Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Scrapbook 158

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by OH!! View Post
    This is very alarming!
    Scrapbook 158: This scrapbook has been edited by Dal, because the words "hard drive" have been removed.
    Click image for larger version Name:	SB158.JPG Views:	0 Size:	105.7 KB ID:	272180

    An old forgotten photo on a laptop hard drive. I already know for 100% certain that this photo has been manipulated to a great extent.
    But to find what I found today makes me furious. This is the first time I have ran across metadata like this and it even tells you the version of metadata editing software that was used.
    What Forrest has done, is to cover up when this photo was taken by manipulating the date it was taken. It didn't come from an old laptop hard-drive.
    I have 30 or 40 photo files where Forrest uses his camera and then immediately plugs it in to his computer and places it into photoshop. I can show these if you are interested.
    Forrest used Photo meta edit 2.1.7 to make the date 1887. It is obvious by the time it was put on the computer that it was 4 minutes later. This was a huge attempt to cover up the date.
    Why????????????? I truly hate to find proof like this of deceit, but this is exactly what you are viewing. This is not looking good at all as far as: Was the chest really out in the wilderness! As much investigating as I do on Forrest Fenn, this is my saddest day ever! I have literally found over 50 things today thru metadata that makes this day dreary. I wish it wasn't raining, I'd be working and would of never came across all of this.
    Click image for larger version Name:	old-photo-of-chest.jpg Views:	0 Size:	585.2 KB ID:	272181
    OH. Before getting to let down over the find, and seeing only deceit, consider the possibility of this.
    The 2016 date was the transfer time as the info states. But that doesn’t necessarily mean the 1887 date was that.
    Then ask yourself do you really think that whoever manipulated The photos didn’t know that someone would figure that out. So then why. Hints is my thought. 1887 says more then just 24 and just more evidence to the solve.
    Keep up the good work.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Knot Sure View Post

      OH. Before getting to let down over the find, and seeing only deceit, consider the possibility of this.
      The 2016 date was the transfer time as the info states. But that doesn’t necessarily mean the 1887 date was that.
      Then ask yourself do you really think that whoever manipulated The photos didn’t know that someone would figure that out. So then why. Hints is my thought. 1887 says more then just 24 and just more evidence to the solve.
      Keep up the good work.
      Ahhg, what else could it mean?

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Knot Sure View Post

        OH. Before getting to let down over the find, and seeing only deceit, consider the possibility of this.
        The 2016 date was the transfer time as the info states. But that doesn’t necessarily mean the 1887 date was that.
        Then ask yourself do you really think that whoever manipulated The photos didn’t know that someone would figure that out. So then why. Hints is my thought. 1887 says more then just 24 and just more evidence to the solve.
        Keep up the good work.
        Being that a metadata software editor was purposely used to edit the date, this had to be the intention from the start. Think about it. The story is about a photo of the chest in an old laptop. Why would a person purposely change the date then? There is only one answer here and that is the photo is not from an old laptop. This makes the story one the biggest embellishments to date. There is no getting around this in my opinion. Now the question is, why? Why would Forrest do this? He must of figured that no one would dig deep into the photos, because everybody is concentrating on finding the chest.
        April fools day of 1887 is like saying ha-ha, the joke is on you in my opinion. This is not good at all and this particular finding will grow wings. There is no doubt in my mind that it was done to cover up the real date. In a couple years down the road, there will be more and more like this coming out. It is just now beginning to bloom. I know many do not want to go down this avenue and that is probably 90 percent of us. We all try and write it off in another possible direction to try and avoid what just might be. Even I do this, but the more I learn, the clearer the big pictures becomes.
        A good forger attempts to deceive the naked human eye.
        It's part of the challenge in the game he plays.

        Deceiving science when it is done thru guidelines and in expert hands is however, practically impossible!"

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Knot Sure View Post

          OH. Before getting to let down over the find, and seeing only deceit, consider the possibility of this.
          The 2016 date was the transfer time as the info states. But that doesn’t necessarily mean the 1887 date was that.
          Then ask yourself do you really think that whoever manipulated The photos didn’t know that someone would figure that out. So then why. Hints is my thought. 1887 says more then just 24 and just more evidence to the solve.
          Keep up the good work.
          Good thinking Knot Sure. Fenn was clever, and I highly doubt he would be careless like that if intentionally trying to deceive (which I also don’t buy). I’m gonna look closely at my solve for any connection (I.e. hints).
          Last edited by elperro; 04-07-2021, 10:06 PM.

          Comment


          • #20
            2016 - 1887 = 129
            Page 129 in TTOTC is in "Gold And More", and it's where Forrest tells about getting the idea for the treasure chest, and buying the chest.
            And of course, this SB is about the contents of this chest.
            I'm wondering if this is a hint about how to figure out (some) hints in the books.
            Comparing the mistakes with the correct version to find a page to check?

            Side note:
            This is where Forrest tells the date of the chest.
            "An excited antique scholar said the chest was probably a Romanesque Lock Box that dated to about 1150 AD."
            That "AD" should be A.D., so if we go by the "hear me all" hint then maybe that's a hint to add 1150 to some number? This fits with my subtraction above.

            Secondly, it just hit me that if the Chest was a copy (like we know there were many) of an original from 1150, did he really say that wrong?
            If it were a copy of a painting, and I said "It's a Eric Sloane painting from whateverdate", since we both know it's a copy, is that wrong?


            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Knot Sure View Post

              OH. Before getting to let down over the find, and seeing only deceit, consider the possibility of this.
              The 2016 date was the transfer time as the info states. But that doesn’t necessarily mean the 1887 date was that.
              Then ask yourself do you really think that whoever manipulated The photos didn’t know that someone would figure that out. So then why. Hints is my thought. 1887 says more then just 24 and just more evidence to the solve.
              Keep up the good work.
              Georgia O’Keeffe was born that year. 1887 is also 100 years before Forrest’s father died. Forrest always said he felt like he was born 100 years too late.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by FenndersKeepers View Post

                Georgia O’Keeffe was born that year. 1887 is also 100 years before Forrest’s father died. Forrest always said he felt like he was born 100 years too late.
                Also in that year, the town of Sundance was incorporated.

                Comment


                • #23
                  OH, first of all I’m a big fan, I’ve been following you for years.. I’ve been part of this hunt since 2012. What you have found are breadcrumbs that f left behind IMO. I’ve have not posted ever on this forum but I think I have some helpful information that can shed some light on the chase. What you uncovered is a wide spreed IMO.

                  what do any of you make of,

                  knowlege and dollars

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Dollers

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by 4242 View Post
                      Dollers
                      As far as "Dollers" The A was switched out for an E. Dollar cabin is ten feet from AE's cabin. (Amelia Earhart) Amelia always signed her name AE.
                      I never had anything for knowlege. Know ledge was all I thought.

                      Last edited by OH!!; 04-08-2021, 05:23 AM.
                      A good forger attempts to deceive the naked human eye.
                      It's part of the challenge in the game he plays.

                      Deceiving science when it is done thru guidelines and in expert hands is however, practically impossible!"

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by 4242 View Post
                        OH, first of all I’m a big fan, I’ve been following you for years.. I’ve been part of this hunt since 2012. What you have found are breadcrumbs that f left behind IMO. I’ve have not posted ever on this forum but I think I have some helpful information that can shed some light on the chase. What you uncovered is a wide spreed IMO.

                        what do any of you make of,

                        knowlege and dollars
                        Hey 4242, It is always good to hear from someone who only reads. I am sure you have neat things to share after all of that time.
                        A good forger attempts to deceive the naked human eye.
                        It's part of the challenge in the game he plays.

                        Deceiving science when it is done thru guidelines and in expert hands is however, practically impossible!"

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by 4242 View Post
                          Dollers
                          I think I know your brother 4242? Isn't his name 2424? I've been studying Stufe Algebra lately and field theory. Very abstract math, I must admit. It's really challenging my ability to think logically. But, that's the great thing about this whole hunt, logically thinking people who lack imagination only have half the picture.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by 4242 View Post
                            OH, first of all I’m a big fan, I’ve been following you for years.. I’ve been part of this hunt since 2012. What you have found are breadcrumbs that f left behind IMO. I’ve have not posted ever on this forum but I think I have some helpful information that can shed some light on the chase. What you uncovered is a wide spreed IMO.

                            what do any of you make of,

                            knowlege and dollars
                            I completely agree with wide spread of breadcrumbs. Sometimes though, if you stop looking at the individual breadcrumbs and zoom out to study the pattern of the wide spread, the bigger picture comes into focus. It's a lot like those images that are double image illusions. One person sees an old lady and another sees a beautiful woman. I also like to think of it like Pointillism art. I still remember the first time I saw Seurat's masterpiece "Sunday Afternoon" at the Chicago Museum of Art back in 1987. I stood there for what seemed like hours staring at all the little dots of paint and then would take several steps back to see the bigger picture and then step in until all I could see again were dots. That's how breadcrumbs are. Upclose, it's just a breadcrumb. Stepping back, the bigger picture emerges.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              “I never metadata I didn’t like”. Was that OH or Will Rogers who said that? Good sleuthing OH. I admire your work.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                There are some benefits when searching Forrest Fenn's metadata. You might get arrested, but you can go visit Suzanne Somers tub. It is right beside hot water. (A story added to OUAW)
                                Click image for larger version  Name:	Suzanne-Somers.jpg Views:	0 Size:	1.19 MB ID:	272379
                                Last edited by OH!!; 04-08-2021, 08:19 AM.
                                A good forger attempts to deceive the naked human eye.
                                It's part of the challenge in the game he plays.

                                Deceiving science when it is done thru guidelines and in expert hands is however, practically impossible!"

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X