Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Missing Method

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by Angus_beef40 View Post

    Depends on what you consider creative..

    It one gets 'creative' enough, I dont doubt one could create nine clues to line up with pretty much any location. I think most rational people would be able to delineate between a clever interpretation of a clue vs. an overcooked (or coded) one.
    Fair point. Creative must be taken in context with the allowable search space. By creative, I mean a combination of imagination and high coincidence level - perhaps I should use clever instead. My opinion of a good solve is one that has 9 precise locations that can be derived from specific lines in the poem simply using the words and homophones and maybe some other simple tricks). Taken together consequtively, they are so coincidental, they are self-evidently correct. The simpler the methodology used to get there, the better. Complexity (anagrams, try the Wheel, etc.) are imaginative but they expand the search space significantly and require much larger amounts of coincidence to pass muster.

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by CRM114 View Post

      Fair point. Creative must be taken in context with the allowable search space. By creative, I mean a combination of imagination and high coincidence level - perhaps I should use clever instead. My opinion of a good solve is one that has 9 precise locations that can be derived from specific lines in the poem simply using the words and homophones and maybe some other simple tricks). Taken together consequtively, they are so coincidental, they are self-evidently correct. The simpler the methodology used to get there, the better. Complexity (anagrams, try the Wheel, etc.) are imaginative but they expand the search space significantly and require much larger amounts of coincidence to pass muster.
      Completely agree.

      I think deano's assessment is on-point, as well.

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by deano View Post
        I think that we should be a little fairer on those with complicated solves. Fenn did after all spend a great deal of time on the poem (and this is one of the only corroborated claims - Douglas Preston) therefore it is reasonable to conclude, when combined with the length of time take to find the chest, that the solve is sufficiently subtle (clever). The other options are that the poem is simple and the search area is large (as in the number of options) or the poem is very bad and the solver idiosyncratically thinks like forrest.

        So for me its an almost 50-50 between clever and large search area. So not unreasonable to go down the line of anagrams and so on.

        Surely we can all agree that there are red herrings in there?
        deano,
        I hope I haven't treated anyone with a complicated solve unfairly. My disagreement is really more with people "deciphering" statements into things he never said and trying to come up with reasons why the treasure wasn't in Wyoming when he said it was.

        Best,
        -Slashy

        Comment


        • #49
          (as close as i could get to a thumbs up emoji !)

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by deano View Post
            I think that we should be a little fairer on those with complicated solves. Fenn did after all spend a great deal of time on the poem (and this is one of the only corroborated claims - Douglas Preston) therefore it is reasonable to conclude, when combined with the length of time take to find the chest, that the solve is sufficiently subtle (clever). The other options are that the poem is simple and the search area is large (as in the number of options) or the poem is very bad and the solver idiosyncratically thinks like forrest.

            So for me its an almost 50-50 between clever and large search area. So not unreasonable to go down the line of anagrams and so on.

            Surely we can all agree that there are red herrings in there?
            I assume by 'large search area' you do not mean large botg search area. Forrest seems to indicate the poem and Clue 9 were precise ('poem followed precisely' and 'within a few steps of the treasure').

            A large number of mental option can be created by the apparently vague nature of the poem. Just witnessing that no two solves seem to be alike says he succeeded.

            I think he's tricking people in many ways. I think he chipped away at the poem over the 15 years to make it vague on the surface but highly precise under the hood. He also uses camouflage very well. Tricking some into believing Stanzas 1, 5 and 6 were just introduction or legal contracts was his first camouflage trick. Sloane wrote a book "Camouflage" so it is probably a tribute to him.

            He just lets people create their own red herrings. I lean towards 99 percent clever, the product of 15 years of work.
            Last edited by CRM114; 07-24-2020, 01:29 PM.

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by GoSlash27 View Post

              deano,
              I hope I haven't treated anyone with a complicated solve unfairly. My disagreement is really more with people "deciphering" statements into things he never said and trying to come up with reasons why the treasure wasn't in Wyoming when he said it was.

              Best,
              -Slashy
              Exactly....

              Comment


              • #52
                When a golfer gets a hole in one, is it luck or skill? Both, but it would be true to say that he was aiming at the spot that he thought gave him the best chance.

                The distinction between clever and robustly interpretive, isn't clear cut. It's a gradient. When I say large search area, I mean both the metaphorical space of interpretations and methods (does brown mean a color or a person or a process and so on) and the physical mapping of that solution to the ground (is it brown mountain, brown creek, brown water tower and so on) and there could be lots of clue solutions to lots of places and vice versa - the combinations and permutations stack up and then throw confirmation bias into the mix. This layer of vagueness wouldn't need to be a distracting veneer, it could be mathematically sufficient to provide the longevity of the poem as it would need lots of botg by lots of searchers to find it. (a hole in one is 1/16000 or so).




                Comment


                • #53
                  regarding the exact final search area size, I ask myself why would you need the blaze? (not least how do you know what it is)

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by deano View Post
                    regarding the exact final search area size, I ask myself why would you need the blaze? (not least how do you know what it is)
                    Good question. I'm not sure if my blaze is giving me hell or vice versa.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by deano View Post
                      regarding the exact final search area size, I ask myself why would you need the blaze? (not least how do you know what it is)
                      In my solve, the "blaze" acts as sort of a beacon. If I'm walking along a line toward the beacon, and it suddenly pops into view, then that intersection of 2 lines defines a point rather than an area.

                      This is what I interpreted "if you have been wise" to mean; it's not enough to merely find the blaze. You have to approach it along the correct line.

                      Best,
                      -Slashy

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        To me, it is all about method. He told us the method - the poem is about words, the meaning of words and wordplay. Wordplay is used to make riddles (clues). The riddles/clues must be solved in order to then associate the solution with places on a good map or a geographic feature as well as bearing or directions. The places are waypoints and there are bearings for orienteering.

                        Ultimately, the method for solving the poem is through orienteering with a compass. If you are not doing that (waypoints, directional bearings), then I just don't think you are doing it right. That's how a pilot using a poem to give out directions would do it. And he tells us that it is about words.

                        He said he felt like an architect and he drew (straight not curved) lines. So you need to be drawing straight lines from waypoint to waypoint and the poem should be giving you those directions.

                        It appears to me that up to the point of finding the blaze you are on the quest to find IT. And I believe that IT is the key, the go-in piece. In mostly hindsight, although I always worried that this might be the case, it appears that when you get to the fifth stanza, you must go to Wyoming and go IT. Wy is IT that I must go, because I know the answer to IT. I already found the answer when I found the blaze by solving the first handful of clues. I have done IT tired and now I am weak.

                        I have always believed in the wordplay and orienteering method and I still do, but clearly my methods are now in question. I look forward to learning the correct method. If it is not wordplay and orienteering, I will be very disappointed and feel like I shouldn't have even tried.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by deano View Post
                          When a golfer gets a hole in one, is it luck or skill? Both, but it would be true to say that he was aiming at the spot that he thought gave him the best chance.
                          Great analogy.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by JHSharp View Post
                            The word that is key is drawing.

                            TTOTC is full of them.

                            These drawings are maps.

                            Not vague suggestion maps. Exact maps whose lines fit every hill and molehill on Google Earth.

                            They were drawn to match the features on a real relief map. Google Earth.

                            One drawing is more important than all the others to finding the spot.

                            I don’t believe the riddle could be reasonably solved without them. And they must fit your spot. They can’t be finessed. It takes time to match them. But when you do, you’ll see, one way or the other.

                            Start using them around the time you put in.

                            This is the missing method. Inspired by Sharp.

                            One is MOST KEY.
                            I've seen things in the drawings and pictures as well,never figured out how to use it though which is probably why I was searching Montana.
                            I figured something was up with the pictures when Forrest stated he didn't want TTOTC done in an audio book

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              many words in the poem can be considered as key words... but the “word that is a key” * is only one.

                              *quote edited for correctness (thanks old pilot)
                              should be -
                              ”word that is key”
                              Last edited by hfywc; 07-25-2020, 01:46 PM.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by CRM114 View Post

                                Fair point. Creative must be taken in context with the allowable search space. By creative, I mean a combination of imagination and high coincidence level - perhaps I should use clever instead. My opinion of a good solve is one that has 9 precise locations that can be derived from specific lines in the poem simply using the words and homophones and maybe some other simple tricks). Taken together consequtively, they are so coincidental, they are self-evidently correct. The simpler the methodology used to get there, the better. Complexity (anagrams, try the Wheel, etc.) are imaginative but they expand the search space significantly and require much larger amounts of coincidence to pass muster.
                                I think the problem with the simple solves I've seen (and I'd include mine) is that they don't have enough of the 'confirmer' kind of detail. They mostly stick to just 9 clues that work, pretty nicely, in their simple way. But just 9 clues. The lesser lines, Eg. worth the cold, alone in there, etc. get ignored, or have some slight fit, or are taken at face value.

                                But I think the poem's answer should be simple but also interesting and complex, because in the real solve every single line must surely say something and add to the reveal of the location. There shouldn't be one line that doesn't add meaning or a confirmation of the answer. To do that, in a subtle way, in a simple solve, would take a lot of smart thinking from Fenn.

                                So I'm pretty sure I haven't read anything close to the real solve yet. He spent 15 years getting every line right, like an architect. I can't trust any solve that doesn't fit every line elegantly. So I think I haven't seen the true solve yet. The simple solves are nice, but for me if they can't explain every line then they're being too simple. It's like saying you have the answer to 2.2 + 2.3 with a 4.

                                The people who have more complex solves tend to work out every detail for every line, as well as working on lots of stuff outside the poem. And perhaps that helps them get invested in their solve, and so they feel the poem is really working for them... But it reminds me of someone creating a painting of a rose by working on layer after layer of paint, spending hours on every new layer, and if you look at it in the right way it will be a beautiful abstract flower... But a simple line drawing will more clearly and perfectly express a rose.

                                But I guess I just like simple things. They just have to be simple and right.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X