What we now know about the blaze

[Spoon]

And now I'm going to alienate myself from over 99% of searchers (respectfully, hopefully). You all seem to be focused on "the blaze" in line 13 as a marker for the location of the treasure chest. To do so means you have ignored some of the things that Forrest told us.

He said the clues in the poem were consecutive and contiguous. He also said that he chose every word carefully and that at a minimum searchers needed to use every noun in the poem to solve it. If the blaze in line 13 marks the location of the chest, then there is no need to use any of the words/nouns beyond, say, line 14 of the poem. That's a whole lot of unnecessary poetry. But this completely contradicts his statements that he chose every word carefully, that the clues are consecutive/contiguous and that a person needs to use every noun in the poem to solve it.

I've yet to see anyone put forth a compelling argument to refute this very, dare I say it, "straight forward" logic. And yet I would guess that at least 99% of searchers believe that the blaze in line 13 marks the location of the chest. If Forrest was telling the truth, that just can't be. Which further shows us how Stuef's account contradicts what Forrest told us. So who do think was lying, Fenn or Stuef?

[tootingjo]

Houston, we have another problem. From the verified Jack email PDF:

The #2 answer conflicts with the damaged blaze answers where he seems to indicate it was barely recognizeable. Then he said in Six Questions he wouldn't think anyone could identify the blaze without the chest beneath it.

Here he indicates he wouldn't need a chest depression to know where it was, if someone else had found it. What about the damaged blaze? A physical blaze is something you locate. Jack says he knew where to locate it. The poem points to generally where it is, then you find it. Jack said the chest was below the blaze. If you know where the chest was, you know where the blaze was. What do you need a blaze for? Certainly we don't need it, per Jack, if we have the solve.

The blaze is either a completely irrelevant curiosity, or essential. It can't be both.

I get your point, but maybe he's talking broadly, as in confidence in his solve location? 'I knew where it was,' because the solve fits so well. He would know he was right without finding the blaze and missing chest. Just a thought, but anyone with a very clever snugly fitting 9 clues might not need the last stage to be sure.

One of these days I will put together some more questions for Jack, maybe he'll say more on the weird blaze stuff.

[Danny]

And now I'm going to alienate myself from over 99% of searchers (respectfully, hopefully). You all seem to be focused on "the blaze" in line 13 as a marker for the location of the treasure chest. To do so means you have ignored some of the things that Forrest told us.

He said the clues in the poem were consecutive and contiguous. He also said that he chose every word carefully and that at a minimum searchers needed to use every noun in the poem to solve it. If the blaze in line 13 marks the location of the chest, then there is no need to use any of the words/nouns beyond, say, line 14 of the poem. That's a whole lot of unnecessary poetry. But this completely contradicts his statements that he chose every word carefully, that the clues are consecutive/contiguous and that a person needs to use every noun in the poem to solve it.

I've yet to see anyone put forth a compelling argument to refute this very, dare I say it, "straight forward" logic. And yet I would guess that at least 99% of searchers believe that the blaze in line 13 marks the location of the chest. If Forrest was telling the truth, that just can't be. Which further shows us how Stuef's account contradicts what Forrest told us. So who do think was lying, Fenn or Stuef?

Neither, the blaze is the last clue. The rest of the poem tells you *instructions*. At least that’s how I read it

[CRM114]

And now I'm going to alienate myself from over 99% of searchers (respectfully, hopefully). You all seem to be focused on "the blaze" in line 13 as a marker for the location of the treasure chest. To do so means you have ignored some of the things that Forrest told us.

He said the clues in the poem were consecutive and contiguous. He also said that he chose every word carefully and that at a minimum searchers needed to use every noun in the poem to solve it. If the blaze in line 13 marks the location of the chest, then there is no need to use any of the words/nouns beyond, say, line 14 of the poem. That's a whole lot of unnecessary poetry. But this completely contradicts his statements that he chose every word carefully, that the clues are consecutive/contiguous and that a person needs to use every noun in the poem to solve it.

I've yet to see anyone put forth a compelling argument to refute this very, dare I say it, "straight forward" logic. And yet I would guess that at least 99% of searchers believe that the blaze in line 13 marks the location of the chest. If Forrest was telling the truth, that just can't be. Which further shows us how Stuef's account contradicts what Forrest told us. So who do think was lying, Fenn or Stuef?

Bingo and well said. Personally, I believe there is a primary blaze not at the treasure that Forrest expected you to find - it can't be damaged, it's infeasible to remove, and it explains why there's so much poetry at the end. I believe he recycled line 13, to end with a another blaze at the treasure. This can mostly solve these problems with conflicting statements. In that scenario, I don't know if Stuef is telling the truth, but he's certainly not telling the whole truth. I'd say he's misdirecting at best, from his very first communication of the fake cruel searcher made blaze.

This plants the seed of a blaze at the treasure as the one and only blaze. Forrest as a nut all whose blaze could only last a couple years before its nearly obliterated or lying about every noun is not the Forrest I knew virtually.

[Danny]

Houston, we have another problem. From the verified Jack email PDF:

The #2 answer conflicts with the damaged blaze answers where he seems to indicate it was barely recognizeable. Then he said in Six Questions he wouldn't think anyone could identify the blaze without the chest beneath it.

Here he indicates he wouldn't need a chest depression to know where it was, if someone else had found it. What about the damaged blaze? A physical blaze is something you locate. Jack says he knew where to locate it. The poem points to generally where it is, then you find it. Jack said the chest was below the blaze. If you know where the chest was, you know where the blaze was. What do you need a blaze for? Certainly we don't need it, per Jack, if we have the solve.

The blaze is either a completely irrelevant curiosity, or essential. It can't be both.

This actually can still work. Forrest said you only need to figure out all the clues to find the chest. The blaze may have been confirmation to zone in on the exact location. I can’t think of a good analogy but say if the chest was hidden in a car in a parking lot. You can find it by checking all the cars, but knowing it was in a Subaru Baja, wouldn’t certainly make the process much faster.
In this situation , you know where the chest was (the parking lot) but you aren’t entirely sure where the blaze was.

[CRM114]

I get your point, but maybe he's talking broadly, as in confidence in his solve location? 'I knew where it was,' because the solve fits so well. He would know he was right without finding the blaze and missing chest. Just a thought, but anyone with a very clever snugly fitting 9 clues might not need the last stage to be sure.

One of these days I will put together some more questions for Jack, maybe he'll say more on the weird blaze stuff.

Well, there's a big difference between general solve location and a specific spot nobody will ever stumble upon. As I've said before, searching a thick forest is a daunting task. Given Jack was at one point covered in sap, it's likely he was too. The poem would have to narrow it down. 25 days total search isn't that much time if it was brute force search, but I don't think it was, otherwise why was it spread over two years? Just go knock it out. He must have made some kind of progress to the point where he "knew where it was." It could be a section of trees. This final blaze becomes increasingly irrelevant, depending how small the area. It's nice to spot the chest directly below, but possibly completely unnecessary 8f you look hard enough - Jack said he just had to brush debris off the lid.

[Spoon]

Neither, the blaze is the last clue. The rest of the poem tells you *instructions*. At least that’s how I read it

Why would you need "instructions" if you've already taken the chest? And how is him telling us that he did it because he was "tired and weak" or any of the rest of the last 2 stanzas instructions?

[Spoon]

I believe he recycled line 13, to end with a another blaze at the treasure.

What do you mean, CRM, that he recycled line 13?

I saw much evidence to suggest that the endpoint was marked with the letter F, so I'm warm to the idea that there was a "blaze" of sorts at the treasure location. But I don't see how it can be the blaze from line 13. That seems to me like the solution would involve rearranging the poem, in which case the clues would not be consecutive/contiguous therein.

[CRM114]

This actually can still work. Forrest said you only need to figure out all the clues to find the chest. The blaze may have been confirmation to zone in on the exact location. I can’t think of a good analogy but say if the chest was hidden in a car in a parking lot. You can find it by checking all the cars, but knowing it was in a Subaru Baja, wouldn’t certainly make the process much faster.
In this situation , you know where the chest was (the parking lot) but you aren’t entirely sure where the blaze was.

OK, I like this analogy. I assume you are saying the blaze is the Subaru and the 9 clues take you to the parking lot. Jack said he knew what the blaze was in 2018. I think you are saying the blaze is irrelevant, but it saves you time, but let's look closer at what Jack said. Jack says the blaze was damaged. Let's say a fire came and made the Subaru Baja almost unrecognizable, like all the other cars. Jack can still look in all the cars, the blaze is irrelevant, as you said. Jack has also said he didn't think anyone else could figure out the blaze, without the treasure there. We can't come after the fact and identify the Subaru without confirming the treasure is in the backseat. That's fair. Unfortunately, he also says if someone else had found it, he would not need the treasure imprint in the backseat to know where it was. This is a conflict.

Either way, the blaze is irrelevant, we too must be able to identify the burned out Subaru simply by being able to figure out where it was (is?) . If we're lucky, maybe the imprint is still there, but we don't need it.

[Leaf Blazeikson]

Forrest was much more subtle in all his hints than to print the word tree and then associate some hint with it. I doubt you will find anything like that for rocks, either. He wanted people to think and research, imo. I posted what I think are hints to a tree a few posts back. Note how these are not direct, but separated by a link or two. Example: the Hemingway Bell Tolls aberration. You actually have to go to that book and do research, but a character creates a blaze on a tree. Forrest said to look for aberrations. The novel begins and ends with the protagonist in the trees at the edge of a forest. He dies there, like Forrest implied he wanted to. The hints are subtle, but reinforce each other, imo.

I'm glad you get this. He used hints as secondary allusions. He never gave entire ideas like the type of tree in one view- not in hints. He gave that tree in a CLUE, which is why a clue is always more important than a hint in any particular area of the solve.

[CRM114]

What do you mean, CRM, that he recycled line 13?

I saw much evidence to suggest that the endpoint was marked with the letter F, so I'm warm to the idea that there was a "blaze" of sorts at the treasure location. But I don't see how it can be the blaze from line 13. That seems to me like the solution would involve rearranging the poem, in which case the clues would not be consecutive/contiguous therein.

Sorry, I wasn't clear. I simply mean he rycycled the poetry. At each blaze, you look quickly down. Both the blaze and the down can mean completely different things. I think he did this a lot. I believe ever drawing nigh means go left, but the ever indicates you keep doing it at every fork. He loves double entendres, similar trick, imo.

As far as consequtive, I don't believe the final blaze is a clue, so it's still consequtive. Title to the gold can be clue 9, for example, but you can still find a hint to a final blaze Jack talks about. It should be obvious what look quickly down means at that point.

[tootingjo]

And now I'm going to alienate myself from over 99% of searchers (respectfully, hopefully). You all seem to be focused on "the blaze" in line 13 as a marker for the location of the treasure chest. To do so means you have ignored some of the things that Forrest told us.

He said the clues in the poem were consecutive and contiguous. He also said that he chose every word carefully and that at a minimum searchers needed to use every noun in the poem to solve it. If the blaze in line 13 marks the location of the chest, then there is no need to use any of the words/nouns beyond, say, line 14 of the poem. That's a whole lot of unnecessary poetry. But this completely contradicts his statements that he chose every word carefully, that the clues are consecutive/contiguous and that a person needs to use every noun in the poem to solve it.

I've yet to see anyone put forth a compelling argument to refute this very, dare I say it, "straight forward" logic. And yet I would guess that at least 99% of searchers believe that the blaze in line 13 marks the location of the chest. If Forrest was telling the truth, that just can't be. Which further shows us how Stuef's account contradicts what Forrest told us. So who do think was lying, Fenn or Stuef?

But we're only trying to work out the blaze based on new information. I'm sure that it would be impossible to go straight to the blaze and bypass the rest of the clues in the way Forrest designed this. And it would be perfectly sensible to have a clue to the blaze that needs the rest of the poem solved too.

It may just be possible to get to the blaze without the rest now we know a bit about it. Eg. It can be damaged, but it's also not feasible to remove, it was damaged in a sudden natural incident, there is one hint to it in the book. And, of course, it's in a pine forest in Wyoming.

It's probably still impossible to work it out this way, but it's quite fun trying.

[Redneck Girl]

I dunno, your tree/lightning idea still fits. Some trees grow back, but I see many that just stand there charred and dead until they eventually fall over and rot away.

Jack said that it was not the sort of thing that would "grow back" into a blaze. Say for example that the blaze was a Spruce in the middle of a Lodgepole pine forest. If the tree got hit by lightning and died there would still be pine cone seeds lying on the ground nearby that had the potential of growing back into a new Spruce tree.

[Spoon]

Well I like your take on ever nigh meaning always turn left, CRM - an interesting interpretation. As for the final blaze concept, that seems a bit tortured to me, but maybe I still don't completely understand you.

Let's consider it another way in which I think we will agree: Stuef said that the poem was "straightforward" and that the words mean what they appear to mean (paraphrased). If that were true, then there would be no reason, because the clues are consecutive, to continue reading beyond line 16. So Stuef's explanation contradicts Fenn's words, right?

[Spoon]

The point, tootingjo, is that I am challenging the veracity of Jack Stuef's explanations to date. What I'm saying is that we don't know those things you refer to because they contradict the author's explicit directions. As Goldilocks so eloquently put it in another post, give me one good reason why the someone would photoshop a picture of the chest AFTER it was found.