Challenge accepted. I read your post, followed by every other post in this very long winded and oft debated thread. I had exception to your initial post, reaffirmed by your follow ups, and have decided to reply. I do realize this thread is years old and it is likely not going to garner a response. This is fine. I feel, however, that your solving flaws (and others) have gone thoroughly unchallenged. Allow me now, to do so. Perhaps my post won't be as long as yours, but alas, one never knows.
Who am I? Well, I am simply me. I am self taught in every aspect of my life, I hold a degree in computer technology, I too, am ex-military (although I didn't play instruments) I have a background that covers decades in surveillance, over a decade in cryptology/cipher/code breaking and currently make a living as a writer. Through this history I have learned to read between lines, find lines when none are available, and get inside the heads of some of the toughest minds in history. Enough about me, though. I am not here to pin medals on my own chest.
I recently (about 8 months ago) came once again familiar with the Fenn Treasure Hunt. I had heard of it when a member of one of my large and popular puzzle websites mentioned it in the forum. I had a quick look and dismissed it without another thought. It was interesting, but at the time (in 2010) I was very busy with so many other projects I didn't have a chance to even make it to the Rockies, let alone search for treasure. About 8 months ago I learned that this still was not solved and kept the idea in the back of my head. Last week I decided to give it a full look through. Like the OP here, I will not bother with buying the book or the map. I have a map already, and the poem. As stated, and by Fenn, I need nothing else.
When I saw you mention this, I was excited that you may just be on to something. Obviously saying it is solved and that being about 2 years ago, meant you really hadn't. Then I read why. You believe there is no treasure to be found. You then explain why and how you came to this belief. I am not here to say that you are wrong. I have no idea if you are wrong. I also, therefore, cannot say you are right. The only way to prove one as fact is for someone to actually find the treasure or, for Fenn to admit there never was a treasure in the first place. The likelihood of one of those options is quickly running out. To be quite honest I, personally, haven't yet decided if I believe one over the other.
Your post, though, struck something in me. The matter of fact, the absoluteness of it all. Only to be read as opinion stated as fact. So then, allow me to "attack" your assumptions and opinions with my own, as one of your many follow up posts challenged me to do so.
"...without Forrest Fenn ever having to prove more than "His word", that he for in fact, buried a 10x10 box of hot air."
True, and why should he have to? If I tell you I put a coffee can full of pennies somewhere in a city I used to live in and you decide to go look for it, why should I have to prove it to you? If you find it, it is there. If you don't find it, it may be there.
"..the "UU" Double Horseshoes that Mr. Fenn ends some of his articles with. In the Fenn world, this is the Holy Grail, and IS THE ENDing symbol where the 10x10 box of hot air will be found."
I am bringing this up now to stay chronological to your post. However, I will mention it again later, as you also do, with my point on it.
"Remember, Mr. Fenn spent many years putting this together and has a very high IQ. The same understanding will be needed to unravel the clues and solve the puzzle. On a scale of 1-10, this puzzle is a grade 10. "
Many years putting this together, yes. Very high IQ? That is debatable. IQ is measured in many different ways and different aspects. All of which use a base line of a standard education level at the time of testing. As far as I can find, Fenn has never publicly taken an IQ test, and without a base line education over grade 5, no one can know what his IQ actually is. On the standard IQ scale (Einstein - 149, 220 is very top) I would place Fenn in the high 90's. He is smart, no doubt. Genius level though? Debatable. If a child can solve it (and as proven by the little girl in India having the first 2 sections correct) It won't take a genius to solve it. I also debate your grade of 10 on the scale. What basis of measure do you provide for this? I would give Fenn's TC a 6 on your scale at best. It hasn't be found, which means it is still open, is that why you rate it so high? It's only been 7 years. Kronos at the CIA headquarters is also still unsolved and for much longer. 20 years longer to be exact. I would rate that higher than Fenn by that alone. (Not to mention the level of skill of those involved in solving it)
"It is by his rules that we must search."
Well, who's rules would you rather follow?
"...I believe this to be important when deciding if there ever was a treasure. I'll let the reader be the judge of this."
However, you don't allow this to happen, do you? You force feed your solution and then angrily demand that everyone accept there is no treasure. If you're going to let the reader make up their own mind, you can't get defensive and upset when it doesn't agree with your own.
"He was 79 years old and had chemo for his cancer. This by far is the best and biggest clue."
Disagree here. He had cancer (and the kidney removed) in 1988. Chemo isn't on-going and you get over the side effects after the last dose is done. In the 22 years between starting chemo and announcing the treasure hunt, he would have fully recovered from the side effects of the chemotherapy.
"Now that I have established parameters and boundaries that we must search in, let's consider the facts that we can use in our favor."
His puzzle, his rules, his location, your boundaries? Based, so far in your post, on your opinions of the man and his puzzle. That doesn't jive. He also set the parameters. The release of the map of the Rockies omitted Canada from the search area, otherwise we know little of the actual boundaries of the search area. We do know it is north of Santa Fe, in the Rockies, at least 8.25 miles north, at least 300 miles west of Toledo, and it is hidden, not necessarily buried. Based just on this, your solution is already wrong as it doesn't fall within the Rockies area, but I will continue regardless.
"IMO, I think it started... and allow only one man to invent and specify the rules with complete and total authority over TC."
I have a large problem here with this entire paragraph. First, you can't state your post as fact and then have your biggest argument begin with "I think" it doesn't work. Either you have your opinions or you have facts. You, sir, have opinions. And yes, it is plausible that a single man, who was told he was going to die in a relative short amount of time, decided to do something with a portion of his fortune for the entertainment and betterment of a nation of people. It happens all the time. Not always a treasure hunt, but people "squander" their wealth before dying in a myriad of ways. I know that if I ever decide to do something similar, I wouldn't tell anyone about it before hand either. My money, my hunt, my rules. I don't see how this mind set is so forbidden. You can't trust anyone but yourself.
"As far as the arrangements he has in terms of profiting from his book sales?"
There are none. It is self published, in limit quantities. Everything sold on Amazon was not by him, and thus no money went to him. The ones sold in the local Santa Fe book store are selling currently for $35 (when they have one in stock). Publishing costs for that book run about $27. The store then gets their shelving fee, promotion fees and cataloguing fees. Fenn made about $1 profit from the ones sold in the brick and mortar and lost about $50 for everyone sold online (which are now only second hand copies that sell for over $100, of which Fenn sees $0.) This is why I will never self-publish, by the way.
"for less than the $24.00 in trinkets and beads used to purchase Manhattan."
I just wanted to throw this in because the beads used to buy Manhattan went to a tribe that didn't even own Manhattan. No one owned the land at the time of sale, it was "up for grabs" as it were. I find that funny.
"What we know:"
This should read: My Opinions Are:
"Forrest Fenn relies heavily in online dictionaries."
Doubtful at the time of creating the poem. Fenn started work on the TC and poem in 1988, at that time on-line didn't really exist. The only "dictionaries" online at the time were user-generated ones such as FOLDOC. Actual online dictionaries didn't make it online until the mid-90s. Dictionary.com launched in 1995, for example. Computers weren't even in every home, let alone a lot of them. Even those that had the ability to use a Commodore 64 or IBM II, were subject to Q-link - the predecessor to AOL - until 1991. Which it then turned to run games, not online servers of information. Neverwinter Nights and other Atari 2600 based dos games were available, servers hosting dictionaries, were not.
"All pieces of the poem, as well as every word and punctuation mark, are to remain in place and in their exact location, undisturbed, but remain dissected for their interpretation... I understood this assumption but disregarded it for the fact that there must be a "primer" of sorts, that will guide us to a location, somewhere in the poem, that is multi directional, and very much nonlinear,"
You contradict yourself in these 2 paragraphs, telling us the "fact" of how it should be and then the "opinion" of how you do it. You're see-sawing a bit. "don't mess with my poem" was the rule, how you and I and everyone else interprets this will be different. Nothing said here relies on a fact that yours is the correct interpretation.
"Forrest's age and physical stature at the time of the writing of his poem is very important. This is a tell, for us as problem solvers and I will explain later in more detail and just how important this was, in finding a starting place."
Again, I disagree. Fenn had the destination in place before he wrote the poem. He has said as much. He had been there many times prior to 1988, meaning he not only knew the area well, but didn't have limitations to get there from the onset. As for his health, as stated again (and yes, I know you know and aid people in similar conditions... but so have I). Recovery and ability change from person to person. My own grandfather, for example, had 2 heart attacks, a double, triple and quadruple by pass and after all that, still planted a large garden, harvested pecans, walked 4 miles a day and could still wrestle you to the ground at 80 years old. Like wise, my grandmother had a sinus infection and couldn't move for 3 weeks. Most of the post-trauma abilities are set by the pre-trauma regimen. He was an outdoors man who stayed busy. Recovery of a then 60 year old man wouldn't be so out of bounds.
"We will ONLY use the Poem for the 9 clues and consider all other given clues as secondary in nature. (I got in trouble after misinterpreting one of his clues as I will explain later, so I then adopted "poem only" for 100% accuracy.)"
Good idea. However, to do such a thing you must first dispose of every single word that you have written before hand. His mind set, his abilities, Fenn's logic or deception.. none of which come in to play by your own volition here, however, you rely heavily on them all throughout your solve. Pick one, you aren't allowed to have both.
"Forrest Fenn's age and condition? If you have NEVER helped, or looked after someone that is in their late 70's early 80's, then I promise, you never had a chance at solving the poem.Add chemo and cancer on top of that, and FF's own admission that he's not in the best of shape, then, the whole quest is simply whittled down to just a few short miles. Through some research and general knowledge of the aging process, and the elderly that I personally assist, I surmised the actual trek on foot to be no more than 4 miles, divided by 4 separate legs of two trips, which equals 1 mile from his vehicle. Without this crucial information, terrain, weight of gold and box and altitude included in the equation, it would be impossible to ascertain a starting suitable location, to hide the treasure."
See previous comment. Also, I will reiterate that Chemo after 20+ years will have no lasting effect on the body. I happen to disagree with your abilities assumption here, and that is my opinion. Not many people know his actual condition at the time of hiding the box. He could have hidden it in 1987 or 2010. Perhaps he felt particular strong one day in 1996 and went out to bury it, covering 12 total miles on foot. Perhaps he didn't have to carry 42 pounds, and instead, like a smart person put it on a wheeled cart and pushed or pulled it. You don't know. I don't know. Guessing is all we are all ever going to be able to do. I fear you have guessed wrong and have short-handed the man on his abilities. We do know that he made two trips to the location from his car in one afternoon. How long is an afternoon? From noon until dinner time? Dusk? Night fall? We are talking a time frame of four to eight hours. I also know that if I know exactly where I am going and how to get there it will take me far less time to get there. Further to note that parking and a direct line to the end location vs parking and following the path through the poem are two different lines. I can be in Dallas and have an end point in Houston. If I give you a map that takes you through Los Angeles, I will get there long before you. No matter my physical abilities.
Now I will move on to your solve. However, as I can sense this is already getting lengthy, I won't debate every single point (as I have found flaws with all of them). Instead, I will point out a few of the more major ones.
"I will now start with the first REAL clue in the poem"
Previously you said ""BEGIN" is the start of the clues which there are 9 of and end at the word "GOLD"." Your first clue though is "And hint of riches new and old." So, I have to ask myself, do you even know where to begin? Is the first clue in the first stanza or is it the second? Once again, you can't have both.
"it is the idea of a spirited horse being controlled by a bit and bridle. In this case we find that the "meek" is actually a "bit" and the poetic line states that a "bit" cannot occupy this space. See Greek definitions preceded by a biblical interpretation."
This is actually good. Wrong, but good. Meek in ancient texts, biblical, Greek, etc, is "to melt" in newer tomes it is to soften and to mold. Taming by using bit and bridle dates back to the Norse of 2400BC. this was through the nose and not the mouth and was never referred to as meek. Where you get the idea of a horse from this, I have no idea.
"There'll be no paddle up your creek, (first segment/idea)"
Did you ever notice there is often a play on words with Fenn? Shite's creek is a place. It actually exists, and in the map provided by Fenn himself. Moreover, you don't need a paddle to walk up it.
"If you've been wise and found the blaze,...having knowledge of magic or witchcraft. I chose this because it is "fitting" pun intended to what the "blaze" actually is"
Your definition of wise is laughable. I know I chuckled. Are you wrong? Technically, no. I understand why you put it the way you did, it fits your little theory nicely. The key words here are "I chose this"... translated: "my opinion" -- I hope you see the conundrum.
"But tarry scant with marvel gaze" = to remain briefly, treat in slighting or insignificant manner, amazement by creation, at gaze, Heraldry."
Well here, tarry scant, as we most all know, is a tar covered something of diminutive stature. At least something appearing to be covered in tar. You then go on to reference "at gaze" and compare it to a stag. Except that "at gaze" isn't the phrase in the poem. (Use only the poem, remember?) "with marvel gaze" is the term used. You aren't standing at gaze, you are looking on in awe, or marvel. Unless he is referencing Cyclops from the Marvel universe, in which case, we need to start this whole thing over.
"So why is it that I must go and leave my trove for all to seek?"
I do love how you try to define every word here. Reminds me of Clinton at the hearing. Is? What is is? Define is! Seriously, I understand, but some words are just that... words.
"the stronger of the two meanings and the correct one is "brave" = North American Indian."
Once again, your opinion. It is a strong one, I agree. With what follows, I did laugh a little again (naming him "i") But where you are wrong, is stating there are only 2 meanings here. You will dive deep into ancient tomes for a scant definition of a dated word, but at ones with well known double-entendre's you skip it? What about bold, Indian, weather, bear, endure, intrepid.. all of which also hold more than one meaning themselves. This could easily be a triple quadruple double-entendre. Yet the easiest is the one you go with this time?
""new and old." This is the exact place where the "new" blacktop road intersected with the "old" Ft. Union Wagon trail road."
I like how you did this. I disagree, but I do like it. The old road and the new road intersection. Nicely played. However, a riches it is not. You play here the double-entendre card but you can't have the double with out the first. The only way to get the first to have the whole phrase. I do like the idea, but I think your interpretation is a bit skewed. I find myself wondering if you did this part last to fit your solution?
"“Begin it where warm waters halt” is point (NOT to be marked, just to be known)"
I will assume (as you have so frequently) that you are using poetic license here? You will mark a point on your map of a sideways question mark (do not mess with my poem) but you won't mark a clue point? Is this because it won't fit your solution?
""No paddle up your creek" describes the word"
Previously you stated this was a small creek, not a river. Now you are saying it is just a mere definition? Once again I feel I need to remind you to just pick one. You can't have both. I will admit I feel I am missing something here. Either you failed to describe it correctly for clarification or I just don't see it.I do hope it's the first.
""Look quickly down, your quest to cease""
I think you were on to something here and then quickly took away from it. I believe Fenn was straight forward here as well, however I think he is telling you to look down physically, if you are following along with the poem and the map in your hand and make it to the point, look down and you will see the map you are holding. What do you see on it? Your quest at an end. Now you just have to go there.
"Forrest also referred this as "The Place of Peace" in "I am Forrest Fenn" (A departure from the POEM/PUZZLE but we are not breaking our own rules, by stating the previous)"
Well, which is it? Are we 100% only using the poem or are you now bringing other aspects into it? You said you weren't going to do that, and without the book the peace sign makes no sense. You are breaking your own rules. The volcanic rock walls have no other place here except to fit your solution. Which you went outside the poem to fit it in, which you said you weren't going to do.
"Remember that we decided that there must be a "primer" for the puzzle to come together? Well here it is.
(("Leave" = "for" + (all)" = (is a place)) and (("seek" = (is a place) + "?"))"
Either you are bad at math, terrible at creating equations, or have no idea what you mean. If we are to solve your equations we would have Leave = Place1 && Seek = Place2+? In this case, then, by your own divinity, all the other markings can easily be discarded. Or in easy terms, we left a place named "Leave" made it to a place called "Seek" and then continued to a second place and moved "?". Well... I mean... obviously. You aren't going to reach X if you never leave A.
"It's an Indian face (in profile) that has a whisper of a question mark in front of its lips with a headdress of a horse!"
I see your drawing and followed along. Your meaning reminds me of ghost hunter's EVPs. If I play you a snippet and say listen, a voice says 'get out' you will then hear it say get out. Likewise if I don't say anything and just let you hear it, you may hear it say 'groovy' or 'Jen Pouts' I don't see an Indian in a horse-head headdress, I see some sqiggly lines and map markers you placed for eyes. It isn't linear and your plots don't follow the poem (as noted you have HoB at the top, then followed right below by "listen good" which is the last stanza.)
I am going to skip your point plotting and line drawing because seriously... it is all over the map. In short, as stated by Fenn, get a map, read the poem, get from point A to point B by following along. Walk straight to it if you know where to start. You have plotted several points (and omitted others) to make a pretty picture. You then erased the picture and put more points on to make straight lines. You then try to see letters in the lines that tell you where to go for the treasure. It is my opinion you have failed miserably at this. But let's continue anyway.
"Let's go GREEK,
"So why is it that I must go And leave my trove for all to seek?"
Formula: The Trifecta!
((Why=Y on the map in TWO physical places.)+(Y=Upsilon or "u" in the Greek alphabet))"
My problem here is with your Greek. Why would we need to find a UU? Wait... did you go outside the poem again? You minx. You said you wouldn't do that. However, since you did... upsilion isn't an end, is pronounced as we do an i, and the u is actually a Y without the tail (think Roman lowercase Aa Yu) it isn't translated Y = u, it IS Y=u the same way A=a. However, Omega is "the end" and Fenn's use of UU has always been for horseshoes. But again, aside from your flawed Greek and biblical translation previous, why should I look for a UU? Then, I saw your pictures. OMG!! a UU shape! (can you hear my sarcasm?) You are now going outside the poem, using clues that don't exist, and pushing so that it fits your solution.
I won't agree with you that there is no treasure. I will agree with you that you solved it. However, thousands of others have solved it as well. No one has solved it correctly. There is a difference. You have a solve. Good. So do I. So let's make another assumption. Assume the treasure really is there and it does exist. Now, if this is fact, is your solve right? Well, no. it is not. Otherwise you would have the treasure. (unless of course, you do and haven't yet come forward. I doubt that is the case though.) That also means the thousands of other solves are also wrong.
Now, let's assume that there is no treasure at all, as you state. Does that make your solution right? Yes. It does. And so are the thousands of others.
To say something is or isn't there for fact based only on opinions sounds a lot like another organization - a church. You are religious, right? You've said so in your posts. You believe in God. Do you have proof? Can I draw that on a map?
It is your belief that you solved the puzzle and found the spot. It is your belief that there is no treasure. I congratulate you, sir. And with all the respect that goes with it. It doesn't mean you are right. It doesn't mean you are wrong. It means you believe. There is nothing wrong with that. Like many other things, your belief and mine do not match. So who is right and who is wrong? Maybe we both are.
Just for my own part of the adventure!
