Forrest Fenn s treasure

[BIGSCOTT]

My solve was Gallatin Petrified Forest area

Lets here it, and maybe some pictures f if ya got em

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Upgraded Night Vision Monocular Digital Infrared Monocular Telescope for 100% Darkness with 8X Zoom - Grab it through Amazon!

[travis.gore.79]

Did anyone catch this in the preface of his book "All of the stories that mingle among these pages are as true to history as one man can average out the truth, considering the fact that one of my natural instincts is to embellish just a little. Nevertheless, the story about my treasure chest is true"("True", but embellished)
?

Yes I did. Thanks for you bloviating response. I literally just posted that statement before you.

Eric Sloane likes to use this statement when he started writing a book. “Return To Taos”. That was actually a good read. Eric is funny and it is a light read.

Now in his “defense” how accurate is history? I have done extensive history research on this project and others. You can find many discrepancies in historical information.

In the book he also says that “he wanted to rewrite history”
Many of his stories dealt with this.
Billy The Kid would have never been known had it not been for the death of John Tunstall. He formed the Regulators to avenge his boss’s death. In turn you would have never heard of Pat Garrett. There have been many different stories about the death of Billy The Kid. In the book written by Pat he claims to have fired two shots that night. Five eyewitnesses claimed to hear two shots fired. Pat hit Billy in the chest. They never found the second bullet. Did it happen? We will never know.
Grover Cleveland had a daughter named Ruth. She was a sickly child. In 1920 George Herman “Babe Ruth” broke the home run record. In 1921 the candy bar name was changed to Baby Ruth. The candy manufacturer claimed it was named after Grovers daughter, so he did not have to pay George for use of the name. What is true?
I could continue,but that is enough bloviating from me.

If you would have read the book, you would also know that he said this.
“Always tell the truth, just not all the truth”

 

[Customx_12]

I don’t think I’ve ever heard of the word “bloviating” yet you used it twice in one post. Had to google it to see what it means.

 

[travis.gore.79]

I don’t think I’ve ever heard of the word “bloviating” yet you used it twice in one post. Had to google it to see what it means.

I was trying to be nice [emoji16]
Vocabulary is important
I actually used the word incorrectly the second time

 

[Fossils]

Based on what has been said about the treasure, I think the full inventory includes emeralds and other precious stones besides the gold nuggets, coins and disks...also the 2 antique Chinese figurines made of Jade and the pre Columbia artifacts might weigh in...

TT

Sadly I doubt that there are any emeralds among the “treasure”. In all the pictures of the treasure so far I’ve yet to see any precious gemstones. Given that Fenn himself admitted to a tendency to “embellish” his stories, it’s clear that we shouldn’t take anything he says at face value.

 

[MiddenMonster]

The treasure looks pretty meager to me. Some common date US gold coins, a pile of nuggets, and some gold trinkets? There's no way that you have a million dollars there. Maybe a couple hundred thousand at most, and very likely less. The treasure was likely real but the value of its contents were definitely over exaggerated.

The thing about valuing antiquities and other "treasure" is that you don't know what they are really worth until they actually sell. Some things at auction sell below their expected value while others sell for far more than what they were expected to. It all depends on having a buyer who really wants them, and the market goes up and down from year to year. Watch the Antiques Roadshow when they show the "Then and Now" prices. There are people who regret not selling when they got the appraisal, and people who regret selling when they got the appraisal. The coins in Fenn's chest are probably among the more stable items when it comes to price. It will probably come down things like the jade pieces and the 2,000 year old necklace that determines the final value of the lot...except to the IRS. I wouldn't be surprised if they started with the initial valuation by Fenn and then make the finder prove otherwise while holding a legal hammer over their head. In that regard I don't blame the finder for keeping quiet for the time being. If it was me I'd want a stack of paperwork ready to show the IRS when I finally presented it to them.

 

[coazon de oro]

Howdy Fellow Treasure Hunters,

I have never posted anything other than a congratulations on any forum concerning the Forrest Fenn treasure. Now that the search is over, I will enlighten you with my thoughts on it. I am not here to debate anything. Mr. Fenn said you had to know what was in the box, and if you pay attention things start popping out. I won't go over word for word, but you can go back and look for yourself as he describes what he put in. He put in a lot of GOLD nuggets of all sizes, a seventeen century Spanish EMERALD RING, a ladies DRAGON lock bracelet, a gold frog with BUBBLY eyes that looked like it was ready to SPRING, his TURQUOISE bracelet that he won back playing POOL.......If you pay attention, he is describing the boiling Grand Prismatic Spring, and the Turquoise pool beside it, with the super volcano known as the sleeping dragon right underneath.

The chest itself is yellow, and Mr. Fenn claimed it had ladies all around it, and one on the lid. On the West side is Our Lady Of The Pines, on the East side is Our Lady Of The Lake, on the North side is Our Lady Of The Rockies, and on the South side is Our Lady Of The Mountains. Yellowstone Park is referred too as the Grand Lady of Parks, the lady on the lid.

So there you have it, the chest represents Yellowstone Park with the Grand Prismatic Spring, and animals inside. Ojo Caliente where he used to swim is where warm waters halt as he would swim toward the middle of the river. Down Firehole Canyon with no paddle, the current takes you down the Madison, but you are driving since it's too far to walk. The chest had 20.? pounds of gold, I forget the exact number, but it rounds off like all the numbers. The 20 pounds of gold represent Hwy 20 going to West Yellowstone. The 265 gold coins, represent the compass degrees to the Blaze which appears on a window on Hwy 20.

The Blaze is red blinking light of the radio tower, and it can only be seen in a small window on Hwy 20, and only at night. In his stories, he had a friend who died waiting for the light to change, in other words, the light was "red", and in an other story his plane was going down, and the oxygen light was "blinking". When the "nights" were "cold", they would gather around to "listen" to the "radio". The radio station of Missoula, 96.3 is called the Blaze. While this one is not visible from Hwy 20, it's not hard to figure out that the Blaze is the radio tower light.

In his stories, Mr. Fenn goes through two windows, one in his school class, and "down" the fire escape. On the other it is from his bedroom, he goes through the window and makes a "beeline" to the gypsy campfire where they are dancing. They can only dance to music much like a radio tower can produce.

In his song that he helped compose, he is "searching for the midnight sun" "just around the bend" That midnight sun is making reference to the radio tower blinking red light. Just around the bend, is making reference to the bend on the Madison River, he also refers to it as the "rainbow". On his book he claimed to have his own "treasure island", and the treasure at the end of the rainbow, I will try and post some pictures later. In and below the home of Brown, there are many chipmunks, but the Brown Chipmunk makes his home in this area. The window where the blaze appears is on a hill so making a beeline to it takes you down to the water. Waters high is water level, and the heavy loads are the logs.

In his second book Mr. Fenn is casting a shadow on the Madison, showing how close the treasure was to the water. On Dal Neitzel's "The Thrill Of The Chase", if you go to "Others Adventures", the ten's thread from the bottom titled "A Serene Moment....by anonymous, a picture is posted of two swan. Anonymous talks about where he had been, and where he took the picture, and claimed that he tried asking them where the Blaze was, but all they did was swim off. Mr. Fenn responded saying "Didn't you think that was rude of them? For many years there was a family of trumpeter swans that lived just down stream of the 7 mile bridge on the Madison. They mate for life and every year they were there, usually 5 or 6 counting the kids, seeing them always soothed the beast in me." So Mr. Fenn did in fact point my area of interest in so many ways. I was not able to go to check out my final solve, but it has to be at least close if not dead on.

I will try and post some pictures later.

Homar

 

[coazon de oro]

Pictures

Note: Window picture - Appears as you come to a clearing.
Note: Rainbow picture - Yellow pin shows island at the end of the Rainbow.

 

[cw0909]

found this old SB, about what Forrest took out and left in chest
the img in post is an old one,when he was deciding what goes in

AN EARLY ARRANGEMENT
SB 158
https://dalneitzel.com/2016/09/23/scrapbook-one-hundred-fifty-eight/

 

[cw0909]

DECLARATION OF FORREST FENN
https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.azd.1241875/gov.uscourts.azd.1241875.15.1.pdf

 

[GoDeep]

Interesting read. A couple of things that stand out to me:

1. He gave the book away and never made a profit from it. Very likely true and that could be verified through discovery. For me, it suggests, from the beginning he made sure nothing he wrote could be used against him as he testifies that "he never sold (the petitioner) a book", In point of fact, he never sold anyone a book. His credibility then could never be called into question, whether what he wrote was true or a lie.

2. Paragraph 15 i find particularly interesting not for what is stated, but rather what isn't said. In law, we look as much to what is testified to as to what isn't said (lies of omission, or opportunities to clarify pressing questions or clarify the record that are omitted). In para 15, Fenn testifies, "In early June of 2020, I personally verified that the chest was found by a searcher, who has requested to remain anonymous". "Found by a searcher". He doesn't deny that he didn't tell the searcher where to look. He doesn't deny that he knew the searcher prior to the searcher finding it. Given he's making a sworn statement, and knowing the amount of scrutiny he is facing, a definitive statement denying that he knew the searcher or directed the searcher to the treasure is notably absent in his sworn testimony. That way, if deposed, he doesn't have to commit perjury.

I suspect though, the case will be dismissed on it's merits and we'll never get to the deposition phase to ask more pointed questions surrounding the discovery.

 

[MiddenMonster]

2. Paragraph 15 i find particularly interesting not for what is stated, but rather what isn't said. In law, we look as much to what is testified to as to what isn't said (lies of omission, or opportunities to clarify pressing questions or clarify the record that are omitted). In para 15, Fenn testifies, "In early June of 2020, I personally verified that the chest was found by a searcher, who has requested to remain anonymous". "Found by a searcher". He doesn't deny that he didn't tell the searcher where to look. He doesn't deny that he knew the searcher prior to the searcher finding it. Given he's making a sworn statement, and knowing the amount of scrutiny he is facing, a definitive statement denying that he knew the searcher or directed the searcher to the treasure is notably absent in his sworn testimony. That way, if deposed, he doesn't have to commit perjury.

Given that this is a sworn legal document that holds a sword over perjury, it should put to rest the speculation that the treasure never existed. I seriously doubt Forrest Fenn would risk spending the remaining time he and his wife have together fighting a legal battle over something that didn't exist. As for the possibility that he told someone where to look, I think it can be inferred from Paragraph 14 that he at least didn't direct anyone to the treasure: "14. I have never entered into any oral or written contract with Mr. Erskine (or anyone else) concerning the Chest or its discovery..." Given that statement, if it turns out that Fenn "directed the searcher to the treasure", the crux of the biscuit is going to be whether it was a "gentleman's agreement" (not binding) or if there was the "intention to be legally bound" (oral/written contract). And determining either will require establishing a motive, i.e. why would Fenn tell someone where the treasure is located? And also what a reasonable bystander would conclude from the evidence.

Personally, I would never sign a legal document with that line from Paragraph 14 in it if I in any way directed someone to the location, whether I knew them or not.

 

[GoDeep]

Good points you bring up. Generally, a contract involves the exchange of goods, services or money. If Fenn had any close friends or family, he could have had them retrieve the chest without any form of payment being given in exchange for them retrieving it, thus no real contract. For the sake of argument, it could have been sitting safely in his own back yard and he asked his friend to go bring it in the house.

What i have trouble wrapping my head around is, given the scrutiny surrounding this find, and given the opportunity, under oath, to make a definitive statement that he didn't know the finder previously or didn't direct anyone to recover it, is absent. I'd be curious to see the complaint filed against him and if the complainant accused Mr. Fenn of recovering the treasure before it could be found, rather then it truly being found. That would make the absence of a clarifying statement even more suspect.

Regardless, on it's face, i suspect this lawsuit won't proceed to the discovery stage so we'll never get to see Fenn deposed. If it does, once Fenn is put under oath, he'll be asked a barrage of questions regarding the treasure and it's finding, including the "anonymous" finders identify, which he will have to answer, he can't just defer to "the finder wants to remain anonymous".

Edit: I read the complaint. It's just a pro se litigant with dubious claims in my opinion. I suspect this case is dead on arrival, so we may never get to the discovery phase.

 

[MiddenMonster]

Good points you bring up. Generally, a contract involves the exchange of goods, services or money. If Fenn had any close friends or family, he could have had them retrieve the chest without any form of payment being given in exchange for them retrieving it, thus no real contract. For the sake of argument, it could have been sitting safely in his own back yard and he asked his friend to go bring it in the house.

In this case, the exchange of services would be someone retrieving the treasure because of a solicitation. In civil law it would fall under the "Law of Obligations", which has 4 elements:

Law of Obligations
Every obligation has four essential requisites otherwise known as the elements of obligation. They are:

1. The obligor: obligant duty-bound to fulfill the obligation; he who has a duty.
2. The obligee: obligant entitled to demand the fulfillment of the obligation; he who has a right.
3. The subject matter, the prestation: the performance to be tendered.
4. A legal bond, the vinculum juris: the cause that binds or connects the obligants to the prestation.

The retriever would be the obligor, Forrest Fenn would be the obligee. The subject matter would be the retrieval of the treasure and the legal bond would be Fenn's desire to remove the treasure from play for the general public. If Fenn entered into the arrangement with close friends or family, I believe that if there is any legal obstacle here it would be that it wasn't an "arms length deal", along the lines of selling property to a relative for a token fee in order to avoid some other obligation.

What i have trouble wrapping my head around is, given the scrutiny surrounding this find, and given the opportunity, under oath, to make a definitive statement that he didn't know the finder previously or didn't direct anyone to recover it, is absent.

The .PDF document is just Fenn's response to the lawsuit. Any definitive statement would be made under deposition. No one lays out their whole case in the initial filing or response.

Regardless, on it's face, i suspect this lawsuit won't proceed to the discovery stage so we'll never get to see Fenn deposed. If it does, once Fenn is put under oath, he'll be asked a barrage of questions regarding the treasure and it's finding, including the "anonymous" finders identify, which he will have to answer, he can't just defer to "the finder wants to remain anonymous".

Edit: I read the complaint. It's just a pro se litigant with dubious claims in my opinion. I suspect this case is dead on arrival, so we may never get to the discovery phase.

Agreed. This is just someone fishing for an easy payday. But the important thing is Fenn made specific statements that would land him in hot water if the treasure didn't exist or he solicited someone to fetch it for him to end the treasure hunt.

 

[GoDeep]

We will have to agree to disagree.

1 The law of obligation applies in so far as we have an obligation to fulfill a contract we enter into, but in my example there is no contract. The law and courts do not generally consider asking a favor a contract whereas failure to perform it would constitute a breech and damages being owed. For example, if i ask my friend or daughter a favor to swing by and pick up my car at the repair shop (or in the instant case, Fenn asks his friend or son to go pick up the bronze chest wherever he hid it) and they say ok, but for whatever reason don't (they forget, or change their mind, or are late to work etc), i have no recourse as favors aren't generally considered contracts.

2. True, Fenn's declaration isn't trying the entire case. But a Declaration is your first response that lays out facts pertinent to the case and upon which he may base a motion to dismiss. And in the instant case, it seems very pertinent to let the court know that the alleged "searcher" who recovered it, wasn't known to you before hand, as it would severely negate any potential claims that petitioner, Mr Erskine, found the treasure when someone else, previously unknown to you, is in possession of it.

Leaving that in doubt to the court and opposing counsel is just question begging and ripe for the next accusation that will be incoming, "you just had the treasure retrieved yourself". Best to cut that off right at the head. If i noticed that omission, surely opposing counsel will (well, maybe not, he is pro se and i don't know his legal background).

3. I don't see any legal ramifications to having had someone retrieve the treasure. Fenn put it out there, Fenn could ostensibly retrieve it. A court may even look favorably upon it, as ending the search could save lives. The only damage could be to his reputation, hence why there could be a motive to have someone retrieve the treasure and end the search claiming it was "found", thus to preserve your reputation.

At any rate, this case is dead on arrival, that we can agree on. Looks like it's going to be dismissed on jurisdiction alone. We may never get to have Fenn answer any questions under oath, unless someone files a competent suit.

 

[cw0909]

this is some crazy stuff, ive read 3 times, i get Hanson was trying to
get $$ for autistic kids (shame on him!). but im not understanding how
Erskine can intervene, heavy reads @ links, there prob is more out there
im not hunting it,JMO i think Fenn will win the cases,as the Plaintiffs
claims seem bogus, just looking for $$

Hanson v. Fenn, Dist. Court, D. New Mexico 2019
December 3, 2019.
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_...3&q=hanson+v.+fenn&hl=en&as_sdt=6,36&as_vis=1

Hanson v. Fenn, Dist. Court, D. New Mexico 2019
December 17, 2019.
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_...2&q=hanson+v.+fenn&hl=en&as_sdt=6,36&as_vis=1

Hanson v. Fenn, Dist. Court, D. New Mexico 2020
June 10, 2020.
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_...1&q=hanson+v.+fenn&hl=en&as_sdt=6,36&as_vis=1

Hanson v. Fenn
Plaintiff: &nbsp David Harold Hanson
Defendant: Forrest Fenn
Intervenor: Brian Erskine
Case Number: 1:2019cv01124
Filed: &nbsp December 2, 2019
Court: US District Court for the District of New Mexico
Office: Albuquerque Office
https://dockets.justia.com/docket/new-mexico/nmdce/1:2019cv01124/438581

more on Hanson V Fenn & Erskine moved to intervene
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/us/5ee890624653d025cfc5d816

Erskine v. Fenn, scroll down to the pdfs
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/17201120/erskine-v-fenn/


and another lawsuit from a Barb Anderson, v Fenn & UNKNOWN DEFENDANT
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Ec08HWFofknQ2YgPI0K6i1JGag-kAk8o/view
https://www.chicagotribune.com/nati...0200608-xltbeao5zvbkjiby732x73fhxe-story.html

 

[MiddenMonster]

We will have to agree to disagree.

1 The law of obligation applies in so far as we have an obligation to fulfill a contract we enter into, but in my example there is no contract. The law and courts do not generally consider asking a favor a contract whereas failure to perform it would constitute a breech and damages being owed. For example, if i ask my friend or daughter a favor to swing by and pick up my car at the repair shop (or in the instant case, Fenn asks his friend or son to go pick up the bronze chest wherever he hid it) and they say ok, but for whatever reason don't (they forget, or change their mind, or are late to work etc), i have no recourse as favors aren't generally considered contracts.

2. True, Fenn's declaration isn't trying the entire case. But a Declaration is your first response that lays out facts pertinent to the case and upon which he may base a motion to dismiss. And in the instant case, it seems very pertinent to let the court know that the alleged "searcher" who recovered it, wasn't known to you before hand, as it would severely negate any potential claims that petitioner, Mr Erskine, found the treasure when someone else, previously unknown to you, is in possession of it.

Leaving that in doubt to the court and opposing counsel is just question begging and ripe for the next accusation that will be incoming, "you just had the treasure retrieved yourself". Best to cut that off right at the head. If i noticed that omission, surely opposing counsel will (well, maybe not, he is pro se and i don't know his legal background).

We may not really disagree. I'm just going by the words you used in your previous post that he, "directed the searcher to the treasure" or that he "could have had them retrieve the chest". If it was just a, "Hey buddy, can you get that chest for me? It's located here..." then it would be a gentleman's agreement that is not binding. But if he "directed" someone to get it, or "had" them get it that is closer to an oral contract. The problem is that someone would have to file a lawsuit on that basis, and in order for it to not be summarily dismissed it would have to have a thread of evidence in the initial filings to support that claim. Declaring that he never had or directed anyone to get the chest isn't pertinent to the Hanson or Erskine cases. If you sued me for not repaying a debt, I wouldn't feel it necessary to say in my response that I've always repaid my debts to everyone. I'd either say that I did repay the debt to you, I never had a debt to you, or I did fail to repay it and intend to make amends. I'd put the burden on you to try and find people who claim I never paid debts to them, as well.

3. I don't see any legal ramifications to having had someone retrieve the treasure. Fenn put it out there, Fenn could ostensibly retrieve it. A court may even look favorably upon it, as ending the search could save lives. The only damage could be to his reputation, hence why there could be a motive to have someone retrieve the treasure and end the search claiming it was "found", thus to preserve your reputation.

I suspect that a court would look more favorably on it if Fenn announced publicly that he was retrieving the chest to save lives. Conspiring with a friend or relative to get the chest smacks of deceit and fraud. But as we get deeper into this, the idea that the treasure never existed and the whole thing was a hoax is being shown to be not credible. Fenn has put is name on sworn documents that the treasure existed, he hid it and it was there for 10 years before it was recovered. He wouldn't have done that if by doing so he risked spending the rest of his life in prison, separated from his wife, home and all he currently enjoys.

 

[GoDeep]

Fenn has put is name on sworn documents that the treasure existed, he hid it and it was there for 10 years before it was recovered. He wouldn't have done that if by doing so he risked spending the rest of his life in prison, separated from his wife, home and all he currently enjoys.

Maybe. Many a man, including wealthy men, have risked their lives, freedom, family and wealth, sometimes for no appreciable gain or reason.

Be it true or false, we may never have answers to the questions both camps want. Where was it hidden? What was the solution? Who is the identity of the finder? Did he really hide a treasure? Did he just put it on his own land? Did he recover it himself?

 

[GoDeep]

this is some crazy stuff, ive read 3 times, i get Hanson was trying to
get $$ for autistic kids (shame on him!). but im not understanding how
Erskine can intervene, heavy reads @ links, there prob is more out there
im not hunting it,JMO i think Fenn will win the cases,as the Plaintiffs
claims seem bogus, just looking for $$

Hanson v. Fenn, Dist. Court, D. New Mexico 2019
December 3, 2019.
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_...3&q=hanson+v.+fenn&hl=en&as_sdt=6,36&as_vis=1

Hanson v. Fenn, Dist. Court, D. New Mexico 2019
December 17, 2019.
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_...2&q=hanson+v.+fenn&hl=en&as_sdt=6,36&as_vis=1

Hanson v. Fenn, Dist. Court, D. New Mexico 2020
June 10, 2020.
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_...1&q=hanson+v.+fenn&hl=en&as_sdt=6,36&as_vis=1

Hanson v. Fenn
Plaintiff: * David Harold Hanson
Defendant: Forrest Fenn
Intervenor: Brian Erskine
Case Number: 1:2019cv01124
Filed: * December 2, 2019
Court: US District Court for the District of New Mexico
Office: Albuquerque Office
https://dockets.justia.com/docket/new-mexico/nmdce/1:2019cv01124/438581

more on Hanson V Fenn & Erskine moved to intervene
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/us/5ee890624653d025cfc5d816

Erskine v. Fenn, scroll down to the pdfs
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/17201120/erskine-v-fenn/


and another lawsuit from a Barb Anderson, v Fenn & UNKNOWN DEFENDANT
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Ec08HWFofknQ2YgPI0K6i1JGag-kAk8o/view
https://www.chicagotribune.com/nati...0200608-xltbeao5zvbkjiby732x73fhxe-story.html

I agree, most of these cases are demanding compensation for claiming to have solved the puzzle, yet, the only way to reasonably verify you solved it is to have recovered the treasure, which none of them have.

 

[MiddenMonster]

I agree, most of these cases are demanding compensation for claiming to have solved the puzzle, yet, the only way to reasonably verify you solved it is to have recovered the treasure, which none of them have.

The Barbara Anderson case seems to have the best legal footing. She's claiming that she was "hacked" by a guy who had been taunting her and who stole her solve. So if true, there are some crimes going on there. But she's kind of a wacko bird, too. She's an attorney who spent tens of thousands of dollars and put her life on hold to search for the treasure. She even had judges change her caseload around so she could take extended breaks to look for the treasure. To me that doesn't sound like representing the best interests of your clients. She also alienated her children. It really sounds like she made the notorious mistake of becoming far too emotionally involved in this, and all this legal stuff is just her venting and refusing to let it go. But she does seem to have a chance of drawing out some information about the location, and maybe even the finder. I think her strategy in attaching Fenn to the lawsuit is to force the location of the treasure to be given to her. If it matches her solve, she can pull the thread a bit further to get the name of the finder. But she still has to prove that he hacked her and stole her solve. That would be a big deal because it would be the first time in history that someone had a treasure stolen out from under them by a devious person...