damaged blaze. I find neither of these claims very believable. Biggest counter-ATF is from Nine Clues part 31: "While it's not impossible to remove the blaze it isn't feasible to try, and I am certain it's still there." If a searcher had read those words in advance, I don't see how they could be fooled by a "fake blaze."

3. I'm still put off by the seeming lack of importance Jack has placed on the poem itself. He barely touched on it in either of his medium.com posts. He never congratulations Forrest on the cleverness of his poem in directing the searcher to the spot. Instead, he emphasizes rare "slip-ups" in interviews -- things that HE caught that no one else did.

4. Figuring out where Forrest wanted to die. There are a ton of people who knew Forrest intimately -- and knew him for YEARS and in some cases decades. We are to believe that a 30-something who hadn't heard of Forrest prior to 2018 figured out his general spot in a matter of weeks or months? I'm sorry, but I have a really hard time accepting that narrative.

5. The rust-stained pouch/cloth that supposedly held/wrapped the dragon coat bracelet and errant scissors. That cloth is not present in the June field image: the dragon bracelet is clearly visible under the coins, gold nuggets and key rust inside a plastic bag, with no evidence of cloth, pouch or scissors. Indeed, the scissors shown on the table in the Santa Fe bank conference room (or wherever) wouldn't fit inside that pouch or plastic bag.

There are a dozen more red flags, but these are the main ones that stick out to me (no pun intended).

[davebakedpotato]

Bonjour. Missed you guys.

Well, 4 comes as no surprise - I commented more than once that people's hair-brained solutions didn't take enough account of the fact that the chest location was also somewhere a) deeply important to Forrest (why?) and b) somewhere where he wished to be left for eternity. Seems like the finder took these more into account than most.

1. Is a red-herring IMO. The law of large numbers - there were many people charging around the Rockies looking for the chest based on good, bad and zero research. Some picked a state and never varied from it, with no solid reason. My take is that possibly the finder found a good/likely hiding area, invested heavily in it being correct (i.e. found clues/pointers real or imagined as we all did) and maybe even worked out the poem backwards. The point being, there are thousands of people that fall into this apparent blunderbuss approach, most of which didn't happen to be in the right area - some are ignoring that fact and just concentrating on the one who found the chest.