More pics of the logs at the nook!!!

[Gunrunner]

On the first anniversary of the nook discovery, I'd like to wish everyone a Happy Log Day!
Cheers to adventure and the promise of new discoveries. Remember, anything is possible!

Would it be possible for any of you Trekkies, er, Nookies, to provide a substantive response to the very real objections that have been raised to your "conclusion" that these logs are one and the same, rather than the same silly trolling? Is there no Spock among you who can explain logically why you profess such belief, in the face of overwhelming contradictory real-world evidence?

It has been established without rebuttal that the solar angles we see in the find photos are not possible at the jumble of downfall you are calling the nook.

It's also well established in this very thread that y'all have been playing hanky-panky with these images, and that there is a 30% difference in the size of these logs.

Maybe you ought to get those little problems straightened out before you pop the cork.

(But do notice the date this sticky thread was posted, as evidence of how readily this narrative was adopted. Hmmmm, not much time for critical review there, was it?)

[trueyeti]

Can't answer who is Brown? I answered that in one of my first posts on this forum, over 2 years ago. Here's a link, to refresh your memory:

https://www.hintofriches.com/forum/the-hint-of-riches/281615-everything-but-the-blaze-madison-nine-mile-hole?p=281620#post281620

I'll leave it at that. On Log Day, we should be focused on celebrating the discovery of the nook.

I am familiar as I have read it. I appreciate the sticky thread that has been there for 2 years.

IMO, the "Brown" in the document is subjective and does not stand alone by itself. IMO, the "Brown" within it is assailable; "Brown" must stand objectively on it's own. "Who is Brown?" The difference between subjectivity and objectivity as it is applied to "the home of Brown" is the difference between standing and falling. Objectivity renders clarity, while subjectivity renders muddy water.

The log pic/stick pics do stand on their own in a manner of speaking, however....the objective reality of what those photos (or any solve for that matter) represent means that a solution must objectively be able to demonstrate a clear answer for the question of "Who is Brown." I needn't say that objectivity on "the home of Brown" is a requirement for the "correct solve," but it is only the starting place. It is just one piece of the puzzle - and it must stand on it's own. 100% certainty? And why not? It is not too much to ask. The photos are questionable without the objective answer to the question of "Who is Brown?" Where can we find objectivity?

Forrest said, "where the first clue is." IMO, your document falls short on objectively proving location of "where the first clue is." I re-read the first comment and understand that you have laid out firstly....Where Warm Waters halt, that is the first clue after all. We agree on that being the first clue however, that is also where we diverge (and that is okay). IMO, your prescription for location falls short on providing "where the first clue is" because you start with the first clue and not....it's location, or "where the first clue is." The first clue is a function of "where the first clue is" according to Forrest. Starting with WWWh first....disqualifies what Forrest said about "where the first clue is." It is a non-starter therefor. The horse is "location"/or "where," and the cart (WWWh) is found there. Not the other way around. Is one approach objective and the other subjective? Location is what the correct solve is all about.......

A viable location for "where the first clue is" must be grounded in objectivity. To help us - Forrest gave the answer to the question of "Who is Brown?"
Video Interview with Jennifer London 2013
Who is Brown?
If I told you that, you’d go right to the chest.

Objectively then.....Brown.....leads you to right to the chest. WWWh is a function of the location of Forrest's "where the first clue is." IMO, the nook is subjectively grounded in starting with the first clue and not "where the first clue is." (Despite the pics/findings/claims).

Brown must be simple and straight forward with no subterfuge in sight. IMO.......
The stick/nook/etc.....is subjective until a Brown is provided that stands objectively on its own. Nevertheless....thanks for your work. It's fine....we can agree to disagree.

[Gunrunner]

I am familiar as I have read it. I appreciate the sticky thread that has been there for 2 years.

IMO, the "Brown" in the document is subjective...

Please, yeti. Vertigo's task in this thread is to defend his claim that Rudy found Jack's nook, based on the photographic evidence. Don't distract him. If you want to talk about how to interpret some line in the poem, go to the thread he linked to argue about it. That has nothing to do with this. I'm waiting for a substantive response to the evidence that has been presented that these logs are not the same. Not to be short with you, but I don't need your help here.

[trueyeti]

Please, yeti. Vertigo's task in this thread is to defend his claim that Rudy found Jack's nook, based on the photographic evidence. Don't distract him. If you want to talk about how to interpret some line in the poem, go to the thread he linked to argue about it. That has nothing to do with this. I'm waiting for a substantive response to the evidence that has been presented that these logs are not the same. Not to be short with you, but I don't need your help here.

Hey, thanks for the what's up. Mr Vertigo I apologize to the thread for interfering with my comments.....any of which may have distracted anyone from the content of Gunrunner comment. Please ignore....for now. I'll do my best to pay attention and listen for the "all clear signal." I will do my best to not get in here and distract. Again thanks for setting me straight.