Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

To blazes! with the blaze

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

  • To blazes! with the blaze

    The overwhelming belief among searchers is that something - a "blaze" - marked (or marks) the location of the treasure. That makes some sense, of course, because the poem follows that if you've found this blaze you look quickly down, and eventually take the chest and go in peace. And, after all, Forrest told us that "The poem is straight forward with no subterfuge in sight" and similar things.

    Yet Forrest also told us: "There isn't a human trail in very close proximity to where I hid the treasure." I checked every dictionary I could find and I get:

    - a spot or mark made on a tree, as by painting or notching or by chipping away a piece of the bark, to indicate a trail or boundary.
    - a mark to indicate a trail, usually painted on or cut into a tree.
    - a mark, usually indicating a path, made on a tree, esp by chipping off the bark

    That is not a complete list but there are no other definitions (except where the word means something completely different) that deviate substantially. A blaze (as used in this thought construct) IS a trail marking. And we should all agree that a man of Forrest's credentials would not spend 15 years writing a poem so that he could butcher the meaning of one of the most important words, if not THE most important word. So unless Forrest was lying or confused when he wrote that second quote, the notion that there is a "blaze" marking for the location of the treasure just can't work. And that has the following implications:

    1. The overwhelming majority of possible solutions as put forth by searchers (including, probably, all of those who have filed suits against Forrest or the estate) cannot be correct, and
    2. Jack Stuef's story of the find cannot be true, whether he truly and legitimately found the chest or not, and
    3. The "chest", as conveyed in that 16th line of the poem, is something other than the treasure, AND/OR
    4. The word "blaze" is used in a different context than as a trail marking. That would further imply that the first quote ("...straight forward....") doesn't mean what it appears to mean.

    Acknowledging that my thoughts go massively against the crowd, it means I'm throwing sand on solutions that many hold firm to, and I fully expect to get blasted. But please keep it civil, I'm just trying to introduce a little logic into the process.



  • #2
    Originally posted by Spoon View Post
    The overwhelming belief among searchers is that something - a "blaze" - marked (or marks) the location of the treasure. That makes some sense, of course, because the poem follows that if you've found this blaze you look quickly down, and eventually take the chest and go in peace. And, after all, Forrest told us that "The poem is straight forward with no subterfuge in sight" and similar things.

    Yet Forrest also told us: "There isn't a human trail in very close proximity to where I hid the treasure." I checked every dictionary I could find and I get:

    - a spot or mark made on a tree, as by painting or notching or by chipping away a piece of the bark, to indicate a trail or boundary.
    - a mark to indicate a trail, usually painted on or cut into a tree.
    - a mark, usually indicating a path, made on a tree, esp by chipping off the bark

    That is not a complete list but there are no other definitions (except where the word means something completely different) that deviate substantially. A blaze (as used in this thought construct) IS a trail marking. And we should all agree that a man of Forrest's credentials would not spend 15 years writing a poem so that he could butcher the meaning of one of the most important words, if not THE most important word. So unless Forrest was lying or confused when he wrote that second quote, the notion that there is a "blaze" marking for the location of the treasure just can't work. And that has the following implications:

    1. The overwhelming majority of possible solutions as put forth by searchers (including, probably, all of those who have filed suits against Forrest or the estate) cannot be correct, and
    2. Jack Stuef's story of the find cannot be true, whether he truly and legitimately found the chest or not, and
    3. The "chest", as conveyed in that 16th line of the poem, is something other than the treasure, AND/OR
    4. The word "blaze" is used in a different context than as a trail marking. That would further imply that the first quote ("...straight forward....") doesn't mean what it appears to mean.

    Acknowledging that my thoughts go massively against the crowd, it means I'm throwing sand on solutions that many hold firm to, and I fully expect to get blasted. But please keep it civil, I'm just trying to introduce a little logic into the process.

    You didn't (above) mention the other definitions of "blaze" -- that any self-respecting dictionary would include . . . such as fire, group of trees, etc.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Spoon View Post
      The overwhelming belief among searchers is that something - a "blaze" - marked (or marks) the location of the treasure. That makes some sense, of course, because the poem follows that if you've found this blaze you look quickly down, and eventually take the chest and go in peace. And, after all, Forrest told us that "The poem is straight forward with no subterfuge in sight" and similar things.

      Yet Forrest also told us: "There isn't a human trail in very close proximity to where I hid the treasure." I checked every dictionary I could find and I get:

      - a spot or mark made on a tree, as by painting or notching or by chipping away a piece of the bark, to indicate a trail or boundary.
      - a mark to indicate a trail, usually painted on or cut into a tree.
      - a mark, usually indicating a path, made on a tree, esp by chipping off the bark

      That is not a complete list but there are no other definitions (except where the word means something completely different) that deviate substantially. A blaze (as used in this thought construct) IS a trail marking. And we should all agree that a man of Forrest's credentials would not spend 15 years writing a poem so that he could butcher the meaning of one of the most important words, if not THE most important word. So unless Forrest was lying or confused when he wrote that second quote, the notion that there is a "blaze" marking for the location of the treasure just can't work. And that has the following implications:

      1. The overwhelming majority of possible solutions as put forth by searchers (including, probably, all of those who have filed suits against Forrest or the estate) cannot be correct, and
      2. Jack Stuef's story of the find cannot be true, whether he truly and legitimately found the chest or not, and
      3. The "chest", as conveyed in that 16th line of the poem, is something other than the treasure, AND/OR
      4. The word "blaze" is used in a different context than as a trail marking. That would further imply that the first quote ("...straight forward....") doesn't mean what it appears to mean.

      Acknowledging that my thoughts go massively against the crowd, it means I'm throwing sand on solutions that many hold firm to, and I fully expect to get blasted. But please keep it civil, I'm just trying to introduce a little logic into the process.

      Try a thesaurus. That is a huge hint, by the way.

      Comment


      • #4
        There are three things to note to help you with that clue.

        1) You must 'look quickly', therefore there is only a fleeting glimpse of the blaze.

        2) You must look 'down' from the blaze, therefore you were looking up at it, just before that

        3) You 'are wise', like the tale of the 3 wise men, look to the sky for something bright/shiny.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Not4but242Walk View Post
          There are three things to note to help you with that clue.

          1) You must 'look quickly', therefore there is only a fleeting glimpse of the blaze.

          2) You must look 'down' from the blaze, therefore you were looking up at it, just before that

          3) You 'are wise', like the tale of the 3 wise men, look to the sky for something bright/shiny.
          Wrong, wrong and wrong.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Spoon View Post
            The overwhelming belief among searchers is that something - a "blaze" - marked (or marks) the location of the treasure. That makes some sense, of course, because the poem follows that if you've found this blaze you look quickly down, and eventually take the chest and go in peace. And, after all, Forrest told us that "The poem is straight forward with no subterfuge in sight" and similar things.

            Yet Forrest also told us: "There isn't a human trail in very close proximity to where I hid the treasure." I checked every dictionary I could find and I get:

            - a spot or mark made on a tree, as by painting or notching or by chipping away a piece of the bark, to indicate a trail or boundary.
            - a mark to indicate a trail, usually painted on or cut into a tree.
            - a mark, usually indicating a path, made on a tree, esp by chipping off the bark

            That is not a complete list but there are no other definitions (except where the word means something completely different) that deviate substantially. A blaze (as used in this thought construct) IS a trail marking. And we should all agree that a man of Forrest's credentials would not spend 15 years writing a poem so that he could butcher the meaning of one of the most important words, if not THE most important word. So unless Forrest was lying or confused when he wrote that second quote, the notion that there is a "blaze" marking for the location of the treasure just can't work. And that has the following implications:

            1. The overwhelming majority of possible solutions as put forth by searchers (including, probably, all of those who have filed suits against Forrest or the estate) cannot be correct, and
            2. Jack Stuef's story of the find cannot be true, whether he truly and legitimately found the chest or not, and
            3. The "chest", as conveyed in that 16th line of the poem, is something other than the treasure, AND/OR
            4. The word "blaze" is used in a different context than as a trail marking. That would further imply that the first quote ("...straight forward....") doesn't mean what it appears to mean.

            Acknowledging that my thoughts go massively against the crowd, it means I'm throwing sand on solutions that many hold firm to, and I fully expect to get blasted. But please keep it civil, I'm just trying to introduce a little logic into the process.

            I’m not against this line of thinking, but did you extend it further to definitions of ‘trail’?

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Not4but242Walk View Post
              There are three things to note to help you with that clue.

              1) You must 'look quickly', therefore there is only a fleeting glimpse of the blaze.

              2) You must look 'down' from the blaze, therefore you were looking up at it, just before that

              3) You 'are wise', like the tale of the 3 wise men, look to the sky for something bright/shiny.
              The first 2 are obvious cases of confirmation bias toward your solve. The line is "If you've been wise and found the blaze, look quickly down"...you've clearly already found the blaze when instructed to "look quickly." It has nothing to do with how long you can see the blaze for. Similarly, an instruction to "look down" does not indicate that you were looking up previously. When I'm out on a hike and I get into rocky terrain, I start to look down at my feet. Does that mean I was looking up prior to that?

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by pws111 View Post

                Try a thesaurus. That is a huge hint, by the way.
                Yes, I know how to use a thesaurus. But let's say we use it to get the word "mark", and then we are looking for a mark that locates the treasure. If that mark does not indicate a trail, then it is not a blaze. And then the word is used in a way that does not reflect its true meaning, and therefore the poem is not straightforward.

                And let's be real, there are lot of other ways he could have worded those lines in the poem if the meaning was truly "straightforward" and there was a mark that located the treasure. For example:

                If you've been wise, my mark then found,
                ...
                Gaze vastly not, nor hang around,

                I'm sure I could do better with some thought, but the point is that his word choices are bizarre IF his meaning is that the location was marked with a "blaze". Not only is blaze an odd choice, but marvel is too. There is no such thing as a "marvel gaze", because marvel is not an adjective, it is only a noun or a verb. If he was using it as a noun: the feeling of wonder; astonishment, then he should have put a comma in between it and "gaze". The rest of the poem is properly punctuated, why not that sentence? And if he had punctuated it properly ("But tarry scant with marvel, gaze"), then the meaning of the sentence changes. Would he really grind over something for 15 years only to make such blunders?

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Rose Livingstone View Post
                  I’m not against this line of thinking, but did you extend it further to definitions of ‘trail’?
                  Thanks for your comments, Rose. In answer to your question, I think that other definitions of trail would change the meaning of the word or make the meaning other than straightforward. A blaze is a mark on a human trail - a path for human conveyance from one point to another. No game trails, no paper trails, no slime trails, nothing else. Remember, the man said that he spent 15 years, choosing every word carefully. Either he totally butchered the English language in this part, or the poem is a word puzzle. If the latter (which I believe), then we need to think about those words differently, and logically, like he told us.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Spoon View Post

                    Yes, I know how to use a thesaurus. But let's say we use it to get the word "mark", and then we are looking for a mark that locates the treasure. If that mark does not indicate a trail, then it is not a blaze. And then the word is used in a way that does not reflect its true meaning, and therefore the poem is not straightforward.

                    And let's be real, there are lot of other ways he could have worded those lines in the poem if the meaning was truly "straightforward" and there was a mark that located the treasure. For example:

                    If you've been wise, my mark then found,
                    ...
                    Gaze vastly not, nor hang around,

                    I'm sure I could do better with some thought, but the point is that his word choices are bizarre IF his meaning is that the location was marked with a "blaze". Not only is blaze an odd choice, but marvel is too. There is no such thing as a "marvel gaze", because marvel is not an adjective, it is only a noun or a verb. If he was using it as a noun: the feeling of wonder; astonishment, then he should have put a comma in between it and "gaze". The rest of the poem is properly punctuated, why not that sentence? And if he had punctuated it properly ("But tarry scant with marvel, gaze"), then the meaning of the sentence changes. Would he really grind over something for 15 years only to make such blunders?
                    Very good line of thought. Why indeed did he write the poem the way he did, and why did it take so long? The most logical answer is that there is something hidden in the poem that involves more than just definitions of the words you see when read in a normal manner.

                    As for the blaze and the thesaurus, all the guessing in the world about what the blaze might be will not help until you know where the blaze is. Then, you can look at what is there and use the thesaurus and a little imagination to figure out what the blaze actually is. I've told you the direction. Now all you need is the distance and you can start trying to identify the blaze. It is visible on Google maps.

                    https://pws111.medium.com/to-the-bla...d-110e00592b49

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by BobLob View Post

                      The first 2 are obvious cases of confirmation bias toward your solve. The line is "If you've been wise and found the blaze, look quickly down"...you've clearly already found the blaze when instructed to "look quickly." It has nothing to do with how long you can see the blaze for. Similarly, an instruction to "look down" does not indicate that you were looking up previously. When I'm out on a hike and I get into rocky terrain, I start to look down at my feet. Does that mean I was looking up prior to that?
                      You must look quickly down before you lose sight of the blaze. You can simply look slowly down from almost any other type of blaze.

                      Yes, it does mean you were looking up, relative to your feet just prior.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by pws111 View Post

                        Very good line of thought. Why indeed did he write the poem the way he did, and why did it take so long? The most logical answer is that there is something hidden in the poem that involves more than just definitions of the words you see when read in a normal manner.

                        https://pws111.medium.com/to-the-bla...d-110e00592b49
                        This I agree with, big time. If the words mean as they appear, then they wouldn't be precise at all, and it would not have taken him 15 years to write. Each stanza could be written in no longer than 15 minutes. If he agonized over word choices, rhyming scheme and "poetic flow", then maybe multiply by 10. My nephew who doesn't even have his driver's license could do far better in a week's time.

                        Thanks for sharing your solution. I take it you agree with my points #! and #2, above?

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Spoon View Post

                          This I agree with, big time. If the words mean as they appear, then they wouldn't be precise at all, and it would not have taken him 15 years to write. Each stanza could be written in no longer than 15 minutes. If he agonized over word choices, rhyming scheme and "poetic flow", then maybe multiply by 10. My nephew who doesn't even have his driver's license could do far better in a week's time.

                          Thanks for sharing your solution. I take it you agree with my points #! and #2, above?
                          Yes, I actually agree with all four points.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Spoon View Post
                            The overwhelming belief among searchers is that something - a "blaze" - marked (or marks) the location of the treasure. That makes some sense, of course, because the poem follows that if you've found this blaze you look quickly down, and eventually take the chest and go in peace. And, after all, Forrest told us that "The poem is straight forward with no subterfuge in sight" and similar things.

                            Yet Forrest also told us: "There isn't a human trail in very close proximity to where I hid the treasure." I checked every dictionary I could find and I get:

                            - a spot or mark made on a tree, as by painting or notching or by chipping away a piece of the bark, to indicate a trail or boundary.
                            - a mark to indicate a trail, usually painted on or cut into a tree.
                            - a mark, usually indicating a path, made on a tree, esp by chipping off the bark

                            That is not a complete list but there are no other definitions (except where the word means something completely different) that deviate substantially. A blaze (as used in this thought construct) IS a trail marking. And we should all agree that a man of Forrest's credentials would not spend 15 years writing a poem so that he could butcher the meaning of one of the most important words, if not THE most important word. So unless Forrest was lying or confused when he wrote that second quote, the notion that there is a "blaze" marking for the location of the treasure just can't work. And that has the following implications:

                            1. The overwhelming majority of possible solutions as put forth by searchers (including, probably, all of those who have filed suits against Forrest or the estate) cannot be correct, and
                            2. Jack Stuef's story of the find cannot be true, whether he truly and legitimately found the chest or not, and
                            3. The "chest", as conveyed in that 16th line of the poem, is something other than the treasure, AND/OR
                            4. The word "blaze" is used in a different context than as a trail marking. That would further imply that the first quote ("...straight forward....") doesn't mean what it appears to mean.

                            Acknowledging that my thoughts go massively against the crowd, it means I'm throwing sand on solutions that many hold firm to, and I fully expect to get blasted. But please keep it civil, I'm just trying to introduce a little logic into the process.
                            "And we should all agree that a man of Forrest's credentials would not spend 15 years writing a poem so that he could butcher the meaning of one of the most important words,"

                            We should all agree? Really? We don't get to vote on this?

                            Forrest said this about the blaze: "A blaze is something that stands out."
                            FF didn't butcher an important word; he simply defined a blaze in one way that makes sense.
                            He had read Journal of a Trapper many times and learned how the physical landscape of an area could be used to guide people to destinations without getting lost.
                            The book has several maps made by Osborne Russell.
                            These maps have designations such as Sheep Rock, Red Buttes, Oil Springs---permanent physical objects used as points of guidance---blazes---things that stand out from the background.
                            A chopped out piece of bark on a tree is not what Forrest meant at all. 900 years was his time frame.

                            Begin it in the home of Brown where warm waters halt.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              You’re looking at the blaze from Google earth — the blaze is on the side of a mountain. Look quickly down means look down, just below the mountain.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X