|
|
Post by Jenny on Dec 7, 2020 10:23:51 GMT -5
From the article: www.outsideonline.com/2419429/forrest-fenn-treasure-jack-stuef?Because of his stand, talking to Stuef can be maddening at times. For my book, I’ve interviewed him about his solve, discussed the process he used to come up with it, and chronicled the various searches he went on as he sought the exact spot, learning fascinating tidbits in the process. For example, he’s told me that one reason it took him two years to retrieve the treasure, even after figuring out the general area in 2018, was that the “blaze”—Fenn’s all-important final clue, found out in the wilderness, intended to let a searcher know they’re in the exact right spot—had been damaged. He doesn’t mind being open with all of that. And yet there are still things he holds back or talks around, in order to make sure, even now, that no one can figure out the precise location. |
|
|
|
Post by Jenny on Dec 7, 2020 12:53:23 GMT -5
So the location is without a strong confirming last clue for it......
|
|
|
|
Post by zaphod73491 on Dec 8, 2020 18:51:17 GMT -5
Hi Jenny: except earlier, shortly after Forrest died, Jack said he was thrown off by a "fake blaze" left by another searcher within 1000 feet of where he eventually found the treasure. Is it possible the story author is confusing fake blaze with damaged blaze?
In any case, neither damaging Forrest's blaze nor spoofing it with a fake one should have been possible. That was one of the biggest oddities for me about the original medium.com article: how could a well-informed Jack have possibly been fooled by something "blazey" left by someone else? There is nothing someone else could leave behind that wasn't itself transient in nature, yet Forrest was 100% confident his blaze was "still there" and that it wasn't feasible to try to remove it. So it makes no sense to me that Jack was fooled by the mischievous actions of another searcher.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jenny on Dec 9, 2020 9:46:51 GMT -5
This 'Blaze' issue is why I'm concerned there is not something to confirm the location.... the chest is gone.....and if the 'blaze' is 'damaged' than what can confirm the location of the treasure? Without confirmation, all is just theory...even for oneself....
|
|
|
|
Post by goldhunter on Dec 9, 2020 15:38:41 GMT -5
I feel like the damaged blaze story is some sort of legal posturing. I have no basis for saying it- I just think it.
|
|
|
|
Post by goldilocks on Dec 13, 2020 16:30:48 GMT -5
This 'Blaze' issue is why I'm concerned there is not something to confirm the location.... the chest is gone.....and if the 'blaze' is 'damaged' than what can confirm the location of the treasure? Without confirmation, all is just theory...even for oneself.... That is a good question for Jack: If the blaze is/was damaged, how can a searcher confirm if their solve is correct or not now that the chest is gone? |
|
|
|
Post by goldilocks on Dec 14, 2020 17:16:08 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by gnossos on Dec 29, 2020 13:01:55 GMT -5
I seem to recall Mr. Fenn saying that it would take a lot to remove the blaze. Now it seems it was somehow damaged. I wonder if someone just put a couple of stones on top of it and if 'damaged' actually means 'obfuscated'?
|
|
|
|
Post by zaphod73491 on Dec 29, 2020 18:28:40 GMT -5
I seem to recall Mr. Fenn saying that it would take a lot to remove the blaze. Now it seems it was somehow damaged. I wonder if someone just put a couple of stones on top of it and if 'damaged' actually means 'obfuscated'? Hi Gnossos: a damaged (or even obfuscated) blaze seem like foreseeable possibilities that Forrest had 15 years to assess. But his comment in 2014 suggests he doesn't put much stock in the possibility:
The Nine Clues Part 31 (9/26/2014): forrestfenn posted at 4:06 pm: "I had an enjoyably (sic) visit with Tom and his brother at the Downtown Subscription Coffee Shop in Santa Fe. They seemed like nice guys and avid treasure hunters. But there is confusion somewhere. While it’s not impossible to remove the blaze it isn’t feasible to try, and I am certain it’s still there.
"And while I’m here I’d like to make some comments:
I have never said that a searcher was within 2-feet of the treasure, or 6-feet, or 20.
None of my bronze bells or jars are buried at San Lazaro Pueblo.
The CE5 phrase on the treasure chest is of no value to searchers.
Snow and freezing temperatures have already arrived to parts of the Rocky Mountains. If you plan to search this winter please be safe." |
|
|
|
Post by indulgenceseeker on Dec 30, 2020 16:39:51 GMT -5
Jack said something to the effect that natural forces prevented him being able to "read" the blaze. I think it was a "blow down" event. The trees did obfuscate.
|
|
|
|
Post by indulgenceseeker on Jan 1, 2021 11:43:32 GMT -5
Jack said something to the effect that natural forces prevented him being able to "read" the blaze. I think it was a "blow down" event. The trees did obfuscate. The desiccated cottonwood in the pic of Indulgence in situ could be part of the “blow down” event. The “towering pines” survived but some of the cottonwoods did not. The trees kept Jack from getting his “read” and the natural forces kept him from walking precisely. |
|
