Forrest Fenn s treasure

[GoDeep]

No, estates can still be sued, and she could be listed as a "co-conspirator" or something. No, this wrapped up too neatly, and has all the appearance of trying to avoid litigation.

This is a good point. As i've said from the moment it was "found". The whole thing just seemed off. Like it was poorly scripted. I assume he knew his days were numbered, and by some "shy guy from the east coast" finding it, it would help to prevent his estate from being sued. I guess, in essence, Fenn was the treasure hunt.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

How to Research for Treasure Hunting and Metal Detecting From Lead Generation to Vetting - Grab it through Amazon!

[MiddenMonster]

No, estates can still be sued, and she could be listed as a "co-conspirator" or something. No, this wrapped up too neatly, and has all the appearance of trying to avoid litigation.

This is a good point. As i've said from the moment it was "found". The whole thing just seemed off. Like it was poorly scripted. I assume he knew his days were numbered, and by some "shy guy from the east coast" finding it, it would help to prevent his estate from being sued. I guess, in essence, Fenn was the treasure hunt.

Oh, come on, people! This is America! Anyone can sue anybody for anything. The question is, can they win? To successfully sue someone, you have to 1) have standing, 2) have some injury that can be made whole, and 3) have evidence to get past the initial filing stage when it is first considered by the court. So who in this country is going to be able to show that they have standing and suffered some injury? And what evidence could they present so that the court will allow the lawsuit to proceed to the discovery phase? You can't just file a lawsuit and hope that you can dig something up in discovery later on. Just claiming that they have the correct solve but the treasure wasn't there when they went to retrieve it isn't going to be enough.

 

[Jason in Enid]

Any more its not about being able to win the suit, its about surviving the legal costs of the battle. Thats why corporations are willing to settle any lawsuit 90% of the time. You can win the battle but lose the war.

 

[MiddenMonster]

Any more its not about being able to win the suit, its about surviving the legal costs of the battle. Thats why corporations are willing to settle any lawsuit 90% of the time. You can win the battle but lose the war.

I can understand your point as it relates to the Respondents because it may be in their financial interest to resolve a nuisance suit. But Appellants can easily find an attorney to take the case on contingency, whether they have a solid case or not. And so far, no one to my knowledge has successfully sued Forrest Fenn or his estate, nor has Fenn or his estate paid out a settlement to settle a nuisance claim. So we are back at square one where there needs to be an injured party who has standing and can provide some threshold of evidence to a judge to allow the suit to proceed. Barbara Anderson seemed to be the closest, and she failed--and she is also an attorney who has the underlying knowledge that the average lawsuit lottery yahoo doesn't have. Let's put aside the people who have tried and failed to successfully sue Fenn. For the sake of argument, let's say there is some imaginary plaintiff we can use as an example to explore this question. Make up some examples of the three key elements needed for someone to file a lawsuit against the Fenn estate and get it to the discovery stage: Injury, standing and threshold evidence to get it past the initial pleading.

 

[cw0909]

the finder
https://medium.com/@thefinder/a-remembrance-of-forrest-fenn-1be2a8646ff2

 

[MiddenMonster]

the finder
https://medium.com/@thefinder/a-remembrance-of-forrest-fenn-1be2a8646ff2

Excellent find @cw0909. And while The Finder stated he won't answer the primary question, he did leave a clue that leaves open the possibility it could still become known:

"Forrest had the ultimate poker face. In the summer of 2018, the only time I had talked to Forrest on the phone before finding the treasure, I called to tell him in desperation I had found a “blaze” — the mark that the poem says points to the treasure — that seemed after some effort by me to have been faked by a cruel fellow searcher even though it had evidently been there for years. I couldn’t believe the chances. I told him exactly where I had been searching, but the call only lasted about 20 seconds, and he gave no impression he found my discovery at all interesting.

That fake blaze was less than 1,000 feet from where I eventually found the treasure. And that’s not even the half of that story."

If he is correct that a "cruel fellow searcher" faked a blaze, the location of the treasure can be placed to within 1,000 feet. All that is necessary is that a person who created a fake blaze in Wyoming come forward to tell us where that fake blaze is located, and how may years before the treasure was found that they created it.

We also have some statements that undercut the ideas that Fenn had someone he knew retrieve the treasure or that it never existed. The Finder states that while he talked to Fenn on the phone, he never met Fenn before finding the treasure. He also states that the treasure will be liquidated to pay off debts. Hard to do if it never existed. So either the finder is telling the truth and The Chase was legitimate, or he is lying and the whole thing has mushroomed into a big, multi-tentacled conspiracy. For those that believe the latter, it's time for real evidence. Because as of now, all the evidence favors Fenn.

 

[cw0909]

Midden ive read it several times, maybe its someone speaking for the finder.
then i thought maybe it has something to do with the Andersen woman, as
she is seeking the unknown finders info, went and looked and see below

im not sure what this means.......
4. The Motion for Protective Order (Doc 17) is now ready for hearing
https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nmd.449445/gov.uscourts.nmd.449445.27.0.pdf

(Doc 17) is here
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/17231779/andersen-v-fenn/

 

[GoDeep]

the finder
https://medium.com/@thefinder/a-remembrance-of-forrest-fenn-1be2a8646ff2

Wow, what an eloquent postmortem obituary. Looks like his publicist had that ready to go after his death. Yet again, in the shadow's of anonymity begging more questions then it answers. Real treasure finds aren't this scripted, mysterious or eloquent in my opinion.

Think about some recent treasure finds, such as the saddle back ridge hoard. The circumstances surrounding it are completely transparent, other then not wanting to reveal exactly where their property is to avoid people trespassing, there is no doubt in anyone's mind as to its authenticity.

This whole Fenn "find" continues to be like a novel in of itself surrounded in secrecy and mystery. I'm sure a book is to follow too, no doubt authored in a pen name....

 

[GoDeep]

Because as of now, all the evidence favors Fenn.

Agree to Disagree. I believer the circumstantial evidence says otherwise. Anonymous statements by shadow finders? Talk about "Fake news". You can't put much credibility in these statements, anyone could have written them.

Prediction: In short order we will see a book by the heirs of Forrest Fenn and a book by an anonymous ghost writer claiming to be the finder, no doubt under a pen name.

A perfectly scripted ending...

Also, to clarify, i don't buy any of these suits by those who claimed to have solved the riddle. They have even less credibility to me. If you "solved" the riddle, you'd have the alleged treasure in your hands.

 

[MiddenMonster]

Agree to Disagree. I believer the circumstantial evidence says otherwise. Anonymous statements by shadow finders? Talk about "Fake news".

In this case the statements we have are direct/testimonial evidence; they are not ambiguous. We have the statements by Fenn confirming the treasure had been found, and we have the statements made by the person who found the treasure. Granted, the latter are less confirmational than the former, but they are out there for examination, none the less. But in their favor it is likely that the editors at Medium made some kind of effort to confirm the identity of the finder, such as the standard kidnap package--a photo of the treasure with a current newspaper showing a headline and date, for example. But even if we accept that the statements by Fenn and the finder are circumstantial, they are independent and corroborate each other. And the only evidence that the treasure is real or not are statements made by Fenn over the years and those of the finder this year, all of which support Fenn. There isn't a single shred of evidence of any kind supporting the hoax theory or the idea that the treasure hunt was rigged; just claims and nothing more.

 

[GoDeep]

There isn't a single shred of evidence of any kind supporting the hoax theory or the idea that the treasure hunt was rigged; just claims and nothing more.

Agree to disagree. Evidence isn't just statements, it can be direct, circumstantial, testimonial, demonstrative, analogical etc. Evidence can be timing of an event. Evidence can be a circumstance. Evidence can be what isn't said as much or more then what is said. I spent 11 years in LE and one thing you learn real quick when investigating crimes, there are no coincidences.

I will never convince you, but for those on the fence, consider these pieces of evidence:

1. The statement that it was found, and the only identified party, is the interested and vested party, Fenn himself. The "finder" statement is not verified and unidentified. Testimonial evidence from a vested and interested party (Fenn) is always looked at critically and can be some of the least reliable testimony.

2. The "finder". Anonymous, unidentified. The only one vouching for the "finder" is the interested party (Fenn). The interested party (Fenn) can conveniently defer to it being up to (the anonymous) finder to identify himself, thus alleviating any burden to provide evidence.

3. Just prior to announcing it was found, Fenn was served with an amended lawsuit.

4. Just prior to announcing it was found, another "solver" claimed he contacted Fenn with the solve, the very day prior to Fenn's announcement.

5. Just prior to announcing it was found, two more deaths occurred in their search for the treasure and Law Enforcement called upon Fenn to call off the search.

6. The solve and exact location has not been provided. The interested party (Fenn) can conveniently defer to it being up to (the anonymous) finder thus alleviating any burden to provide evidence.

7. The box and it's contents do not match the original pictures vs the found pictures. See my post history for a break down of what i observed. Some point to a statement Fenn made saying he changed what was in the box, but it is also noted that this post was made years after it was buried, some citing as late as just a few months ago after the treasure was found.

8. The initial statement from Fenn really emphasized a narrative of the finder being secretive and wishing to remain anonymous. From a LE standpoint, this really raises eyebrows. If you were so adamant on anonymity, why contact Fenn at all? Then to pile on, you a few weeks later fly across the US with the treasure in your possession to meet Fenn? You then pen a post mortem treatise about Fenn and your find? These are not the actions of someone wishing to remain anonymous.

9. Looking to other confirmed cases of found treasure in recent history (saddleback ridge horde and a recent discovery of 28 sarcophaguses in Egypt come to mind), they are easily verifiable and aren't shrouded in a fog of secrecy and anonymous finders. This case isn't consistent with other found treasures in history.

10. Fenn's death, though maybe sudden, it's likely he knew of his decline and imminent death. Speaks to timing of it being found just prior to his death.

11. Claiming it was found prior to his death, could provide shield to lawsuits to the heirs of his estate (this is a big motive imo).

12. Fenn didn't provide pictures of the buried treasure until years after he buried it, claiming he "forgot he had some pictures on his camera of it".

I'm sure there is much more evidence if i dug deeper or examined the case closer, but i'm just tired in general of setting the internet right...lol. So tired.

If one has an open mind, there is much evidence to at least question whether it has been legitimately found or was ever hidden to begin with.

 

[Holt0222]

Agree to disagree.
If one has an open mind, there is much evidence to at least question whether it has been legitimately found or was ever hidden to begin with.

Great post Deep. I personally am I fan of the theory the entire treasure was a hoax. Plus as you point out, everything just fits to well in the box.

 

[Jason in Enid]

......... There isn't a single shred of evidence of any kind supporting the hoax theory or the idea that the treasure hunt was rigged; just claims and nothing more.

This is a logical fallacy and I suspect you know it. You are attempting to force the arguer to prove a negative. I can just as easily say I have put a bar of gold in your living room. You say "I cant see it", and then I simply reply with "prove that it isnt there".

 

[MiddenMonster]

1. The statement that it was found, and the only identified party, is the interested and vested party, Fenn himself. The "finder" statement is not verified and unidentified. Testimonial evidence from a vested and interested party (Fenn) is always looked at critically and can be some of the least reliable testimony.

That's true. But in this case it's the only direct evidence we have to examine. It would be akin to someone being on trial for murder and the only evidence presented in the whole trial is the defendant testifying that they didn't do it. Your other points are the epitome of circumstantial evidence, i.e. they are ambiguous and can be interpreted multiple ways on their face, and don't in and of themselves corroborate each other.

This is a logical fallacy and I suspect you know it. You are attempting to force the arguer to prove a negative. I can just as easily say I have put a bar of gold in your living room. You say "I cant see it", and then I simply reply with "prove that it isnt there".

? ? ? If the arguer is claiming the treasure hunt was a hoax, it is incumbent on them to prove their claim. If you claim to have put a bar of gold in my living room (btw, thanks, Dude! I could use it!) and ask me to prove it isn't there based on my claiming it isn't there I would provide the evidence: I scanned the walls, floors and furniture with a metal detector. On cross examination I would testify that I scanned multiple times with multiple discrimination settings. I would also testify that I methodically removed all furniture from the living room, disassembled it and examined it for gold bars. Wanting evidence that Fenn perpetuated a hoax isn't asking the arguer to prove a negative because claiming Fenn perpetuated a hoax is similar to accusing Fenn of committing a crime. And as such, that accusation needs to be supported with evidence. If someone steps forward and says they have a recording of Fenn boasting about faking a treasure hunt one night while he was drunk in a bar then that's evidence. A letter in Fenn's handwriting stating the same thing is also evidence. A statement from his widow stating it was a hoax is evidence. Even finding the contents of the box (other than the turquoise bracelet) in various curio cabinets in Fenn's house is evidence. But so far, all we have are claims that the treasure hunt was a hoax. People are free to believe whatever they want, but it's better to have a solid foundation on which to base that belief.

 

[Jason in Enid]

But thats exactly my point. There is ZERO evidence of anything, one way or the other. A statement is not evidence. There is a CLAIM a treasure was placed to be found, but there is no evidence. No solve for the riddle, no pictures of it in its place, and no finder beyond the hiders own words. So we have zero evidence, only words. Yes, people are free to draw their own conclusions, but for me and many others, lack of evidence that anything was ever hidden to begin with, I can only move that conclusion forward to "it was all a hoax"

 

[GoDeep]

Here's the bottom line.

The interested party (Fenn) is the only verifiable individual with first hand information to claim it was buried and not un-coincidentally, the only verifiable individual to step forward and claim it was found. Fenn is simultaneously the genesis and the conclusion of the hidden treasure claim.

In an investigation, that's about the most suspect circumstance you could have. It's like our Chief of Police (look it up, true story) starting a building on fire so he could rush in and be the hero to save his ex girlfriend who he was trying to win back. It's like stealing your neighbors TV and showing up the next day and saying "hey, i heard your TV got stolen, i think i can help you find it". It's like burning down your own house to collect the insurance. It's like committing a murder, dumping the body and volunteering for the search team and being the one that finds the body. Being both the Genesis and conclusion are the most suspect circumstances in an investigation.

Did you hear about the 9 ballots found in a dumpster the other day? Guess what, i guarantee the FBI's main suspect is the individual who found them in the dumpster! Time and again we find that the one who found it or reported it was the same one who did it.

So Fenn is the guy who hid the treasure and then the same guy who claimed it was found....yeah....ok....

So though i'm not outright calling it a hoax, there is much evidence to at least question the legitimacy of his claims.

 

[MiddenMonster]

But thats exactly my point. There is ZERO evidence of anything, one way or the other. A statement is not evidence. There is a CLAIM a treasure was placed to be found, but there is no evidence. No solve for the riddle, no pictures of it in its place, and no finder beyond the hiders own words. So we have zero evidence, only words. Yes, people are free to draw their own conclusions, but for me and many others, lack of evidence that anything was ever hidden to begin with, I can only move that conclusion forward to "it was all a hoax"

But there is evidence on one side of this equation. I agree a statement is not necessarily evidence, depending on the context. Fenn's initial statement that he hid a treasure chest can legitimately be considered a "claim". But his poem and all his subsequent statements over the years are direct/testimonial evidence that support his claim. He's made no contradictory statements to cast doubt on his claim or testimonial statements. Then there are the statements of the finder, which are corroborated by Fenn. So what we are left with are his initial claim and his testimonial evidence, along with those of the finder. It's up to each individual to decide for themselves, as would a jury whether or not to accept them as fact. But in doing so, they only have evidence supporting Fenn on which to base that decision. There is no evidence to indicate this was a hoax that can be added to the equation when making that determination.

The interested party (Fenn) is the only verifiable individual with first hand information to claim it was buried and not un-coincidentally, the only verifiable individual to step forward and claim it was found. Fenn is simultaneously the genesis and the conclusion of the hidden treasure claim.

In an investigation, that's about the most suspect circumstance you could have. It's like our Chief of Police (look it up, true story) starting a building on fire so he could rush in and be the hero to save his ex girlfriend who he was trying to win back. It's like stealing your neighbors TV and showing up the next day and saying "hey, i heard your TV got stolen, i think i can help you find it". It's like burning down your own house to collect the insurance. It's like committing a murder, dumping the body and volunteering for the search team and being the one that finds the body. Being both the Genesis and conclusion are the most suspect circumstances in an investigation.

Hey, I have no problem with people being skeptical or cynical about any claim. There are two foundational adaptive strategies that have guided human interaction and evolution from the beginning: Trust everyone until given a reason not to, and don't trust anyone until you have a reason to trust them. But that merely puts Fenn in the position of being the person who found the body, in your example. It's enough to make someone a person of interest or even the first suspect. But other than in a Monty Python skit it's not enough to charge them, let alone convict them. It's only a starting point on which to begin a more thorough investigation. And so far, there has not been any evidence presented by anyone that would get the investigation past the point of, "He found the body." They guy who penned (do people actually pen anything any more?) the Medium article says he is going to pay off debts with the proceeds from the treasure. That means that he will have to pay taxes on his find if he wants to avoid trouble. Selling that treasure will leave some kind of a trail, be it a paper trail or purchaser trail. My guess is that as he sells off the treasure people will begin talking, and eventually his ego will come out on top and he will want to tell his story. All we have to do is wait, just as we have already waited for more than a decade. It's not going to remain a secret forever, and it's probably not going to end up becoming public because of a court battle.

 

[Jason in Enid]

There is no statement from the "finder", only the statements from Fenn who claims to speak on behalf of a "finder"

 

[MiddenMonster]

There is no statement from the "finder", only the statements from Fenn who claims to speak on behalf of a "finder"

The Medium article, "A Remembrance of Forrest Fenn..." is supposed to be by the guy who found the treasure, and he is definitely speaking on his own behalf. Interestingly, his avatar looks like a picture of the treasure. For those who doubt the legitimacy of the treasure hunt, enlarging this picture and comparing it to existing images of the treasure could shed some light on things. If it is a picture of the treasure that has never been seen before, it would be a small piece of evidence supporting his claim that he did indeed find it. I say small because there is no known compendium of all the images of the treasure that are in existence.

 

[Jason in Enid]

The important part of your statement "supposed to be". It could be anybody who wrote it. Fenn, his wife, a mysterious finder, me. Its just another false lead in a blind maze with no exit.