Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

There is a way to know

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by trueyeti View Post

    Hey Sarah,
    Good point. I hear you. IMO.. we do not have all of the answers and are relying on trying to "piece it all together." One thing we can rely on (IMO), is that he is the "architect," and that he spent decades on working out all of the "angles."

    We can't know of his "true intentions" as the "architect." IMO... he had devised various "scenarios" in his architectural layout of the treasure hunt in which he had consideration for his legacy.

    For example, there are the 8-bronze jars still "hidden." (Unless he had them recovered). IMO... these jars (containing the 20,000 word autobiography), act as an "agent" that ensure that the treasure hunt is not truly over. Remembering the "Dancing with the Millennium" and knowing that he had said about the bells.... "a thousand years," IMO... we can rest assured that his treasure hunt will influence those in the future. IMO... that's what he had intended.

    To answer your question.... IMO... yeah he had the angles figured, however.... the rhetorical question that was asked to him regarding "knowing for sure" whether or not the chest had been recovered, was answered by him saying that there was a "way to know." IMO... that way requires him to send someone out to the location to see if it was still there. IMO... Forrest was subject to the same faults that we all are as humans have. Question is.... could he have sent someone out to do that? Is that the way the chase really ended? The answer/answers to that rhetorical/theoretical question is affirmative. Maybe the part of your question that reads, "why would he need to know" really means that he "had to know."

    For example, if he knew that trueyeti was right on the spot (because I had sent him photos and emailed him), and he had not heard from me for 2 years..... well, then I can see that he could have become "un-nerved" and uncomfortable with the possibility that I had recovered the chest and chosen not to contact him. IMO... given this hypothetical.... he could have "adjusted" his architectural strategy to make it possible for him to end the chase. (As per his email to Dal). IMO... that scenario is possible. Thinking about it all for a minute, how would you react as Forrest Fenn.... having received the certain proof from a searcher that they were "right on top" of the treasure chest..... and then you hear nothing from that searcher for 2 plus years? Would you perhaps tell Dal that you intended to bring the chase to an end? How could you not do otherwise? Hell, the clues that he left out there were no longer fully in place.

    How could you find rest knowing that a searcher had very likely found the chest and said nothing (in his mind). (Thereby threatening his legacy). Wouldn't you be open to the notion of ending the chase (sending someone out to see), just so you could know for certain whether or not the chest had been recovered? After all, he had an interest in fulfilling his own design of the chase and his legacy. Yet given the possibility of this scenario (that it had been recovered by trueyeti for example).... it was out of his hands in a way. The rhetorical question serves to show how "the one way to know for sure" is a possibility. That he recovered it himself/Jack, with Dal's email as evidence toward Forrest's intentionality to end the chase, thereby gives credence to the statement "one way to know," and that way was to have sent Jack. (Hypothetical....these are puzzle pieces).

    IMO... the "one way to know" reveal was a minor slip up.... IMO.... it could go to intention, or reveal..... what he was already considering.... and that is to end the chase.... cause he had to know..... because I had sent him the photos that proved that I was right on the spot (in 2017) . Wyoming...... well that figures in to the preservation of his legacy, IMO. Cheers.
    All fine and dandy but Forrest always claimed he was ambivalent, it was out of his hands. Interjecting himself back in because the suspense was killing him is a sure sign of weakness. No I don’t think this is how it all went down. He also claimed that when you figured it out the treasure would be there waiting for you, that can’t happen in your scenario

    Comment


    • #17
      There is a way for Forrest to know. You have to solve the calculations correctly and give him the right answer.
      X = 400,000

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Trailblazer99 View Post

        But he did say the treasure is not where your going to find it.
        Because there are two different items. The 'treasure' and 'it'.

        'And with my treasures bold,'
        'And take it in the canyon down,'


        The treasure chest presented in TTOTC was the lure.
        Last edited by Balder; 08-28-2022, 07:54 AM.

        Comment


        • #19
          Now the million dollar question is:

          What is 'it' ?
          Last edited by Balder; 08-28-2022, 07:55 AM.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Balder View Post
            Now the million dollar question is:

            What is 'it' ?
            He’s not aloud to answer that on here. Sorry.
            https://youtu.be/ZG_k5CSYKhg

            Comment


            • #21
              I found the word that is key and where there is a will there is a way but my shadow isn't cast by a fool lol .

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by fflegacy

                Forrest could write:
                As I have gone alone in there
                With my treasures bold.
                But he wrote:
                As I have gone alone in there
                And with my treasures bold.
                That is, the first time he "I have gone alone" and the second time "with my treasures bold". See the difference?
                It seems that four different things are referred to in Forrest Fenn's poem:

                And with my treasures bold,
                And hint of riches new and old,
                And take it in the canyon down,
                And leave my trove for (four) all to seek?

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Balder View Post

                  It seems that four different things are referred to in Forrest Fenn's poem:

                  And with my treasures bold,
                  And hint of riches new and old,
                  And take it in the canyon down,
                  And leave my trove for (four) all to seek?
                  "Heavy loads and Water high"

                  Right next to each other.

                  and
                  /and,(ə)n/
                  conjunction
                  1. 1.
                    used to connect words of the same part of speech, clauses, or sentences, that are to be taken jointly.
                    "bread and butter"
                  You can file this information under Misc in your trash can. F

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Sarah Seedling View Post

                    All fine and dandy but Forrest always claimed he was ambivalent, it was out of his hands. Interjecting himself back in because the suspense was killing him is a sure sign of weakness. No I don’t think this is how it all went down. He also claimed that when you figured it out the treasure would be there waiting for you, that can’t happen in your scenario
                    Hey Sarah,
                    Yes... good points all. Hypothetical conjecture is what I guess.... we're talking about. (The puzzle pieces). Anyway, when I was 5 years old, me an my friend Matt found a playboy magazine and vowed to keep this "miracle" a secret.... between him and me. Shortly after... one day I went to Matt's house and his mom said he was not there. Then I went to Tim's house... his mom said he was also not there. I then checked the "hidey-hole" and the magazine was gone.

                    In my neighborhood there were hills up above the housing development. I knew those hills well and I knew of a "cave" in the side of the sandstone. I left Tim's house and checked the "hidey-hole," and for some reason I thought of that "cave" up there. I looked up. You know it is amazing to me now how good of eyesight that I was blessed with, but out on the street as I thought of that "cave," I looked up to the hills and I saw Matt and Tim, sitting in that cave and thumbing through the playboy magazine. It was a good quarter mile or more away... but up there I went to talk with my friends (yeah...to look at the magazine too). Anyway IMO, I felt the earliest recollection of a sense of "betrayal" at this event. Looking back, I felt a sense of "injustice" too somehow.

                    IMO.... this childhood event encapsulates the nature of the human animal. IMO... it could be that this event and "human nature" somehow could apply to TTOTC in the "hypothetical conjecture" that we've chatted about.

                    Yes, Forrest said those things that you mention. Yes, the puzzle pieces seemingly demonstrate the "integrity" of what Forrest said as being the truth. Let us be sure, hardly anyone doubted that Forrest hid a chest and put on a treasure hunt. But given Matt's sharing of the "trove" of the Playboy magazine with Tim.... and me seeing it first hand, "betrayal" is an element that plays into the Playboy scenario. IMO... human nature could play into Forrest and the "one way to know for sure" scenario too.

                    How many times have I said that I intended to do one thing and then don't? Plenty. I am both weak, and strong at the same time......

                    IMO Matt, just could not resist the needing to show Tim the Playboy magazine. IMO it could be that with Forrest it was a similar circumstance. In that scenario Forrest knew that someone had been right on the chest and collected/removed the clues that he left on the ground out there. IMO... the scenario where he just "had to know" one way or the other could apply. Remembering too.... that he had thought of everything, we are just considering the puzzle pieces as they lay upon the table.

                    The claim of "ambivalence" is like the agreement that Matt and I had regarding the Playboy magazine. Then I saw him and Tim up there in the "cave" thumbing through the "trove." IMO, "injecting" himself back into things like you mention could be almost "unavoidable" given human nature, secrets, and his legacy. Who knows for sure? IMO "weakness," well, heck isn't that a part of "human nature?" Especially with a scenario with Forrest wanting to know if his chest (one way or the other, knowing that someone was so close) had been recovered and the "finder" not ever contacting him. Anyways, Cheers.
                    Last edited by trueyeti; 08-28-2022, 07:11 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by trueyeti View Post

                      Hey Sarah,
                      Yes... good points all. Hypothetical conjecture is what I guess.... we're talking about. (The puzzle pieces). Anyway, when I was 5 years old, me an my friend Matt found a playboy magazine and vowed to keep this "miracle" a secret.... between him and me. Shortly after... one day I went to Matt's house and his mom said he was not there. Then I went to Tim's house... his mom said he was also not there. I then checked the "hidey-hole" and the magazine was gone.

                      In my neighborhood there were hills up above the housing development. I knew those hills well and I knew of a "cave" in the side of the sandstone. I left Tim's house and checked the "hidey-hole," and for some reason I thought of that "cave" up there. I looked up. You know it is amazing to me now how good of eyesight that I was blessed with, but out on the street as I thought of that "cave," I looked up to the hills and I saw Matt and Tim, sitting in that cave and thumbing through the playboy magazine. It was a good quarter mile or more away... but up there I went to talk with my friends (yeah...to look at the magazine too). Anyway IMO, I felt the earliest recollection of a sense of "betrayal" at this event. Looking back, I felt a sense of "injustice" too somehow.

                      IMO.... this childhood event encapsulates the nature of the human animal. IMO... it could be that this event and "human nature" somehow could apply to TTOTC in the "hypothetical conjecture" that we've chatted about.

                      Yes, Forrest said those things that you mention. Yes, the puzzle pieces seemingly demonstrate the "integrity" of what Forrest said as being the truth. Let us be sure, hardly anyone doubted that Forrest hid a chest and put on a treasure hunt. But given Matt's sharing of the "trove" of the Playboy magazine with Tim.... and me seeing it first hand, "betrayal" is an element that plays into the Playboy scenario. IMO... human nature could play into Forrest and the "one way to know for sure" scenario too.

                      How many times have I said that I intended to do one thing and then don't? Plenty. I am both weak, and strong at the same time......

                      IMO Matt, just could not resist the needing to show Tim the Playboy magazine. IMO it could be that with Forrest it was a similar circumstance. In that scenario Forrest knew that someone had been right on the chest and collected/removed the clues that he left on the ground out there. IMO... the scenario where he just "had to know" one way or the other could apply. Remembering too.... that he had thought of everything, we are just considering the puzzle pieces as they lay upon the table.

                      The claim of "ambivalence" is like the agreement that Matt and I had regarding the Playboy magazine. Then I saw him and Tim up there in the "cave" thumbing through the "trove." IMO, "injecting" himself back into things like you mention could be almost "unavoidable" given human nature, secrets, and his legacy. Who knows for sure? IMO "weakness," well, heck isn't that a part of "human nature?" Especially with a scenario with Forrest wanting to know if his chest (one way or the other, knowing that someone was so close) had been recovered and the "finder" not ever contacting him. Anyways, Cheers.
                      So Forrest and Jack sat in some little sandstone cave and ruined the Chase for the LS

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Tetetlestia

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Old blue View Post
                          Tetetlestia
                          not till the Fat Lady sings, are you implying Forrest and Jack killed the LS put them in a sandstone cave?

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by trueyeti View Post

                            Hey Sarah,
                            Good point. I hear you. IMO.. we do not have all of the answers and are relying on trying to "piece it all together." One thing we can rely on (IMO), is that he is the "architect," and that he spent decades on working out all of the "angles."

                            We can't know of his "true intentions" as the "architect." IMO... he had devised various "scenarios" in his architectural layout of the treasure hunt in which he had consideration for his legacy.

                            For example, there are the 8-bronze jars still "hidden." (Unless he had them recovered). IMO... these jars (containing the 20,000 word autobiography), act as an "agent" that ensure that the treasure hunt is not truly over. Remembering the "Dancing with the Millennium" and knowing that he had said about the bells.... "a thousand years," IMO... we can rest assured that his treasure hunt will influence those in the future. IMO... that's what he had intended.

                            To answer your question.... IMO... yeah he had the angles figured, however.... the rhetorical question that was asked to him regarding "knowing for sure" whether or not the chest had been recovered, was answered by him saying that there was a "way to know." IMO... that way requires him to send someone out to the location to see if it was still there. IMO... Forrest was subject to the same faults that we all are as humans have. Question is.... could he have sent someone out to do that? Is that the way the chase really ended? The answer/answers to that rhetorical/theoretical question is affirmative. Maybe the part of your question that reads, "why would he need to know" really means that he "had to know."

                            For example, if he knew that trueyeti was right on the spot (because I had sent him photos and emailed him), and he had not heard from me for 2 years..... well, then I can see that he could have become "un-nerved" and uncomfortable with the possibility that I had recovered the chest and chosen not to contact him. IMO... given this hypothetical.... he could have "adjusted" his architectural strategy to make it possible for him to end the chase. (As per his email to Dal). IMO... that scenario is possible. Thinking about it all for a minute, how would you react as Forrest Fenn.... having received the certain proof from a searcher that they were "right on top" of the treasure chest..... and then you hear nothing from that searcher for 2 plus years? Would you perhaps tell Dal that you intended to bring the chase to an end? How could you not do otherwise? Hell, the clues that he left out there were no longer fully in place.

                            How could you find rest knowing that a searcher had very likely found the chest and said nothing (in his mind). (Thereby threatening his legacy). Wouldn't you be open to the notion of ending the chase (sending someone out to see), just so you could know for certain whether or not the chest had been recovered? After all, he had an interest in fulfilling his own design of the chase and his legacy. Yet given the possibility of this scenario (that it had been recovered by trueyeti for example).... it was out of his hands in a way. The rhetorical question serves to show how "the one way to know for sure" is a possibility. That he recovered it himself/Jack, with Dal's email as evidence toward Forrest's intentionality to end the chase, thereby gives credence to the statement "one way to know," and that way was to have sent Jack. (Hypothetical....these are puzzle pieces).

                            IMO... the "one way to know" reveal was a minor slip up.... IMO.... it could go to intention, or reveal..... what he was already considering.... and that is to end the chase.... cause he had to know..... because I had sent him the photos that proved that I was right on the spot (in 2017) . Wyoming...... well that figures in to the preservation of his legacy, IMO. Cheers.
                            That's actually a pretty good theory.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Walker View Post

                              That's actually a pretty good theory.
                              IMO only, there are two ways to architect a labyrinth: one way with an obvious, singular path and one way with no obvious, singular path. The hybrid is very, very difficult, though not impossible.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Rose Livingstone View Post
                                IMO only, there are two ways to architect a labyrinth: one way with an obvious, singular path and one way with no obvious, singular path. The hybrid is very, very difficult, though not impossible.
                                Forrest probably made the hybrid, and then added mirrors for good measure.

                                If trueyeti 's theory is right, I think Forrest was probably pretty suspicious that the would-be-Finder didn't finish it for 2 years. Especially after seeing how a few of the 7%ers acted.
                                I can't blame him for that.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X