Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Forrest's Slip Up - Chasing Indy is Right

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

  • #91
    Originally posted by Cary_Galloway View Post

    So take that rock and spin a 500 foot radius around it and the area across the river is your search area.
    I think that's a pretty good idea.

    I also think Forrest tried to help us when he told us there was someone within 200 feet of the treasure, and then he said he thought that the 200 foot figure was pretty accurate. I always wondered how he knew that. But the answer could easily be that when someone is walking along a known landmark, Forrest already knew how far the treasure was from that known landmark. In this case, if someone was walking along the south river bank, Forrest may have instantly known they were 200 feet away (pretty accurately in his words) because he put the treasure 200 feet up the creek, or in the forest. So I have marked a line that is 200 feet from the bank of the river. If this theory is correct, the treasure would have been somewhere on this line:

    Click image for larger version  Name:	5 Treasure Spot 9 Mile.JPG Views:	0 Size:	679.1 KB ID:	281865
    Last edited by Must Listengood; 05-01-2021, 08:46 PM.

    Comment


    • #92
      Originally posted by Must Listengood View Post

      I think that's a pretty good idea.

      I also think Forrest tried to help us when he told us there was someone within 200 feet of the treasure, and then he said he thought that the 200 foot figure was pretty accurate. I always wondered how he knew that. But the answer could easily be that when someone is walking along a known landmark, Forrest already knew how far the treasure was from that known landmark. In this case, if someone was walking along the south river bank, Forrest may have instantly known they were 200 feet away (pretty accurately in his words) because he put the treasure 200 feet up the creek, or in the forest. So I have marked a line that is 200 feet from the bank of the river. If this theory is correct, the treasure would have been somewhere on this line:

      Click image for larger version Name:	5 Treasure Spot 9 Mile.JPG Views:	0 Size:	679.1 KB ID:	281865
      Nice thanks for the image and measurements.
      Makes sorta a football sized search area like Jack was talking about. But I guess many 200 foot closest searcher lines could.

      Comment


      • #93
        Originally posted by Old Pilot View Post

        It seems like you've got a good brain.
        Thanks, OP. Can I call you OP? I enjoy hearing your thoughts and believe you, too, have a good brain.
        "Keep away from people who try to belittle your ambitions. Small people always do that, but the really great make you feel that you, too, can become great."

        Comment


        • #94
          Must Listengood, that is the ticket. very nice.
          If a 200 ft or 500 ft searcher went into the forest away from the shore the radius could even extend further back towards the base of the mountain line.
          it would be 200 or 500 ft from how far they they went into the woods.

          has anyone claimed to have searched this spot?
          Last edited by Fennder Bender; 05-02-2021, 12:16 AM.

          Comment


          • #95
            It's surprising to me that there is so much interest in the Madison. Forrest said he only visited the treasure location a few times; seems to me Forrest was fishing practically every summer day at spots reasonably close to West Yellowstone for a decade or more. There can be no named fishing spot on the Madison that Forrest hasn't fished dozens of times. If a spot like Barns Hole or 9-Mile Hole is named, it is by definition not secret.

            Plus, if you like the Madison between Madison Junction and West Yellowstone, what is your "canyon down"? That is no real canyon, and it is barely "down". It's really a valley, though some maps do label a section of it "Madison Canyon."

            Comment


            • #96
              Originally posted by Must Listengood View Post

              You don't feel Brown trout is a viable HOB? Would not the best fishing hole on the Madison be the Home of Brown trout? They tend to live in these deeper holes and that's what makes these places special and secret fishing holes. Do you not agree that Forrest capitalized animal species in other examples?
              Forrest never once capitalized brown trout (to his credit) and since probably a thousand searchers thought home of Brown referred to brown trout, I consider it eliminated from the list of possibilities.

              Forrest only ever definitively said searchers had solved 2 clues, with the odd jump to 4 clues possibly having been solved but he wasn't certain. That tells me home of Brown is neither the second clue nor the third. Therefore "And take it in the canyon down" is a solved clue, and by Forrest's contiguous/sequential remarks, "Not far, but too far to walk is clue #3." This enumeration is most consistent with Forrest's "sounds like 3 or 4 to me" response to the female reporter who, after reciting the second stanza, had suggested there were a couple clues there.

              Some have suggested "Put in below the home of Brown" was the riddle, but NF, BTFTW is just as riddle-like in its wording, if not more so, and it is also in the latter part of the second stanza. Considering that searchers were stuck at solving only 2 clues for at least 5 years, it is obvious that clue #3 was the stumbling block bottleneck. ​​

              Comment


              • #97
                Originally posted by Zapster View Post

                Forrest never once capitalized brown trout (to his credit) and since probably a thousand searchers thought home of Brown referred to brown trout, I consider it eliminated from the list of possibilities.

                Forrest only ever definitively said searchers had solved 2 clues, with the odd jump to 4 clues possibly having been solved but he wasn't certain. That tells me home of Brown is neither the second clue nor the third. Therefore "And take it in the canyon down" is a solved clue, and by Forrest's contiguous/sequential remarks, "Not far, but too far to walk is clue #3." This enumeration is most consistent with Forrest's "sounds like 3 or 4 to me" response to the female reporter who, after reciting the second stanza, had suggested there were a couple clues there.

                Some have suggested "Put in below the home of Brown" was the riddle, but NF, BTFTW is just as riddle-like in its wording, if not more so, and it is also in the latter part of the second stanza. Considering that searchers were stuck at solving only 2 clues for at least 5 years, it is obvious that clue #3 was the stumbling block bottleneck. ​​
                "Trout fishing is excellent on the Madison River, where you'll find many species including rainbow, cutthroat and brown." -- No need to capitalize. The reader is supplied with additional context.

                "Put in below the home of Brown." -- No additional context, so he needed to capitalize, or the reader would think he is talking about the color. (As in "Put in below the brown colored home.")

                Thousands of searchers thought hoB was home of brown trout. Okay, but they didn't locate hoB, and go from there to the last square foot. It doesn't mean they were wrong about trout.

                Comment


                • #98
                  In my opinion, Brown is capitalized because it refers to something that is itself a proper name which therefore would be capitalized. You don't capitalize something just because you lack context, whether it's trout, beavers or bears.

                  Still, I think this is neither here nor there. "Home of Brown" isn't the clue -- *Put in below the* home of Brown is the clue. So even if you were absolutely sure of the identity of Forrest's hoB, that by itself doesn't tell you where you need to go.

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Originally posted by Zapster View Post
                    Plus, if you like the Madison between Madison Junction and West Yellowstone, what is your "canyon down"? That is no real canyon, and it is barely "down". It's really a valley, though some maps do label a section of it "Madison Canyon."
                    Are you saying Madison Canyon is no real canyon? Looks to me like its scale is more spectacular than either Firehole or Gibbon Canyons nearby. Of the three, Madison Canyon is the only one you can go down if you start at Madison Junction. Why do you say it's barely down? How steep would it have to be?

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Zapster View Post
                      It's surprising to me that there is so much interest in the Madison. Forrest said he only visited the treasure location a few times; seems to me Forrest was fishing practically every summer day at spots reasonably close to West Yellowstone for a decade or more. There can be no named fishing spot on the Madison that Forrest hasn't fished dozens of times. If a spot like Barns Hole or 9-Mile Hole is named, it is by definition not secret.

                      Plus, if you like the Madison between Madison Junction and West Yellowstone, what is your "canyon down"? That is no real canyon, and it is barely "down". It's really a valley, though some maps do label a section of it "Madison Canyon."
                      Ok this is a good critical comment.

                      I think you are both right and wrong here. Yes, I'm sure he fished 9 mile many times. But that's not really where the treasure WAS. We don't know how far up the creek or how far into the forest he went. In this case, Jack implied there was a serene place up in the forest that he found. He could have easily only gone up there a couple of times.

                      You are not the only one who I have seen make the comment about "hey its really not a canyon". And frankly I don't get that at all. A canyon does not require a narrow slot, at least not in my book. I just looked up synonyms for canyon, and one of the top answers was valley.

                      But I do appreciate the comments.
                      Last edited by Must Listengood; 05-02-2021, 09:01 PM.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Vertigo View Post

                        "Trout fishing is excellent on the Madison River, where you'll find many species including rainbow, cutthroat and brown." -- No need to capitalize. The reader is supplied with additional context.

                        "Put in below the home of Brown." -- No additional context, so he needed to capitalize, or the reader would think he is talking about the color. (As in "Put in below the brown colored home.")

                        Thousands of searchers thought hoB was home of brown trout. Okay, but they didn't locate hoB, and go from there to the last square foot. It doesn't mean they were wrong about trout.
                        Correct. That's exactly why you are supposed to capitalize it, and while I don't have the backup data to prove it, I distinctly remember reading a place where Forrest had done exactly the same thing for a different species of animal.

                        And remember, Jack was an English major.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Vertigo View Post

                          Are you saying Madison Canyon is no real canyon?
                          Yes, not compared to any other nearby named canyons. The Firehole, Gibbon, Yellowstone, Lewis and Gardner are all canyons to my way of thinking. Close walls, significant elevation loss, while Madison has neither. It's more like the Merced River through Yosemite *Valley*, not Yosemite Canyon, even though the geographic elevation gradients of Yosemite dwarf anything Yellowstone has to offer.

                          Looks to me like its scale is more spectacular than either Firehole or Gibbon Canyons nearby. Of the three, Madison Canyon is the only one you can go down if you start at Madison Junction.
                          If Madison Junction is your starting point, then sure. But I'm not impressed with MJ as WWWH. Two cold rivers merging: not unique. Three rivers joining is much rarer -- and occurs in the 4-state search area -- and even that elicits a "yawn" from me. I guess I just have never appreciated why people fixated on Madison Junction.

                          Yes: geothermally-heated waters drain into the Gibbon and the Firehole (moreso the latter), but by no human swimming/wading definitions would one consider either river to be "warm," and even if you stretched warm to a non-human-comfort temperature definition (e.g. trout), that temperature doesn't suddenly drop precipitously just because the two rivers join and some explorer decided to give a new name to the merger.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Zapster View Post
                            Yes, not compared to any other nearby named canyons. The Firehole, Gibbon, Yellowstone, Lewis and Gardner are all canyons to my way of thinking. Close walls, significant elevation loss, while Madison has neither. It's more like the Merced River through Yosemite *Valley*, not Yosemite Canyon, even though the geographic elevation gradients of Yosemite dwarf anything Yellowstone has to offer.



                            If Madison Junction is your starting point, then sure. But I'm not impressed with MJ as WWWH. Two cold rivers merging: not unique. Three rivers joining is much rarer -- and occurs in the 4-state search area -- and even that elicits a "yawn" from me. I guess I just have never appreciated why people fixated on Madison Junction.

                            Yes: geothermally-heated waters drain into the Gibbon and the Firehole (moreso the latter), but by no human swimming/wading definitions would one consider either river to be "warm," and even if you stretched warm to a non-human-comfort temperature definition (e.g. trout), that temperature doesn't suddenly drop precipitously just because the two rivers join and some explorer decided to give a new name to the merger.
                            Great details, thanks for sharing. It's interesting how we all look at things a little differently. You place more importance on close canyon walls and significant elevation loss than I do, for example. You consider human swimming as the standard to declare water warm. I consider it warm if it's anything at a higher than normal temperature. I suppose Forrest's perspective is the one that mattered most.

                            Assuming warm waters identifies the rivers, where they halt is just where the rivers end. There's no suggestion that the temperature drops precipitously under that assumption. Of course, you may consider the assumption invalid. Ah, the beauty of the chase!

                            Cheers

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X