No announcement yet.

Was the Damaged Blaze a Lie?

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Was the Damaged Blaze a Lie?

    Did Jack say the blaze was damaged/destroyed because he really just found the chest by brute force after figuring out the general area?
    Other than his word do we have any confirmation from Forrest that the blaze was damaged?
    Forrest said it wouldn't be feasible to destroy the blaze.

  • #2
    Feasible-possible to do easily or conveniently

    -likely; probable

    I wonder if rewording the word “feasible” would change our understanding of what Forrest said?

    Although not likely or does leave open the possibility of it being damaged.
    Last edited by DanNun; 03-02-2021, 01:30 AM.


    • #3
      Damage and destroy are not exactly the same thing.

      I believe what he said, it was damaged.


      • #4
        Originally posted by Space Hopper View Post
        Damage and destroy are not exactly the same thing.

        I believe what he said, it was damaged.
        You’re right, I stand corrected.


        • #5
          Originally posted by Space Hopper View Post
          Damage and destroy are not exactly the same thing.

          I believe what he said, it was damaged.
          You take damage to an airplane, but you destroy an entire pizza.
          If it happens the other way around you might be in some serious trouble.


          • #6
            The damaged blaze story is most certainly in parts a lie:

            "Stanners, I think my issue in 2018 was I didn't know what blaze I was looking for and I wasn't systematic enough. I fixed those before the 2019 search season, but the limiting factor after was deciding that, because I couldn't find the blaze I was looking for, forces of nature had probably damaged or destroyed it at some point before I got there."


            In this quote, his reasoning is that, since he has not found the blaze, it must have been damaged; according to him, it was not the surroundings that gave away that the blaze was probably damage, but merely the fact that he could not find it (I don't have to point out how poor this reasoning is).
            It is important to point out that he has statet various times that he was looking for the blaze inside a forest, which implies that the blaze was inside that forest, as well. There are only so many ways forces of nature could have damaged a blaze inside a forest: The two most reasonable scenarios are either a heavy storm or a lightning strike. If it would have been the first, then the environment would have shown signs of it, which would have opened up the possibility to reasonably conclude that the blaze was damaged; Jacks statment excludes that option, though. The alternative, a lightning strike is also more in tune with what he mentioned in other emails:

            Q: "Was the natural damage that the blaze suffered something that occured slowely [...] or rather suddenly [...]?"
            Jack: "Suddenly"


            Accoring to these quotes, a lightning strike seems to be the most reasonable explanation for the damage; most other forces by nature would have left a clear marking on the entire surrounding. I struggle to come up with any better explanation than a lightning strike. Now, encountering a lightning hit something (I am strongly leaning towards a tree) inside a forest does not happen on a regular basis. These are rare events and most often leave very distinguishable "scars" behind. However, Jack implies that there was nothing that caught his eye in 2019, even though he already "knew" what the blaze was. Instead he goes on with

            "My strategy on the trip when I found it was to try to imagine how the blaze could have been damaged (knowing what I knew about that location) and to try to find that."

            In case it was a lightning strike, which his writings seem to imply, then this statement makes absolutely no sense. Now he is taking the surroudings as point of reference to estimate how the blaze was damaged, whereas earlier his statement implies that there was nothing to "read" in the environment which would hint at fact that it was damaged. These subtle logical contradictions are very indicative for a story that was fabricated, but designed with the intend to make it sound reasonable. Typical movie plot holes work the same way.
            It is also astonishing how often he mentions the "blaze was damaged" story. For instance, in the 6Q interview ( he mentioned it alreade three times before the actual question about the damaged blaze came up; keep in mind that he probably got all the six questions beforehand, so he knew that there was one that would adress the damaged blaze part. He considered it important to mention it anyways three times priorly; it seems he really wants this part to be believed. Based on this and other things he said, I consider the possibility that his story following the second trip in 2019 might be heavily fabricated.
            Last edited by rimsbrock; 03-02-2021, 06:19 AM.


            • #7
              I believe the damaged blaze story has a reason but I don't know what it is.

              Also...didn't he say in his first writings that it was damaged by another searcher? (I'm at work and can't get to the Medium site.)


              • #8
                Jack thought the fake blaze was the real blaze in 2019. In my opinion, the fake blaze must be identical to the real blaze, or he would have left the area. For a searcher to create a fake blaze, there are only a few things he could do. A pile of rocks, chisel into a stone, take a knife to a tree. A searcher would be limited to what he has on hand in order to create a blaze. Any of these blazes are feasible to remove. A foot kicking to the rocks, a boulder toss to a chiseled rock, A hatchet to a knifed tree. Can you think of any other blaze a searcher could make that isn't feasible to remove? This would be your answer in my opinion. A searcher created a blaze that fooled Jack, so obviously these blazes are the same. Jack just forgot about the feasible comment.
                A good forger attempts to deceive the naked human eye.
                It's part of the challenge in the game he plays.

                Deceiving science in expert hands is however, practically impossible!"


                • #9
                  I have a blaze which I have not yet seen but it fits all of the criteria set forth by Forrest... I was able to identify it by the clues in the poem and hints in the book... I have no reason to believe that Jack couldn't have done the same thing....
                  As far as it's being damaged goes... That's quite possible.... One small, well placed earthquake would do the trick.... It could be damaged beyond recognition and unable to be repaired.... Remember Jack's answer when asked if he had tried to repair it? "I wasn't powerful enough"..... It's not something that Forrest created but something that has likely been there for a very long time and Forrest had no reason to believe that it wouldn't be there for many hundreds of years to come....
                  That being said, The clues lead me directly to my blaze... Even if I were to find it completely destroyed I could still identify the site where it had once been...
                  Jack's fixation on the damage to the blaze would seem to serve one of two possible purposes..... either it is a message to the solver that they are not going to find what they expect to find at the site or it is an attempt to dissuade other searchers from going to look for something that they would never be able to find... Or possibly both.
                  I don't know how Jack could have determined that he was looking for a damaged blaze.... That level of confidence without having solved all of the clues would seem unfeasible.... If he in fact had solved all of the clues he wouldn't have had to search for the blaze as the clues will lead you right to it... Without ambiguity.... he might have realized that it wasn't there once he arrived at the site but he should quickly have been able to surmise what had happened and where to look for the chest... If he solved all but the last couple of clues he might have been forced to conduct an extensive search but, in this case, he shouldn't have been able to ascertain that the blaze had been damaged before finding it...
                  This, of course, is all conjecture based upon my interpretation of the clues and hints.... But it all fits nicely.... There's Just something "fishy" about Jack's answers....
                  As for the "fake" blaze, that's there too.... But it had nothing to do with the real one and doesn't resemble it in any way.... And it's a little more than 1000 feet away..... More like 2,000 or even 2,500...
                  Last edited by Sal O'mander; 03-02-2021, 08:48 AM.


                  • #10
                    The blaze would have been damaged during the time/date “Supposed Jack” was there, if he was there?
                    Wisdom would tell him it was already damaged. 25 days is not a long time to search. I myself made 25 trips to the same area trying to align the clues and pinpoint them definitely took BOTG searching, at least in my spot and within my search area. Everyones areas of searching has many objects that appear to follow Fenns poem. Poetry like music has meaning but interpretation varies depending on ones upbringing, education and life experiences. I love to go to “song meanings” and see what others think a particular song means. Lots of diversity being that we are a diverse population. Only Fenn knows the meaning and Jack never asked the question. Greed can make a man careless.


                    • #11
                      Why would a blaze get damaged? Because it got cracked. Are you feeling CODE-y yet?


                      • #12
                        The blaze is now full of contradictions galore.

                        Forrest said it was infeasible to remove, and you had to be wise to find it. Jack says the chest was beneath the blaze. Forrest said he set the chest on the ground. What, then, was the purpose of the blaze? This paradox is easily resolved by having the blaze be a mark on a map that you have to be wise to find, and you'll never find the treasure without it, even if the treasure is right "below" it on the ground.

                        Jack says the blaze was damaged, though, which he determined it must be after brute force search failed. He implied he only knew it was the blaze because the chest was beneath it. It doesn't take wisdom to find, even if undamaged. Yet Jack says he wouldn't need a chest sized depression to know where the chest was had it not been him that found it. What good is the blaze, then?

                        At a minimum, he's not telling the whole story while being overly talkative about the blaze.
                        You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink.


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by CRM114 View Post
                          What good is the blaze, then?
                          At a minimum, he's not telling the whole story while being overly talkative about the blaze.
                          Let's rearrange that: what is a good blaze then?
                          Yes, something seeming like a BLAZE got Jack all bent. I already know the entire story. Everyone: take as long as you need.


                          • #14
                            My summary: Any mention of blaze by Jack, FAKE or REAL = FAKE NEWS --ignore the entirety of anything 'he' writes !


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by UNtitleD Brave View Post
                              My summary: Any mention of blaze by Jack, FAKE or REAL = FAKE NEWS --ignore the entirety of anything 'he' writes !
                              I'm not ignoring it. When Jack mentioned blaze - it was something bothering him pertaining to a person cracking the blaze code. That is pretty much it about the psychology of Jack being butthurt about the blaze(person).