Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Turquoise Bracelet Metadata

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

  • #46
    It's all about as clear as mud, isn't it?

    I agree with RahRah , there may be more than one thing hidden.

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by Zapster View Post

      He has written that phrase twice. He has also repeated an interesting variant in the 2019 Six Questions:

      MW Six Questions (2/4/2019) Q3: “There are so many truly unique artifacts placed in the treasure chest. Each holds a beautiful story that keeps getting longer. As these treasures continue to endure the passing of time, what do you imagine they are experiencing? Do you feel the conditions have been harsh or kind?”

      Forrest: “I have not been back to the treasure chest since I hid it more than 8 years ago. Perhaps the artifacts are enjoying each other’s company as they patiently listen for the clomp of a boot.”

      MW Six Questions (2/4/2019) Q4: “Many searchers feel they are battling minds with you, as if they are playing a chess game to win the Chest. Do you see your treasure hunt as a competition between you and us, or do you feel that your job in writing the poem was actually as an ally – to help us find your treasure? Why do you think no one has been able to say ‘Check Mate Forrest Fenn’?”

      Forrest: “Several dozen hunters have already claimed to possess the treasure but none could tell me the correct hiding place or send me photos. The treasure chest is still in the Rocky Mountains where I hid it more than 8 years ago. All of the video makers and bloggers who have presented entertaining evidence to the contrary, are mistaken.

      "The poem was written to assist all searchers. In my mind, studying the clues is tantamount to using a road map to get from one place to another."


      So, prior to 2/4/2011 is consistent with a Summer 2010 hiding date, which agrees with his written deposition. But claiming "more than ten years ago" in March 2020 requires a Summer 2009 hiding date.

      He also said it here. If you had hid the chest, would you mistakenly give several different dates over a ten year span? I highly doubt it. Anyone would know exactly when they hid it, down to the hour.
      Click image for larger version  Name:	ten year ago.JPG Views:	24 Size:	48.6 KB ID:	272221
      Last edited by OH!!; 04-07-2021, 05:55 PM.
      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!"

      Comment


      • #48
        Forrest used "more than 10 years ago" in his June 6th statement, in his updated statement on July 22nd he said "10 years since I left it there", Shiloh's statement said "over 10 years ago" and in Jack's disclosure of his identity statement he said "10 years ago". In F's 1st declaration he said "about 10 years ago" in his supplemental declaration he said, "On October 25, 2010, after hiding the chest.." Long story short, could "about 10 years" to one person mean about 10 years and to another mean about 50 years? To an ant a mud puddle can be like an ocean.

        Comment


        • #49
          You remember poignant things in your life, it’s how the brain works. A car accident for instance. I’ve been in a few and I remember those in vivid detail. I remember my wedding day in slow mo, each hour of having kids. I remember each treasure hunt when I prayed to not be devoured by a bear.

          My point: he would remember. He lied. Didn’t he also say he didn’t ever use photoshop? He lied then too.

          He did something outrageous with this hunt and I think people are starting to figure it out. The images are obviously important.

          Comment


          • #50
            (Online EXIF description)
            EXIF

            EXIF is automatically added to photos by virtually every digital camera, mobile phone, and some scanners. EXIF includes details such as the exact date and time the photograph was taken, the digital camera manufacturer, model, and unique serial number, the camera settings, and the location (if GPS-enabled camera was used). Furthermore, EXIF typically contains a thumbnail of the photo in the file, and many image manipulation software fail to update this thumbnail when the original image is modified. So even if the image was cropped, or otherwise modified to hide certain parts in it, the removed parts may still be visible in the thumbnail.


            Click image for larger version  Name:	EXIF.JPG Views:	0 Size:	30.6 KB ID:	272898

            EXIF is Camera data only and nothing else. The data on the turquoise bracelet is scientifically correct and cannot be denied. The thumbnail evidence proves this, as there are two thumbnail photos included in the metadata. The thread beginning shows two thumbnail photos. One is EXIF and one is Photoshop. The EXIF reveals the date of 8/23/2010 in the hex code.

            This is the Foreword from Douglas Preston in the book, OUAW.

            As the years went by, I visited Forrest many times and saw the
            treasure in his vault. He often took things out and put other things
            in; he removed the currency, fearing it might rot; and he swapped out
            some of the gems for more gold coins and ancient Chinese jade faces.
            He also took out the IOU, he said, "because I thought my bank might
            not still be there when the chest was found." He had worked out a
            better way, he told me, to know when the treasure is discovered, but
            he has not shared that secret with me.
            And then finally, one lovely summer day in August 2010, I visited
            him and he brought me into the vault. The chest was gone! "I finally ·
            hid it," he said. He was about to turn eighty years old
            and still in
            excellent health with no sign of cancer, and he decided to stop waiting
            and hide the chest now. This way was better, because he would be
            around to appreciate and enjoy the ensuing hunt.


            The book reads that it was August, 2010, just as the metadata does, but he was not 80 years old yet. This means that Douglas Preston visited him before August 22, 2010. The metadata reads August 23rd, 2010. A day after Forrest turned 80. It is a solid fact that the bracelet was not in the chest.

            Turquoise Bracelet EXIF. (as seen in above initial thread)
            Click image for larger version

Name:	Fenn-Bracelet-in-Treasure-Chest - Copy.jpg
Views:	133
Size:	18.4 KB
ID:	272924

            Click image for larger version  Name:	bracelet.JPG Views:	0 Size:	26.5 KB ID:	272896

            So, what about this photo? Exhibit A.
            Click image for larger version  Name:	A--Bracelet.jpg Views:	0 Size:	399.3 KB ID:	272897
            There is a huge bottom line here that holds steadfast information that cannot be denied.
            There will also be another professional to back this up on Monday. He is the owner/creator of a metadata website.
            Last edited by OH!!; 04-10-2021, 09:02 AM.
            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!"

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by OH!! View Post
              (Online EXIF description)
              EXIF

              EXIF is automatically added to photos by virtually every digital camera, mobile phone, and some scanners. EXIF includes details such as the exact date and time the photograph was taken, the digital camera manufacturer, model, and unique serial number, the camera settings, and the location (if GPS-enabled camera was used). Furthermore, EXIF typically contains a thumbnail of the photo in the file, and many image manipulation software fail to update this thumbnail when the original image is modified. So even if the image was cropped, or otherwise modified to hide certain parts in it, the removed parts may still be visible in the thumbnail.


              Click image for larger version Name:	EXIF.JPG Views:	0 Size:	30.6 KB ID:	272898

              EXIF is Camera data only and nothing else. The data on the turquoise bracelet is scientifically correct and cannot be denied. The thumbnail evidence proves this, as there are two thumbnail photos included in the metadata. The thread beginning shows two thumbnail photos. One is EXIF and one is Photoshop. The EXIF reveals the date of 8/23/2010 in the hex code.

              This is the Foreword from Douglas Preston in the book, OUAW.


              As the years went by, I visited Forrest many times and saw the
              treasure in his vault. He often took things out and put other things
              in; he removed the currency, fearing it might rot; and he swapped out
              some of the gems for more gold coins and ancient Chinese jade faces.
              He also took out the IOU, he said, "because I thought my bank might
              not still be there when the chest was found." He had worked out a
              better way, he told me, to know when the treasure is discovered, but
              he has not shared that secret with me.
              And then finally, one lovely summer day in August 2010, I visited
              him and he brought me into the vault. The chest was gone! "I finally ·
              hid it," he said. He was about to turn eighty years old
              and still in
              excellent health with no sign of cancer, and he decided to stop waiting
              and hide the chest now. This way was better, because he would be
              around to appreciate and enjoy the ensuing hunt.


              The book reads that it was August, 2010, just as the metadata does, but he was not 80 years old yet. This means that Douglas Preston visited him before August 22, 2010. The metadata reads August 23rd, 2010. A day after Forrest turned 80. It is a solid fact that the bracelet was not in the chest.

              Turquoise Bracelet EXIF. (as seen in above initial thread)

              Click image for larger version  Name:	Fenn-Bracelet-in-Treasure-Chest - Copy.jpg Views:	7 Size:	18.4 KB ID:	272924

              Click image for larger version Name:	bracelet.JPG Views:	0 Size:	26.5 KB ID:	272896

              So, what about this photo? Exhibit A. It 100% makes this photo fake with no ifs, ands or but's about it.
              Click image for larger version Name:	A--Bracelet.jpg Views:	0 Size:	399.3 KB ID:	272897
              There is a huge bottom line here that holds steadfast information that cannot be denied.
              There will also be another professional to back this up on Monday. He is the owner/creator of a metadata website.
              Here is another to add to EXIF learning. The bracelet photo was 100% taken after the chest was hidden.
              SORRY FOLKS, BUT THIS IS FOR REAL.
              Click image for larger version  Name:	exif learn.JPG Views:	0 Size:	95.3 KB ID:	272968
              Last edited by OH!!; 04-10-2021, 10:00 AM.
              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!"

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by OH!! View Post

                Here is another to add to EXIF learning. The bracelet photo was 100% taken after the chest was hidden.
                SORRY FOLKS, BUT THIS IS FOR REAL.
                Click image for larger version Name:	exif learn.JPG Views:	0 Size:	95.3 KB ID:	272968
                OH!! It is interesting to see that your research shows that the bracelet was not in the chest.
                In my following of the puzzle from the beginning it is self evident that it was the SILVER BRACELET we were seeking from the very start. Forrest makes that very clear in his use of the number 17, (1 = A and 7 = G) which together are 'AG' which is SILVER in the periodic table of elements.
                It first reveals itself in the title of Forrest's book 'SEVENTEEN Dollars a Square Inch' which is also the first time the two Omegas are used.
                Then immediately inside the cover of 'TTOTC' we have the anomaly of 17 used in Forrest's ID CARD.
                Next in the chapter 'Surviving Myself' Forrest blatantly shows two photos, 'Skippy and SILVER' and 'June and SILVER' but no Forrest and Silver. Of course we assume that 'SILVER' is the name of the pony, and yet the pony is not mentioned at all in the story text.

                Then in the chapter called 'Looking for Lewis and Clark' Forrest mentions the name of his horse called 'LIGHTNING' which has a direct link to the Silver Bracelet, as it has the Native American symbol for 'Lightning' engraved around it.

                SILVER
                also appears in other guises as the Atomic number 47 as you progress through the puzzle.

                The most telling piece of evidence for me was in the found chest photo trio. Here Forrest singles out the Silver Bracelet as shown on his wrist in Photo 2 with the quote:
                "The bracelet was wet when found" when clearly you can see from the chest photo itself that its contents were not wet at all. This is a huge anomaly.
                It does suggest that the Bracelet itself was buried independently from the chest, at a place where it definitely was WET.

                The whole puzzle was designed to lead you to the Silver Bracelet all along, this was how Forrest could be so sure the chest was still where he left it.
                When the bracelet was found it was the title to the Gold. Upon informing Forrest of this fact the whereabouts of the chest itself would be made known to the finder. A very clever system that protected the wealth of the chest itself.

                I have posted this theory many times on the forum, sadly it was always met with disbelief. It is still my firm belief today.

                Comment


                • #53
                  A lot of assumptions here basically centered on the idea that Forrest wasn't aware of metadata. He could have set the camera date to a different day. He could have acrually hidden the chest the last week of August 2010 or later. He could have changed the EXIF data himself. He did not want anyone to know the exact date he hid the chest (though Peggy apparently did figure it out to within a 2 week period) so it can't be presumed that any of these actions, or waffling about the number of years since hiding it, had any nefarious intent besides trying to keep the hiding date somewhat nebulous.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by Blazingwaddles View Post
                    A lot of assumptions here basically centered on the idea that Forrest wasn't aware of metadata. He could have set the camera date to a different day. He could have acrually hidden the chest the last week of August 2010 or later. He could have changed the EXIF data himself. He did not want anyone to know the exact date he hid the chest (though Peggy apparently did figure it out to within a 2 week period) so it can't be presumed that any of these actions, or waffling about the number of years since hiding it, had any nefarious intent besides trying to keep the hiding date somewhat nebulous.
                    You are basing an assumption on one photo, when I am basing it on over 300. I have been working on this timeline, off and on for about 8 months. One photo close in period and time, tells me that his camera date is correct. He has changed EXIF data and I have found this. There is hidden hex data inside every photo and this also reveals date and times, so all that need to be done is compare the two.
                    There is much more to it than reading EXIF. A group of four numbers gives me the camera, and the numbers left and right of those four numbers gives me a date and time, etc.
                    You've also misread the OUAW comment.
                    Last edited by OH!!; 04-10-2021, 02:43 PM.
                    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!"

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by OH!! View Post

                      You are basing an assumption on one photo, when I am basing it on over 300. I have been working on this timeline, off and on for about 8 months. One photo close in period and time, tells me that his camera date is correct. He has changed EXIF data and I have found this. There is hidden hex data inside every photo and this also reveals date and times, so all that need to be done is compare the two.
                      There is much more to it than reading EXIF. A group of four numbers gives me the camera, and the numbers left and right of those four numbers gives me a date and time, etc.
                      You've also misread the OUAW comment.
                      I'm basing it on what you have stated. If you have these corroborating pieces then you should document them. I don't think we can assume 100% that Doug stated a precise timeline that would reveal when the chest was hidden especially after Forrest has obfuscated to such an extent. There is nothing to mislead a searcher if he simply obfuscated once again when he talked to Doug. And same with the lady from 2010. That would have been sloppy and we don't find that sort of sloppiness elsewhere in his planning or management of the chase.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X