Did FF lie? Question that's bothering me...

[Willy'sNorthWesternPeaNut]

Hello. I'm sorry if this has been discussed and I just missed it but these two statements are contradictory and seem to indicate that Forrest intentionally lied:

6/16/20 "but the poem in my book led him to the precise spot." - Forrest Fenn
9/23/20 Medium post: "I figured out the location where he wished to die (and thus, where his treasure was) back in 2018, but it took me many months to figure out the exact spot." - Finder

Has this been discussed somewhere I can watch/read about? Everyone generally agrees that FF is incredibly careful and deliberate with his words so I can't believe that in his written statement about the treasure being found he just made an error. Do most folks agree he lied about the poem leading the finder to the treasure? Am I missing something?

Thanks in advance!

Your insinuating that when arrived upon the location that you will just happen upon the chest. Which is not the case.

"You wont happen upon it" - F

You can find the precise area, and not find the precise location of the chest. It took jack a while longer to dissect the poem further to become more precise in locating the chest itself, not just the area..

Both of their statements stand true.

[Sarah Seedling]

Your insinuating that when arrived upon the location that you will just happen upon the chest. Which is not the case.

"You wont happen upon it" - F

You can find the precise area, and not find the precise location of the chest. It took jack a while longer to dissect the poem further to become more precise in locating the chest itself, not just the area..

Both of their statements stand true.

Now look quick here you are saying that you can’t locate the indulgence without following the poem, which just ain’t so.

[Willy'sNorthWesternPeaNut]

Now look quick here you are saying that you can’t locate the indulgence without following the poem, which just ain’t so.

That is not what I said or was insinuating. Purposefully, it is highly likey you can not locate the exact position of Indulgence unknowingly beforehand, and most likey very nearly impossible. Therefore eliminating the chance of a searcher happening upon it. I think it is more likey (but still unlikey) a wondering non searcher would, without the intention of locating Indulgence. It's all in the context of grammar, which both of Mr. Fenns and Jacks statements stand true. When I said "Your insinuating that when arrived upon the location that you will just happen upon the chest. Which is not the case." "You" is refering to the poster, whom is a searcher. I did not say "someone" or "a non searcher" I said "you".

Therefore I think it needs to be noted that "precise location" and "the precise location of Indulgence" are not the same thing. I can put a dot on a graph, on a piece of paper, and put the piece of paper on the table. And tell you the dot is on the table but that doesn't tell you exactly where on the table, nor where on the piece of paper.

[Willy'sNorthWesternPeaNut]

Now look quick here you are saying that you can’t locate the indulgence without following the poem, which just ain’t so.

Now, look, quick, and here, are not all the same location either if you are trying to insinuate that by innuendo.. but they are all next to one another so I could see how you got the mix up.
Now and here refer to the final area, quick is the path, look refers to the direction.. just felt the need to give you a little context of poem dissection. But the order you said them in still holds true, just wanted to let you know that too.

[Sherif Billy]

One important thing about Forrest saying the poem led the finder to the precise spot... is the timing. Forrest typed that and had it published before he met with Jack. Unless they had a long phone call about Jack's solve, there's no way Forrest could have known the details. A good detective will look at the motivation of a witness to say certain things. In context, Forrest precedes this statement by saying he didn't know the guy. So you have to wonder why he felt it was important for his audience to know that he Home didn't know the finder, and Forum that he found it using the poem. We all sort of already assumed the poem would lead the finder to the exact spot. Almost as if he was trying to convince the reader that nothing was unusual about the find. HMMMM.

.... AND I think you (as most people do) are assuming that the "finder" Forrest is referring to, is Jack. What happens if there is a third party?
1f Billy

[FlyFishBrown]

Your insinuating that when arrived upon the location that you will just happen upon the chest. Which is not the case.

"You wont happen upon it" - F

You can find the precise area, and not find the precise location of the chest. It took jack a while longer to dissect the poem further to become more precise in locating the chest itself, not just the area..

Both of their statements stand true.

“You won’t happen upon it - F”
Forrest also used careful, precise wording. “No place for the meek”
Jack said it was in the safest place it could be.

If you look up the word meek. It is defined as “quiet, gentle, easily imposed upon; submissive.”

All these statements scream restricted area. A place YNP says is a “no go”. Certainly not NMH, as it’s not restricted at all. But several areas on the Firehole are indeed restricted. No fishing or treading there. Sure makes you wonder….

[Zapster]

Okay . . . you invited this:
Here's your posting (in bold font) . . .

To say Forrest "lied" requires knowing his state of mind and intent when making an erroneous statement. For instance, Forrest has said / written that he hid the treasure in 2010, but he has also written that he hid the treasure more than 10 years ago on a date that would have required that he hid it in 2009.

Forrest has made hundreds of errors like this in his statements over the years, but saying he actually lied requires a higher threshold.

I maintain that saying something does not require knowing Forrest's state of mind.

For God's sake, cut to the chase. WHAT IS YOUR ISSUE WITH WHAT I WROTE? Be specific. You seem to be intent on quibbling about dictionaries (forever telling us to look up "halt" in one, as if we're all simpletons). The implication in your response is that *you* don't draw any distinction between Forrest lying, exaggerating, being mistaken or forgetful. Why not? Forrest was in his 80s when he made his frequent "errors," so my (apparently outrageous) suggestion was simply that we can't KNOW Forrest was deliberately prevaricating when he made any, many or most of his clearly faulty statements because we're not mind-readers.

Bottom line is that Forrest sure as hell made a lot of whoppers, and I'd like to think he didn't believe searchers were so stupid or sycophantic that they wouldn't notice.

[voxpops]

For God's sake, cut to the chase. WHAT IS YOUR ISSUE WITH WHAT I WROTE? Be specific. You seem to be intent on quibbling about dictionaries (forever telling us to look up "halt" in one, as if we're all simpletons). The implication in your response is that *you* don't draw any distinction between Forrest lying, exaggerating, being mistaken or forgetful. Why not? Forrest was in his 80s when he made his frequent "errors," so my (apparently outrageous) suggestion was simply that we can't KNOW Forrest was deliberately prevaricating when he made any, many or most of his clearly faulty statements because we're not mind-readers.

Bottom line is that Forrest sure as hell made a lot of whoppers, and I'd like to think he didn't believe searchers were so stupid or sycophantic that they wouldn't notice.

Zap, I think he's simply quibbling about your grammar. It seems unnecessary as I understood what you were saying, and I suspect most people did - including OP.

[Blurrbee]

the OP or maybe someone else needs to explain what is the contradiction in the two statements because there is no contradiction in them

there are a number of explanations i can guess at, but they all would have an assumption of meaning in one of the 2 statements that isn't actually there

6/16/20 "but the poem in my book led him to the precise spot." - Forrest Fenn
9/23/20 Medium post: "I figured out the location where he wished to die (and thus, where his treasure was) back in 2018, but it took me many months to figure out the exact spot." - Finder

[Willy'sNorthWesternPeaNut]

“You won’t happen upon it - F”
Forrest also used careful, precise wording. “No place for the meek”
Jack said it was in the safest place it could be.

If you look up the word meek. It is defined as “quiet, gentle, easily imposed upon; submissive.”

All these statements scream restricted area. A place YNP says is a “no go”. Certainly not NMH, as it’s not restricted at all. But several areas on the Firehole are indeed restricted. No fishing or treading there. Sure makes you wonder….

"From there" it's no place for the meek. Who says "NPFTM" and "brave and in the wood" are the same location?

Brave and in the wood being the final area.

I do believe it was in a National Park. Just not Yellowstone.

[Spoon]

the OP or maybe someone else needs to explain what is the contradiction in the two statements because there is no contradiction in them

there are a number of explanations i can guess at, but they all would have an assumption of meaning in one of the 2 statements that isn't actually there

6/16/20 "but the poem in my book led him to the precise spot." - Forrest Fenn
9/23/20 Medium post: "I figured out the location where he wished to die (and thus, where his treasure was) back in 2018, but it took me many months to figure out the exact spot." - Finder

Good one, Blurrbee. I've always thought it fascinating how Jack's story of finding the chest includes scouring a sizeable area and finally locating the chest via this method (please correct me if I have that wrong), yet Forrest says that the poem led him to the precise spot. In my book, a football field-size area is not precise when the sought for item is the smaller than a cubic foot. Those are tough ones to reconcile.

[Tim (ZosoRocks)]

Good one, Blurrbee. I've always thought it fascinating how Jack's story of finding the chest includes scouring a sizeable area and finally locating the chest via this method (please correct me if I have that wrong), yet Forrest says that the poem led him to the precise spot. In my book, a football field-size area is not precise when the sought for item is the smaller than a cubic foot. Those are tough ones to reconcile.

Because there are two different people involved - as "The finder".....you have "Jack/Bill" - and the guy Forrest mentions quite a few times......

- looking for a picture of him at Fennboree
- looking for a special name in email
- hasn't ever mentioned any name, including never "Jack/Bill" - only "Jack/Bill" inserted his name into the narrative
- Forrest seems to "admire" the guy if he was actively seeking out info on him-- speculation at best.
- does not intertwine "Jack/Bill" into the story, but sure did with this "other person"

There is another "finder".

Good luck.
Tim

[Sarah Seedling]

Because there are two different people involved - as "The finder".....you have "Jack/Bill" - and the guy Forrest mentions quite a few times......

- looking for a picture of him at Fennboree
- looking for a special name in email
- hasn't ever mentioned any name, including never "Jack/Bill" - only "Jack/Bill" inserted his name into the narrative
- Forrest seems to "admire" the guy if he was actively seeking out info on him-- speculation at best.
- does not intertwine "Jack/Bill" into the story, but sure did with this "other person"

There is another "finder".

Good luck.
Tim

This guy Forrest admires should probably contact the lawyer or family and see if Forrest left them an admiration chest?

[Tim (ZosoRocks)]

This guy Forrest admires should probably contact the lawyer or family and see if Forrest left them an admiration chest?

"If you don't have a picture of you holding or handling the chest or its contents, then the find never happened for you." - Toby Younis

This is a great factual statement in all that it includes.

It is telling. It is truthful...it shows progression.

If one does not have this specific requirement nailed down...how is it that an "admiration chest" is given by someone other than Forrest?

"Here is your participation ttophy." I doubt this..

Please explain yourself.

Now...if Karl knows the answers to the solution AND knows who solved the Poem....then what is hold up if this can be done by his action? Is he being selfish? Is he ensuring one must physically travel to the location and retrieve?

IS this even possible if the narrative already states the chest is gone?

Out of all of these subjective reasons - one must be true.

Thanks.
Tim

[Livinlifebig]

Because there are two different people involved - as "The finder".....you have "Jack/Bill" - and the guy Forrest mentions quite a few times......

- looking for a picture of him at Fennboree
- looking for a special name in email
- hasn't ever mentioned any name, including never "Jack/Bill" - only "Jack/Bill" inserted his name into the narrative
- Forrest seems to "admire" the guy if he was actively seeking out info on him-- speculation at best.
- does not intertwine "Jack/Bill" into the story, but sure did with this "other person"

There is another "finder".

Good luck.
Tim

This is correct... We know Bill is short for William. Forrest's fathers name and the name of Wiliam Wylie..
This is why Forrest spelled His dogs name Willie instead of Willy.....
his Grandchildren named him after watching Willy Wonka...

So why didn't he spell the dogs name Willy?
Best picture, standing in the snow in front of V tree..



.