Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Random Thoughts

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

  • And hint of riches new and old.

    new and old
    present and past
    now and then
    Once Upon a While.
    Daniel Castro (Blues)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNCrfKtA3lE

    Comment


    • Originally posted by ROLL TIDE View Post
      And hint of riches new and old.

      new and old
      present and past
      now and then
      Once Upon a While.
      Once Upon A Time... In Hollywood
      ??!!

      Comment



      • Forrest has said that the blaze is a physical thing, it's not theoretical.

        If you can find this (physical thing) the distance to the chest will be obvious.

        Forrest has said that the treasure is not associated with a structure.
        He has further said that it is not under a man-made object.
        And again, he has said that the treasure is not "in or about" a structure.

        So, if the blaze is clue nine, then it would have to be a natural physical thing, as the treasure is not about (near, around) any structure.

        Here's where I run into a problem with the blaze being clue nine …

        "While it's not impossible to remove the blaze it isn't feasible to try and I am certain it's still there."
        So, if the blaze is a natural physical thing, then it isn't feasible to try to remove it.

        Is the blaze one single object ?
        In a word, yes.

        So, if the blaze is one single, natural physical thing, then it still isn't feasible to try to remove it.
        It must be rather large ?

        Well, that doesn't work, considering this … "Google Earth cannot help with the last clue."
        So, if the blaze is the last clue and we assume that GE can't help with the last clue because it's not large enough to be seen, then why would it not be feasible to try to remove it ?
        If the last clue is small enough that it can't be seen from GE, then what would make it not feasible to remove ?

        Assuming this line of thought carries any weight at all, we must then consider this …

        What is Blaze ?
        "Anything that stands out."

        Things to consider :

        If the blaze is the last clue, it cannot be seen from Google Earth.
        This would make it relatively small.

        If it's relatively small, why would it not be feasible to try to remove it ?

        We see from above that the blaze can't be considered to be any man-made thing.
        Therefore, all of the above suggests that the blaze is a natural physical thing, and that it can't be seen from GE, if it is the last clue.
        What type of natural physical thing is small enough that it can't be seen from GE, and yet it isn't feasible to try to remove it ?

        And, a blaze is anything that stands out.
        So, in this scenario, we're looking for something small that stands out that can't be seen from GE, something natural, and it's not worth the trouble to try to remove it.

        You've got to understand what the first clue is saying, or you will never figure out what the blaze will be.
        The blaze isn't the last clue.
        IMO.
        Daniel Castro (Blues)
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNCrfKtA3lE

        Comment


        • Originally posted by ROLL TIDE View Post
          Forrest has said that the blaze is a physical thing, it's not theoretical.

          If you can find this (physical thing) the distance to the chest will be obvious.

          Forrest has said that the treasure is not associated with a structure.
          He has further said that it is not under a man-made object.
          And again, he has said that the treasure is not "in or about" a structure.

          So, if the blaze is clue nine, then it would have to be a natural physical thing, as the treasure is not about (near, around) any structure.

          Here's where I run into a problem with the blaze being clue nine …

          "While it's not impossible to remove the blaze it isn't feasible to try and I am certain it's still there."
          So, if the blaze is a natural physical thing, then it isn't feasible to try to remove it.

          Is the blaze one single object ?
          In a word, yes.

          So, if the blaze is one single, natural physical thing, then it still isn't feasible to try to remove it.
          It must be rather large ?

          Well, that doesn't work, considering this … "Google Earth cannot help with the last clue."
          So, if the blaze is the last clue and we assume that GE can't help with the last clue because it's not large enough to be seen, then why would it not be feasible to try to remove it ?
          If the last clue is small enough that it can't be seen from GE, then what would make it not feasible to remove ?

          Assuming this line of thought carries any weight at all, we must then consider this …

          What is Blaze ?
          "Anything that stands out."

          Things to consider :

          If the blaze is the last clue, it cannot be seen from Google Earth.
          This would make it relatively small.

          If it's relatively small, why would it not be feasible to try to remove it ?

          We see from above that the blaze can't be considered to be any man-made thing.
          Therefore, all of the above suggests that the blaze is a natural physical thing, and that it can't be seen from GE, if it is the last clue.
          What type of natural physical thing is small enough that it can't be seen from GE, and yet it isn't feasible to try to remove it ?

          And, a blaze is anything that stands out.
          So, in this scenario, we're looking for something small that stands out that can't be seen from GE, something natural, and it's not worth the trouble to try to remove it.

          You've got to understand what the first clue is saying, or you will never figure out what the blaze will be.
          The blaze isn't the last clue.
          IMO.
          Bingo, the blaze is not the last clue and it doesn't matter even. Lotta meanings for feasible. Did he say "Fee Simple" ?

          Comment


          • Originally posted by ROLL TIDE View Post
            Is the blaze one single object ?
            In a word, yes.
            Meaning, IMO and in my solution, the blaze is a single configuration of more than one object in a way similar to how a molecule is a single thing made up of more than one thing.

            Originally posted by ROLL TIDE View Post
            So, if the blaze is one single, natural physical thing, then it still isn't feasible to try to remove it.
            It must be rather large ?
            In fact it could cover a distance much too far to walk.

            Originally posted by ROLL TIDE View Post
            The blaze isn't the last clue.
            Precisely so. Clues subsequent to the blaze flesh out the nature of its emergence

            Comment


            • Originally posted by whiskynovember View Post

              Meaning, IMO and in my solution, the blaze is a single configuration of more than one object in a way similar to how a molecule is a single thing made up of more than one thing.



              In fact it could cover a distance much too far to walk.



              Precisely so. Clues subsequent to the blaze flesh out the nature of its emergence
              The word is "Fractal" I think you are describing.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by TreasureCodex View Post

                The word is "Fractal" I think you are describing.
                Not as I understand the term. I imagine a blaze configured by accident of landscape and sky, comprised by objects bearing no design form in common, at least no form observable to the naked eye. It is the spatial relationship between dissimilar constituents which the observer founds by witness and thus forms the blaze. The one that satisfies the poem isn't especially rare in the natural world. That is one reason why it is so successful in hiding.

                Comment


                • ROLL TIDE: I've long been in the blaze <> clue #9 camp, so I agree with your conclusion. As with most things Fenn, though, I can find a loophole. Suppose the blaze is a modestly large, natural object that can't be removed/destroyed other than by absurd/illegal means (bulldozer, wrecking ball, high explosives). Our only hiccup with the ATFs is that anything of that size should be visible on Google Earth. But suppose it's obscured from above by evergreen forrest crowns, or is on the wall of a slot canyon and thus only visible from the side not from above? The latter might fit in well with Forrest's response to the Moby Dickens question back in 2013: "Is it possible to locate the treasure chest without ever leaving your computer and Google Earth?" FF: " No. It isn't. Did I really say that? Uh, there is not a picture of the treasure chest on Google Earth. Was that your question? ... Because Google Earth doesn't go down far enough." Granted, "treasure chest" is still distinct from "blaze," but I think you'd agree in this scenario that it is because GE "doesn't go down far enough" that it would not be able to show a blaze on the side wall of a narrow slot canyon.

                  Comment


                  • I agree. The blaze will hopefully lead us to tarry scant. It makes the most sense that it ties in with WWWH. But I don’t know if we can really deduce what it is until we find it. And if someone can’t stumble upon it then it’s most likely subtle...so one would really have to have their poop in a group to find it.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Zapster View Post
                      ROLL TIDE: I've long been in the blaze <> clue #9 camp, so I agree with your conclusion. As with most things Fenn, though, I can find a loophole. Suppose the blaze is a modestly large, natural object that can't be removed/destroyed other than by absurd/illegal means (bulldozer, wrecking ball, high explosives). Our only hiccup with the ATFs is that anything of that size should be visible on Google Earth. But suppose it's obscured from above by evergreen forrest crowns, or is on the wall of a slot canyon and thus only visible from the side not from above? The latter might fit in well with Forrest's response to the Moby Dickens question back in 2013: "Is it possible to locate the treasure chest without ever leaving your computer and Google Earth?" FF: " No. It isn't. Did I really say that? Uh, there is not a picture of the treasure chest on Google Earth. Was that your question? ... Because Google Earth doesn't go down far enough." Granted, "treasure chest" is still distinct from "blaze," but I think you'd agree in this scenario that it is because GE "doesn't go down far enough" that it would not be able to show a blaze on the side wall of a narrow slot canyon.
                      I also agree with this. Think about all the photos he has had taken of him in front of his book shelf. I believe the chest is in the wall of a canyon. Google earth can’t zoom down far enough and a drone won’t help. Perhaps the area is thick with trees and the chest is tucked in... like a book. He tosses things/books he doesn’t like in the trash bin, face up. The ones he keeps are stored in a shelf. Just a thought.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by ROLL TIDE View Post
                        Forrest has said that the blaze is a physical thing, it's not theoretical.

                        If you can find this (physical thing) the distance to the chest will be obvious.

                        Forrest has said that the treasure is not associated with a structure.
                        He has further said that it is not under a man-made object.
                        And again, he has said that the treasure is not "in or about" a structure.

                        So, if the blaze is clue nine, then it would have to be a natural physical thing, as the treasure is not about (near, around) any structure.

                        Here's where I run into a problem with the blaze being clue nine …

                        "While it's not impossible to remove the blaze it isn't feasible to try and I am certain it's still there."
                        So, if the blaze is a natural physical thing, then it isn't feasible to try to remove it.

                        Is the blaze one single object ?
                        In a word, yes.

                        So, if the blaze is one single, natural physical thing, then it still isn't feasible to try to remove it.
                        It must be rather large ?

                        Well, that doesn't work, considering this … "Google Earth cannot help with the last clue."
                        So, if the blaze is the last clue and we assume that GE can't help with the last clue because it's not large enough to be seen, then why would it not be feasible to try to remove it ?
                        If the last clue is small enough that it can't be seen from GE, then what would make it not feasible to remove ?

                        Assuming this line of thought carries any weight at all, we must then consider this …

                        What is Blaze ?
                        "Anything that stands out."

                        Things to consider :

                        If the blaze is the last clue, it cannot be seen from Google Earth.
                        This would make it relatively small.

                        If it's relatively small, why would it not be feasible to try to remove it ?

                        We see from above that the blaze can't be considered to be any man-made thing.
                        Therefore, all of the above suggests that the blaze is a natural physical thing, and that it can't be seen from GE, if it is the last clue.
                        What type of natural physical thing is small enough that it can't be seen from GE, and yet it isn't feasible to try to remove it ?

                        And, a blaze is anything that stands out.
                        So, in this scenario, we're looking for something small that stands out that can't be seen from GE, something natural, and it's not worth the trouble to try to remove it.

                        You've got to understand what the first clue is saying, or you will never figure out what the blaze will be.
                        The blaze isn't the last clue.
                        IMO.
                        What if the blaze doesn't exist anymore? Nowhere to look quickly down from = no chest.
                        Last edited by Mr hand; 06-24-2019, 10:07 PM.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Mr hand View Post

                          What if the blaze doesn't exist anymore? Nowhere to look quickly down from = no chest.
                          Why would it not exist anymore ?
                          I'm thinking that with all of Forrest's comments about hundreds and even thousands of years, that the blaze will probably be there for a long, long time.
                          Daniel Castro (Blues)
                          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNCrfKtA3lE

                          Comment


                          • The blaze is not the last clue.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by RahRah View Post
                              The blaze is not the last clue.
                              In your opinion, what is?

                              mm
                              If you would like to know my W.W.W.H., get a list of over 600 G.N.I.S. potential ones, and another list of 5,000 searchable springs with coordinate information, you can literally buy it here for $25: https://www.ebay.com/itm/283499665615

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by ROLL TIDE View Post

                                Why would it not exist anymore ?
                                I'm thinking that with all of Forrest's comments about hundreds and even thousands of years, that the blaze will probably be there for a long, long time.
                                Ask f if it's still there kpro he won't answer me.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X