Is this from the finder?

[goldilocks]

Dec 18, 2020 16:56:31 GMT -5 Apple said:

Hi Jenny, Goldilocks, Ladyv, Dave, and Zaphod,

Jenny raises a great point: many people posted about adamant devotion to particular location(s).  The reasoning, when shared, was of variable quality but there nonetheless.  I agree with Jenny that it isn't too surprising that one beloved site would turn out to be the correct location.  Hearing about this behavior in others, it isn't surprising to me that Jack made several trips (the first on very short notice) to the same location and spent 25+ days in the area looking for the chest.  None of this is different from the many stories shared on these forums.  The difference, of course, is that Jack got it right.  He hasn't shared what made him so sure, as far as I've seen.  At this point it's impossible to assess why he had this confidence and if it would be a confidence that can be explained and accepted by others.  He stresses his methodical nature and expounds about cognitive biases, but he hasn't shared enough information for us to judge for ourselves whether these were actual factors that played a role in his by all accounts pre-discovery high level of confidence in his particular location.

Ladyv, I too am unsettled because there is only a vague outline of the story; I'm unsettled because it is an incomplete story, not because I'm concerned about its veracity at this point.  I'm not concerned that a lot of other dedicated, intelligent people tried and were unsuccessful--that's not a unique to this story.  From Jenny's Six Questions: "I also tried to incorporate everything I knew about the nature of the hunt and everything I knew about how he thought and what was important to him. And when I started to feel like I had certain concepts down, and I felt like I knew what region the treasure was in and what sort of “solve” we needed, I did incorporate some other information from other sources that have nothing to do with Forrest Fenn that I felt could help inform me."  That sums up Jack's story at this point.  That's very vague and unsatisfying.

Zaphod and Goldilocks, what would you like to see from Jack that would tie things up for you?  What would make you un-skeptical?

Setting aside any legal reasons (e.g. the ongoing lawsuits or legal ownership issues), I don't understand the point of Jack's withholding of the location and a more detailed story.  His idea of conserving the location rings very hollow; if it was preordained that this was a concern of Fenn or part of the conditions of finding the chest, then I'd understand.  However, this seems like the post hoc rationalization of something that Jack just doesn't want to do and it comes across as disingenuous.  I'd rather hear, "I don't want to."

We've learned a lot more than we were led to believe we would after this summer's announcement.  Perhaps more things are forthcoming and Jack wants to save much of the material for a future release.  I'd be surprised if more and more didn't come out going forward.  I wouldn't describe myself as skeptical, but I do want to hear more.  I don't care much for the notion of the continued exercise of solving it myself--and anyone who does have that concern can tune out.  I want to hear more for the same reason that I took things apart as a kid.  I'm curious how the thing worked.  The outcome is less interesting, although I think Jack's story could be interesting too.  And he sounds like he could write an interesting story.  He mentions that--and says how he'd like to talk a lot about other people's stories and how they got it wrong.  If so, and he hasn't already, I recommend that Jack read The Quest for the Golden Hare, which devoted more space to incorrect solutions than it did to the correct one.

Dave, are you working on another hunt nowadays?

Hi Jeff,

Thanks for asking. Insincere is an accurate adjective to describe my impression of Jack thus far. I would like to see Jack in front of a camera answering questions. I think he puts himself at a disadvantage hiding behind emails. The one and only person he agreed to do an interview with was fellow searcher and writer Daniel Barbarisi. I would've thought a fellow searcher like Jack would've wanted to consult with a trusted and respected source in the Chase community but it seems Daniel courted Jack for 2 months before allowing the interview. I do think it’s odd that Jack didn’t seek out Dal or Jenny for example to tell his story. Why were they afterthoughts? Daniel does have a book on the horizon and perhaps you are correct in thinking that this is what he's saving the story for. Is this the book WaveSeeker had predicted would be published by Random House? (https://www.hintofriches.com/forum/the-hint-of-riches/216615-finder-book-release-update) 

I was put off by Jack's defensive article on Medium titled "A Statement on the Disclosure of My Identity" only to do a 180 days later on Dal's Jack Gets Mail and praise the "lovely people". There’s that word "lovely" again, reminiscent of the "lovely" article Forrest's family promoted on oldsantafetradingco.com (only to be withdrawn days later). Jack's words come off as smug and condescending which is why I think he might be better suited to doing an in person interview.

I’d like to see more candid photos of the chest retrieval and his visit with Forrest, maybe the moment they first met. Not the staged photo ops. His name and face are now out there so there’s really nothing to hide except his solve and Forrest’s special spot.

I’d like to hear the family talk openly about Jack as the Finder.

I'd like to see a plane, train or automobile reservation to Wyoming, maybe a hotel reservation...anything to put Jack in Wyoming at that time. 

I’d like to see an email from Jack to Forrest or from Forrest to Jack time stamping the retrieval, or at the minimum congratulating him on his find. These things would satisfy my need for more evidence and wouldn’t compromise Forrest's, the family's or the Finder's wish to maintain the most sacred secrets secret.

[zaphod73491]

One quick oddity that Jack has shared that is worth discussing is that he says he was within 6 feet of the treasure in 2019 but did not find it. Yet he has also said that the top of the chest was (still) higher than the surrounding ground at the time he found it. From Scrapbook 78:

"Second, I have not said that a searcher was closer than 12’ from the treasure. It is not likely that anyone would get that close and not find it."

Maybe Forrest should have added the word "eventually". :-)

[davebakedpotato]

Dec 18, 2020 23:09:34 GMT -5 zaphod73491 said:

One quick oddity that Jack has shared that is worth discussing is that he says he was within 6 feet of the treasure in 2019 but did not find it. Yet he has also said that the top of the chest was (still) higher than the surrounding ground at the time he found it. From Scrapbook 78:

"Second, I have not said that a searcher was closer than 12’ from the treasure. It is not likely that anyone would get that close and not find it."

Maybe Forrest should have added the word "eventually". :-)

Or, "unless the blaze is damaged".

[davebakedpotato]

Dec 18, 2020 16:56:31 GMT -5 Apple said:

Hi Jenny, Goldilocks, Ladyv, Dave, and Zaphod,

Jenny raises a great point: many people posted about adamant devotion to particular location(s).  The reasoning, when shared, was of variable quality but there nonetheless.  I agree with Jenny that it isn't too surprising that one beloved site would turn out to be the correct location.  Hearing about this behavior in others, it isn't surprising to me that Jack made several trips (the first on very short notice) to the same location and spent 25+ days in the area looking for the chest.  None of this is different from the many stories shared on these forums.  The difference, of course, is that Jack got it right.  He hasn't shared what made him so sure, as far as I've seen.  At this point it's impossible to assess why he had this confidence and if it would be a confidence that can be explained and accepted by others.  He stresses his methodical nature and expounds about cognitive biases, but he hasn't shared enough information for us to judge for ourselves whether these were actual factors that played a role in his by all accounts pre-discovery high level of confidence in his particular location.

Ladyv, I too am unsettled because there is only a vague outline of the story; I'm unsettled because it is an incomplete story, not because I'm concerned about its veracity at this point.  I'm not concerned that a lot of other dedicated, intelligent people tried and were unsuccessful--that's not a unique to this story.  From Jenny's Six Questions: "I also tried to incorporate everything I knew about the nature of the hunt and everything I knew about how he thought and what was important to him. And when I started to feel like I had certain concepts down, and I felt like I knew what region the treasure was in and what sort of “solve” we needed, I did incorporate some other information from other sources that have nothing to do with Forrest Fenn that I felt could help inform me."  That sums up Jack's story at this point.  That's very vague and unsatisfying.

Zaphod and Goldilocks, what would you like to see from Jack that would tie things up for you?  What would make you un-skeptical?

Setting aside any legal reasons (e.g. the ongoing lawsuits or legal ownership issues), I don't understand the point of Jack's withholding of the location and a more detailed story.  His idea of conserving the location rings very hollow; if it was preordained that this was a concern of Fenn or part of the conditions of finding the chest, then I'd understand.  However, this seems like the post hoc rationalization of something that Jack just doesn't want to do and it comes across as disingenuous.  I'd rather hear, "I don't want to."

We've learned a lot more than we were led to believe we would after this summer's announcement.  Perhaps more things are forthcoming and Jack wants to save much of the material for a future release.  I'd be surprised if more and more didn't come out going forward.  I wouldn't describe myself as skeptical, but I do want to hear more.  I don't care much for the notion of the continued exercise of solving it myself--and anyone who does have that concern can tune out.  I want to hear more for the same reason that I took things apart as a kid.  I'm curious how the thing worked.  The outcome is less interesting, although I think Jack's story could be interesting too.  And he sounds like he could write an interesting story.  He mentions that--and says how he'd like to talk a lot about other people's stories and how they got it wrong.  If so, and he hasn't already, I recommend that Jack read The Quest for the Golden Hare, which devoted more space to incorrect solutions than it did to the correct one.

Dave, are you working on another hunt nowadays?

Cheers Jeff, I've moved on to other things.

[davebakedpotato]

Let me leave a small prediction: people will probably get the full story, which they will also pull apart and find inconsistencies with. The solution will eventually come out, and the serene spot will eventually be signposted with a human trail and the detritus of endless camera crews. There will be a number of inconsistencies with the solution and things the Forrest has said or written, because he was a fallable human being like the rest of us, and because he was a prolific writer. Then, people's anger/irritation will move to Forrest.

[rimsbrock]

Hello guys

I am new to this forum and interested in the current discussion about the conclusion of the chase, especially with respect Jack Stuefs role in it.

Its great that we finally know the finder of the treasure and Jack Stuef seems to be a very interesting and great guy. However, the more I read about him and the more he writes about his experience and adventure of the chase, the more I struggle to not question his honesty.

He keeps talking so elaborately and lavishly, without saying much of importance. He frequently gets carried away by almost completely unrelated details. He sometimes only seemingly addresses a question, when he actually hides the absence of any true response in a bulk of emotional statements, moments of wisdom and verbal redundancies...

In addition to that, there seem to be some inconsistencies within his own stories and also between his and Forrest stories. Further, and this is one of my biggest issues, some of his claims, especially that he figured out "the place Forrest wants to die", seem just too unreasonable to be true; I struggle to believe that his approach would actually provide clear results, unambiguously and exclusively enough to convince a rational and analytical thinker, that he claims to be, to have found the right place.

I am willing to believe that all he says is true and that he is just a wonderful guy, who deservedly found the treasure. However, sometimes I can't help the thought that this captivatingly detailed story, filled to the brim with emotion, progress and wisdom, is just to distract from the fact that he did something bad. I don't want to be sceptical about him, but he makes it hard not to be.

Very likely, my suspicion is unnecessary and everything about him is just fine; However, don't forget how the Masquerade treasure hunt concluded. I just believe that we should try to be certain enough, that this is not repeating itself. I am not saying that it is, but I believe it is always smart to be reasonably suspicious.

[astree]

.
I believe that the beginning of the solution contains enough information to get one into the general area in Wyoming. From there, if one is willing to spend a lot of time scouring, they could probably have found the spot.

Zaphod, In the way I have worked with the poem, the word treasure (and chest) Is used in two ways: one refers to Indulgence and one to a different treasure. I believe this is why Forrest was able to make statements referring to the treasure or even treasure chest without referring to indulgence and it was technically consistent with the poem.

There are curious statements from Jack which makes me wonder if he progressed into the solution. For instance I have read he said the blaze is damaged, but I dont think so.   That makes me wonder if he was even able to navigate enough to identify the blaze 

[zaphod73491]

Dec 20, 2020 10:16:22 GMT -5 astree said:

.
I believe that the beginning of the solution contains enough information to get one into the general area in Wyoming. From there, if one is willing to spend a lot of time scouring, they could probably have found the spot.

Zaphod, In the way I have worked with the poem, the word treasure (and chest) Is used in two ways: one refers to Indulgence and one to a different treasure. I believe this is why Forrest was able to make statements referring to the treasure or even treasure chest without referring to indulgence and it was technically consistent with the poem.

There are curious statements from Jack which makes me wonder if he progressed into the solution. For instance I have read he said the blaze is damaged, but I dont think so. That makes me wonder if he was even able to navigate enough to identify the blaze 

Hi Astree: it is Jack's comments related to the blaze that I find most questionable. Forrest never gave the impression that his blaze could be damaged (naturally or otherwise) to the point of unrecognizability. Forrest said he tried to think of everything, which understandably would exclude his use of trees with carved initials or symbols. So someone, please, give me an example of a blaze that could get damaged by nature to the point that you couldn't recognize it, yet wouldn't be feasible to remove?

We're faced with 2 unpleasant alternatives: that either the finder is lying and has no clue what Forrest's blaze was and stumbled on the treasure anyway, or that Forrest was an idiot and chose a ridiculous blaze that wouldn't last one forest fire or river flood.

[Jenny]

Dec 21, 2020 0:15:18 GMT -5 zaphod73491 said:

Dec 20, 2020 10:16:22 GMT -5 astree said:

.
I believe that the beginning of the solution contains enough information to get one into the general area in Wyoming. From there, if one is willing to spend a lot of time scouring, they could probably have found the spot.

Zaphod, In the way I have worked with the poem, the word treasure (and chest) Is used in two ways: one refers to Indulgence and one to a different treasure. I believe this is why Forrest was able to make statements referring to the treasure or even treasure chest without referring to indulgence and it was technically consistent with the poem.

There are curious statements from Jack which makes me wonder if he progressed into the solution. For instance I have read he said the blaze is damaged, but I dont think so. That makes me wonder if he was even able to navigate enough to identify the blaze 

Hi Astree: it is Jack's comments related to the blaze that I find most questionable. Forrest never gave the impression that his blaze could be damaged (naturally or otherwise) to the point of unrecognizability. Forrest said he tried to think of everything, which understandably would exclude his use of trees with carved initials or symbols. So someone, please, give me an example of a blaze that could get damaged by nature to the point that you couldn't recognize it, yet wouldn't be feasible to remove?

We're faced with 2 unpleasant alternatives: that either the finder is lying and has no clue what Forrest's blaze was and stumbled on the treasure anyway, or that Forrest was an idiot and chose a ridiculous blaze that wouldn't last one forest fire or river flood.

I think there is another alternative....which doesn't have to be unpleasant... it's possible we misunderstood or are misunderstanding in what the Blaze was/is.....

And it really doesn't matter....

The facts are- Forrest hid a treasure... it is found....... life continues.... (time continues to pass........)

[goldilocks]

In order to discuss the location the treasure was found, the clues and possible solution, it is impossible to talk about these things without comparing what Forrest has said with what Jack has said since Jack is the purported Finder. If we are going to take Jack's words as fact then comparing his words with Forrest's is a natural progression in trying to understand his solution. Jack and Shiloh are the only two people who have declared Jack the Finder, and not Forrest himself. There has been a lack of transparency since Jack's identity was revealed, attributed to not wanting to give too much away which is understandable. Unfortunately, this also adds to the skepticism by many across all of the forums. The blaze was a huge topic throughout this hunt. If we want to try and understand any solution, discussing the blaze should be fair game. It all matters or we wouldn't be here discussing it.

[gnossos]

I still wonder what's the solution. I really don't see why this has not been released. If it is in a public place, then so be it. The whole 'it's too precious' is ridiculous. Unfortunately, it took a law suit for the finder to come forth. I believe it may take another suit to release the solution, if there even is one. From what the finder has published, I too wonder if he actually knows the solution.

I still think the poem/puzzle and the nine clues lead to Fenn's spot. At that spot there is a congratulations message with lat/long that points to a pickup spot in Wyoming.

[zaphod73491]

Dec 21, 2020 6:10:31 GMT -5 Jenny said:

Dec 21, 2020 0:15:18 GMT -5 zaphod73491 said:

Hi Astree: it is Jack's comments related to the blaze that I find most questionable. Forrest never gave the impression that his blaze could be damaged (naturally or otherwise) to the point of unrecognizability. Forrest said he tried to think of everything, which understandably would exclude his use of trees with carved initials or symbols. So someone, please, give me an example of a blaze that could get damaged by nature to the point that you couldn't recognize it, yet wouldn't be feasible to remove?

We're faced with 2 unpleasant alternatives: that either the finder is lying and has no clue what Forrest's blaze was and stumbled on the treasure anyway, or that Forrest was an idiot and chose a ridiculous blaze that wouldn't last one forest fire or river flood.

I think there is another alternative....which doesn't have to be unpleasant... it's possible we misunderstood or are misunderstanding in what the Blaze was/is.....

And it really doesn't matter....

The facts are- Forrest hid a treasure... it is found....... life continues.... (time continues to pass........)

Hi Jenny: I agree with you that conventional notions of what we believe the blaze could be leave most scratching their heads wondering how such a blaze could be:

1. "Not impossible to remove"

2. "It isn't feasible to try"

3. "I am certain it is still there."

and yet could be something that could both be faked by a mischievous searcher and damaged by nature:

4.  "... because I couldn’t find the blaze I was looking for, forces of nature had probably damaged or destroyed it at some point before I got there."

Forrest said he tried to think of everything, and given that forest fires happen every year in the Rockies (and trees don't live forever), he would have been wise enough not to have the blaze be related to any tree -- or anything that could be obscured or damaged by a nearby tree falling on it. Seems to me that rocks are the only things that are impervious to fire, and less likely to be affected by wind (tornado) or water (flood). One exception I can think of would be a natural white streak or scar high on a rock wall. If a forest fire occurred close to that rock wall, soot could blacken the wall and obscure such a blaze.

I'll share with you what my blaze was because I thought it was a pretty good answer to all of Forrest's blaze-related remarks: It was the precise longitude of the chest's location. Not the latitude, too -- just the longitude (though he could have done it the other way around). So even if you had found this longitude, it would do you no good unless you had solved the rest of the poem. Forrest could be certain it was "still there" because it's secreted within the poem itself. Therefore, it isn't feasible to try to remove it. It also provides a clear answer to the distance from the blaze to the treasure chest's location: zero. They're colocated.

MW Featured Question and Weekly Words: Blaze Measurement (5/13/2016): "Mr. Fenn: How far is the chest located from the blaze? ~ casey."

FF: "Casey, I did not take the measurement, but logic tells me that if you don’t know where the blaze is it really doesn’t matter. If you can find the blaze though, the answer to your question will be obvious. Does that help?f"

mysteriouswritings.com/featured-question-and-weekly-words-from-forrest-blaze-measurement/

Another example of an ATF that works well:

MW Q&A (6/26/2014): "Has anyone seen or mentioned the blaze to you? ~Stephanie"

FF: "Thanks Stephanie for the questions. I have read them several times very carefully. They appear subtle on the surface but they aren’t. A yes or no to either question would give too much away, so I’ll pass. Sorry, and I’m aware that some searchers will pick me apart for this answer. f"

If the blaze was the chest's longitude secreted within the poem, then any person who has read the poem has unavoidably “seen” the blaze, but that doesn’t mean they recognized it for what it was.

MW Q&A (4/29/2016): "Which direction does the Blaze face? North, South, East or West? Curious. Foxy"

FF: "I didn’t take a radial off of the blaze Foxy. I’m thinking it may not be any of those directions."

A longitude doesn’t face in any direction.

Now Jack has said GPS coordinates weren't involved, so if he's being truthful this alone would have ruled out my solution. But I liked that my blaze idea was at least original, unexpected, couldn't be damaged, would last centuries, could not be used to shortcut the poem, and would take you precisely to the right spot once you had solved the preceding clues.

But as you say, the treasure has clearly been found, life goes on, and there are plenty of other long-standing puzzles waiting to be solved. However, just because the lure for this puzzle is gone, doesn't mean there wouldn't be great satisfaction in solving it, and I do believe it is solvable even without the presence of the treasure and (apparently) the blaze in its original form. After all, Jack said he got within 6 feet of the treasure over a year ago w/o the benefit of the blaze (though it's interesting to ponder how Jack could know this). We all have an advantage now because we know something that he didn't: exactly what the ground at the treasure location looks like.