Tweet
. . . that when Forrest mentioned the find occurring "in Wyoming", he probably meant "within the border(s) of the Wyoming craton"?
-
-
No -
I don't know. I guess anything's possible. If he thought of everything, then maybe he has dropped a hint somewhere?
Edit... wait, he stated "in the state of Wyoming", in the court docs.
Now I'm wondering, wasn't Wyoming originally much bigger?Last edited by Walker; 06-23-2022, 09:22 PM.Comment
-
If you play the recording backwards .... no, uh ..... if Fenn meant "Wyoming" in Sanskrit .... no, uh .... isn't there a Wyoming Crater on Gargantua just to the left through the Worm Hole left by 5 dimensional beings? .... nah, um .... He was speaking in Carny!! Yeah! Yeah! That's the ticket! Yeah!Conservatism is the belief that a small subset of the people is protected by the law, but not bound by it, while another, larger group is bound by the law, but is not protected by it.
~ UnknownComment
-
No as well.Comment
-
I am sorry O.P., but the only thing I can agree on is : after all these emails , and shows , and on and on and on ----
I AM Nucking Futs !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Like , Really.Comment
-
I agree that the treasure may have been found within the borders of the Wyoming Craton, and maybe even within the State of Wyoming. But the hidey spot, and the trove, were not. That's just according to the maps I have seen, and my opinion.
Comment
-
Where (online) could I find the court doc that shows this?Originally posted by Walker View PostComment
-
That's why I don't watch them. My interest in them is about as high as my interest in reality shows: Nada. Zip.Originally posted by Fenndery View PostComment
-
You make a good point, differentiating between "the treasure" and "the trove". Thank you.Originally posted by elperro View Post
By the way, what maps are you referring to? I used google earth and mapquest.com and no others in this hunt, except to research the Wyoming craton and the borders of YNP.Comment
-
Hey OP,Originally posted by Old Pilot View Post
Do you mean to say that we should all agree on an unproved speculation? IMO, you could reformulate your comment into a claim and then show your findings that meet the burden of proof that shows your claim has a greater than 50% chance of being true.
Hell, let's do it now:
Claim: Forrest hid the chest in the Wyoming craton.
Findings: Forrest said Wyoming. The Wyoming craton is in Wyoming.
Burden of proof: Forrest said Wyoming, but does that finding rise to the burden of proof and show that the claim has a greater than 50% chance of being true?
Anybody else have anything else to add to the Claim or to the findings or to the burden of proof? This is just an outline....I don't care if you modify or whatever....
But OP, if you want to establish "agreement" in this blog, then maybe...this kind of thing could be an effort to that end....where everyone can add/subtract/argue/modify either of the 3-elements of the preponderance of evidence standard. Otherwise, IMO, its the survival of the fittest. Cheers.
PS. IMO mates, we are barking up the wrong tree with this. IMO...the locality can only be established by proving Brown first. IMO, a claim on Brown has the potential to over-ride the importance of the Wyoming craton claim or the Wyoming claim for that matter too. Cheers.Comment
-
The treasure chest was not secreted inside the state of Wyoming, nor was it found there. I agree, it was hidden with the confines of the Wyoming Craton.Comment
-
I don't know where the (pictured) treasure chest was found, as no one with any actual knowledge has come forward to inform us of its precise location. However we were told the following by Mr Fenn:
"Many of the searchers for my treasure had solves that seemed to neatly fit the clues in my poem. Then when the finder found and retrieved the treasure, other searchers wondered how close they had been to the right spot. Because I promised the finder I would not reveal who found it or where, I have remained mostly silent.
However, the finder understands how important some closure is for many searchers, so today he agreed that we should reveal that the treasure was found in Wyoming. Until he found the treasure, the treasure had not moved in the 10 years since I left it there on the ground, and walked away.
Perhaps today’s announcement will bring some closure to those whose solves were in New Mexico, Colorado, or Montana.
To all of those who did not find the treasure, we hope that you got some enjoyment from the chase. f"
Although we can't be certain, it sounds very much like the "treasure" was found within the borders of the state of Wyoming. As for the "trove," the "chest," the "gold," who knows, unless these terms are interchangeable?
Comment
-
Yes, you're right. Ludicrously though (and I can't really explain why), I think it was just possible to do what Jack claimed: i.e. to work out where FF wanted to die, and so to find the spot without solving the poem. Remember that FF said that he was "shocked" when the find occurred. If the poem had been solved in the intended manner, I think he would have reacted quite differently. I believe it may have messed with his plans to have the spot identified without a full solve, because I think Forrest's aim was to have someone complete the "quest" and so fulfill the mission that he had planned.Originally posted by mountain diggerComment
-
I'm not sure why people think this, but anything is possible I'm glad you can see Fenn can be ambiguous but certain times he's not and it makes it hard to read. however, I take it as in the state of Wyoming and the solve was in Wyoming. he mentioned Cody Wyoming for a reason as well.Comment
Comment