Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Random Thoughts

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

  • 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.
      Contentment is the greatest treasure.
      ~ Lao Tzu

      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.
                        Contentment is the greatest treasure.
                        ~ Lao Tzu

                        Comment


                        • The blaze is not the last clue.
                          Never share your secret with anybody. It will destroy you. -Chanakya

                          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


                              • Originally posted by Mr hand View Post

                                Ask f if it's still there kpro he won't answer me.
                                What was it that Forrest said . . . he was thinking a thousand years down the road, or farther ?
                                If he designed the chase expecting that it may last that long before the treasure is found, then my brain says that the expectation would be that the places the clues relate to would need to last that long also.

                                My reasoning for this is that if the treasure isn't found for a hundred years, and ANY of the places the clues refer to, are no longer there in a hundred years, then the poem becomes completely worthless as a map for finding the treasure.

                                If that happens, if one or more of the clues become invalid, then the treasure cannot be located by using the poem.
                                In that scenario, the only way the treasure would ever be found would be by accident . . . by someone "stumbling" upon it.

                                If, as Forrest says, the clues have to be followed precisely and consecutively, then the removal or disappearance of any one of those clues would render the subsequent clues unsolvable.
                                Or so it would seem.

                                Forrest says it would seem to be impossible to find the blaze without first solving clue #1.
                                That would seem to support the idea that you must understand previous clues before you can understand subsequent ones.

                                However, he also answered a question wherein he stated that Yes, you could reverse-engineer from hoB to find wwwh, but why would you want to ?
                                And again, he told "Serge" that the minimum number of clues that need to be solved to find the treasure is the last one. But the catch there, is that Serge stated " . . . assuming that we follow the clues in order "
                                http://mysteriouswritings.com/questi...-of-the-chase/
                                Again, meaning that the previous clues needed to be solved before you would be able to solve the last clue.

                                So, whether the blaze is the last clue or not, and I don't believe it is, you are not going to find the treasure if the blaze has disappeared or been removed.

                                If any of the places the clues refer to are not there at some point in the future, the entire poem becomes worthless.

                                The Blaze is indeed still there, and will be for many years to come.
                                Contentment is the greatest treasure.
                                ~ Lao Tzu

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X