Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What we now know about the blaze

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

  • What we now know about the blaze

    1. Jack said that the blaze was damaged early on. Forrest was not aware that the blaze had been damaged, however he told us that he looked at GE and the only changes he saw were the ones that nature had made.
    2. According to Jack, Forrest had some doubt that the clues would last for 100 years. Jack indicated that the blaze was the clue most susceptible to damage.
    3. Jack said that the damage happened suddenly.
    4. Jack said he thought the fake blaze was made by a cruel fellow searcher.

    Please feel free to make additions and/or corrections to this list.

  • #2
    Here are my thoughts:

    #1 tells us that the blaze was not visible on GE. It also tells us that the damage wasn’t caused by something like a forest fire since that would have been visible on GE.

    #2 almost hints at a blaze marker on a tree. Lodgepole pine trees live 150-200 years.

    #3 because the damage happened suddenly we can rule out something like beetle kill. That leaves wind, flood, avalanche, or a sudden lightning strike. A flood might fit with “water high” but an avalanche fits with “heavy loads”. Maybe we should look at an area near the base of a steep cliff that has avalanche chutes and water run-off. The blaze could have also been a marker on a rock that was partially covered by an avalanche.

    #4 tells us that Jack was searching in an area where other searchers had been. This might hint at the more popular search areas.

    Comment


    • #3
      I only concentrate on what Forrest said about the blaze. If Jack found it, he found it based on what Forrest had said.
      The only thing different that I can do is think like a millennial. Damn I didn’t want to grow up...

      Although Jacks all we got for now.
      Good day

      Comment


      • #4
        Oh, you meant Jack's secondhand info. Isn't there a better blaze?

        Comment


        • #5
          "Cruel fellow searcher"?

          Comment


          • #6
            Just so we have everything in one place, this is what
            CRM114 had to say:
            Thank you as well! This is much nicer - cooperative brainstorming! I like your line of thinking a lot. I have some thinking to add. I think the fake blaze is an important piece.. It could come either before or after b). I think it's important because we know at one point in 2018, Jack thought the blaze could be made by a single person. I think we can safely assume he called Forrest at that point because he thought Forrest made it, but he at some point concluded it was a "cruel searcher.". We don't have any idea if he continued to think this for the next two years or discarded that idea. There could be several cycles of "what the blaze is.". On the flip side, I think we can also safely assume Jack was likely aware of the "infeasible" quote at the time of the fake blaze. He's an intelligent researcher potentially on a budget from back east. He began the Chase in early 2018, found "the place Forrest wanted to die" in a couple weeks later. Depending on time of snow clearing, he probably had weeks to a couple months of additional time for research. Even if he found the fake blaze on his first trip, he's meticulous enough, imo, to not go out there w/o some theory(ies) of the blaze and would have searched for everything Forrest said of the Blaze and would have surely found the infeasible quote.

            Also important, I think, is Jack's revelation that he was at one point (in 2019, I believe) standing six feet from the chest and didn't recognize either. He didn't say whether he was scanning or just walking by, but I can tell you from experience, he was likely searching. My experience oddly parallels Jack's. I heard of the Chase in late April, 2018, found an area quickly, a searched the next two years. I didn't track my days, but it was on par with Jack. I think per Forrests words, the chest wasn't near a trail, so Jack wasn't walking from point A to B on a trail, oblivious to his surroundings. By 2019, I had enough experience and failures searching to know if I was walking off trail, I scanned everything out of trained habit, searching for anything out of place, any possible indication, even if I was just traversing to a more promising area. I could write a book on what doing this for 100s of hours is like, and I'm sure others could too.

            Another thing I like about your thoughts is other than my minor additions, you've highlighted the incredible (to me) lack of detail of what Jack was doing for two years, at least botg. We know he did copious research, and that it likely wasn't all during those first couple of weeks figuring out where Forrest wanted to die. I suggest based on my own experience he was making some form of progress, either with additional clues or with how it was hidden, or as you suggest, with what the blaze was.

            I suggest Jack's words corroborate the above. The fake blaze was 1000 feet away from the ultimate location. If what you are looking for is so obliterated as Jack describes in the six questions and he didn't see the chest directly below it from six feet away in 2019, then 1000 feet may as well be 1000 miles in my experience. In some forest, perhaps like the chest appears to have been found, searching even a 100 foot by 100 foot area can be extremely daunting in my experience. Looking for something so damaged or covered in debris as Jack suggests is almost impossible. I suggest Forrest's target search area and allusion to solving within a few steps of the location do not mean 1000 feet. In the countless hours of wandering, I eventually concluded Forrest wasn't so sadistic he'd make you search all that forest without narrowing it down. By even late 2018 I concluded if I didn't have a highly specific area to search, I was simply missing something, and I need to research more. I live in the Rockies, Jack didn't. I suspect Jack was even moreso, because he had to plan and arrange new trips. It made me think a little when he cited that as an advantage. Jack had to justify every trip. I could just hop in my truck and go out with any new idea, but even I gradually refined by the time I started being led to the same areas I had already been. I began requiring finds of new, specific information or ideas and a specific search plan before going.

            All that diatribe to justify saying I think Jack solved at least one more clue after the fake blaze. He was simply in the wrong spot at the fake blaze. He hadn't solved it completely. This makes the "cruel searcher" Jack refers to even more interesting. Unless the location is a highly searched area, this isn't random. The cruel searcher likely had the same thinking as Jack and was somehow led to the same spot, imo. It's getting pretty far out on the limb of assumptions to think that Jack believes it was another searcher due to an "F" mark. Jack's a smart guy. If he knew he was in an area relatively crawling with searchers or even non-searchers, this would be the case - the fake blaze would have to be something symbolic of Forrest. If he were in an isolated area, on the other hand, even a rock placed on a tree stump could be considered a blaze made by Forrest (from my own experience) due to the fact you know there's hardly ever humans around that spot. Such things, when found in an isolated area while searching where you think it is can really make you scratch your head about who put it there (at least if you think you have the "infeasible" mystery solved). If Jack was looking for an infeasible to remove blaze at that point, the same general idea applies for isolated vs non-isolated.

            I believe the site was isolated. Forrest call it that. Apparently Jack thinks it's pristine and in need of protection from Fenn tourists. I think we can safely say it wasn't near Old Faithful, with God knows how many tourists already if Jack and Forrest are correct. I'm going off on a tangent here, because by the logic above, I think this expands what a blaze could be for a rationally thinking person like Jack - any human made object is a candidate depending on what it is.

            Lastly, in the interest of finding a blaze that might meet both Jack and Forrest criteria, and is a single blaze, I searched my mental catalog of possible blazes based on attempting to armchair hints or simply from botg/armchair experience. I had my primary, infeasible to remove blaze far from the site identified before I even went botg. I wasn't even sure an additional blaze is what I was looking for initially, but came to believe that. I believed you "looked quickly down" from each in different ways, with a good chance you literally looked vertically down from the last one at the end. I believe Fenn "recycled" what you are to do at each. I could not be sure if each blaze was to be infeasible to remove, though. Remembering back, I did consider that a possibility for a long time. Anyway, here goes:

            - Lone tree or boulder: verges on infeasible to remove if big enough. People could argue this, but such an object exists on Google Earth archives or similar indefinitely and are infeasible to remove. While you could certainly damage these, or nature could, Jack was certainly savvy enough to check Google Earth. I conclude Jack's blaze is not visible from GE if you know what you are looking for. They also don't fit man-made, which Jack thought the blaze was at one time, anyway.

            - Symbol on a map - marry the clues to a map. I once thought of this as the ideal indestructible blaze, and I still do. Some of mine are that. Fails the damageable criteria though.

            - improvised fire ring: there were a couple in my area, even though it's quite isolated - just hikers wandering through from time to time. The bonfires in Gypsy Magic and Stout hearted Men took on new meaning, especially when sorta lined up with a spot. For awhile, I considered it the perfect blaze for a buried chest - only obvious to a searcher, and non-searchers would never bother to dig. Forrest would have to dig deep to protect it from fire above, but he dug the bells and jars deep. It has the advantage of screwing up a metal detector because people often burn trash, including foil in there. Nevertheless, I soured on the idea when I considered if the hunt can last a 100 or 1000 years, some archeologist will come along and excavate them and stumble on the chest. Forrest would know this better than anyone. The ones in the open are visible on GE, even if small. Sometimes people build them under a tree away from rain, and are invisible, but while they are easy to damage, they are certainly not infeasible to remove.

            - natural looking pile of stones over the chest. There's several potential armchair hints at this. This was my working theory before the Chase ended. I came to believe the last clue and location were marked by both a map symbol and the pile of stones. It occurs to me this fits our criteria. The map symbol is infeasible to remove, the pile of stones is damageable. The map symbol gets you to a pretty specific area. The stones get even more specific. You could still find the chest if the stones were gone, but it's much harder. The stones don't attract attention from non-searchers if subtle. Again, this would require Jack to not be telling the whole truth, even if telling truths. an animal digging is all that's required to damage.

            Maybe this sparks some thoughts on the blaze (pun intended).
            Last edited by CRM114; Today, 04:22 PM.

            Comment


            • #7
              CRM usually doesn't speak in terms of Jack and apparently forgot how to identify the blaze... heheh.
              Might I add: one thing we know about the blaze is its cover-up by Jack, since he tried to pass it off as less of a system than it is. Jack simplified a complicated thing, put it strictly in the field and generalized it in a way as to give everyone hope except people that actually found the blaze. His doing this, against the better information on the poem blaze, is indicative of some sort of tactic to deny the real blaze. Furthermore, his voluntary release of information on the blaze and wild story around it, with no other specific clues mentioned, points even more to something being psychologically a rough area for him. For some reason - I just don't get it...

              Comment


              • #8
                Talk about Jack almost puts me to sleep. He's a non-player, in my opinion, having already finished his role of helping persuade some searchers not to search in the summer of 2020. I didn't search then due to Covid, which I think is the main reason FF created the drama about the treasure having been found.

                Regarding the possibility of several blazes, I have seen a few things in the general area of where my solve took me, any of which might be rightfully considered "something that stands out". Of course, only one functions best -- compared to the others -- as the poem's blaze, but the concept of multiple blazes tends to support FF's statement that it would probably take a searcher (with a good solve) a few BOTG search hikes in order to finally find the trove. I said "good", not "correct".
                I firmly believe that a correct solve would lead someone to within a few steps of the hidey spot. I said "firmly" and "spot".
                Last edited by Old Pilot; 02-19-2021, 07:51 PM.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Redneck Girl View Post
                  1. Jack said that the blaze was damaged early on. Forrest was not aware that the blaze had been damaged, however he told us that he looked at GE and the only changes he saw were the ones that nature had made.
                  2. According to Jack, Forrest had some doubt that the clues would last for 100 years. Jack indicated that the blaze was the clue most susceptible to damage.
                  3. Jack said that the damage happened suddenly.
                  4. Jack said he thought the fake blaze was made by a cruel fellow searcher.

                  Please feel free to make additions and/or corrections to this list.
                  5 Jack said the damage to the blaze was via natural causes

                  Direct Jack Quotes from: https://mysteriouswritings.com/six-q...reasure-chest/


                  6. Helped by logic, my experience on the ground at the location, and a hint in the book, I figured out what the blaze was in late 2018.

                  7. A necessary defense of the blaze was to make it something that could be found, but not so readily obvious, so that in case a human being did happen to go there, they wouldn’t stumble on the treasure.

                  8 As I’ve said, I think the blaze is too damaged to be easily “read” as the blaze at this point in time without the treasure still sitting in the nook beneath it. But I don’t think many realize that was part of the design.

                  9 (same as 2, but the direct quote) Forrest said the things the clues referred to might exist in 100 years. Not may, might. There was doubt there. Fate would decide what happened to the blaze, and we were unlucky that it was damaged relatively early in the search by natural forces.

                  Thoughts:

                  6 I've read past this several times now, never noticing before. It seems important.

                  8 The treasure was beneath the blaze. Directly under? Seems to rule out a big catastrophe. How can a big catastrophe damage the blaze while doing no damage to the chest beneath if the chest was not buried? Also, the blaze was either laying on the chest or elevated above it and the ground. Part of the design - what does this mean, that by removing the chest, you further obliterate the blaze?

                  2/9: How in the heck can you determine when damage occurred. I don't think it could be a major or publicized event, otherwise it would damage the chest too. Forrest likely would have seen the evidence on GE of a catastrophic event.
                  Last edited by CRM114; 02-19-2021, 08:16 PM.
                  You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Redneck Girl View Post
                    1. Jack said that the blaze was damaged early on. Forrest was not aware that the blaze had been damaged, however he told us that he looked at GE and the only changes he saw were the ones that nature had made.
                    2. According to Jack, Forrest had some doubt that the clues would last for 100 years. Jack indicated that the blaze was the clue most susceptible to damage.
                    3. Jack said that the damage happened suddenly.
                    4. Jack said he thought the fake blaze was made by a cruel fellow searcher.

                    Please feel free to make additions and/or corrections to this list.
                    The fake blaze was a typical stone pile blaze that hikers make. Not really cruel at all. Jack embellishing for effect. Go ahead and ask him to see if he dances around that fact

                    The damaged blaze happened in 2018 when 2 trees fell and camouflaged the blaze.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by CRM114 View Post

                      5 Jack said the damage to the blaze was via natural causes

                      Direct Jack Quotes from: https://mysteriouswritings.com/six-q...reasure-chest/


                      6. Helped by logic, my experience on the ground at the location, and a hint in the book, I figured out what the blaze was in late 2018.

                      7. A necessary defense of the blaze was to make it something that could be found, but not so readily obvious, so that in case a human being did happen to go there, they wouldn’t stumble on the treasure.

                      8 As I’ve said, I think the blaze is too damaged to be easily “read” as the blaze at this point in time without the treasure still sitting in the nook beneath it. But I don’t think many realize that was part of the design.

                      9 (same as 2, but the direct quote) Forrest said the things the clues referred to might exist in 100 years. Not may, might. There was doubt there. Fate would decide what happened to the blaze, and we were unlucky that it was damaged relatively early in the search by natural forces.

                      Thoughts:

                      6 I've read past this several times now, never noticing before. It seems important.

                      8 The treasure was beneath the blaze. Directly under? Seems to rule out a big catastrophe. How can a big catastrophe damage the blaze while doing no damage to the chest beneath if the chest was not buried? Also, the blaze was either laying on the chest or elevated above it and the ground. Part of the design - what does this mean, that by removing the chest, you further obliterate the blaze?

                      2/9: How in the heck can you determine when damage occurred. I don't think it could be a major or publicized event, otherwise it would damage the chest too. Forrest likely would have seen the evidence on GE of a catastrophic event.
                      Good points!
                      6. Did Jack figure out what the blaze was before or after he found the fake blaze?
                      8. It does seem strange that whatever damaged the blaze didn't damage the chest. That might rule out an avalanche. Interesting idea that removing the chest further obliterated the blaze.
                      9. How did Jack know the blaze was damaged relatively early in the search?

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Leaf Blazeikson View Post
                        CRM usually doesn't speak in terms of Jack and apparently forgot how to identify the blaze... heheh.
                        Might I add: one thing we know about the blaze is its cover-up by Jack, since he tried to pass it off as less of a system than it is. Jack simplified a complicated thing, put it strictly in the field and generalized it in a way as to give everyone hope except people that actually found the blaze. His doing this, against the better information on the poem blaze, is indicative of some sort of tactic to deny the real blaze. Furthermore, his voluntary release of information on the blaze and wild story around it, with no other specific clues mentioned, points even more to something being psychologically a rough area for him. For some reason - I just don't get it...
                        Per convos with tootingjo Im trying to turn over a new "leaf" and not be quite so anti-jack. I'm nowhere near believing he is telling the whole truth, but at least regarding the blaze trying to be open to him telling no lies. I'm never gonna give up my multiple blazes w/o a compelling solve with a single one.
                        You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Redneck Girl View Post

                          Good points!
                          6. Did Jack figure out what the blaze was before or after he found the fake blaze?
                          8. It does seem strange that whatever damaged the blaze didn't damage the chest. That might rule out an avalanche. Interesting idea that removing the chest further obliterated the blaze.
                          9. How did Jack know the blaze was damaged relatively early in the search?
                          I forgot:

                          10 I can't find it now, but Jack said he was six feet away from the treasure in 2019 and didn't see it. This would be after he knew what the blaze was. Anyone remember where Jack said this?
                          You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by CRM114 View Post

                            I forgot:

                            10 I can't find it now, but Jack said he was six feet away from the treasure in 2019 and didn't see it. This would be after he knew what the blaze was. Anyone remember where Jack said this?
                            I recall seeing that too. That seems to confirm that the blaze was small.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              I just remembered this:

                              Mr Fenn, in relation to the final resting place of the chest, which of the 4 natural elements (Earth, Wind, Water, Fire) would mostly compromise it resting? ~ James

                              I know what the question is. I don’t think earth can hurt it, under the right conditions wind might affect it, it’s probably already wet, and look at what fire did to the twin towers. Nature makes her own rules, James, so I try to not be absolute when talking about her.

                              James was asking about the final resting place of the chest but maybe Forrest's answer also applies to the blaze. If earth can't hurt it then I think that rules out an avalanche. I think we can rule out fire because that would be visible on GE. So maybe the correct answer is either wind or a flood.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X