Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Questions

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by trueyeti View Post

    Hey Sal,
    IMO...Everything is straightened out if looked at through the lens of "Who is Brown?" If this community really wanted to get to the "winning solve," then that is what the focus should be. Brown must shake hands with all things Forrest....without over-the-boulder-shoulder-holder leaps of logic and reason.

    No body considers Richard Wetherill, Byron Harvey, the Navajo Silversmith, and the turquoise bracelet.....with respect to Brown, except me.

    Easy to prove, but impossible to convince those searchers who deny that the winning solve has already been made available. Simple logic is in the face with these things. It doesn't click for those in denial. Brown must jive with those things that Forrest wrote and said again in that interview in 2019. You must practice looking at seeing what is in front of you and being able to evaluate it without subjective prejudice. You must practice unprejudiced objectivity. If you do...then you will see that there is a solve that does Marry the poem to a map, as well as those elements in the chapter, "Gold and More," Poem included. Cheers.
    Shame on you, Mr. Yeti. I consider everything you say and listen very closely . . . that is, just prior to when I allow it to slip past my attention span. Your comments about Richard Wetherill are case in point. If he truly was related to Brown, and he was as important as you stated, then would we really know this place when we saw it? Thusly, would we be able to apply logic to the poem, solve the riddle, and place it in context with "brave and in the wood"? What if there were two ends, where we got stuck choosing, and where we were at the wrong end of that stick? Could we say that it didn't matter, or that it wouldn't bother us in the least? I think it would, and I think you know what I mean. I mean, really. How could we pretend to practice objectivity when we're the object of that practice? Could we say it's "worth our cold", and that Fenn's comment of "any weather" had no precedence? What if we needed a 4X4, and we couldn't make the trip while the snow was flying, could we say we're happy about that ending? Talk about someone getting it stuck to them in a big way! By the way, no harm intended in anything I said. I'm simply practicing unprejudiced objectivity . . . which I'm extremely bad at.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by trueyeti View Post

      Hey Sal,
      IMO...Everything is straightened out if looked at through the lens of "Who is Brown?" If this community really wanted to get to the "winning solve," then that is what the focus should be. Brown must shake hands with all things Forrest....without over-the-boulder-shoulder-holder leaps of logic and reason.

      No body considers Richard Wetherill, Byron Harvey, the Navajo Silversmith, and the turquoise bracelet.....with respect to Brown, except me.

      Easy to prove, but impossible to convince those searchers who deny that the winning solve has already been made available. Simple logic is in the face with these things. It doesn't click for those in denial. Brown must jive with those things that Forrest wrote and said again in that interview in 2019. You must practice looking at seeing what is in front of you and being able to evaluate it without subjective prejudice. You must practice unprejudiced objectivity. If you do...then you will see that there is a solve that does Marry the poem to a map, as well as those elements in the chapter, "Gold and More," Poem included. Cheers.
      its called signal to noise...which one r u? i think im in the impulsively noisy group

      Comment


      • #18
        Kpro
        Did Forrest End the chase and give it to Jack

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Suzy View Post

          Shame on you, Mr. Yeti. I consider everything you say and listen very closely . . . that is, just prior to when I allow it to slip past my attention span. Your comments about Richard Wetherill are case in point. If he truly was related to Brown, and he was as important as you stated, then would we really know this place when we saw it? Thusly, would we be able to apply logic to the poem, solve the riddle, and place it in context with "brave and in the wood"? What if there were two ends, where we got stuck choosing, and where we were at the wrong end of that stick? Could we say that it didn't matter, or that it wouldn't bother us in the least? I think it would, and I think you know what I mean. I mean, really. How could we pretend to practice objectivity when we're the object of that practice? Could we say it's "worth our cold", and that Fenn's comment of "any weather" had no precedence? What if we needed a 4X4, and we couldn't make the trip while the snow was flying, could we say we're happy about that ending? Talk about someone getting it stuck to them in a big way! By the way, no harm intended in anything I said. I'm simply practicing unprejudiced objectivity . . . which I'm extremely bad at.
          Hey Suzy,
          Ain't no shame in my game. Rhetorical aspects to my comment. However, the actual things that Forrest wrote and re-iterated in the 2019 interview are; Richard Wetherill, Byron Harvey, Navajo (Silversmith), and the turquoise bracelet. Does the question of "Who is Brown?" as applied to "the winning solve" have implicit applicability with these things that Forrest's writes and Forrest mentions in that interview? The winning solve must account for these things....and more.

          No body can comprehend this simple concept. One must shake hands with the other (the poem/Brown and these things listed above). Most all of the details that you mention in your comment reflect a biased and prejudiced attitude of putting the cart in the front of the horse. It must needs be, the other way around. The prejudice comes from not seeing/understanding that a solve needs to accomplish this hand shake....a reader should easily understand this and comprehend it. Brown...in the poem is steered by these things that Forrest mentions. They are the most important things that Marry to Brown and the poem....A solve can't get away from them, and instead must answer for them. They are Forrest Fenn. Biased won't do it, prejudice won't either. So where does that leave this community? In denial.

          The logic goes like this; Richard Wetherill is not important to locality and has nothing to do with "Brown. No, Byron Harvey just gave the bracelet to Forrest and that is not important at all. Or it sounds like, "Navajo?" what's that got to do with anything? Uhm.....the bracelet doesn't have anything to do with the winning solve. Dragons? There's no Dragons involved in a solve. Usually.....these kinds of statements that diminish these things of Forrest Fenn are defensive mechanisms designed to protect the individual who is in denial from having to admit that their solve is wrong, and to prevent them from having to suffer the grieving process....Ironically, that is what is needed in order to know "the winning solve." They prevent themselves from moving forward, with a paradigm shift. They are lost in the maze.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Mr hand View Post

            its called signal to noise...which one r u? i think im in the impulsively noisy group
            Hey Hand,
            Deny that Forrest wrote Richard Wetherill, Byron Harvey, the Navajo (Silversmith), and the turquoise bracelet. Deny that Forrest answered the question "Who is Brown?" Now go one step further and deny that in the 2019 interview he reiterated Richard Wetherill, Byron Harvey, Navajo (Silversmith), and the turquoise bracelet. If you ask yourself these questions and deny that he did, know for certain that you are in denial.

            Those lost in the labyrinth, are comfortable and warm....in a cocoon of denial. Willful ignorance parading as wisdom like the guy who couldn't get a ticket...it was a sold out show. So get rocking, instead of banging your head mates. Bust through the labyrinth and break free. I've got the key....it's those things that Forrest said that Marry Brown and the poem.

            As far as the noise goes....back in the day of t.v.'s with vacuum tubes.....and the turn dials for tuning, the t.v. would exhibit "white noise." I've heard/read that the screen that showed the "snow" (black and white dots)....was actually showing the CBR. (Cosmic Background Radiation). I'm tuned in to both the white-noise and the channel that I'm watching....at the same time. Cheers.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by trueyeti View Post

              Hey Suzy,
              Ain't no shame in my game. Rhetorical aspects to my comment. However, the actual things that Forrest wrote and re-iterated in the 2019 interview are; Richard Wetherill, Byron Harvey, Navajo (Silversmith), and the turquoise bracelet. Does the question of "Who is Brown?" as applied to "the winning solve" have implicit applicability with these things that Forrest's writes and Forrest mentions in that interview? The winning solve must account for these things....and more.

              No body can comprehend this simple concept. One must shake hands with the other (the poem/Brown and these things listed above). Most all of the details that you mention in your comment reflect a biased and prejudiced attitude of putting the cart in the front of the horse. It must needs be, the other way around. The prejudice comes from not seeing/understanding that a solve needs to accomplish this hand shake....a reader should easily understand this and comprehend it. Brown...in the poem is steered by these things that Forrest mentions. They are the most important things that Marry to Brown and the poem....A solve can't get away from them, and instead must answer for them. They are Forrest Fenn. Biased won't do it, prejudice won't either. So where does that leave this community? In denial.

              The logic goes like this; Richard Wetherill is not important to locality and has nothing to do with "Brown. No, Byron Harvey just gave the bracelet to Forrest and that is not important at all. Or it sounds like, "Navajo?" what's that got to do with anything? Uhm.....the bracelet doesn't have anything to do with the winning solve. Dragons? There's no Dragons involved in a solve. Usually.....these kinds of statements that diminish these things of Forrest Fenn are defensive mechanisms designed to protect the individual who is in denial from having to admit that their solve is wrong, and to prevent them from having to suffer the grieving process....Ironically, that is what is needed in order to know "the winning solve." They prevent themselves from moving forward, with a paradigm shift. They are lost in the maze.
              I'm not sure about Forrest's maze, but yours has definitely got me in denial and lost. Mostly denial. Oh, and flapping jaws . . . that'll do it too. Yep, I see your reason for those defensive mechanisms.

              Comment


              • #22
                Hey Suzy,
                My defensive mechanisms are Forrest's truisms.

                Ask yourself: Did Forrest write just prior to the poem about Richard Wetherill, Byron Harvey, the Navajo (Silversmith), and the turquoise bracelet? Did Forrest reiterate these things in that 2019 interview? Do these things have anything to do with the winning solve? Do you remember what Forrest answered when asked the question, "Who is Brown?" Cheers

                Comment


                • #23
                  I am pretty sure when someone has spent time at the real location they know it. Once you see that owl and flame you soon find TTOTC on display.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Knowledge View Post
                    I am pretty sure when someone has spent time at the real location they know it. Once you see that owl and flame you soon find TTOTC on display.
                    Hey Know,
                    Please show us how Richard Wetherill, Byron Harvey, the Navajo (Silversmith), and the turquoise bracelet Marry the Poem and Brown where your owl and flame are at. The answer should be straight forward and simple. If you can't do that, then your location is wrong. Cheers.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by trueyeti View Post

                      Hey Hand,
                      Deny that Forrest wrote Richard Wetherill, Byron Harvey, the Navajo (Silversmith), and the turquoise bracelet. Deny that Forrest answered the question "Who is Brown?" Now go one step further and deny that in the 2019 interview he reiterated Richard Wetherill, Byron Harvey, Navajo (Silversmith), and the turquoise bracelet. If you ask yourself these questions and deny that he did, know for certain that you are in denial.

                      Those lost in the labyrinth, are comfortable and warm....in a cocoon of denial. Willful ignorance parading as wisdom like the guy who couldn't get a ticket...it was a sold out show. So get rocking, instead of banging your head mates. Bust through the labyrinth and break free. I've got the key....it's those things that Forrest said that Marry Brown and the poem.

                      As far as the noise goes....back in the day of t.v.'s with vacuum tubes.....and the turn dials for tuning, the t.v. would exhibit "white noise." I've heard/read that the screen that showed the "snow" (black and white dots)....was actually showing the CBR. (Cosmic Background Radiation). I'm tuned in to both the white-noise and the channel that I'm watching....at the same time. Cheers.
                      lol ill deny brown is a who all day long truey...all day

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        kpro - You have implied that there was a lot of funny business going on since the end of the Chase? Can you just spill it all rather than have us ask you one question at a time? If you think it was fishy, we'd like to knkw what those things are or were.

                        Thanks.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Hear me all View Post
                          kpro - You have implied that there was a lot of funny business going on since the end of the Chase? Can you just spill it all rather than have us ask you one question at a time? If you think it was fishy, we'd like to knkw what those things are or were.

                          Thanks.
                          Please show me an example of where this type of plea has been accepted and answered . None that I know of , but that's just me .

                          In other words , there has to be a time when we all conclude that she actually "enjoys" and "thrives" on waving olive jars in front of our faces . It is part of her daily dopamine endorphin rush . Otherwise , the above assertion would be untrue .
                          "Make it Happen! With the Power of Thought" - Mrs. and Mr. Fenndery (close to each and every day)

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Hear me all View Post
                            kpro - You have implied that there was a lot of funny business going on since the end of the Chase? Can you just spill it all rather than have us ask you one question at a time? If you think it was fishy, we'd like to knkw what those things are or were.

                            Thanks.
                            I guess I wouldn't know where to start. Yellowstone intervening is odd. Entity gate is bizarre. So many things.
                            “Positivity triumphs over negativity” - famous quote by the famous Cowlazars 2018

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              This thread is about questions for kpro. I did not yet see many real questions here.
                              I have a question for kpro .
                              You went enthusiastic many times on some rumours that reached your ears from people you thought that were « friends » and most of the time you called them « sources » providing « breaking news ». Could you tell us now, looking at the past, about your feelings about those « sources » and in how many % of the cases they just were trying to use you as a source for spreading their false information?
                              BTW, I think you are a honest person and always appreciated your efforts in trying to bring us new information…


                              Last edited by jan_v60; 01-21-2023, 06:09 PM.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by kpro View Post

                                I guess I wouldn't know where to start. Yellowstone intervening is odd. Entity gate is bizarre. So many things.
                                Kpro, then let's do them one at a time if that makes it easier.

                                What do you find odd about Yellowstone intervening? Before the Chase concluded they were sick of searchers. They conducted quite a few searcher rescues over the years. Is it not reasonable to believe they didn't want the location made public to avoid more mishaps? A few dozen bad searchers had the ability to spoil things for all. What else do you think could cause them to keep Jack in the Box?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X