A football field and 25 days

[Jeff]

The point of this post is not to disparage Jack, to call him a liar, or to invoke conspiracy.  For the sake of this post, let's take what Jack and Forrest have told us at face value.  I recognize that I'm working with limited information and need to make assumptions.  Perhaps you have some thoughts or information that might fill in the gaps?

Let's get started with a little game.  Imagine you're sitting on the ground with legs crossed.  You sweep your arms in an arc on the ground around you.  That's not a very big space--perhaps a bit bigger than a square yard in size.  Now imagine you lost something in that space immediately around where you're sitting.  A bobby pin, small screw, or pen.  How long does it take for you to thoroughly examine that space looking for that pin, screw, or pen?  Now imagine you're sitting there and you're looking for something a bit bigger.  Your lunchbox, book, football.  How long does it take you to find it now?

Jack said the "section of forest" he focused on was fairly small.

I haven't measured the area I searched.  It may have been bigger than a football field, but keep in mind that's the total limits of what I thought was possible.  What I considered to be probably was certainly smaller than a football field, and it was found within those probable bounds.  (Jack Get Mail #2)

We imagined losing something in roughly one square yard--a three foot by three foot square.  There are roughly 5000 of those square yards in a football field.

Jack said he searched for the equivalent of 25 days.

I spent about 25 full days of failure looking for the treasure at that location before getting it.  (A Remembrance of Forrest Fenn)

Searching all 25 days for 8 hours a day is 12,000 minutes of searching.  But perhaps we take afternoon naps.  And perhaps we usually sleep in.  Perhaps searching 4 hours a day is a better estimate.  That would be 6,000 minutes of total search time.

If Jack had been systematic from the start and only searched the possible football field sized section of forest for 4 hours a day for all 25 days, that's devoting roughly a minute to each square yard.  In your imagination did it take you a minute to find that imagined lost football in your imagined square yard?  It sure didn't for me; I found it in under a second.  A minute is a luxurious amount of time devoted to finding something that would take up about a tenth of the space in that square yard.

Perhaps we overestimated things.  Perhaps we decided to get systematic about the search only after we failed to find it by just wandering at random.  Perhaps half way into our 25 days.  That gives us about 30 seconds per square yard.  Sit and stare at a square yard.  Time yourself.  Thirty seconds.  That's still an absurd amount of time.  How long does it take to be reasonably thorough?  Sure, dense brambles and tall grasses will slow things down.  Boulder fields and wetlands will slow things down.  Uneven ground will slow things down.  We don't even know beforehand if it's out in the open, buried, or obscured in some other way--the latter two possibilities would surely slow things down by a lot.

Let's think about this two other ways.  First, if we spend an average of 10 seconds looking at each square yard including travel time between square yards (still an absurdly long amount of time per square yard), then a scouring of that football field sized section of forest could be completed in about 14 continuous hours of searching.  That's less than 4 days of searching for 4 hours each day--much, much less than 25 days.  Second, if we line those 5000 square yards in a row, it is just under 3 miles in length.  Walking this length while looking down where we're walking will ensure everything that can be seen will be seen.  If we spend an average of 10 seconds walking across each square yard, our speed would be around 0.2 miles per hour.  For comparison, a typical slow walking pace is 2 mph--ten times our computed speed.  Two tenths of a mile per hour is quite literally the speed of a pet turtle lumbering along the ground.  It's difficult for us to walk that slowly.

Twenty five days seems like a preposterously long amount of time to search a football field sized area.  It also begs the question: if it's that small, why did Jack even bother looking for a blaze if it wasn't readily apparent?  Why not just do a brute force grid search?  How can we productively fill in our knowledge gaps that may shed light on why it took Jack 25 full days of searching to find the chest?

[P.S. I hope I didn't do the math wrong; but even if I did, I'm not sure it would detract from the core argument: 25 days >> football field]

[goldhunter]

Hi Jeff,

Good point. And, shouldn't it have been a place distinguished by a ledge or big rock with a shelter underneath, etc.? Not just a nondescript space on top of the ground. How many of those would occur in that one area? I try not to put much thought into it because...well, just because

[annie]

Interesting thoughts Jeff. What if Jack was searching a ‘SECION’ as in the PLSS (Township, Range and Section). That area would most likely take a lot longer to search. A section being one mile square or 1760 yards? He had narrowed his search down already somehow, and ‘knew’ he was in the right section or area.

[Jeff]

Hi goldhunter, I too want to keep a step removed...because.  This exercise is definitely a waste of time.  Jack did give some idea as to the resting place.  It sounds likely that it was tucked in somewhere but not somewhere totally obscured from view, and definitely not buried.

It was left on the ground, but not on level ground. It was left in a nook where it would likely sink some over time due to the weight and dirt and weeds would blow in around it and pine needles and other forest debris would fall on top of it. Nature was burying it over time. I felt fortunate that I found it early enough in the hunt that, while it was covered by debris, I could tell something was there, and the lid was still above the surface of the ground. (Mysterious Writings Six Questions)

Hi annie, I agree that Jack could be playing a game with his words.  His statement that I quoted did explicitly compare the size of his final search area to a football field, which is much much smaller than a square mile.  But the two statements that I quoted were made at different times in answer to different questions and so could refer to areas with different bounds.  That is, the area he said he searched within for 25 days might be different than the football field sized area.  He also might simply be guessing the size incorrectly, as he begins by saying he never measured it.

I do note that the question posed about the football field was posed by an Australian, so presumably he is not talking about an American football field.  But that doesn't detract from my point, as the size differences for rugby, soccer, Australian football, etc. are minimal and the point of the exercise remains: 25 days is much greater than the size of a ball field, which is anomalous.

Jack did say that he had a more difficult time with the ground search than the armchair search.  It's still hard to imagine that he spent that much time scouring such a small area.

But I think the next phase, boots on the ground, rewarded a process-oriented approach, putting in the methodical work out in the woods required to find the blaze. The research phase probably played more to my strengths, so I had to work harder at creating a good boots-on-the-ground approach to actually find the thing.  (Mysterious Writings Six Questions)

As to whether those 25 search days were mostly in his "section of forest" or not, Jack seems to suggest that they were for the most part concentrated there.

When I went boots on the ground, my conception of the path in the poem I had put together from home was matched by the physical features I went to, but I did some additional reconnaissance on some other areas I thought could hold potential for matching parts of the poem because I didn’t want to get locked into one idea and lose any objectivity I had. But that first place I went to was the correct location.  (Mysterious Writings)

What do you all think?

[annie]

I am going to go back ‘again’ and read Jack’s pieces about his ‘find’. It seems like he managed to piece together the correct - State, correct starting point, correct Brown all before BOTG. And there is something about the blaze being an important part of the ‘design’.
I think I am reading the poem all wrong, I have a very vague memory of Forrest talking about warm waters meaning ‘something else’. I always thought the ‘blaze’ was a really big thing, like a rock formation or fracture, but maybe it was a very small thing - that would take Jack longer to find maybe...

[Jeff]

Hi annie, I too am reading the poem all wrong.  Sounds like we are far from alone in that regard!  I get the impression--but not a very confident impression--that Jack arrived at a correct interpretation of the poem by taking it in the context of TTOTC and Fenn's other writings and that the "big picture" may refer to the meaning to the poem as something divorced from the presence of nine clues contained within it.

Poetry is hard!  (for me.)

[annie]

Hi Jeff, I understand, poetry can be quite difficult- and I am not sure how many rules Forrest stuck to either🤔. I am also thinking maybe it is related to a
text in particular, an ‘English major ‘? Not sure which one though...
Just when I thought my schooldays were over. What about grammar - maybe there are clues in that area.
Now that we know nine clues is not that important, this is just the number of clues he ended up with to get to the spot. We can eliminate the significance of number nine. Need to read TTOTC again. I’ve also just read journal of a trapper, but can’t see much in it, other than some of the tribes possibly had a name for a stream ‘where warm waters halt’, as they seem to have some very colourful language for rivers and objects in plain sight...some good sounding ones too!

[pinatubocharlie]

Hello folks. This is my first time posting anywhere since Dal shut down his blog. I simply find it difficult to let go of The Chase as it was all-consuming for several years.

So I have a few questions for Jack related to this topic. What type of ‘football’ field were you talking about? A American style football field or a European football (soccer) field? And did that comment pertain to only the playing areas, or did it include the official sideline areas too?

So here are a few observations regarding your post Jeff.

It would appear that you did not consider the end zones which are certainly part of the a football field, the total playing area being 120 yds x 53.33 yds = 6,400 SY = 360’ x 160’ = 57,600 SF. And what do you know, 6,400 SY works out to a 80 SY x 80 SY square, or 240’ x 240’. 8’s & 24’s always get my attention when related to The Chase and coincidentally, 8/24 is my late mother’s b-day.

However, if Jack was really referring to a European ‘soccer’ field, then the game changes completely as a soccer field is almost DOUBLE the area of an American football field; 136 yds x 93 yds = 12,648 SY or 408’ x 279’ = 113,832 SF. Personally, I doubt he was, but it is something to consider nevertheless.

Finally, and I think most importantly, how does football somehow tie into the poem? I have long held (but never publicly disclosed it) that 120 yards is "not far, but it too far to walk" if your goal is to eventually score.

[Jeff]

Hi pinatubocharlie, welcome.  As to the type of football field, note that the question was posed to Jack by an Australian.  I'm not very familiar with Australian sports but I believe they, when talking about football, generally refer to Australian football or rugby but not soccer.

However, I think these issues are a bit beside my point as the size differences are minimal in the overall grand scheme of the argument: that "25 days" is much, much greater than "ball field(s)."  We can conjure up explanations such as a very dense and bramble filled forest, very uneven or swampy land, how hidden the chest was, etc but it hasn't been explained by Jack yet.  I don't need or expect an explanation from Jack.  It's just something that really causes me to scratch my head, something I find anomalous, particularly since I've spent quite a bit of time off-trail hiking, skiing, and climbing so I can easily imagine how long it takes to move around in different landscapes.

I haven't noticed any connections between football and the poem, but I'm all ears if you want to explain!

[Jenny]

Great points Jeff.....

He was looking for 'the Blaze'.... something that would stand out..... Had he said this was damaged which caused him to overlook the spot of the treasure? That might have caused the extra time....

Seems like if he was looking for just the Treasure Chest, and not the Blaze, he might have found it sooner???


What could the Blaze have been? What is left of it now? How did Jack KNOW what the Blaze was to be looking for it?

[Jenny]

With the Chest being gone..... the Blaze is all we have left to confirm a location.... and what is left of it?

[Jeff]

Hi Jenny, I appreciate that you combined the subforum into this one.

I agree that Jack would be looking for the blaze.  I would to.  I think many of us would be.  Principally, at first...

The poem led Jack to a section of forest from his metaphorical armchair but a ground search was needed to find the blaze and chest:

The poem directs you to a section of forest in which to search for the blaze, but that is something you had to search for. (Jack Gets Mail #2)

In the same Medium post he tells us that "the total limits of what I thought was possible" "may have been bigger than a football field" but what he "considered probably was certainly smaller than a football field, and it was found within those probable bounds."

In your Six Questions with him he is fairly confident before visiting the site and extremely confident after seeing it.

When I went boots on the ground, my conception of the path in the poem I had put together from home was matched by the physical features I went to, but I did some additional reconnaissance on some other areas I thought could hold potential for matching parts of the poem because I didn’t want to get locked into one idea and lose any objectivity I had. But that first place I went to was the correct location.

Assuming the size of the section of forest in the first quote above = the size of the ball field in the second quote above = size of the location in third quote above and assuming that the "25 full days" of searching more or less is of that same size "section of forest," "football field," and "location," then we're left with the following: we are extremely confident the blaze and chest is located in this relatively small area but we spent an inordinate amount of time there before we find the blaze and chest.

There are complications.  I understand that Jack didn't know what blaze he was looking for and later that he discovered that the blaze was damaged.  I understand that there was a fake blaze.  We don't know anything useful about the character of the land to determine how strenuous searching would be.  We do know Jack was beat up searching it; however, I've been off-trail hiking, skiing, and climbing with buddies who are accident prone and others that are cat-like nimble, so this doesn't help narrow down the landscape for us.  Finally, we know, in hindsight at least for us, that the chest was not completely buried.

So there are lots of assumptions, complications, and unknowns.  The rationale may lie hidden within those mysteries.

But...what would I do if they were extremely confident in a relatively small area?  I first would look around for the blaze and, also, while looking for that, see whether I could stumble across the chest.  I would start the search willy-nilly but get more systematic if at first I did not succeed.  After a while I'd get really systematic.  And thereafter I'd get more systematic and add in a metal detector.  Even with all these steps, it shouldn't take "25 full days."  Remember, a football field area is the equivalent of a rectangle that's a yard across and a few miles long.  Even if it's all swampy with tall grasses and tangles of shrubs, one full day can cover those few miles.  Not a fun day, but a full day.

Yes, I agree that it going into it with a systematic grid search with a metal detector from day one would be faster, but I don't think many of us would start there if we believed the promise of a blaze to guide us.  As for your other question, what the blaze is a blaze, well that's a different subject!

[pinatubocharlie]

What I was trying to say is that IMO a football field answers the clue ‘Not far, but too far to walk’. Why? Because you will likely never score or even move the ball down the field if you walk.

Many searchers, myself included at the very beginning, thought ‘not far’ must be measured in miles, but I am attempting to show it can be much simpler than that.

Hope this makes sense.