Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Confirmation was weak?

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

  • Confirmation was weak?

    Was Cynthia's video lining us up for a mike drop moment at the end? The email exchange with Jack? Maybe she read it with bias and saw it as confirmation. Hoping we would do the same?

    Maybe the girls had first made a trip to Santa Fe in an attempt to find answers. They didn't get any, so put this out in an attempt to fatten up the beast we wouldn't buy?

  • #2
    You know there’s a bar that’s re opened called chasechat where you’ll find a lot more traction with your posts.

    Sorry, you’ve got me doing what you do now.. my bad. I won’t do it again.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by BritChaser View Post
      You know there’s a bar that’s re opened called chasechat where you’ll find a lot more traction with your posts.

      Sorry, you’ve got me doing what you do now.. my bad. I won’t do it again.
      If they want to solve the poem, care for people and don't encourage crossing dangerous rivers, then I will go all in...

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Space Hopper View Post

        If they want to solve the poem, care for people and don't encourage crossing dangerous rivers, then I will go all in...
        You’ve got a point about the river crossing. That is a concern.

        Comment


        • #5
          The river crossing is a major concern of mine as well....
          Many experienced fishermen die every year in places they have fished many times... All it takes is one ill placed step and a "well placed" boulder to catch the back of your head and you're gone!
          Would I have crossed that river if I thought the treasure waited somewhere on the other side? Sure as hell I would have! But I've been known to do foolish things every now and then.... And even me, fool that I am, would never encourage others, especially those with small children, to take such a needless, possibly deadly and potentially litigation generating risk....

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Sal O'mander View Post
            The river crossing is a major concern of mine as well....
            Many experienced fishermen die every year in places they have fished many times... All it takes is one ill placed step and a "well placed" boulder to catch the back of your head and you're gone!
            Would I have crossed that river if I thought the treasure waited somewhere on the other side? Sure as hell I would have! But I've been known to do foolish things every now and then.... And even me, fool that I am, would never encourage others, especially those with small children, to take such a needless, possibly deadly and potentially litigation generating risk....
            If you found that ff had hidden it the other side of such a river, would you keep it to yourself on that basis?

            You’re right. People shouldn’t taken their kids over the river. They should also take precautions like a life jacket it they choose to make the journey. Maybe just leave it if anyone is worried. There’s just trees there..

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by BritChaser View Post

              If you found that ff had hidden it the other side of such a river, would you keep it to yourself on that basis?

              You’re right. People shouldn’t taken their kids over the river. They should also take precautions like a life jacket it they choose to make the journey. Maybe just leave it if anyone is worried. There’s just trees there..
              I would never have put prospective searchers in such a potentially hazardous situation to begin with .... Nor do I believe would Forrest.
              After the drowning deaths of no less than three searchers Forrest felt compelled to tell us that the chest was not under water nor near the Rio Grande.... This was obviously said in order to prevent yet another death by drowning.... Yet you would have us believe that he didn't see a problem with searchers having to cross a river? Is this really something most 79 or 80 year old men could safely do? Was Forrest really such a fool??

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by BritChaser View Post

                You’ve got a point about the river crossing. That is a concern.
                Lets just hope your reckless, uneducated touting doesn't result in injury or death.

                Comment


                • #9
                  I also find objection with the interpretation that "nine mile holers" seem to apply to the term "put in".... They seem to believe that it means "get yourself in the water and cross the river" ... This ignores the fact that the nautical definition of the the term applies to doing the exact opposite.... A ship "puts in" to shore and "puts out" to sea.... By this definition, which is the only one I believe that could reasonably apply, we should be putting our feet to the ground at this point not stepping into a river.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Sal O'mander View Post

                    I would never have put prospective searchers in such a potentially hazardous situation to begin with .... Nor do I believe would Forrest.
                    After the drowning deaths of no less than three searchers Forrest felt compelled to tell us that the chest was not under water nor near the Rio Grande.... This was obviously said in order to prevent yet another death by drowning.... Yet you would have us believe that he didn't see a problem with searchers having to cross a river? Is this really something most 79 or 80 year old men could safely do? Was Forrest really such a fool??
                    You pretty much have to believe Forrest was a fool all around to swallow this solution. He would have had to make a blaze that lasted only two or so years before getting damaged. Let's face it, the solution is dumb too.

                    So, a river crossing? Sure, if he really did screw up the blaze that badly. If he really spent 15 years coming up with this dumb thing, then I'm sure he would not consider whether a river crossing was a good idea.

                    So of course it's not the solution.
                    You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by CRM114 View Post

                      You pretty much have to believe Forrest was a fool all around to swallow this solution. He would have had to make a blaze that lasted only two or so years before getting damaged. Let's face it, the solution is dumb too.

                      So, a river crossing? Sure, if he really did screw up the blaze that badly. If he really spent 15 years coming up with this dumb thing, then I'm sure he would not consider whether a river crossing was a good idea.

                      So of course it's not the solution.
                      I agree... Not the solution.
                      And if it's not the solution then either Jack/Condor was intentionally misleading his fellow Redditers for nearly two years or he was not the finder.....

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Sal O'mander View Post

                        I agree... Not the solution.
                        And if it's not the solution then either Jack/Condor was intentionally misleading his fellow Redditers for nearly two years or he was not the finder.....
                        Yes, that's a tough one. It's not clear cut to me Condor2 was stuck on the Madison. In at least one comment he rejected it. I do believe Jack is Condor2, but several things Condor2 said don't align with the story we got from Jack later as rimsbrock pointed out. Still, Condor2 is clearly Jack.

                        One thing that does makes sense if Jack is not the finder, if Dal suspects the hunt was ended early, would be for the lawyer to encourage 9mh as the solve, because it aligns kinda with the discovery of Condor2.
                        You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Sal O'mander View Post
                          I also find objection with the interpretation that "nine mile holers" seem to apply to the term "put in".... They seem to believe that it means "get yourself in the water and cross the river" ... This ignores the fact that the nautical definition of the the term applies to doing the exact opposite.... A ship "puts in" to shore and "puts out" to sea.... By this definition, which is the only one I believe that could reasonably apply, we should be putting our feet to the ground at this point not stepping into a river.
                          I was taught "put-in" was where you put your boat in and "take out" is where you take it back out, but that's for river canoeing, something you would paddle. In any event, it doesn't mean wading across a river.
                          You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Space Hopper View Post

                            Lets just hope your reckless, uneducated touting doesn't result in injury or death.
                            Your comment is completely out of order! On one hand you’re a wind up. On the other an insulting idiot
                            taking things way to far. I’m done communicating with someone like you.

                            To the wider group. It goes without saying that people’s safety is paramount.

                            But the chest being there was no-one’s choice other than Forrest’s.

                            And no one is saying to cross the river.

                            I’m done going round in circles. End of subject.



                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by BritChaser View Post

                              End of subject.
                              Thanks in advance!

                              RIP 9MH
                              Last edited by Space Hopper; 11-21-2021, 11:17 AM.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X