What Are We Looking For?…


by Seeker


What are we looking for?
Craig, there is no substitute for thinking and planning and observing and looking at maps, unless it’s the desire to keep it simple.f

Many want to believe we are only looking for a 10” sq. piece of realty, I can’t disagree more.

We have been told; Forrest knew where he wanted to hide the chest… in a place he feels, is special to him. We have been told that without the first clue we have nothing… might as well stay home. I believe the first clue is this place Forrest is referring to. For this idea to be true, one needs to consider the possibility that; not only do the remaining clues revolve around the first and are within the location of the first clue… but also the possibility the trove is within the same location.

For clarification; “Location” is meant as an area vs. “Place” being a position within a location. However, “place” has other meanings and usages that I feel are being used in the poem.

With these thoughts in mind… a particular reading of the poem appears. We know the first clue is represented by the line “Begin it where warm waters halt” Then we have “And take it in the canyon down” For the idea that WWsH is Forrest “special place” the wording or phrasing of “take it in” [ by definition of; ‘take something in’ ] means to see something, to view, to gaze at… But now we have to consider the line “Not far, but too far to walk” Lets break this line down… “Not far” is seemingly self-explained… Something that is not far [distance away] and more than likely, seen from where the viewer/searcher is.

“but too far to walk” – “But” seems to imply [ one definition] excluding, ‘used to indicate the impossibility of anything other than what is being stated’ In this case, the use of “but” is telling the reader to exclude the movement of walk or walking as something that should be done… There is no movement of a searcher thus far in the poem, or don’t walk away from this clue.

“Put in below the home of Brown” – This is the last line in this stanza, and a stand-alone sentence. I believe this was deliberately set this way. The perceiving lines implant the notion that a searcher is at the first clue’s reference, is to view something, in or down in a manner involving said canyon… with no movement of a searcher being described by the poem. “Put in” acts the same as “take it in” – to look… put in, set your eyes upon… and I think is the beginning of the observational part of the solve.  {You may not like the usages of these words and phrases in this manner… yet, those are the definitions and meanings, in plain English}

Should a searcher discover the reference of hoB… the idea is; to look below this reference, while being consistent with the method of what the poem might be relaying to this point.

~ Summary of stanza 2; Be at WWsH location, view and/or observe the place of CD [a direction] and locate the hoB reference… [which might only be seen ‘correctly’ from ground level].

While a searcher has not left the location of the first clue at this point… found hoB… most likely by use of imagination of the land feature… we come to stanza 3 and what this stanza might imply the planning part of the solve.

Most readers / searcher automatically refer this stanza as more movement through the landscape [stomping point to point of hopeful clue references by the possible misinterpretation of “take it in”]. I believe this is where most, if not all, left the poem, line of thinking. The word “Place” in the line “From there it’s no *place* for the meek” might not be referring to a place / location, but rather, “a situation” [Place definition; put in, cause to be in a particular position or situation] a searcher is now presented to be in, to finalize the task. This *place* “situation” is needed to be understood as; what is expected of a searcher to do. I believe this is indicated by a later line in the poem; “Your Effort will be worth the cold…” [possibly in the form of a hint].

In the simplest of ideas / terms… cold is of a change in temperature and/or of emotion. Both of which I think is meant for the line “FTINPFTM”. The cold of the night [compared to; day / sunshine] and a situation a person who is meek, timid, unfamiliar with, being alone in the mountains at night. This same line of thinking can also be reference by “If you are brave and in the wood”

The line “The end is ever drawing nigh” would reference the end of the night and the new day on the rise. This might be in reference to the idea of “hint of riches new and old”… out with the old and in with the new [day], idea. As well as the thought and Elliot’s quote, * …to know the place for the first time* This brings us to the line “There’ll be no paddle up your creek” In this line I believe the intent is to explain a specific time of year when the correct solution can be “complete ( completed?). {Yep, I know, that’s won’t go over well with most. But you have to ask, why fenn followed his own created clues?}

We have thus far, the notion of a situation is; an overnight stay in the RM’s, a morning sunrise, however, we may need to know when to view this… on what day… to make the poem/clues lead precisely to the hidey spot. The Summer month of June is known for the Summer Solstice… in the book [TTOTC] June never got paddles because she was always right- a subtle hint? Not intended, but will help?] June is the correct month to “complete” the poem. I think the poem relays that we have now discovered why hoB, if known of, would lead right to the chest… hoB is the blaze. An object, that it utilized with the morning sunrise on the first day of Summer. “IF you’ve been wise and found the blaze, Look quickly down, your quest to cease, But tarry scant with marvel gaze…”

The above section of stanza 4 seems to imply we do just that… Look in quickly [as time related action] down [ below the hoB/the blaze] for our quest to be “completed?” – But tarry [linger] scant [a small amount of time] with marvel gaze [ gaze meaning; look steadily, observe, to “study”] … just take the chest and go in peace.

By now some might be asking about the line; “Just heavy loads and water high” This line I believe revolves around the entire concept of WWsH and hoB. HoB references heavy loads and water high references WWsH. Whatever these physical land features are… the poem is seemingly built / designed around “just” them… Forrest’s special place.

In summary: Learn/discover this location of all the clues is first and foremost [The question is; how do we learn this?]. WWsH is the critical clue in the “action” of “finding” the blaze and resting place of the chest… “all the information to *find* the treasure is in the poem”.

HOWEVER… we have been warned that this process of *finding* the chest is not going to be direct without “certainty of the location beforehand”
(TFTW – Statement made on map insert)

These two comments are not one in the same. While we need WWsH to get us closer to the chest… but we need to know where to find the clues first. The two comments, while separate, work hand in hand to find the correct search location and the correct WWsH out of the many.

~ Locate/learn where the location of all the clues are at, find WWsH by learning of this location, view in the direction of the canyon-down, spot below the hoB, observe the morning sunrise of first day of summer, watch the shadow of the blaze being cast to the hide….

Note; “begin IT” is the catch 22… in this theory, IT refers to what is expected of the searcher. IT refers to “observing and planning” for. *** begin observing where warm waters halt ***

Conclusion; No one, not little Indy, a boy from dad’s hometown or someone from anywhere Earth… “cannot get closer than the first two clues” using a map or GE [the book, GE and/or a good map get us to this point].

A searcher must be on site to *complete the poem*[ Marry the CLUES to A PLACE on a map] and this might have been the same for Forrest… he completed his blueprint [from memory] by following his own created instructions / clues / blueprint.

He completed all the ingredients to now, hide the trove, where his clues took him… to a 10” spot within his special place.








870 thoughts on “What Are We Looking For?…

  1. Chief Washakie Private well. But you will need to complete the steps first to retrieve it or possibly face death by drowning or choking on the sulpher.

    • “Oh good Lord no! Death by drowning or choking on sulphur? Oh bloody hell!! Must I really face that? (Sips from a bone China tea cup). Do be a dear and go back for it will you? I’ve just had my Royal nails done and I wouldn’t want to damage the polish. I’ll pay you very well. I’ll have my butler Winston contact you shortly. (Winks). Cheers!”
      -Queen Elizabeth

  2. Wow. It was so refreshing to see the clues thought deeply about. Even if all we do is a theory, Forest never said it was easy. I stood twice in The RMs and marvel gazed my self right out the Chase. I live in Florida and there was no way this was not going to happen. I’m sure I’m
    not alone. For me, intelligence must come first. There are rules, and while fortune favors the bold, me and my little can of bear spray are no match for not knowing the exact location beforehand. Thank you, new ideas, dammit:)

    • Yes, refreshing to see clues deeply thought about, I do not agree with some of the details, but I certainly am not in a “place” I can say they must be discounted.
      and like “Sparrow’s” before, I appreciate the deeply thought out ones.

    • Jim,
      I’m gonna use your post to thanks other as well, for at least giving the thread some serious thought.
      I’m not attempting to change anyone’s mind… although I know sometimes I can be very direct when talking about ideas which may seem I’m trying to convince folks of something… I’m really not.
      I’m just suggesting an alternative reading from what many talk about, and I’m doing that with fenn’s choice of words in the poem and where he placed them in the poem.
      And yes, I use ATFs to backup any thought process I come up with. LOL I also use them to shoot down other thought processes I have thunk about as well… Many warm waters halt in the RM’s, comments killed what I thought was a clever solution [the ice age leading to present day].

      LOL maybe in the future fenn will make a comment about something that will knock this theory out of the water as well… Until then… I’ll try it when I can be certain of where I need to actually search. I don’t work off hunches and guessing or tossing darts…. WhatIF’s are another story.

      • Seeker, I think you still work off of hunches. Example, the ATF you used to knock out your ice age idea. Care to explain why that knocked out your idea?

        • FD,

          The ice age theory had WWsH as the ice age of 10,000 plus years ago, the canyon down was the ice-free corridor. After fenn’s comment there are many WWsH and nearly all are north of Santa Fe.

          Well it was hard to find one below Santa FE, but one was there, farther back than I would of liked. The idea was humans coming down the corridor over time NF,BTFTW back in time.

          Anyways, I only had one ice age period and that happened during the Clovis and Folsom change over. Hence, I can’t have many wwsh unless I go back farther in time… that lost the corridor. and the rest is just history.

          I will say this; i think fenn’s comment about many WWsH in the RM’s are of the same thing.
          I don’t adhere to the idea of different possibilities of the first clue to be a lake, or rivers, or basin and anything else.. IMO it should be one reference of the same and of the poem’s clue.

          • Hi Seeker – I agree with your assessments – Recent Ice Age doesn’t work, and WWsH is not two or more (different) things, but could be two of the same thing – JMO – JDA

  3. There was never a doubt that your analysis would be well thought out.
    It is a good theoretical hypothesis. Have you found a location to test it?
    Glad you are still around!

    • Luckydog,

      Not yet, at least not where I can say… I have it nailed, idea.

      I’m a true believer in the idea of fenn’s comment;
      warning the path [ clues imo] will not be direct for those who had no certainty of the location beforehand…

      I think the “location” is meant as *where to search* – where all the clues can be found. So I don’t think a state is enough to think about it as a place… [ such as treasures to mean MT, or new and old to mean NM, or Why I must go to mean WY etc] the location would need to be smaller.

  4. Seeker, having to be in the right place specifically on one day of the year, and relying on a
    shadow to show the path, seems too technically analytical and demanding. I don’t think that
    FF would require that the finder do all that. But thanks for posting. It helps the blog stay

    • I kinda like that idea. Demanding for sure, but I see it as more magical than analytical. Possible?

      • I still can’t even understand half the thoughts given. What does it mean that the remaining clues revolve around the first and are within the location of the first clue… but also the possibility the trove is within the same location?

        • FD;

          If I understand Seeker’s theory, it is this. Let’s say that you have a WWWsH location. Now, using this WWWsH location as the center of a circle, draw a circle out from this spot – let’s say about 1/2 mile. From this center spot (WWWsH) look down your canyon – Let’s say you look east. As you look east, towards the horizon, you see something a that you think is your hoB – This hoB is within your 1/2 mile radius circle…. and maybe a “blaze” is on or near this hoB (Also within the circle) . So, from your post;;;”he remaining clues revolve around the first and are within the location of the first clue… All are within your imaginary circle. Somewhere within this circle. Also, the trove is within the same location?”… within the same circle.

          I think that this is what Seeker is saying, or something close to that — I hope – JDA

          • JDA, thanks for the added description.

            I’m wandering if at this large wwwh that encompasses the other clues, how one knows where to locate one self at the onset of the first large clue?

            In the big picture of Seeker’s write up I see it as one of those billion combination filled solves. It’s basically another synonym filled solve where you’re trying to get to the correct definition of many words in the clues.

            Those type of solves aren’t very compelling to me. It’s just all so subjective. Give me one piece in a solve that is objective to gain that certainty beforehand. Even the ‘June’ hint he brought up was subjective.

          • FD;

            I am not so sure that the WWWsH is large. It is just the center of the larger circle. Let’s say you find a small waterfall that you think is the WWWsH. Stand there.
            Draw a circle around you that is about 1/2 mile big.

            Follow the stream down for that 1/2 mile WITH YOUR EYES – Don’t walk. You SEE the little canyon that the creek follows after leaving the little waterfall.

            Along this little canyon, you see a rock outcrop that could be a hoB because it has an osprey’s nest on it. – below the rock outcrop there is a white streak – the blaze.

            So, we have a WWWsH (a small waterfall), a Canyon Down (Stream or creek flows downhill, a hoB (a rock outcrop) and a Blaze (a white streak) ALL within your 1/2 mile VISUAL circle. None are LARGE, but all are within the circle – ALL are within one small (1/2 mile circle) area or location. JDA

          • JDA, from your description I wouldn’t equate that to what Seeker said which was “the remaining clues revolve around the first and are within the location of the first clue… but also the possibility the trove is within the same location?”

            I understand if the remaining clues revolve around the first clue with a 1/2 mile radius circle around the first clue. It’s how at odds it is to say also the remaining clues are “within” the location of the first clue. I wouldn’t say the rest are “within” if you’re actually drawing a circle “around” or outside of the first clue.

            Plus, the tc might be within.

          • FD;

            I agree, Seeker’s words can some times be a bit confusing – (Sorry Seeker) – I think I got it right though – JDA

          • JDA, I found a few interesting things in the poem. Look at my new solve on I Think the Chest is here page.

  5. Seeksr—
    So good to see you post again. Your thoughts are always inspiring.and well thought out. Thanks so much for sharing!

  6. Hi Seeker;

    So glad that you decided to post again. As others have stated, well thought out and very Interesting!. As you indicate, if one is to follow your line of thinking, one must be at the EXACT (correct) WWsH, or all is lost. So, if your theory is correct, Indulgence might not be found this year, and we will have to wait until next June for Summer Solstice 2020.

    I would hope that by finding the correct hoB/blaze, and looking below it, that one could come close enough with BotG, that it still could be found this year – One can hope – JDA

    • Hi JDA,
      just want to ask what do you think about this Forrest answer:
      “Dear Forrest,
      You say there was only ever one place you wanted to hide your treasure chest because of how special the spot was to you. When a searcher arrives to this location, will they understand why it was so special to you? And did you include that reason in your autobiography in the chest? ~jenny

      Jenny, maybe they will, but probably not. Their mind may be on other things.
      It was in my autobiography until I removed it for personal reasons. F”

      Forrest definitely had some very specific motive(s) when he choose the location for TC hiding. He firstly explained it in his bio but then he removed it for “personal reasons.” What kind of personal reasons he had? He knew that explanation why the spot was special to him will be revealed only after someone found TC and according to Forrest prediction it will happen hundreds years after his death.

      • Hi Andy;

        I think that when the finder finds Indulgence, they will understand the beauty of the place that it is secreted in. I think that the vistas will be wonderful. Will it be the kind of place that many envision – I don’t think so. I think that it will have it’s own kind of beauty.

        Will we know WHY Forrest chose this place? Probably not. I think that it has a little to do with his childhood, but a lot to do with Forrest’s “healing” after his Vietnam experiences – But I could be very wrong.

        It may have to do with memories of his family – His mom, his dad, Skippy and Jane. “Personal” memories he chooses not to share.

        And this is fine – I don’t need to know these kind of things. JMO – JDA

        • Thanks for your response, JDA.
          Maybe Forrest understands that the revealing the reason of choosing hiding location will give too big clue…
          One kid asked him: “Why did you hide the treasure where you hid it?” (Middle School Class from “Forrest Gets Mail…” February 8th, 2017 posted on Dal’s blog)
          Forrest’s entire answer was “I love the way you worded that question. I think you are going to be a science fiction writer. The answer is in my book, TTOTC.”
          And we know that TTOTC are mostly his memories of his family – his mom, his dad, Skippy and Jane.

          • Agreed, “My War For Me” is very important chapter and maybe contains some hints. Many searchers think that “water high” is a waterfall that looks like waterfall that Forrest discovered in Vietnam jungles:
            “It was odd because a small waterfall in the center of the clearing dropped water so far that it turned to mist before it could spread on the rocks below. It must have been 200 feet or more. Large birds were circling around as if they also thought it was an amazing sight. How peaceful it all seemed.” “If I get back from this mission, I’m going down there.” It was a silly thing and I knew it, but the seriousness of what lay ahead that day somehow turned the whim into a vow; a pledge of sorts. I felt I’d made a deal with that beautiful place. “You bring me back, and I’ll come down there and personally thank you.” The deal was struck. I trusted it, and it could trust me. It was our secret alone.”

  7. Nice write up Seeker. I’m not ruling out that TIITCD means viewing. Someone on a treasure Facebook post today said something to the effect of I couldn’t putting in below hoB mean hoB can be near WWWsH. I think that if the viewing aspect is correct then hoB could be very close to WWWsH, especially since searchers that got the first two clues were so close to the chest. Additionally, nobody that we know of has got just the first clue. If you are viewing CD from the WWsH then you get the second by default whether you know it or not.

    One more thing to ponder. What if the warm waters are brown?

    • Warm waters may very well be brown … after washing those smelly gravy pots at the Totem Cafe. 🙂

  8. Really enjoyed reading your post Seeker…..Thanks ! I’ve been away from the Chase for a while but have picked it back recently. Taos is such a special place, almost magical. I’ve been spending some time up there recently to get away from the hustle and bustle here in Denver.

  9. 9 clues = 9 geographic locations. Understanding “IT” may be they key to unlocking the poem. It has to be something afore to mentioned. Did you know that I, Me, and My are referenced 11 times in the poem? It may be Forrest. Me and My are used ALOT in the chapters of ttotc. Really good thinking on your points seeker! But dont forget math in the poem either. Line 6 out of 24 is a fraction and can be reduced to 1/4. Take it means to grasp. The same thing happens at line 12 of the poem. 12/24 = 1/2. In order to be wise; JUST heavy loads and water high must be a place of balance in Fenn’s eyes. IMO.

    • John edo – the numerical & math potential connections are interesting (to me) because there’s less to interpret; not as subjective.
      Thanks for your insights.

      When I converted all letters in the poem to numbers, a few interesting, recurrent patterns emerged. The biggest revelation for me was how many times 105/35 showed. In my opinion 105/35 recurrent patterns are Lat/Long directives to New Mexico’s Sangre Christo mountain range. (111/44 pattern which could be Yellowstone lat/long. was not as prevalent)

      All IMO, it’s anyones guess if Forrest intended any numerical qualifiers or not. IMO

      I’m a Montana native and partial to the Gallatin and Madison valleys which I know; but the concreteness (s-and&water) of the numerical patterns caused me to pull a switch and begin searching New Mexico.

      Note: my method of conversion from letters to numbers was simple
      A=1, B=2 and then SIMPLIFY each two digit number to a one digit number. (ie 10=1, 11=2)

    • Hi 42: better not be a zero in your coordinates, then, since numerology is incapable of generating one.

  10. Seeker, you have some good ideas.
    But I believe we drive down the canyon, until we get to the no place for the meek.
    Look at his punctuation. Commas to me say keep going, and a period means a period and stop.
    But what I do I know lol ha ha.

    • Noted Zaphod… I’m not much of a math guy anyway. Just trying to use my imagination and numbers at the most basic level.

  11. I really like this, and very well thought through.

    Over the last twelve months I have also come to believe that all the major action takes place within a localized area. The real issue is how to reliably locate that spot. That’s where the good map comes in…

    I’m not convinced by the requirement for the solstice if you are certain of the location beforehand, although it is interesting that “gold” is found in the sixth stanza. However there could be another reason for selecting a particular time of year, and that may be to do with “marvel gaze.” If the marvel is something other than the chest, it may only be visible at certain times.

    I have gone back and forth on the need to be there at night. In the end I would have to say that I don’t think it’s necessary, and may be unwise. We may need to be brave in other ways. If we can’t make two trips in one afternoon we shouldn’t go. Of course Fenn doesn’t say that the afternoon is the correct time for retrieval, unless we conclude that the sixth stanza points to 6 pm and the conclusion of the afternoon. So to be safe, should we go on the 6th day of the 6th month at 6 pm? Lol!

    But leaving aside time and method of retrieval, I do think you make some excellent points, Seeker.

  12. Seeker; in support of your calendar/clock idea, this TedX video may be of interest, starting about the 10:45 mark. The speaker discusses culturally modified trees in Colorado; pretty fascinating topic IMO. Nice to see you back.

  13. Seeker, as fits your mantra, well thought out and executed, I always knew you would keep an iron in the fire….and a fire in your belly for the Chase is addictive, and I agree with almost all your thinking down to: “We have thus far, the notion of a situation is; an overnight stay in the RM’s, a morning sunrise, however, we may need to know when to view this… on what day” That is where I part with your line of thought, which is IMO pretty accurate till then, so re read Scrapbook 106 from e to f and give me another line of reason, you and I both know that Forrest crashed in Laos in Dec 21 1968 and bailed out at 106 degrees longitude, was rescued and owed a debt to a waterfall and take a close, rather serious look at chapter 106 in Too Far to Walk, it is called Jungle Wisdom. Why must we be wise to find/found the blaze, yes, oh yes it is about time, and times from his past, like the longitude which in navagation we refer to as a Main, as in North Main St Temple, TX What is the number 1314 backward bike makes 106.3141 the longitude of the blaze, if could find the latitude I would be within steps….


    • Sorry Tom, I just can not agree that Longitude and Latitude coordinates are hidden in the stories of TToTC. For me, it would require the use of “Specialized Knowledge” to extract this info. Didn’t Forrest say that all you need to know is in the poem? Yes subtle hints are in the books, but I don’t think that buried coordinates is what he meant – JMO – JDA

      • Try this JDA, page 57 of TToTC. Pic of Skippy at the rock. Looking at the white water, you can tell this pic has been messed with. So, turn the book upside down, now look at Skippy. The shadow of his pants, the white water, and him standing there make up a “4”. Now look inside the “4”, looks like a “5”, a “1”, and a degree symbol. 46 degrees.
        Now yes, I know it’s just a possible, and yes, it may be nothing, but it has to be considered. It’s actually pretty obvious, but the same number comes up when you think of “environmentalist to” some degree. Just seeing that line, if the searcher had letter values, would show how a degree could be found.
        These are just a few of the things that hint towards a number system with the letters. The obvious being line 21 of the poem.
        Lol, it would be much easier to explain if you were still in Anaconda, the area code.
        It’s going to be hard to put an “x” on a map without coordinates. So much can change in the landscape, magnetic fields could flip, natural disasters, etc…the only thing that stays constant, coordinates. If anything, I would think that they at least play a backup role. Something that comes into play if changes have occurred.
        I don’t agree with TT’s process of finding coordinates, but I cannot discount that coordinates are not involved. If they show up, then I wouldn’t be surprised. If they didn’t show up, I would kind of wonder why. It’s one of those things that we won’t know the answer to until someone has found the chest.

        • Poisonivey: You’re close. To me it’s a “45” laid out side by side, with the 5 only slightly smaller than the 4, but their tops aligned. No need to look inside the triangle of the 4. (Page 56, btw).

          • Could be, there is also a “45” in the stars of the man, moon, dove pic. In the middle.

            With my numbers, “environmentalist” = 44, environmentalist to some degree is either: 44+2=46, or (using numbers) 44+5=49.

            I was on the “45” kick for a long time. There is also info pointing to that. I wouldn’t be surprised.

      • JDA, the poem may not have embedded coordinates, but think about why Forrest chose the place and not what describes the “Special Place.”

        There is a big difference in the reason you feel umbilical connected and what will describe it.

        The problem with the Chase solution lies in the riddle being correctly solved as a key, was it the fact that ff escaped death ….twice once in the Nam war and once with cancer war, what is it that we are looking for, Seeker is half right, you are perhaps half right too but look at it this way if you are baking a cake and missing a few ingredients would you succed when a area is 10″ X 10″ ?

        My opinion over the past 8 years of the first clue has changed 4 times and I noticed that the reaction from Fenn on certain subjects, not based on logic, but based on feelings are predictable, he is, like us hooked on getting his KICKS out of our opinions and he likes touchy, feely stories, like when families get out together in the woods and explore, safely where an 80 year old might venture off the trail.

        In the opinion of WWWH I know for sure where he got those exact words, and it is common knowlege here in New Mexico that our Game and Fish Proclamation has had those exact words describing where the regs would go for Warm Water Fish Spices to Cold Water regs, that does not mean he did not usurp the words and taint their meaning for his own purposes, which I know he did. The over arching Q’s is how did he use those exact words… to mean what? Now I started in 2011 with that foreknowledge and I live within a short distance of Santa Fe, NM, I am 72 and have heard it all my life since I too am an avid fisherman.

        My original thought was on one of our rivers from the Rockies the place ff meant was start where those regs changed, like the RIo Grande, Pecos, San Juan, Los Pinos, Cimarron, Mora, and several others. However there was a problem identifying which one?

        Next I thought since a kid had an advantage maybe it was 32 degrees Latitude, which has only two rivers crossing from the Rockies in New Mexico, the Pecos and RIo Bravo, but ff ruled out the Rio Grande (Bravo) and killed one of my solves.

        Then I considered the border (Borders Biddies and Bookstore hint) as a sure thing but the only way it would be close enough to WWWH was the Los Pinos, Chama or San Juan.

        Recently all that has changed and I see the poem much simpler in its riddle, HOME is the Key IMO, that is not to say that 1413 North Main St in Temple is not correct, but it is a big coincidence that hints like crash landing at the 106 degree North East Hemisphere and his Church in the Mountains take on a simplistic meaning when you see it the way I see it now, simple almost elegant but sublime.

        I, like you and Seeker and Zap and a lot of minds are hashing this out way too deeply, and ff must revel in his reverie.

        I do believe he wants to attend his “Church in the Mountains” one last time and I am banking on that, he does not need to go to remember it.


        • One post script, searchers who must be wise to “have found the blaze” should look at some coincidences that cannot be that, why did ff use 106 as Jungle Wisdom in Too Far To Walk? Why is Scrapbook 106 so disambiguate, from e to f? What if Leadville at 10,200′ elevation was at 106.3141, home of Molly Brown, most famous Brown in the Rockies, yes it could all be coincidence, but tantalizing to think that the poem should bring on an exact location to within a few feet?


          • It all boggles the mind doesn’t it? How can we all see the poem, the stories within TToTC and the ATF comments all so differently? Boggles the mind!.

            All that you mention, 106 degrees, Molly Brown, 10,200, SB 106 – None relate to my solve, and yet are so important in your solve – Boggles the mind!

            Good Luck to Ya’, and may one of us be right!!! JDA

          • Coincidence IMO, would be.a shortcut and there aren’t any. Forrest is to smart for that, let’s say at the point the poem mentions “There will be no paddle up your creek, at that point is when you get out of your car because the creek name after looking it up, has something to do with that line in the poem. And it is YOUR creek even though there will be no paddle up your creek just heavy loads and water high. Let’s say this is a horse riding trail, not a human trail, but also you would have had to get the map of this area,( the right map) would be a wise move to see that the trail you need starts half way up paddle up your creek trail. This trail is marked with a large marker tree,(The Blaze). Never mind I don’t know just ramblings, my bad

          • One more thing, just down the street from my house is the birth home of Molly Brown, also Mark Twain’s home town, Hannibal Missouri. (Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn.

          • JDA, yes I’m feeling it also. I like the short list you pulled from TT post. That would be an interesting survey. What boiled down, are your top three things… no, the 10th, 11th and 12th FF related things are most important to your solve. Not why, where, or how. Just what are they. Simple like. I don’t know that I could get it down to just 3. g

          • Ace340;

            You don’t ask much do you? Just the heart and soul of my solve. So, what can I say without giving away the whole solve?
            1) The description of WWWsH which can be found in one of Forrest’s stories in TToTc
            2) The description of what hoB is, which can also be found in one of Forrest’s stories in TToTC.
            3) A hint as to what the blaze is, which can also be found in one of Forrest’s stories in TToTC.

            So, now what do you know, other than I believe that three separate stories in TToTC have hints that help with the clues – Hints that help solve three of the most critical elements of the poem – 🙂 Good luck in figuring out what I have figured out, and which MAY lead one to Indulgence – JDA

          • Thinking about my post above – If truth were known, only two stories, not three, are involved. Both WWWsH and hoB descriptions are found in the same story – JDA

          • JDA, you know what my reply to your post would be. The ATF… There are no hints or answers to hoB, blaze, or wwwh in the book, in a subtle way. This would work against your 1-3.
            “Both WWWsH and hoB descriptions are found in the same story”. This cannot be. There are no stories that flat out answer those questions. Nothing says what they are or where, and the answer also cannot be found hidden within, you know this.
            If you have found the answers to those particular things in the way you describe, it isn’t what f intended, and it is basically pure coincidence. Not saying you are right or wrong, just that f did not intend for the answer to be solved in that way. My thoughts, I would be highly skeptical if you put the answer to those things within the stories of the book. Only because of the ATF.

          • poisonivey, You forgot your IMOs. I don’t think Forrest would give the answers to clues in the stories from TTOTC either, But he did say there are hints that can help with the clues. The answers are to be figured out. g

          • JDA, nice 3. Got me thinking. Its nice back away from my own solve once and a while, to hear and consider what others are thinking. My own thoughts however will never let me stray too far. g

        • Tom –

          If I may express an opinion. I don’t think you should include Zap in your list of people that are over complicating the solution in the way that you and Seeker are.

          Zap puts a lot of hours in, a lot of work, but that doesn’t mean that his solve is complicated, only that his thought process is. Many of his comments here are to aid in the conversation and he genuinely like to help others think.


    • Tom, if a specific time of the year is what Forrest has in mind – as necessary to locate his treasure, many have referenced June 6/24 or His birthday 8/22. If we assume solstice shine or shadow points to the treasure at one of those times… That would give credence to his shadow Being the main focus of cover art on TFTW.

      However, Forrest said “It is not likely that anyone would get that close and not find it.” in answer to a 12 foot distance question. So in my opinion we can rule out solstices and shadows as being necessary to see the chest if you’re finally that close to it. Maybe the sun shines off of a mirror that he attached to the chest so the right time of the year throws off at blaze.

  14. Well thought out Seeker..
    But I just can’t buy that f would limit the search to just 1 day…IMO of course

  15. I enjoyed your write-up, Seeker. Well thought out. June not being paddled and always being right is interesting, and how you believe June is the hint. For me, paddled seemed to go along with the switching Mr. Fenn received. June being right. Is she noted as being an angel, or a child of innocence? Blind justice? That one is a bit of a bitter pill for me to swallow, but thought I would post it anyways. I don’t know for sure, Seeker, but I do believe there might be something to that particular line/description.

  16. I think that most people forget exactly why Forrest hid the treasure in the first place!! You have to take in account what his health issues were at the time and to come to a sensible decision as to where Forrest could have physically managed to hide the box.

    • Ron-
      What health issues? Are you talking about his cancer diagnosis? That happened 20 years before he hid the chest. The cancer was long gone by the time he hid the chest. Forrest was in great shape at the time he hid the chest. The only concern he had was that he wasn’t 25 anymore. He was older and slower and wiser but there were no health issues.

      • I’m curious, Dal. Has he spoken about his health at the time of hiding the chest? I don’t for one minute think that he was unwell, but I wonder how and on what basis anyone can speak about his health at this particular moment in his life.

        • Vox;

          Second-hand info but at MW here is what Preston had to say:


          Featured Question with Forrest Fenn and The Thrill of the Chase Treasure Hunt: New Book
          The Devil’s Den Treasure Hunt

          … And then finally, one lovely summer day in August 2010, I visited him and he brought me into the vault. The chest was gone! “I finally hid it,” he said. He was about to turn eighty years old and still in excellent health with no sign of cancer, and he decided to stop waiting and hide the chest now. This way was better, because he would be around to appreciate and enjoy the ensuing hunt. – Best I can do – JDA

          • Thanks, JDA. That’s certainly confirmation from another source. Funny how the guy seems almost indestructible. Bulletproof comes to mind.

            And his memory seems as sharp as ever.

          • What I think is great is that The Codex book written by Douglas was published in 2007 so FF had to have shared the Chase idea a year or two with Preston before the publishing date. There is some food for thought.

          • Travis…well I must say it took awhile but glad someone is catching on. HA!! (fictional) Sally Colorado

        • vox-
          I was not with him in 2009 but I was with him climbing around in the San Lazaro ruins in 2012. He was leading the pack. In and out of arroyos and climbing hills and scurrying in and out of pits. He did great. I also have second hand info from Crayton (his nephew) who went to San Lazaro with him multiple times between 2000 and 2010. Forrest could hike, dig and climb around all day long in those years. As I mentioned, he was older, a bit slower and less inclined to leap but according to Crayton he was remarkably fit all the way through his 70’s and later when I met him in his early 80’s.
          Here are some photos of him from October of 2012 at San Lazaro.

  17. Seeker,

    I see your still at it with your idea, we’ve seen this exact idea over the course of your posts in the past. How about applying your thoughts to a place and botg, until you do this it is wholly pure speculation. I would bet that your theory can be quickly tossed aside as not workable on a map or botg. The reason being is your theory may not work is because you’ve posted in the past you didn’t know WWWH.

    Even IF you think you know WWWH, and found the CD, (which most places have a canyon down), I strongly believe your very much like the fictitious Lil girl from India that can’t get past the first two clues. The main reason I say this you have never shared a location for even the first 3 clues.

    I know that you are frustrated with some folks and yourself because you can not show your theory applicable to a place on a map. As I suggested above your theory is pure speculation and you might consider sticking with Canasta.

    You posted and I am simply being very critical as usual, because it has not been put in practice. Glad to see that your still involved.

    Just Say’n

    • And of course Charlie, I feel I have to remind you that this is just a theory. A theory on how to read and possibly solve the poem. Don’t need his BotG, or places on a map as of yet. It’s basically looking at the poem and giving a thought about how to proceed in reading it. Although a map will help, along with other tools, I would remind you that in the early days, all we needed was the poem, and only the poem. Therefore, the poem can be solved, without any other tools. If marrying to a map was so vital, then he would have said all we need is the poem and the right map.
      The searcher that can sit down, with only the poem, and explain how to solve the poem, with just the poem, is the searcher that is on the right track. I could totally show you how to solve the poem and find a set of coordinates, with just the poem. That is when the map is needed. To help find where you are going.
      When using just the poem, there are references to make you think that you are observing. That you are just looking ahead down the path. So, reading Seeker’s analysis, I would concur on a lot of things he has brought forth. There are things I disagree with, but in evaluating a theory on the poem, he’s pretty much on the right track, IMO. The things that I would disagree with are just parts of interpretation, and that can go either way.
      I feel you have still not gotten past that first year thinking. I do feel however that when you do, it will hit you like a huge “ah-ha” moment and you will be able to broaden your understanding of the poem, and how it’s read. It would be best if you never heard there are 9 clues or to marry them to a map. Then, you might put more into just the poem and how to solve it. Like f said, read the poem like it’s a map, put an “x” on a map. Try using just the poem without anything else. Just because you don’t see it yet doesn’t mean it’s not there.

    • CharlieM;

      I am not Seeker, but I have been searching in the same general area for about 44 months – 29 trips out. I CAN apply Seeker’s theory to MY search area, and it works wonderfully well. Just because Seeker has not put BotG, you somehow seem to think that his ideas and theories do not hold water.

      You, CharlieM, have put Botg, but your results seem to mirror Seekers. Seeker chooses to wait until ALL aspects of his solve will work, and THEN he will put BotG. I could be just as critical of your approach, if I chose to. Many have disapproved of my approach, or returning to the same general area time and time again – but it works for me, and the nay-sayers do not know what I have learned along the way – Just as I do not know what Seeker has learned along the way.

      You say, ” I know that you are frustrated with some folks and yourself because you can not show your theory applicable to a place on a map. As I suggested above your theory is pure speculation and you might consider sticking with Canasta.”
      Charlis – all of our theories are speculation – even yours.

      How do you know that Seeker is frustrated “because you can not show your theory applicable to a place on a map.?” Seeker seems quite content with his approach you are the one who seems frustrated with his approach.

      Personally, I think that you would be far better served working on your own solve, rather than attacking someone who has chosen to stop posting on the Blog, and is not here to defend himself – so I will defend him. JMO – JDA

      • JDA,

        When someone posts their ideas, either one is a critic, somewhat in agreement or complete agreement. There is no harm in being critical, I’m sure the poster knew that going in. Heck, there has been criticizing on my posts, I might get another idea from those critics or anyone else.

        There’s no harm to debate, for or against, right? I however thank you for your input, my friend.

        • IMO critics are important to Knowing what it is about yourself you would like to change. Otherwise everyone would think they are perfect and nothing would ever change. I think It is important for a critic to see themselves on the same level and the criticised. Otherwise they are an elitist, and nothing good comes from that. That always bothered me about T.S. Eliot, Some of the things he said ring so true and others swing so wildly to the elitist and racist side that I think someone of that intelect might say things like that to get a rise and show how foolish it sounds when you try to match it with other things he’s said. I’m sorry if this gets a little racey but it is in direct response to something I read he said. Mr. Eliot, If I were trapped in the wilderness and had to choose between an old, illiterate, black, woman or an arrogant, elitist, critical man to help me survive I would choose her a thousand times over. Who is the better Man now? g.

          • Doesn’t mean I don’t think he was smart. We are all products of our environment. This is key to change when it is needed. The environment must change first. g.

        • Seeker, it’s almost uncanny how some of your posts make perfect sense, and yet others seem to me to be a little confusing and nonsensical (I still have a hard time envisioning all the clues and the treasure in or near only one location). I enjoyed your write up, but to me this post lies somewhere in the middle.

          • Stonerolledaway,
            I wasn’t intending to respond to this thread/post. I wanted others to simply chat about the theory.

            I felt I should respond to what you’re talking about… because you bring up a point I have mentioned in the past.
            I believe some get confused by my conversations [on many different threads] because I chat about different approaches / ideas on those threads topics that other bloggers bring up.

            This confuses some because; one idea or discussion may not fit another I may have chatted about.
            Folks seem to expect others to think the same process, theory, analysis etc. each time they post… So when I post only bits and pieces of an idea[s] [during any given conversation] I can see how others say; Dang, that’s not what you said in this or that post before.

            Hence the reason I asked Dal to post this. I’m attempting to explain how the poem could be read in a manner to information that has trickled down over the years and still stay consistent to what we had to work with from the start.
            For example; In an interview with People Magazine fenn, in part, answered a question…[paraphrasing]
            ~ And I can tell you an 80-year-old man is not going to make a trip into a canyon, then come up and go down again.
            If, I at one time had a solution that did just that… I dismiss that idea, and try to think how fenn could still follow his own clues, yet, not travel in and out of a canyon during his two trips when he hid the chest by following his own created clues. However at times, and with chatting with others, I can and have, talk about a “the canyon down” in that manner.

            poisonivey stated to CharlieM above about this post;
            *And of course Charlie, I feel I have to remind you that this is just a theory. A theory on how to read and possibly solve the poem. Don’t need his BotG, or places on a map as of yet. It’s basically looking at the poem and giving a thought about how to proceed in reading it.*

            Poison nailed the point of this post well, while others seem to think there should be deciphered answers posted for theory to be reasonable / plausible.

            A good example of that is Zap’s post to TT;
            *But TT, is it a “solve” if it is 100% unactionable? It’s not even a general solve by Forrest’s definition, and certainly not a “correct solve” since it doesn’t entail knowingly going to within several steps of the treasure chest. It is a proposed “methodology” to interpreting the poem without actually solving any of its clues. But I see no way to apply that methodology to solving the WWWH starting point.*

            There’s no method for solving the first clue mentioned in my post because the theory revolves around what WWsH is. IMO, it’s not just a starting point… it’s the location of fenn’s place he hold in high regards… the key to possibly reading the poem as intended. So I’m not sure how Zap can call it “unactionable?” just because that clue is not mentioned to it’s deciphered reference… while all the other clues have been described for their reasoning and reading of them.

            I mean, isn’t that the point? Nail down the first clue or stay home, line of thinking, and the point to “What are we looking for?”
            But, once that has been accomplished … don’t we still need to know what fenn is telling us to do with the other clue’s references-?- beforehand.

            My proposal / suggestions in this post is only about a possible process of reading and acting out a solution that was created to be difficult to figure out, for the chest to be discovered, and hopefully understanding why WWsH is critical in doing so.

            Stone, I will try to expand my thoughts to clarify something that you may have a question about….
            What part of this post confused you?

          • Welcome back Seeker – Hope you stay a while. I always like your posts – you make me think.

            I think that you summed up your last post well when you say: “My proposal / suggestions in this post is only about a possible process of reading and acting out a solution that was created to be difficult to figure out, for the chest to be discovered,My proposal / suggestions in this post is only about a possible process of reading and acting out a solution that was created to be difficult to figure out, for the chest to be discovered, and hopefully understanding why WWsH is critical in doing so.

            I especially like the last sentence – “… and hopefully understanding why WWsH is critical in doing so.”

            I had two possible WWsH – Your post helped me isolate which of two was the correct one – (I hope) – THANKS – JDA

          • Does Seeker feel that f could have driven his sedan once in and once out of ‘the’ canyon while hiding the tc? Does that remain a possibility?

          • FD, people that find WWH seem to by default find CD. As Zap stated previously, we haven’t seen FF say that a searcher has found only the first clue.

            It is what we do with CD that is the problem. Where, or how we take it in. The next connecting line NFBTFTW, along with PIBTHOB is problematic. I don’t see how we can call NFBTFTW a clue and not have to physically travel the canyon. If it was a clue and we do not have to travel the canyon down wouldn’t the searcher(s) that found the first two clues have a third by default as well? If we do not have to travel it would seem to make sense that FF is not considering this a clue.

            Hope this makes sense. It barely does to me, but that is just how I see it.

          • Aaron;

            I agree with your thought. If you find WWWsH, there will be a CD, or it is the wrong WWWsH,

            NF,BTFTW. PIBThoB. You HAVE to find the hoB, or you do not know where to “put In”. Finding the “Put in” point that is below the hoB, determines how far, NF,BTFTW is. So, in reality you only had to find the correct WWWsH and the correct “put in” spot BELOW the hoB in order to solve the first couple (or 3 or 4 depending on how you count them) of clues.

            Nice post Aaron – JDA

          • Well, this is a different take than Seeker’s don’t travel around theory.

            Aaron mentioned the trouble with hoB. What if, since if we don’t have the first clue nailed down than we essentially have nothing, the hoB is the proper name for the first clue. At least the Brown part.

            What better way to allow for and disguise the ability to nail down the first clue but to name it in part in a later clue.

            The reason why this doesn’t work so much with Seeker’s theory is because one must travel through the clues and pibthoB. F could use the same geographical feature in two clues because one has moved closer to the tc after the last use of it. Remembering that the clues get us closer to the tc.

            What clue would you want most to be named by f? I’d pick the first clue since the other clues hinge off of that once correct.

          • We have all seen this quote hundreds of times:

            “Who has been the closest to the chest; man or woman? (that you know of)
            As far as I know the closest person to the treasure was a man, but there may have been a woman with him. The most common mistake that I see searchers make is that they underestimate the importance of the first clue. If you don’t have that one nailed down you might as well stay home and play Canasta”.f


            The question is – What is the first clue? Most will say WWWsH but, is this really the case? The second stanza reads:

            “Begin it where warm waters halt,
            And take it in the canyon down,
            Not far, but too far to walk.
            Put in below the home of Brown.”

            The first three lines are all part of one sentence – one thought. The last sentence is another complete thought. It seems logical that the first three lines COULD be Clue #1, and that the last line – “Put in below the home of Brown.” is Clue #2

            So, when Forrest says that people have figured out the first two clues, he COULD be indicating that several people have figured out WWWsH, CD, NF,BTFTW and hoB… and not just WWWsH and CD.

            This puts a different light on things – at least to me. JDA

          • JDA, what both you and FD are saying are quite feasible or at least some part of it. One of the issues I have had with some of my solves is how a searcher can only get 2 clues and come within 200 feet of the chest. If CD is the second clue then that would mean the remaining 7 clues and the chest are all 200 feet from the canyon right? If we combine lines for a clue or take CD as a hint and not a clue then maybe not.

            As to FD’s point what about this scenario. WWsH is a location. We know it is not a region but a specific location. Within that location we have all of the clues, however many that may be, up to and including PIBHOB. HoB has something to do with WWsH, whether it is a proper name, warm brown water (such as mudpots), etc. Then we are putting in below the HoB portion of WWsH.

          • Aaron you say, ” how a searcher can only get 2 clues and come within 200 feet of the chest.”

            Where did this come from? I have never seen anything that Forrest has posted that says that if you solve the first two clues you will be within 200′. Can you find this reference? Forrest has said that a few people have solved the first two clues. He has also said that people have been within 500′ and also within 200′, but I have NEVER seen these two ideas coupled together in one statement. JDA

          • JDA said, “The first three lines are all part of one sentence – one thought. The last sentence is another complete thought. It seems logical that the first three lines COULD be Clue #1, and that the last line – “Put in below the home of Brown.” is Clue #2

            So, when Forrest says that people have figured out the first two clues, he COULD be indicating that several people have figured out WWWsH, CD, NF,BTFTW and hoB… and not just WWWsH and CD.

            This puts a different light on things – at least to me. JDA”

            I like that a lot JDA as it does have a certain intuition to it but it doesn’t jive well with Forrest in this interview:


            (part below is 4:16 in the audio)

            “OFF: Well some of them seem… Some of the clues maybe are things that people locally would know. You say, “Begin it where warm waters halt and take it in the canyon down. Not far, but too far to walk. Put in below the home of Brown. That seems like a couple of clues to me.

            FENN: That sounds like three or four to me. “

          • I.D.

            Forrest is a rascal as far as I can tell. Note that he says “Sounds like” NOT there are 3 or 4 clues. Sure, it “Sounds like” there could be 3 or 4, but just because it sounds that way does not make it so – Just an idea – JDA

          • JDA, good point. It does sort of sound like it from this quote: Real Life Indiana Jones Interview, Fri Mar 8, 2013:

            “There have been some who have been within 500 feet because they have told me where they have been. Others have figured the first two clues and went right past the treasure and didn’t know it.”

            If you take this with the 200 foot and walked right on by it quote from The Lure Q&A, you can put two and two together. It is an assumption though and could absolutely be wrong.

            What are your thoughts? Do you think a searcher that did not get the first 2 clues come within 200 feet?

          • Valid point. Listening to the audio his response almost seems like a correction as the next time he agrees. However, the 3 or 4 isn’t precise but it does sound like 3 or 4. I wonder if some of the interview questions were discussed in advance or Forrest had intentionally worked on making it sound like 3 to 4. I wouldn’t be surprised if there is a pattern to clues per stanza and that the location of the final clue in the poem is more obvious if you can find the pattern.

            Just Idle thoughts.

            I also like that he also does state, “That’s right” in regards to needing to know where WWH and where hoB is in that same part of the audio. Which implies it is not enough to put in below the hoB but you also need to know where the hoB is as well.

          • Aaron;

            I think that you meant, “Do you think a searcher that DID get the first 2 clues come within 200 feet” rather than what you posted “Do you think a searcher that did NOT get the first 2 clues come within 200 feet.

            If the searcher did NOT get the first two I certainly don’t think they got within 200′

            So, IF a searcher DID get the first two, do I think they were within 200′

            By MY definition, hoB IS clue #2, so YES, if you correctly identify hoB you COULD be within 200′ – IF you are AT the correct place ON that hoB you are within 200′. Confused yet? I hope not. JDA

          • All,

            And this is why the whole 9 sentences possibly being the nine clues theory is so plausible.


          • Seanm

            I was a believer in the 9 sentences = nine clues until Forrest said that the first clue was WWWsH.

            Starting at this first sentence – there are only eight sentences in the remaining stanzas. Because of the “consecutive” rule, I don’t see that you can count the 1st stanza as the last (#9) sentence. How do you get around this one? – JDA

          • As I have gone alone in there
            And with my treasures bold,
            I can keep my secret where,
            And hint of riches new and old.

            Sentence and clue #1
            Begin it where warm waters halt
            And take it in the canyon down,
            Not far, but too far to walk.

            Sentence and clue #2
            Put in below the home of Brown.

            Sentence and Clue #3
            From there it’s no place for the meek,
            The end is ever drawing nigh;
            There’ll be no paddle up your creek,
            Just heavy loads and water high.

            Sentence and Clue #4
            If you’ve been wise and found the blaze,
            Look quickly down, your quest to cease,
            But tarry scant with marvel gaze,
            Just take the chest and go in peace.

            Sentence and Clue #5
            So why is it that I must go
            And leave my trove for all to seek?

            Sentence and Clue #6
            The answers I already know,
            I’ve done it tired, and now I’m weak.

            Sentence and Clue #7
            So hear me all and listen good,
            Your effort will be worth the cold.

            Sentence and Clue #8
            If you are brave and in the wood
            I give you title to the gold.

            If consecutive, how do you wrap around up to stanza #1 as Sentence and Clue #9? JDA

          • Aaron: I like this train of thought! An opportunity to do some Sherlock Holmes sleuthing to potentially eliminate some clue possibilities. But first we need to see if there is a potential flaw in our assumptions.

            We know “Begin it where warm waters halt” is the first clue. But can we say for sure that “Take it in the canyon down” is clue #2? I think I can make a strong argument that it must be. Suppose that when you are at WWWH there is only one possible canyon. If you are already within the canyon and there are therefore two ways (or more) to go (up, down, left, right), then it’s clearly a clue because he’s telling you the direction to go (down).

            But what if WWWH is at the terminus of a canyon and therefore there is only one way to travel that canyon? “Down” is then extraneous information. Nevertheless, I’d still argue the line is a clue because without it, you wouldn’t know which way to go next. “Canyon down” could be just one of dozens of different directions he could conceivably have sent us from WWWH. (As a side note, the logical arguments I’m presenting assume this is a classical point-to-point treasure hunt, e.g. like a scavenger hunt. It would not apply in the case of a Seeker-like interpretation of the poem.)

            Furthermore, since the clues are contiguous, I don’t think we can just hop discontinuously to a clue-2 location (particularly a distant one). Also remember Forrest’s distinction between a hint and a clue: a clue gets us closer to the treasure. We assume that the path through the clues is the most sensible/easiest/direct way to get from WWWH to the treasure hidey spot.

            So the instant we move away from WWWH, we are carrying out an instruction that in theory is taking us “closer” to the treasure (at least via the path of Forrest’s clues). But that is the definition of a clue, so it certainly seems like “Take it in the canyon down” qualifies as one.

            Another less convincing argument for poem line 6 being a clue is that Forrest chose to gently correct the reporter who felt that there were a “couple of clues” in that stanza, by saying that it sounded like 3 or 4 to him. If there are four clues in the second stanza, and line 6 isn’t one of them, then that would mean jamming 2 or 3 clues into lines 7 and 8, which I think most would agree is unlikely. But he did say “3 or 4,” so if TIITCD is not a clue, lines 5, 7 and 8 could each hold one.

            But Aaron mentions perhaps the best evidence that TIITCD is the second clue by virtue of the fact that Forrest never mentioned a time (early on) when only one clue had been solved — he went straight to two. Seems to suggest that clue #2 is a bit of a freebie if you’ve got #1, and if there is an unambiguous canyon down right there at WWWH, then surely anyone who solves clue #1 will have #2.

            Aaron wrote: “The next connecting line NFBTFTW, along with PIBTHOB is problematic. I don’t see how we can call NFBTFTW a clue and not have to physically travel the canyon.”

            Agreed. If TIITCD is a “go” instruction, then at some point one of three things has to happen: either we’ll run out of canyon down, we’ll stop at some waypoint, or we’ll take a turn. “Not far, but too far to walk” on its face seems like a “keep going” instruction, without specificity on how far. If that’s all there was to it, it would be superfluous: we’re already going down the canyon, so there’s no need to tell us to keep doing what we’re doing. But everyone seems to treat it that way — a throw-away line — and so all they’re doing is looking for home of Brown, and then the sensible place to “put in” below it. It’s as if the second stanza only has 3 lines.

            Clearly that strategy was a loser for many years: the two-clue solvers did not advance to become three-clue solvers. This in spite of Forrest’s suggestion that the clues get progressively easier after you solve WWWH. So why is this? One explanation is that NF, BTFTW isn’t a throw-away line, since essentially ignoring it seems to have prevented those early two-clue solvers from making any more progress. If that’s true, then NF, BTFTW is the third clue. Perhaps solving it is like solving WWWH: that doing so will immediately yield the answer to the fourth clue. After all, Forrest has never mentioned any 3-clue solvers; he jumped straight to four (though with the caveat that he wasn’t certain).

          • And JDA…how do you get around This as you said “until Forrest said that the first clue was WWWsH.”?

            You’re saying your clue 1 is different than what f has said.

          • @JDA,

            The tense nature of the first stanza makes me believe that this part of the poem was written after returning from hiding the treasure, thus it could be the last clue. And while he has said that the clues are in consecutive order, that may only be as we see them written in the poem, that doesn’t mean they are to be followed in that precise order.


          • JDA, I was able to locate another note I have on the first two clues and the two hundred footers. Not sure where I got this but just that I have it in my notes:

            video done by Julius Brighton 5/20/15 with clips of Dal searching and talking…and interview clips with Fenn talking. It is nicely done and informative. At the 6:25 mark or so You can watch Fenn say…”There have been a few people within 500′. I think there have been people within a couple hundred feet. They figure the first two clues, but they don’t get the third and fourth and they go right past the treasure chest.

            If this is a correct quote, and perhaps Dal can answer that, then he clearly seems to indicate that people within a couple hundred feet found the first two clues.

          • Zap, thanks for the thorough reply that makes a lot of sense. Investigative work like this can only be helpful, particularly if one has the correct WWH.

            I’d like to talk about the clues being linked to each other and your point about the fourth clue being linked to the third. FF has pointed out several times that the clues must be followed in order.
            From Forrest gets mail 13:
            “You should start with the first clue and follow the other eight in order”

            From Mysterious Writings archive from 6/20/14:

            The clues should be followed in order Curtis. There is no other way to my knowlege.f

            We also have this quote from The Lure:

            “Well, there’s about 250,000 people that think they have. And, uh, I don’t know that anybody has … has … has told me the clues in the right order. I think that part of the problem is they don’t … they don’t focus on the first clue. If you don’t know where the first clue is, you might as well stay home because you’re not … you’re not going to find the treasure chest. You can’t go out looking for the blaze and expect to find the treasure chest. There’s ten billion blazes out there. So you have to start with the first clue and let it take you to the blaze.”

            And like you said we have the mention that he wasn’t certain that four clues had been solved.

            So why is it so important that they are followed in order? Did someone find the location of the fourth clue and because they did not follow them in order was either in the wrong spot, or could not figure out the rest because of it? If PIBTHOB is the fourth clue is “below the home of brown” a large enough area that one could put in at a spot, but miss NPFTM because they didn’t get the NFBTFTW interpretation correct, therefore while they may be technically below the home of Brown they seemed to have skipped a clue to get them there? A problem I have is theory doesn’t seem to jive well with the 200 footers and being the 2 clue solvers.

          • Hi Aaron: if the canyon is long enough, might there be multiple locations that a searcher could fit to “home of Brown”? By not solving the preceding clue, a searcher could easily choose the wrong hoB. Or one might still guess the correct home of Brown, but perhaps fail to choose the intended “put in below” location — again because they didn’t solve the 3rd clue. In these scenarios, a searcher might tell Forrest what their hoB was without saying anything about the third clue (or even that NF,BTFTW was a clue at all) and perhaps not mentioning their specific “put in below” interpretation. In that case, the best Forrest could say was that they might have solved 4 clues, but he wasn’t certain because the information provided was incomplete.

          • FD ~ ‘Does Seeker feel that f could have driven his sedan once in and once out of ‘the’ canyon while hiding the tc? Does that remain a possibility?’

            Nope, Seeker doesn’t… you need a clue reference deciphered correctly to apply a stopping point in driving from clue one.

            IF clue two is canyon down, then clue three and/or four must have been solved by any searcher [ even early on searchers ] to “walk passed the treasure chest”
            SF podcast 11:40 mins;
            …I mean, people have figured the first couple of clues and unfortunately walked passed the treasure chest…

            I don’t see how driving from clue one into or round clue two [if those clues refer to WWsH and CD], without the correct next clue, to have them stop somewhere, to be able to “walk” pass anything… Yet we have been told, for years [almost 7 years], only clues one and two were deciphered.

            IMO, it is impossible to drive from the first clue into / round any said canyon and be able to walk by the hide *without* having a correct clue that gets a searcher *to stop at the correct point.*… that is a clue in my book.
            And by my count… at least three correct clues in the correct order are needed to accomplish that [in a driving scenario].

          • Seeker, I see some possibilities that work with your concerns that do allow for f to have driven his sedan once down the canyon and once back up.

            I asked about f, not searchers that don’t have all the clues figured out.

            I don’t know why early searchers has to have 3 or 4 clues solved to be able to drive down the canyon and walk by the tc. Plenty of reasons why and how that can be done without clues 3 and/or 4 solved and told to f.

          • Seeker,
            I enjoy reading your comments, and your posts more so than anyone else save Forrest himself force me to think. In many of your past posts, you’ve discussed viewing the clues from one vantage point and ‘observing and planning.’ It’s an interesting way to look at things and your theory also places more emphasis on WWWsH, which Forrest has said is the all-important clue.

            My confusion comes I guess from the methodology used in determining how the clues and hints relate and overlap with each other. You said we know the first clue is “Begin it where warm waters halt” then we have “And take it in the canyon down.” Where “take it in” means to see something, to view something, to ‘take something in.’ You also said that “Put in” acts the same as “take it in “– to look, put in, set your eyes upon. I can see where Forrest might be telling us to ‘take in the view’ at WWsH rather than to physically travel down a canyon from WWsH. I have a harder time seeing “put in” as another observation rather than some sort of action- that we are to take or that Forrest took. (Put in could mean enter, disembark, park, halt, go ashore, put into port, even cover/ bury.) . For instance, in one of my solutions, I drove my car from my WWsH (since it was too far to walk) to hoB, and parked my car at hoB. The driving part of the trail halted at hoB.

            You also stated you believe “Just heavy loads and water high” revolves around the entire concept of WWsH and hoB. I think I’ve got a couple of good heavy loads and water high in mind, but I’m not sure I can say they mesh with or revolve around the concepts of WWsH and hoB.

            My confusion may simply be a result of our different approaches – a primarily point-to- point hunt, trying to marry clues to points on a map leading to the final location vs your observational approach, in which the first clue location and place where the trove is are one in the same. Hey, to be honest, as I compare our approaches, I think I’m starting to like your approach more and more.

          • “So you have to start with the first clue and let it take you to the blaze.”

            What it doesn’t say:
            Let it point you in the direction of…
            Leave it behind as you progress…
            Use it as a reference point…
            Treat it as a parking lot…

            It says let it TAKE YOU there.

            Is WWH a taxi? A boat? A plane? No, although metaphorically it’s all of that and more.

            And talking of metaphors, if you’re already more than half way there, metaphorically, when you find the correct WWH, how close are you physically? That will depend on whether or not you let it TAKE YOU there.

            We need to pay attention, IMO, of course. and it’s only fairly recently that all this has started to make sense.

          • Zap –

            It was a far walk back to find this reply button. Which makes me think, on this page, which way is up and which is down. Did I go up, scroll up, scroll back? Is up the equivalent of back on this page? Is it the same on other forums? No it is not, right?

            Anyway, I came to say that I don’t agree with one of your assumptions. Fenn has said the clues are contiguous, ok. He has not said that they are progressive and linear, has he?

            In my solve we are not always moving forward, or away. There is a point at which I pedal backwards. Do you recall how flustered he was a the question about switching back?


          • Hi Lugnutz: long time no chat! Yes — a long road to hoe to get to the reply button for this skinny thread. 😉 Thanks, btw, for the kind words about me to Tom Terrific up above (or is it below?)

            “Anyway, I came to say that I don’t agree with one of your assumptions.”

            What, only one? 🙂 Actually, I think I can even eliminate that one point of disagreement. Read on…

            “Fenn has said the clues are contiguous, ok. He has not said that they are progressive and linear, has he?”

            He absolutely has not.

            “In my solve we are not always moving forward, or away.”

            Nor in mine. Few paths in nature are linear.

            “There is a point at which I pedal backwards. Do you recall how flustered he was a the question about switching back?”

            We’re venturing into a subject area that I’ve remained mum about because it is a critically unique element of my solution. Suffice to say that, yes, I believe Forrest meant it when he said, “This gal’s dangerous, you know that?” Backwards bicycles, color-of-the-bear riddles, and T. S. Eliot’s Little Gidding should be enough to motivate searchers to consider the “what ifs.”

  18. Interesting concepts, many of which are still binging considered and mentally fondled.
    I think ( myself included ) many overlook the importance of the first stanza.
    Imho I belive that someplace in the poem there are directions to a starting the point.
    Food for thought: A searcher lives in say Main. How does this searcher know
    where to start ( state-wise and given area)? This line of thought falls into the category of ” what we don’t know “.

    Forrest has stated that He thought of everything. Paraphrasing: Everything humanly possible
    when writing the poem. Thus my reasoning for looking for basic leads within the confines of the poem. I believe that Forrest understood early on that hiding the treasure would lead to national attention and possibly international attention. Consider the little girl from Inda.
    She can get no closer than the first two clues. In the early days of my paper chase. I assumed that wwwh was a body of water, both flowing and stationary. Through a process of elimination, water fell to the wayside for future consideration within the context of hlawh and one other possibility.


  19. Hi Seeker,
    A nice post, and an interesting idea. But some of the points you mentioned don’t seem to be the right interpretations, and you’ve also raised some other questions to other searchers (or to yourself). I’d like to try to add or correct the points and answer to some of your questions according to my solve.

    1. I think your ideas about WWWH, CD, and NFBTFTW seem to be in line with my solve. The only difference is that TFTW refers to the distance observable to himself at the time of his writing the poem, i.e., I mean to an 80-year old man, not a typical, young and ordinary you and me. So we have to interpret the distance accordingly. The actual distance from WWWH to NFBTFTW place may be quite small, IMO.

    2. You said that “locate the hoB reference… [which might only be seen ‘correctly’ from ground level]. While a searcher has not left the location of the first clue at this point… found hoB… most likely by use of imagination of the land feature….”.

    I don’t agree on this. I think you cannot locate hoB on any maps or GE since hoB is NOT a land feature. I think that’s why Fenn said that a little girl in India cannot past the first two clues with the map and GE only. Because you can’t find the hoB anywhere on te map. I posted a short post on this some time ago, but I thought differently at that time and I think I was wrong, this time IMO I am right.

    3. You said that “The word “Place” in the line “From there it’s no *place* for the meek” might not be referring to a place / location, but rather, “a situation” [Place definition; put in, cause to be in a particular position or situation] a searcher is now presented to be in, to finalize the task.”

    And I agree with you, but I think “a description” should be more appropriate than “situation,” because IMO the searcher is now going into the path or follow the trail that is not easy to walk, not only for himself but for you and me also after you put in below hoB.

    4. You then said that “This *place* “situation” is needed to be understood as; what is expected of a searcher to do. I believe this is indicated by a later line in the poem; “Your Effort will be worth the cold…”

    I think at this point “the cold” may not be related to what you have to do.

    5. In addition you said that “This same line of thinking can also be reference by “If you are brave and in the wood” “.

    Again at this time “IYABAITW” has nothing to do with the situation on hand IMO.

    6. The next paragraph about the night and day and new and old, IMO, have nothing to do with “The end is ever drawing nigh.” And you added about the one day in a year to complete your search quoting Elliot’s poem and “There’ll be no paddle up your creek.”

    I think you might have got the idea from an old movie titled “McKenna’s Gold” starring Gregory Peck who finds the entrance to the gold canyon by following the shadow of the tip of the big vertical rock cast on the cliff walls when the Sun started to rise. IMO Fenn has not limited our search only on one day of the year, or a specific time of the day, since the path and/or entrance to his hidey spot is not hidden from our views. It’s wide open and anybody, I mean everybody can get to it very, very close (say 10-12 feet) without their knowing that they are that close to the TC. What I’m saying is that anyone who do not know anything about Fenn nor the Chase can get that close to his chest anytime, not just a day or a specific time, IMHO.

    7. And then you asked “But you have to ask, why fenn followed his own created clues?”

    Probably most searchers must have been stuck at this hint. And I think I know the reason. Because there is no other way to get to the Blaze from WWWH except this one.

    8. And then you explained a lot about Summer Solstice and how you’ve got the hint from TTOTC.

    Again in light of the argument I presented in #6 above the month of June or the Summer Solstice has nothing to do with the search IMO.

    9. And you kept on saying that “I think the poem relays that we have now discovered why hoB, if known of, would lead right to the chest… hoB is the blaze. An object, that it utilized with the morning sunrise on the first day of Summer. “IF you’ve been wise and found the blaze, Look quickly down, your quest to cease, But tarry scant with marvel gaze…” The above section of stanza 4 seems to imply we do just that… Look in quickly [as time related action] down [ below the hoB/the blaze] for our quest to be “completed?” – But tarry [linger] scant [a small amount of time] with marvel gaze [ gaze meaning; look steadily, observe, to “study”] …”

    I think the hoB is NOT the same as the Blaze. And your explanation about BTSWMG may not right, IMO. I remember seeing a post on this mentioning that “tarry” should be understood as “tar-ry” (like tar or asphalt) and “scant” as “a small section”, and this explanation might be closer to the Fenn’s intent.

    After that you mentioned about clues, hints and other stuff, but at that point I’ve lost what you’re trying to say. Of course we have to spend our time in researching the geography and some history and backgrounds, we have to first NAIL down the location or the place where warm waters halt as Fenn emphasized time and time again.

    I was going to make it short but ended up this long. I hope this will clear some of your questions also.

    — MajinKing

    • Hi MajinKing,
      You said:
      “I think you cannot locate hoB on any maps or GE since hoB is NOT a land feature. I think that’s why Fenn said that a little girl in India cannot past the first two clues with the map and GE only. Because you can’t find the hoB anywhere on te map. I posted a short post on this some time ago, but I thought differently at that time and I think I was wrong, this time IMO I am right.”
      But we also know that Forrest said that “GE cannot help with the last clue”:
      “It helps to know something about Rocky Mountain geography when making plans to search for my treasure. Rocking chair ideas can lead one to the first few clues, but a physical presence is needed to complete the solve. Google Earth cannot help with the last clue. f”

      Logic says that if GE can’t help with the last clue (#9) so it (GE) can help with clues #1-8 (including the hoB which might be clue #3 or 4). Forrest said that “physical presence is needed to complete the solve” (after first few clues were solved theoretically). Most likely it means that the searcher needs to have visual (physical) contact with area to understand where to move. Indeed, there is a big difference between your theoretically planned trail (via maps) and real one when you have BOTG.

      • Hi Andy S,

        I haven’t mention anything about the last clue yet in my post. I think I agree with you on the observation that GE cannot help with the last clue. You have to be there physically on the “tarry scant with marvel gaze” to be brave and find the TC in the wood. I have posted a few posts regarding this clue sometime ago.

        Contrary to most searchers I think one has to identify only 5 locations, not 9 locations; WWWH, CD, HOB, NPC, and BLAZE. If you correctly identify the WWWH, the CD is right there to be found, and if you find the HOB, NPC is right below there for you to start walking. So the total number of locations you have to really identify is now ONLY THREE, namely, the WWWH, the HOB, and BLAZE.

        Most searchers think that the word “halt” means a river converges with another river (I would rather think it is a “mix” not “halt” in this case) or the existing river goes underground, or “halt” from our views according to JDA’s definition (I think it is a “disappear” not “halt”). You have to really think hard why Forrest used the word “halt”. It does not mean that WWWs mix with other water or river. It does not mean that WWWs disappear from our view. It means that the water literally stops at that location, and there are thousands of those places in the RM according to Forrest. They temporarily stop and then they continue to move (maybe in a different direction?). You have to figure out what that feature is.

        At the end of the trail you followed along the “No Paddle Creek” or “No Place for the Meek” (whatever you call it) the marvel gaze on the tarry scant is the view of WWWH. So the end is not physically the same place as the WWWH, but you can see the WWWH at the end. That’s the real meaning of Eliot’s poem quoted by Forrest.

        I said many times that you can find all the locations on the map in your armchair, and you don’t need the books to do this. But again I say that you cannot find the HOB on the map, you can only guess where that place should be. At the end you have to be on your BOTG to actually get your hands on the TC. That’s the only time you have to be there physically, IMHO, and at the same time, to be BRAVE.

        — MajinKing

        • What if…..
          you could start at either end?
          Which way would you sugguest I go?
          I know – find the HOB – right?
          After that I guess I better put on my big boy pants and be BRAVE.

          • I think you missed “no short cuts” comments by Fenn. You have to get to the WWWH before you put in below hoB.
            — MajinKing

        • Hi MajinKing,

          I agree with your recent statement “you cannot find the HOB on the map, you can only guess where that place should be” (previous was: “I think you cannot locate hoB on any maps or GE since hoB is NOT a land feature” – still disagree with it).
          Of course, we can only guess what is hoB and where that place should be. To find it we should be both WISE and BRAVE – it is enough rare combination in one person.
          Well, if we have no winner in this season we will have plenty of time to re-think our failed solutions and analyse all recently published solutions of other searchers.

          • Seeker nice write up but I’m not there in my thoughts.

            MajinKing & Andy S.

            “I think you cannot locate hoB on any map or GE since hoB is NOT a land feature.”

            This statement is one that draws my attention. It is true hoB can not be located on any map or GE. It is place not referenced as having anything to do with the words “home” or “Brown” at the place of it’s location, on any map or GE. Only when you understand this location place then you will understand how it is the “home of Brown”.

            If you look up from the wwwh location it can be seen but only if you understand where home of Brown is. If you don’t truely understand this you cannot see it’s location with confidence.

            How confusing is that. But good food for thought if hoB is what you seek Seeker.

            Good luck guys,

          • Thanks, Bur.
            I agree with the idea that the hoB has anything to do with the words “home” or “Brown” at the place of it’s location, on any map or GE. Maybe it’s a land feature but Forrest wanted to make it very difficult to crack. Most likely that many searchers that were within 200-500 feet around TC had visual contact with hoB but didn’t recognised this land feature as the hoB. Question is why? Maybe they didn’t observed any connection with brown color or home of any animal/fish that have this color?
            When people asked Forrest about searchers that had mentioned correctly hoB of the blaze to him he always refused to answer the questions. It looks like that hoB is closed for questions because any answer can give too big clue.

  20. If Dal were to list a top 100 of the best solves posted “In His Humble Opinion”, this would be one fur sure, we all have tried to see the Forrest in the wood, but would we make a vote on say a top ten Solves? Dal, has done many such ideas/contests for lesser causes, this could be a way to cut through the fog of war, ie. find logic and reason that is our common quest, for this is after all a “Quest” which will cease in it’s present form and morph into something else when Indulgence is found, probably into an endless number of treasure hunts, will it save the Rockies or even save a small area from development, perhaps it already has show that if you build it they will come, in droves with picks and metal detectors, drones and videos, with humanity it is just the way we are..some will risk their life trying and some will find the real treasure, that church in the mountains, that special place of beauty, home is the key for me.

    TT as i Terrifically enthusiastic about saving the Rockies!

    • But TT, is it a “solve” if it is 100% unactionable? It’s not even a general solve by Forrest’s definition, and certainly not a “correct solve” since it doesn’t entail knowingly going to within several steps of the treasure chest. It is a proposed “methodology” to interpreting the poem without actually solving any of its clues. But I see no way to apply that methodology to solving the WWWH starting point.

      • True, zap, but it does narrow it down some. All that’s left to do is find a place in the Rocky Mountains where the sun rises in June.

      • Hi JAK: ture, it does narrow down the possibilities. 😉 Antarctica, caves, tunnels, mines, and the southern California coast (provincial joke) are eliminated. Oh wait — Forrest already took care of all of those…

  21. I support Seeker’s premise that “not only do the remaining clues revolve around the first and are within the location of the first clue… but also the possibility the trove is within the same location.”

    I will even go one step further than Seeker did and state that, IMO, WWWH is the end goal of our trek to retrieve Indulgence.

    I think this short list of ATF’s supports this notion:


    ATF #1 – “Until someone finds the treasure they will not know for sure that they have discovered the first clue.”


    ATF #2 – “T. S. Eliot said:
    We shall not cease from our exploration
    And at the end of all our exploring
    Will be to arrive where we started
    And know the place for the first time”


    ATF #3 – “That’s right joseph, you should start with the first clue and follow the others consecutively to the treasure. Hints in the book are not that organized.”


    ATF #4 – “I think the problem that people, searchers make, is that, that, that they don’t dwell long enough on the first clue. If you don’t, if you don’t, if you can’t find the first clue you don’t have anything.”

    I think this sampling is enough to make my assumption plausible.

    As to how these 4 sources lend themselves to my assertion that WWWH is our final destination, I offer the following:

    ATF #1 = Taking WWWH out of the solve equation eliminates the possibility of knowing for sure that you have discovered the first clue because you would never be able to locate Indulgence. If Indulgence is sitting in the WWWH location, this statement is absolutely true. WWWH = Indulgence’s hiding spot is the ultimate reason why FF stresses the importance of nailing down the first clue.

    ATF #2 = We all know the poem reads BIWWWH and that FF has told us such is the first clue. However, in the news report link below, around the 10:23 mark, FF states “If a person will think, they can find the chest, but the secret is to think and analyze.”

    In thinking and analyzing FF’s BIWWWH wording, what is wrong with thinking that FF is telling us the goal of TTOTC with the first clue? Conceptually, we can begin our TOTC at WWWH because we need to know what our goal is, very much the same as a fighter pilot needs to know the goal of their mission before taking off from the runway (and who do we know that was a career fighter pilot?), so we have not deviated from the fact the BIWWWH is the first clue, albeit a conceptual one only. With this idea of a conceptual beginning via the WWWH clue, here is how such an idea is a validation of the Eliot quote FF has given us: we conceptually know where we need to get to (WWWH), but our PHYSICAL journey starts elsewhere and leads us to WWWH, hence we have arrived where we started (initially only conceptually) by exploring (following the rest of the clues) and know the place for the first time when we physically arrive there (WWWH) because such was only a concept at the very beginning of it all.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipvIGaVt7C8&list=PLg2bCqbxRU9VRTmYsKwrL8q08qvwLSMnk&index=20 – again, the quote is around the 10:23 mark.

    ATF #3 = As above with the breakdown of ATF #2, we start by understanding that WWWH is a conceptual beginning to TTOTC, and exactly like FF states in this written response, we then “follow the others consecutively to the treasure.” Again, thinking of the first clue as the goal and a conceptual starting point, it becomes a necessity to then “follow the others to the chest” especially since FF has also stated that “The clues should be followed in order Curtis. There is no other way to my knowlege.”

    ATF #4 = Dwell (in this instance) means to think on at length. Thinking the wrong way about the first clue, or any clue really (or, even worse, that something is a clue when in reality it is only a hint), will always leave us empty handed when it comes to TTOTC.

    Understanding that “Begin it where warm waters halt” is a conceptual start to TTOTC versus a physical one might just be the first step (pun intended) on the pathway to retrieving Indulgence. TTOTC is just as much an intellectual process as it is a physical one and, like Seeker, this searcher is not taking another step until thinking and analyzing the poem yields actionable data for BOTG.

    • Bowmarc: several problems with the treasure being located at or very near the precise geographic location of WWWH. First, what about all those one- and two-clue solvers? How did they all miss what’s right in front of them? Second, seems to me if the start is the end, then contrary to Forrest saying there are no shortcuts, there is no need to solve clues 2-9 — it’s one and done. Third, why two trips from his car? In this theory, the distance to walk is minuscule. A lot of searchers seem to think Forrest is Superman and could have walked 16 miles in an afternoon; but that same Superman can’t walk a couple hundred feet with 42 pounds?

      There is also this question asked and answered at Moby Dickens:

      Female questioner: “I have one about the poem. Umm, if you follow the poem precisely, will you find yourself switching back?”

      FF: “If you follow the clues in the poem precisely, would I what?”

      Woman: “Will you find yourself switching back? (delay) Making a loop.”

      FF: “This gal’s dangerous, you know that?! Would I find myself switching back. Well I think I can say no to that without giving away too much of the clue.”

      And if Seeker was still posting, he would probably bring up these two quotes:

      “If you can’t make two trips from your car to your solve in several hours, then don’t go.”


      “I will say that I walked less than a few miles if that will help.”

      Seeker always used these quotes as evidence that Forrest walked more than a trivially short distance (even though neither quote places a limit on how short the one-way distance is from where he parked to the treasure.)

      I’m sure I could dig up some other troubling quotes, but these seem sufficient to kill the idea that the treasure is less than 200 feet from the WWWH starting point.

      • The word few, I believe, could be referenced from page 15 of the book. The only page with the asterisk. Used ATF’s to find, but basically, the word “few” is the 113th word on this page. Like a few are in tight focus with a word that….. The word that is the 113th word of the poem.
        113 can be broken down to be either: 5,14,23,or 113. Take your pick in interpretation. I think you can throw out 113.
        So, in walking less then a few miles, you get: 5,14,or 23. Compare it to “a few words in the poem will not assist you in finding the chest…..
        Check how many words didn’t help. See if you get 5,14,or 23.

    • Let me anticipate your response: that you never said the treasure was 200 feet or less from the starting point. I would guess, then, that your WWWH is not a precise starting point, but a general area. Unfortunately, Forrest said WWWH is not a region — it’s a specific place.

      • Zap-you never reach the WWWH spot until you have followed the other clues to take you there, but we nonetheless begin it WWWH by knowing that such is our destination. Remember, FF has said there is only 1 way to his knowlege to get to the treasure. Knowing the goal via clue 1, then identifying the correct starting point to get to that goal via clue 2, then following the remaining clues that fall along the line between those two reference points makes all the clues contiguous in my book and accounts for the 200 and the 500 footers. Put another way, you can’t very well start at the top of a mountain, but if you think a spot on that mountain is WWWH and go all the way up there because you feel you have to be BOTG at clue 1 so you can stomp over to clue 2, then 3, by the time you head towards clue 3 you have left the poem despite having already been 200 and 500 feet from the treasure. In this scenario, I have correctly identified WWWH, but misunderstood it’s importance despite being so darn close to the chest.

        • Sorry, but I’m not familiar with that quote. “1 way to get to the treasure”?

          You seem to be implying that FF has said the only physical/literal way/path to get to the treasure requires one to physically travel a path from WWWH. Could you please cite some support for that? Or, explain more clearly what you are saying.

          I have seen this though: (https://thefenndiagrams.com/q-a-with-fenn/fourth/)
          ” It is not likely that anyone will find it without following the clues, at least in their mind”

          • Go to http://www.tarryscant.com and use “to my knowlege” as the search criteria, then make your own informed decision from the resulting quote. Please note the intentional mispelling of the word knowle(d)ge when searching TS.

      • Bowmarc: WWWH is the FIRST clue; no other clues precede it. Searchers have been at WWWH (by design, not accident) without solving any other clues, so they couldn’t have followed the other clues to take themselves there.

        • I never said that it wasn’t the first clue, Zap, and I am not preceding it with other clues. What I am doing is simply offering an alternative method for assigning importance to the WWWH spot, one which uses it as the first clue in an intellectual manner that requires us to maneuver to it the FF wants us to rather than merely stomping to it by design and mentioning such to FF.

        • Bowmarc: you claimed “I never said that it wasn’t the first clue, Zap, and I am not preceding it with other clues.”

          Yet you earlier wrote this:
          “Zap-you never reach the WWWH spot until you have followed the other clues to take you there.”

          So which is it? You seem to be describing a chicken and the egg problem: WWWH is the first clue, but then you say you must follow other (later) clues in order to find it. Successful one- and two-clue solvers figured out WWWH without the benefit of solving any later clues. Explain that.

          • You seem to miss my point entirely Zap, so I will try to elaborate yet simplify (hopefully).

            WWWH is the first clue. We can all agree on this since FF has stated such.

            As I see it, there are two ways to begin TTOTC using WWWH as the first clue.

            #1 = The usual method used by searchers is to physically travel to that spot and then follow the rest of the clues from there.

            #2 = The alternative method I am suggesting is to use WWWH as the goal of TTOTC and then to follow the other clues from the correct starting point to get to WWWH.

            Humor me and think of it this way for a moment. You and your family decide that you want to take a vacation. Do you jump in your car/in your boat/on a train/on a plane and simply travel until you get to some remote destination that makes you feel like you are on vacation and simply stop there, or do you think about where you need to go, then plan the route to get there? If you are independently wealthy, either method could work for you, but I’d wager that the majority of vacationing people typically use the latter method.

            I can see your argument coming from a mile away. Bowmarc, Bowmarc, Bowmarc—-the gosh-diggity-dang line says BEGIN IT! Why yes it does, but this thing is a poem and a puzzle and we are all so “edjumicated” (threw that in there in homage to Seeker) that we simply take those words at face value. We intuitively associate “begin it” with “physically start here” because this thing is a treasure hunt that requires BOTG. But stop for a moment and really listen to FF as he talks and provides us with ATF material and you will see that “begin it” can mean to start TTOTC using the WWWH first clue in an entirely intellectual way—as the goal of TTOTC which we only arrive at after following the rest of the clues because that is the way FF wants us to do it. We need to follow his rainbow which figuratively has 2 ends—why can’t he tell us about end #1 via clue #1, then tell us to actually start trekking from end #2 via the other clues.
            Looks something like this:

            7 6 5

            8 4

            9 3

            1 2

            All those clues certainly look contiguous to me, and most likely will get easier as you solve them since they lead you to a place you know you need to get to. Deciding clue versus hint in this method is the hard part, but FF does tell us how he architected the poem if you listen good.

            You can go to clue #1 any time you want to, and be counted among the 200 / 500 footers, but if you do not arrive the way FF wants you to, being there is not enough. If you go there and then stomp off towards the other 8 clues, maybe, just maybe, you have left the poem and/or poorly executed an otherwise good solve.


          • The numbers in my long post were supposed to be in the shape of an arch with 1 and 2 at either end and the rest of the numbers arched like a rainbow inbetween 1 & 2—it did not save on screen that way so you will have yo use your imagination. 🙂

          • Bowmarc;

            You have read all of the quotes about how to follow the clues – precicely – and in consecutive order etc, but you have chosen another approach. Good luck with your approach. To date, the “normal” approaches do not seem to have worked – maybe your approach will – but it seems Bass-ackwards to me – Just sayin’ – JDA

          • @JDA-Difficult but not impossible for sure. Don’t let intuition get in the way of a good solve. 🙂

          • Hi Bowmarc: in homage to Seeker, I resurrect the beginning of an old reply to him by Forrest:

            “The poem is straight forward with no subterfuge in sight.”


            MW Random Words (3/16/2017): “*Don’t look for a trick or subterfuge from me, because there aren’t any. f”

            What I’m getting at is that your approach is too radical in my eyes for either of these statements from Forrest to ring true. But that’s just my assessment; all of Forrest’s statements are open to interpretation.

            But let me ask you out of curiosity: what are your “first two clues”? Those are 3 words that Forrest has strung together on perhaps a dozen occasions.

          • @ Zap – I’ve had this argument with others, so I may as well have it with you as well.

            Do you remember the website that FF directed us to so that we could view the video where the guy was given a bike to ride that the engineers had altered to steer opposite of how a normal bike steers? I call that the backwards bicycle. Try as he might, the guy struggled to ride that thing because he was intuitively trying to ride it like a normal bike, yet he knew full well that it was altered. Eventually he was able to ride it, but he had to forget how he intuitively wanted to ride it and learn a different way to accomplish the task.

            It is much the same thing with the poem. We know it is a treasure hunt, so stomping from the first clue to the next is how we intuitively want to accomplish it despite FF telling us that he “architected” it over 15 years. We want to get on that bike and peddle and steer normally just as fast as we can to the finish line (stomp from clue 1 through clue 9).

            How quickly we forget that it is a poem, which lends poetic license to the words and phrases.

            How quickly we forget that he has called it a riddle, which is defined as a question or statement intentionally phrased so as to require ingenuity in ascertaining its answer or meaning.

            How quickly we gloss over that he uses the word “hint” in the poem which means a slight or indirect indication or suggestion.

            How quickly we forget that FF has said that the poem is difficult but not impossible.

            If those 4 facts don’t add up to an understanding that what we are viewing is more than meets the eye but less than subterfuge, something abstract yet truthful, I don’t know what does.

            The method I put out there does not deviate from what FF has said about the poem and the solve process—the words still mean exactly what they mean and I do begin it WWWH, just not in the physical sense because my journey ends there. I don’t accuse FF of trickery or subterfuge by my assertion that WWWH is the goal. I will accuse him of being a poet, wordsmith, riddle-maker, and architect! And I will listen to him when he tells me to think and to try to simplify.

            This quote by FF may say it better than I can: “Now I will test you Wordsmith. Write down the full definition of the word ‘several.’ Then Google it and learn that many of us don’t fully understand some of the words we use every day.f ”

            As to your question about what do I see as the first 2 clues, they are BIWWWH and the the other end of FF’s rainbow (AKA the correct starting point). Beyond that, I cannot elaborate, but will suggest that you look at those 2 clue ATF’s again.


          • Bowmarc: we all share the common goal of trying to solve Forrest’s puzzle, but (nearly) all of us also toil in private because the Lure is too great. You have an approach that you feel is working for you, and that is what matters. I have an approach that is working for me that is “diabolically opposed” to yours, yet 100% different than anything you’ve ever read here. Well, 99% different anyway. 😉 I am definitely riding a backwards bicycle — took a while to figure out how to steer it.

          • Diabolically opposed, eh Zap? LOL

            The 1% we share has to be that WWWH is the first clue.

            We then bifurcate from there.

            You want to physically go to WWWH and start following the other clues from that point. That is the same method (to the best of my limited knowledge) that has resulted in 500 and 200 footers after only the first couple of clues, all of whom then leave the poem.

            I want to know that I have to get to WWWH, but only arrive there after following the other clues (Like Seeker has stressed, I am not looking for just Indulgence because it is only the lure for doing TTOTC, I am looking for FF’s secret where/that special place of his that is—until I find it—his and his alone).

            I start my journey knowing where I need to end up (WWWH). That is the only way I can see FF’s use of the Eliot quote to be validated.

            If you physically go to WWWH, then journey from there, and return to WWWH, how do you know the place for the first time as the Eliot quote states/demands? And how is that not switching back?

            Is there a deeper meaning to the quote?

            Do we only know the place for the first time because all the rest of the clues make us stomp out every inch of WWWH so we then know it like the back of our hand? Is that, then, our umbilical connection, just like FF’s?

            We know that WWWH is 100% necessary. The only guaranteed way to make it 100% necessary is to make it the end goal. Take out any other clue, and the chances of finding Indulgence only diminish by a certain percentage. Take out WWWH and the chances of finding Indulgence plummet to as near to zero as possible (Miracles do happen, so to say absolutely 0.00% would be a fallacy—and remember, FF did say “Nature makes her own rules, James, so I try not to be absolute when talking about her.”)

            Knowing where we need to end up, then knowing that all of the rest of the clues lead us there certainly seems like the clues would get easier after clue #1—-you just have to think about clue #1 the right way.

            I also see a redundancy in clue references, which also helps to make the path to Indulgence easier after the first clue, but it also is one more way that FF has made the poem difficult but not impossible. Stomping away from clue #1 to, say, clue #3, is a sure way to leave the poem. Stomping to clue #1 by using that same clue #3 to (re)orient on your target (clue #1) will assuredly make your trip to clue #1 easier, will serve to bolster your confidence in your solve, etc.

            Having a total of 9 clues that only reference, say, 4 geographic places, results in a very different kind of search than equating 9 clues to 9 distinct geographic places.

            This type of (failed) search method (9 = 9) is compounded when you move away from your goal rather than towards it.

            The difficulty of the solve is further compounded when we start earning our doctoral degree by the sheer volume of research we put into elements of TTOTC rather than relying on what FF has told us to use and do.

            It gets compounded again when we research elements of the poem that aren’t even clues, but are hints. That doctoral degree on subject X is utterly useless when X does not meet FF’s definition of a clue, and stomping around BOTG looking for clue X when it doesn’t even exist in the context you intuitively want define it as is a sheer waste of money and time and significantly reduces your ability to complete TTOTC.

            None of the above is subterfuge on FF’s part. He architected the poem in a simple manner that we over complicate ourselves—-we make it more difficult than it has to be. FF knew that we would do so—- again, not subterfuge—–clever, but not underhanded—he lets us fall victim to the human condition whilst the words in his poem remain true to form.

            I need to look no further than Scrapbook 62 to support much of what I just wrote about.

            Amazingly simple, yet complex.

            I’m off my soapbox. Hopefully some of what I have said will ring true with some of you, and/or get you really thinking and discussing the poem in a whole new light.

            IMHO, of course.

          • Bowmarc, I’d like to offer a very small adjustment to your approach. Like you, I believe that we’re looking for WWWH as our goal, for that is where Indulgence lies. But we must also begin with it. Although that seems like a contradiction at first, if you’re willing to consider that WWWH is “portable,” but you will only truly know it for the first time when you open the lid, then it resolves the difficulties. You are treating it as the first clue, you are able to take it in the canyon down, and you are not “making a loop.”

            What that does is to make hoB absolutely pivotal – which is why if FF told us what it was, we’d go right to the treasure. So how do you find hoB – especially since, IMO, it is neither brown, nor even a defined place on the map? Providing you start WWWH, you will eventually discover hoB, but there will be “blood, sweat and tears” along the way. You will have earned it. This is not a journey for the meek.

          • I love me some Bowmarc. He’s a very interesting thinker and I enjoy his write ups. He explains his position or ideas very well.

            In the case of his last write up, I think this theory that has been discussed on this thread is actually way more complicated than the traditional approach of traveling clue to clue. Way more complicated in terms of nearly impossible to design and not able to follow the guidelines set forth by the puzzle maker.

            As such, I essentially believe the opposite of just about every point that Bowmarc put forth. That’s ok though, I’m glad some have different approaches as that might help find it.

            The one thing I would focus my differing opinion is the part about the hints. I can’t think of one instance ever where if one is stuck on a problem that when offered a hint the hint is suppose to be easier than the problem or clue.

            That’s just a fundamental relationship.

          • *suppose to read “ I can’t think of one instance where if one is offered a hint to solve a problem or clue that the hint ISN’T easier than the original problem or clue”.

          • Hi Bowmarc,

            “Diabolically opposed, eh Zap? LOL” I like to borrow from Forrest if the opportunity presents itself. ;-).

            “You want to physically go to WWWH and start following the other clues from that point. That is the same method (to the best of my limited knowledge) that has resulted in 500 and 200 footers after only the first couple of clues, all of whom then leave the poem.”

            I actually have no specific need to go to WWWH. I’m certainly not going to park there and stomp out the remaining clues because that’s not what the poem says to do (IMO). I no how everyone leaves the poem (to my satisfaction): they don’t solve the 3rd clue. Simple as that.

            “I start my journey knowing where I need to end up (WWWH). That is the only way I can see FF’s use of the Eliot quote to be validated.”

            There is another more plausible explanation for what Forrest is alluding to with the Little Gidding quote.

            “If you physically go to WWWH, then journey from there, and return to WWWH, how do you know the place for the first time as the Eliot quote states/demands? And how is that not switching back?”

            I know the ATF you are referring to. Note that Forrest bought himself some time in his reply, remarking that the woman was dangerous. I’m not even sure if he heard her expand on her question by finishing with “Making a loop.” He just addressed the “switching back” question, and answered in the negative: “Well I think I can say no to that without giving away too much of the clue.” Curious response, don’t you think? (Side note: there was certainly a lot of “switching” going on in Forrest’s childhood.)

            “We know that WWWH is 100% necessary. The only guaranteed way to make it 100% necessary is to make it the end goal.”

            Going to disagree with you here. IMO opinion, none of the other clues can be solved without FIRST solving WWWH. Clues 2-9 are all too vague/difficult to be uniquely identified without having the proper starting point. It’s like Forrest’s remark about starting out by looking for the blaze (“There’s ten billion blazes out there.”)

            “Take out any other clue, and the chances of finding Indulgence only diminish by a certain percentage.”

            Except that that percentage in some cases is apparently nearly 100%. Virtually no one solves clue #3, and that failure has so far been 100% effective at preventing Indulgence from being found.

            ” He architected the poem in a simple manner that we over complicate ourselves—-we make it more difficult than it has to be.”

            Yes, I agree. Just as an example, my solution is much simpler, straight forward, and logically elegant than yours seems to be. 😉 But I understand that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Good luck!

          • @ Zap – Yes, I know that quote as well, and how I am attempting to explain this theory of mine satisfies that quote as well.

            In my method, you are not switching back or looping. You are told one end of the journey first (the final location/goal), then the other end where you actually physically start the journey to the first described spot. All of the remaining clues are in between those 2 points and are a “straight line” between known point A (the goal/WWWH) and known point B (the starting point). Go to point A and you can be either a 200 or a 500 footer/Go to point B and you can be either a 200 or a 500 footer (Those distances depend on the landscape, which I am beginning to picture via the remaining clues in poem, but cannot say yet which is the 200 and which is the 500). Following the remaining clues precisely from the correct starting point (B) to the goal (A) will lead you to Indulgence. Since the remaining clues fall along the B-to-A pathway, those clues can reference A (because they absolutely do get you closer to the treasure since you are moving towards A), this adds a two-fold layer of difficulty to solving the poem: Difficulty 1) any of the remaining clues that reference A but that get thought of as describing something else makes you leave the poem. Difficulty 2) FF can still say there are 9 clues, because there are, but since some of them describe the same place at different points along the path to Indulgence, those who set out looking for 9 distinct clues also leave the poem. (As an aside, I think it was FD above who said something about hints are supposed to make understand what is being referenced easier. Doesn’t having multiple clues about a single thing help to make figuring out what is being described easier/simpler?)

            I call this B-to-A concept contiguous with a twist—-one that makes the solve process difficult, but not impossible. The fact that FF was a career combat pilot sure can be taken as an indication that he might just set his treasure hunt up in a manner that is all to familiar to him after said career (perhaps this is one of those couple of hints from the book). I’m no combat pilot, but I don’t think that in a planned mission they take off from the runway and start bombing/shooting anything that looks like a non-friendly—they are given the goal of their mission beforehand, then very specific instructions about how to locate the target, then use the correct starting point (the runway) to physically begin the mission. Isn’t TTOTC the epitome of a very detail oriented mission?

            It takes recognizing this twist within the framework of this architected riddle-of-a-poem to get the searcher into the right mindset to really start unravelling the poem the way FF wants and tells us to.

            Just one way of seeing this thing, and, of course, IMHO.

          • Bowmarc;

            I am sorry, but you confuse the heck out of me. If I understand you correctly, you want to start at the bottom of the poem, and work your way up to where most of us “BEGIN” at WWWsH. Is that correct?

            What is your first line? “I give you title to the gold?” or is it “Just take the chest and go in peace?”

            Either way, it SEEMS like you already have the chest, and now you carry it with you as you read UP the poem. What am I missing? JDA

          • Bowmarc;

            You mentioned Forrest’s time in the AF and him going on several missions – etc. Are you familiar with what is knows as a “5 Paragraph Field Order?” Basically it is a set of commands broken down into 5 sections

            Command and

            Situation: We have a bronze box that measures 10″ X 10″ X 5″ that is located in the Rocky Mountains about 8.25 miles North of Santa Fe NM, and up to the US / Canadian border, and is filled with gold and other valuable items. It is somewhere in the Rocky Mountains in NM, CO, WY and MT.

            Mission: Go out and find this Bronze Box, using the 9 clues that are in a poem created by the owner of the box, Forrest Fenn.

            1) Begin your search at a place that will be defined as “Where Warm Waters Halt.
            2) Find and follow the nine clues consecutively as found in the poem.
            3) It is believed that you must first find a number of items or places before reaching the Bronze Box.
            These Items may include: A Canyon Down, a home of Brown, a “put-in” spot, a “No place for the meek”, an “END” spot, a Heavy Loads and Water high spots, a blaze, a Tarry Scant & marvel gaze and finally the chest.

            There is some disagreement as to whether all of these items must be found prior to finding the box.

            It is agreed, that if these items are to be found, you must find them in the order listed above.

            Command: You are in command of this search, but Forrest Fenn, the owner of the chest, and the architect of the poem is the person to whom you shall report any findings.

            Logistics: Additional hints and guidelines can be found on the “Cheat Sheet” – located at the top of every thread on Dal Neitzel’s Blog

            Happy Hunting. 🙂 JDA

          • OOPS – too long away from the Marine Corps:

            https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Five_paragraph_order

            The five paragraphs can be remembered with the acronym SMEAC: “S” Situation, “M” Mission, “E” Execution, “A” Administration/Logistics, “C” Command/Signal. There are a number of subtypes of these field orders, based on knowledge patterns specific to individual military branches. Each subtype has its own acronym.

            I got the last two in the wrong order – Sorry JDA

          • @JDA – that is incorrect. Think of clue 1 as “A”. Think of clue 2 as “B”. The remaining 7 clues in order are C, D, E, F, G, H, I. I’m saying that we do begin TTOTC with “A”, except that we don’t physically start there—we start with the KNOWLEDGE that “A” is our END GOAL in TTOTC—Just like a fighter pilot going on a mission, we need to know what we are bombing/shooting first and foremost. Once we know “A”, we physically start our journey to “A” following the next clue in the poem, which is “B”. “B” is the correct physical starting point for TTOTC (the runway from which we take off in the fighter pilot analogy). From “B” we work back to “A” following C-I. We have used all the clues in order as they are presented in the poem. Since clues C-I fall along the line between “B” and “A”, any of those clues can reference “A” because each is getting us closer to “A” with each one we solve. For example, let’s say clue E is “Water high” from the poem. “Water high” can be a reference back to clue A (WWWH) because of the water connection and the supposed elevation that each word grouping suggests (the water from WWWH could be what is going DOWN into the canyon referenced in the next line)—-however, if we are moving towards the water of WWWH because we are starting at B, clue “E” would only correctly describe those same waters as water HIGH because we are beyond the point where the WWWH (Clue A) water took it into the canyon down.

            Does that help at all JDA?

          • Bowmarc;

            Good luck with your idea. Why would Forrest say, “Begin it” if in fact, you think he meant “End it\?”

            You have your idea, and I will not change your mind, nor will I be convinced that you are right. So, again, Good Luck – JDA

          • Bowmarc: with your approach, you still run up against the problem that your clues B through I seem to be irrelevant. You say you start with A and know its identity. What do you gain by solving any of the other clues if your clue A is the endpoint goal (location of Indulgence)? Is it a matter of approach angle — that you need to approach A by coming from the direction of B? Couldn’t you achieve the same result by simply circumnavigating A? From your 200’/500′ comments, your A and B are rather close together. Seems to me you could walk, say, 40 feet from A and then walk in a circle around A. At some point you will cross the line that connects your B to A (via clues C-I). That sounds like the definition of a shortcut to me, unless you feel there is critical information to discover at points B through I that you will need when you finally get to A.

            Perhaps you can’t physically drive to A. Perhaps B is as close as you can get to A in a vehicle, and therefore you unavoidably walk from B to A. But again, since you know your destination already, it seems to me that C through I become irrelevant.

            Finally, I can’t reconcile this solution with the specific language of the second stanza.

          • JDA, wasn’t your approach with using the words “in the wood” similar to Bowmarc’s idea? You also used something near the end of the poem to point you out a specific area to begin near and then went with BIWWWH.

            Not sure if you still use that approach but it seems at odds to your comments of Bowmarc’s approach.

          • FD;

            I read the poem over and over. I “Absorbed” it if you will. I took a definition of “In the wood” and used this as a hint to tell me where WWWsH might be. Once I “Began it” at my WWWsH location, I then followed the clues A – I (using Bowmarc’s model), Bowmarc starts at B works his way to I, then back to A. Quite a bit different than me using a hint from later in the poem to help me find the “A” clue, and then solving the remaining clues in order – B,C,D,E,F,G,H,I..

            But thanks for asking – JDA

          • @ JDA and Zap – To me it is pretty simple. You cannot get to “A” without starting at “B”. Geography prevents you from doing so safely and FF has repeatedly reminded us to be safe. You can go to “A” anytime you want to, but if you do not realize that “A” is the goal, and fail to apply the middle clues to the geography that you traverse from “B” to “A”, you are not listening good to FF and won’t find Indulgence.

            This is a poem and a puzzle/riddle, JDA. I’m suspicious of words and word phrasing within the poem for those 2 reasons. Poetry allows FF to be creative with his wording, as does designing a riddle with a very valueable prize as one of the rewards for figuring it out—a riddle he wanted to make difficult but not impossible and that could conceivably stand the test of time.

            Saying “Begin it” and then telling us that WWWH is the first clue intuitively makes people want to associate having to be BOTG at that point from the start of TTOTC. I’ve been there and done that with some of my solve processes. Now I am working on begin it as meaning “have a beginning characterized in some specified way”—in this case, as the goal of the whole thing.

            I’ll rest my case (for now) on this ATF from Scrapbook 167:

            “– Can you give me one quote that will inspire my readers that it is possible to find your treasure? Something to motivate them? Something to tease them.

            FF: Those who solve the first clue are more than half way to the treasure, metaphorically speaking.”

            Hmmm…if the first clue is the goal, isn’t that a plausible way to make this ATF truthful?


          • HI Bowmarc — okay, I think we’ve pretty much beat this topic to death, so this’ll probably be my last comment on the subject.

            “To me it is pretty simple. You cannot get to “A” without starting at “B”. Geography prevents you from doing so safely…”

            Okay, that’s fine, but that’s actually no different than my situation: I cannot park my car at the location where I believe the chest resides, nor can I get to it safely without unavoidably going past all the other clues.

            “You can go to “A” anytime you want to, but if you do not realize that “A” is the goal, and fail to apply the middle clues to the geography that you traverse from “B” to “A”, you are not listening good to FF and won’t find Indulgence.”

            I suspect that you are having to maintain some ambiguity out of necessity in order to not give too much away that is specific to your solution. So that I can appreciate. It sounds like it is fair to say that knowing the identity of the geographic location of A is not enough to find the chest. So that tells me that the A location is somewhat vague (i.e. not small) — that you need additional information in order to knowingly walk to within several steps of the treasure @ A. Is that an accurate assessment? Otherwise, if A was a tiny, very specific point on the map, then nothing would prevent discovery of the chest knowing A alone. For instance, a grid search of 20-feet square could find a 10″ x 10″ x 6″ bronze box in less than 30 minutes.

            I’ll close with a comment about your appeal to SB 167 as supporting your case. I’m afraid it supports EVERYONE’s case. From a pure standpoint of distance from the treasure, over 99.999% of searchers starting from home will be physically more than halfway to the treasure just by solving the first clue (or any clue, really). Many will be more than halfway to the treasure just by showing up in any one of the four states, even if it’s the wrong one.

          • FD;

            Yes, No.

            I have a “Big Picture Solve” that takes me from my original WWWsH spot through the poem to a spot that I expected to find Indulgence, but didn’t.

            Once at this final spot, I discovered that near-by was a new WWWsH. Starting at this new location, I developed a “Mostly Visual” solve that requires minimal BotG to reach a spot where I not think I will find Indulgence.

            So, I nolonger think that multiple trips are needed to go through the poem, but I think that two trips are required.

            IF, for some magical reason, you were to start at my NEW WWWsH location, and start there, the poem could be solved in just one trip. The trick is, it is not very likely that you would be drawn to this NEW WWWsH location without having first been led there by a “Big Picture” solve first. Hope this answers your question –

            Didn’t Forrest say something about adapting? – JDA

          • @ Zap (All) = Yes, ambiguity is required from time-to-time to protect the specifics of one’s theory.

            And yes, knowing “A” is not enough, you have to arrive there as architected by FF via clues B-I.

            Lastly, I think my method is a bit different than your situation:

            It sounds to me like you want park somewhere knowing your next steps will be through/near WWWH, and then the remaining 8 clues lead you away from there to where Indulgence is secreted. This is just like the majority of other solves. If you do follow this type of method you can have correctly been at the first couple of clues (as allowed for by my method) and then leave the poem because you are walking away from the first two clues without realizing how FF has architected them.

            In my method I want to park somewhere knowing that my first steps will be to the correct starting point for my journey to WWWH via the other 7 clues because I have correctly connected clues 1(A) and 2(B). I use clue number 1 as my goal because “Begin it” has been defined as “something having a beginning characterized in some specified way”, namely the specific way FF cleverly describes it in the riddle-of-a-poem he has provided us.

            IMHO, it does not get more clever than allowing searchers to intuitively lead themselves astray from the very beginning of TTOTC, especially when they can be so close to one of the rewards for same after only solving one or two clues, because we want to ride that bicycle normally knowing full well it has been engineered to operate differently somehow.

            But where I see cleverness, others will cry subterfuge.

            Where I see contiguous with a twist, others will see bass ackwards.

            Where I see FF’s SB167 ATF as a (not so) subtle nod back to his poem, a metaphorical instrument in its own right, and find it a brilliantly clever ATF because FF knows full well that those who correctly solve clue #1 will be 100% all the way to the treasure according to my theory (supported, perhaps, by this ATF “Until someone finds the treasure they will not be sure they have discovered the first clue), others will use it as a blanket statement for any searcher’s efforts.

            We differ in our interpretation(s), and that is fine.

            It is all a part of why TTOTC is difficult, but not impossible.

            Thanks everyone for the conversation.

        • Bowmarc and Vox;

          Although I agree that the place Indulgence rests has similarities to the place we start, I absolutely reject the idea that they are the same. If they are the same, why put clues 2 – 8 in the poem? Forrest could have just said, “Find WWWsH, and look around and you will find Indulgence – end of poem.

          True, Forrest said to simplify, but to me, you guys are taking it to the farthest (and IMO wrong) extreme – JMO – JDA

          • Thanks for the response, JDA. Bowmarc has a slightly different interpretation to me, so I can only speak for myself.

            I am not saying that the place we end is the same as the place we start, in a geographical sense. I am saying that we need to begin it where warm waters halt AND we need to take it in the canyon down. Those to me are the first two clues. The rest of the clues follow on from there, with hoB being absolutely critical – again geographically.

            Where we end is also WWWH, but geographically quite distinct from where we start. You MUST follow the clues to get there – and in order to do that you must listen good. There is no other way.

            But what you find at the end (aside from a bronze box) is something that you already know – or at least you thought you did.

          • Although I don’t own the books I have read My War for Me, and I think the analogy comes through strongly. When FF made his vow to visit the waterfall he was unaware of why he felt he had to go there, but was attracted by the seeming mystery of that place. Upon arrival there he was somewhat disappointed and embarrassed, and wondered what had gotten into him. It was only a considerable time later that the meaning of what he had stumbled on there became clear to him.

            So it is with WWWH, IMO. Things will be unclear – even alien – to start with, and we may find that we make all sorts of missteps as we try to make sense of that mysterious place. But little by little the fog will clear – as long as we keep our antennae free of obstruction.

            The part that possibly diverges from your thinking, JDA is that I believe your WWWH is as valid as mine, and your starting point will do just as well as mine. If we both were to follow the clues as FF intended, we would both arrive at the same place and rejoice together!

          • Possibly so Vox. Even if we start at the same WWWsH, what is the likelyhood that we would interpret the intervening clues the same? Probably not likely 🙂

            Would hope that we could share the joy of finding Indulgence together, but I will not bet on it 🙂 JDA

          • Bow, just read your fighter pilot analogy. I don’t follow. The pilot may know where he’s headed in advance but he’s still staring in the cockpit on a runway or a flight deck someplace and traveling to his destination or ending. I could buy that the area is small and the clues are all on sight I guess but no matter how you slice it or verbalize it, you’re starting with B which is after A and therefore past the spot that Forrest has told us to begin. Good luck with your solve and all but I don’t think the logic flies.

    • Bowmarc, I hope people take note of what you’ve just laid out. Yes, I too believe that WWWH is our intended destination. But I would go one step further and say that the reason we have to be there physically to complete the solve is because there is no WWWH without our presence!

      The retort one would expect is to ask how the heck you can find the hidey spot if it’s also WWWH – and it doesn’t exist without us? FF said, “If you don’t know where you are going any trail will take you there.” My reading of that is that it’s more important to begin than where you begin. I know that runs counter to everything that searchers hold dear but we need to remember that imagination is the key. Of course logic must come to the aid of imagination, but logic alone is insufficient. Without imagination it is impossible to find FF’s special place, IMO.

      I posted a short analogy hinting at this over at Jenny’s earlier today.

      • Vox – the quote you listed is exactly why I think WWWH is our goal. FF tells us where we need to get to first, then gives us the other clues to get us there correctly—-his way.

        • Yes, I think you’re right. My only addition would be to say that we take WWWH with us to the correct spot (take it in).

          Consider this exchange:
          “Q: Did the same 9 clues exist when you were a kid and to your estimation will they still exist in 100 years and 1000 years? “The clues did not exist when I was a kid but most of the places the clues refer to did. I think they might still exist in 100 years but the geography probably will change before we reach the next millennia.”

          At first glance this would seem to suggest that you just have to pick the right places. But, as usual, FF is very careful with his choice of words, and so we need to read very carefully. “Most of the places…” Why not all of the places? Is there a new town, a new road, a new outcrop that we need to find? It’s possible, though unlikely. But there are plenty of “new” searchers. I doubt there’s anyone actively searching who was born within nine or ten years of Forrest. Can a searcher be described as a “place?” When a doctor asks us to pinpoint where it hurts, we point to a particular “place” on our body – that ticking time-bomb resides in a place we call our chest.

          Then he gives the places 100 years to remain roughly the same – “might still exist.” What major changes could alter that? The Yellowstone eruption is certainly one, although I don’t think the treasure is in YNP or close by. A road might be swept away or a river alter its course, but we could probably still navigate to our destination despite that. But isn’t 100 years also about the maximum span that any of us can expect to be around?

          Didn’t FF also state that “the immediate landscape will probably remain about the same for as long as time has to go?” That’s a quote worth thinking about. What scenarios would allow that to happen? If the universe were to end within the next millenium then we could expect that to hold true, but if it still has a few billion years to go we might expect the odd new ocean, a couple of reformed continents, and a change of ownership in the local Starbucks. But what stops for us when the Grim Reaper wields his scythe? Time.

          • My answer to you is that all it takes is for 1 place to have not existed when he was a kid to validate his statement. There is a place mentioned in the poem that didn’t exist when he was a kid because it was impossible before TTOTC. People go looking for this place with no idea that they should stay home and play canasta because they will never find Indulgence via searching/researching this place because it exists within the context of TTOTC only.

            IMHO anyways.

        • That’s an interesting concept, Bowmarc. I hope you’ll be able to test your theory soon.

          Yes, it only takes one place to have not existed. For me, that is WWWH. And it becomes WWWH only when a searcher makes it so – or when FF ends his life there. That is where we begin (anew).

    • Bowmarc;

      My take on it is Yes, No. What do I mean by this? Is the location that you start from – the WWWsH location the exact place that you will end up – A big circle if you will? Answer is NO.

      If, on the other hand you were to say that the place that you end up at has the same characteristics as the place that you start, my answer is a resounding YES!

      You start at a place where warm waters halts (Whatever that means).
      What if you end up at a place where warn waters halt? – (Whatever that means)

      Maybe at the start location these four words “Where Warm Waters Halt” has one meaning, and that where you end up these same four words have a very different meaning?

      I have said before that my interpretation of the WWWsH (at the start location) means that a smaller body of water (Like a stream or creek) converges with a larger body of water (A river or lake maybe)

      Maybe WWWsH, at the end location is a small rivulet, creek or stream that goes underground. Being small, the waters will be warm, if they go underground they “halt” from our view.

      We shall not cease from our exploration
      And at the end of all our exploring
      Will be to arrive where we started
      And know the place for the first time.” f

      Same WWWsH, but different – Just a thought – JDA

  22. The morning sunrise on the first day of summer this year was extremely cold (snow on the ground) and the water level was far too high to fetch the treasure. I will never search before August again.

    The home of Brown is likely the 2nd or 3rd clue in the poem. There are six or seven other clues to discover and they could be miles apart. That means I think the treasure is probably nowhere near the home of Brown.

    I believe the correct solution will be enjoyable to read and easy to understand. No need to reference any scrapbooks or interviews, but probably lots of references to the poem, the TOTC book, the history of the general area, and lots of pictures of BOTG at each clue site.

    The correct anagram for one of the poem lines will tell you what is your quest. Seeker is correct about it not being a 10″ spot, IMO. I think it is a place where a man like Forrest would go for a reason (which is pretty obvious, but I won’t write it here).

    • Muset: you might check the historical weather / water levels for your spot on July 12th, 2010, because Forrest could not have hidden the treasure later than that date. If you don’t think it’s possible to get to your location in 2010 prior to that date, then you’re left with only two possibilities: that Forrest hid the treasure in 2009 on or after his birthday (of which only 10 days are in August, and September is probably stretching Forrest’s definition of “summer”), or your spot is not Forrest’s spot.

      • too bad that isn’t March 12th, which would eliminate about 1/2 the rocky mnts, or more.

        course if he ‘had’ to wait until end of June, or start of July, that eliminates about 1/2 the rocky mnts, or more… so we are in luck 🙂

      • Interesting Zaphod.

        I did like you said and I see the water levels in 2010 were similar to 2019 at the station downstream from my general area. Levels are relative, of course.

        This year on June 20, the gauge was around 3000 cu/ft/s as was it in 2010. Too much to risk crossing the creek.

        July 12 shows it was down to 1500 this year and also that year. I think that level would have been not much of problem, plus the temperature would have been 15 degrees warmer.

        But August would have been a better time to hide it with the water level down to 700 cu/ft/s.

        On or about his 80th birthday makes the most sense to me.

      • Hi Muset: I would say 700 ft^3/sec is still too much to safely cross unless your creek is very wide at your crossing point. I once crossed the Gallatin when it was 600 ft^3/sec, and that would be dangerous for someone inexperienced in river crossings, and probably impossible (without outright swimming) for anyone weighing less than, say, 170 lbs.

        Your final sentence is not possible. The chest was already hidden by July 12th, 2010.

        • The gauge station is 20+ miles from my creek. It’s a relative measurement.

          As you probably experienced, most of the trails in the Gallatin cross over one or several creeks. It’s the same for all of them. By mid-July they can be crossed without too much trouble, but mid-August and September is easier.

          I don’t know when the chest was hidden. I don’t dispute your time constraints, but I don’t put much weight on their importance.

        • Ahh, I see now. You aren’t measuring the volume of YOUR creek (which should have been obvious to me in retrospect — no “creek” runs at 3000 cfps!) You’re almost certainly talking about the Gallatin Gateway gauging station, and your creek is just one of dozens that feed the river. So yes — you can assess the relative flowrate of your creek by monitoring the GG station that is far downstream.

          The most obvious way that constraining Forrest’s hiding window is helpful is the very discussion we’ve been having. If Forrest hid the chest in June or early July 2010, then that’s going to eliminate some territory from consideration that wasn’t eliminated by Forrest’s other constraints. For instance, a searcher can get to very few places at or above 9,500-foot elevation in Glacier National Park in June without encountering snow. And any “solve” that requires a river or stream or large creek crossing via wading is going to run into trouble if Forrest did it before mid-July.

    • Muset;

      You make a number of supposed factual statements:”(snow on the ground) ”

      How do you know that there was snow on the ground where Indulgence rests? The Rocky Mountains are vast, and have different weather in different places.

      “…and the water level was far too high to fetch the treasure.”

      Same question as above.

      “The correct anagram for one of the poem lines will tell you what is your quest.”

      Who said that anagrams will need to be used ? – certainly not Forrest.

      Just an observation – I like your posts, but I also like to see a separation of fact and opinion – Just sayin’ – JDA

      • Sorry JDA. I thought I sprinkled enough “I believe”, “I think”, and “IMOs” in there.

        I don’t pretend to know where is the treasure. There was snow on the ground in the Gallatin Canyon on that day.

    • After sifting through my notes of my location, you have to remember to look for no place for the meek and the end. Only after those, IMO will you locate the chest. No place for the meek would likely be a secluded area that is not easily detectable.

      • MJ,

        Serious question; how do you determined that line as an actual place? ~ “from there it’s no place for the meek”

        • I’m just guessing,, and I don’t know anything really. It’s a spot… IMO. Could allso just be a description. Like no paddle. Who knows?

        • MJ, ~’ I’m just guessing…’

          That’s my point. It could be a place, spot, etc… but that is just a guess to start with, as you said…
          I’m not saying it’s not a logical guess / assumption, however, if you look up the word “place” there are other usages of the meaning of the word.
          Such as ‘place’ being in a situation.

          The line read {in part}, It’s no place for the meek. So we automatically think of ‘places’ like a ghost town, or haunted mine, or a name of a place that is scary etc.
          But WhatIF it becomes a institution for a searcher to be in that is not to the likening of a meek person, and that situation is what is; “ever” [always] coming to an end.

          Would it be too far fetch to think an overnight stay [seeing the poem hasn’t told us to move yet, in this theory] in the Mountains as large and vast as the RM’s, with bears, snakes, spiders, badgers, canine packs, big cats and insect so large that have to file a flight plan with ATC… be a situation the meek person would find a bit uncomfortable-?- especially if we need to “observe” something / “plan” for something at the end of the night and dawn arrives?

          But I get it… if all we doing is reading a point to point method, the word “place” is forced to be a point on a map… and skipping the meaning of the word that we use everyday, but not considering it’s full meanings and usages. {reread Wordsmiths Q&A}

          The other problem is how the poem is started out as being read… with the same precondition idea of a point to point method. That idea makes “take it in” as a movement only and not an observation, by each of the words meaning in that phrase.
          It also makes; There’ll be no paddle up your creek to be only a creek [ place ] and not the idea of a the situation, such as; being up that famous creek without a paddle and/or something from the book that might helps with the clue, as a time period, for why an over night stay is needed and won’t be a big deal, even for the meekish, line of thinking.

          Those thoughts will never appear in a point to point solve method. But the words in the poem can created the ideas, nevertheless.

          The point is; for this method presented; fenn would need to give reasons or “instructions” to have a searcher in a physical place to plan for, observe, and understand how to “complete” the poem, and ‘Why’ driving by, leaving, moving away from the first clue might just be the killer method of a good solve.

          Maybe it just time to “guess” a different approach?
          *A good solve is frequently lost in a poor execution. Forrest Fenn {MW’s}

  23. In my mind, I’m thinking……
    “I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.”
    Am I wavering a bit too much?


  24. Hey, does anyone remember Forrest making a comment (few yrs ago) that if he told a searcher what the home of brown was, they could walk or go right to the treasure?

    I’m trying to find that comment.

    • The reference is Something like this…
      if you knew the House of Brown, you could walk right to the treasure.

      I can’t find it

    • 4/2/2013 HDNET World Report (ID#9138 on Tarryscant.com)

      LONDON: In the poem, which you say has these nine clues, there are references to water, there is a reference to Brown’s house. Who’s Brown?

      FENN: There’s references to wood.

      LONDON: But you didn’t answer my question, who is Brown?

      FENN: Well, that’s for you to find. If I told you that, you’d go right to the chest.

      Link to the video (at that spot):


      • My bet, the comments from FF are referring to beaver. Brown and wood. I think he gave a few hints.
        As always, IMO.

    • 42: watch the video. Forrest was being sarcastic/annoyed, IMO. People have figured out home of Brown by now in all likelihood: “Some may have solved the first four clues, but I am not certain.” (November 2015!) If people HAVEN’T figured out home of Brown by now (coming up on four years later), then clearly so much for the clues getting progressively easier after solving the first clue (which I think is demonstrable malarkey).

      And if some HAVE figured out home of Brown, clearly it hasn’t been the ticket to finding Indulgence ‘cuz it’s still out there.

      • They could have figured out the four clues, in emails, but have not made the BOTG trip required to find the TC.
        In reality, someone may have solved all of the clues but have not been able to make the trip.
        As always, IMO.

  25. F.D

    You said: Fundamental Design on August 20, 2019 at 1:29 pm said:

    And JDA…how do you get around This as you said “until Forrest said that the first clue was WWWsH.”?

    My answer: “BIWWWH,” is not a complete sentence. IMO Forrest was NOT going to “Tell the whole truth” but he wasn’t going to tell a lie either. He was not going to say, “The first clue is the first three lines of Stanza #1.” He wanted to make a true statement, but he did not want to give us ALL of the information. He was going to make a true statement, without having to tell the WHOLE truth. Forrest almost NEVER answers 100% about ANYTHING! JMO – JDA

    • JDA,

      Bingo, and like his faher told him in the book: you should always tell the truth, but not ALL of the truth. (Paraphrased).

      And go back and listen to this the following audio interview with DP and FF, where Forrest says: it’s not just a sentence, it’s a craft.

      Now why would Forrest even mention sentence, why not say line or stanza?



      • JDA – Yeah, never tell the ‘hole’ truth. Because that might include a ‘lie’. How deep is a ‘hole’, Forrest?

        Explored a lot of great holding water for big Browns and Rainbows with my fly fishing librarian friend on the Madison River on this trip. A ‘lie’ is usually on the downstream side of a boulder, where the lunkers ‘lie’ in wait for flies to float past.

        I almost forgot to look for the treasure, but then an old fly fisherman, named Fritz, came walking along my ‘IT’, from just upstream of my profile Smil•e face search area. He proceeded slowly toward me, wading close to shore, then sat down on the chin of that face! He then crossed right where the Boundary Trail meets the opposite shore, continuing toward me on the campground shoreline. He was using a wading staff and wearing a hat, so from a distance, I thought it might be Forrest! Fritz said he was fishing a 20 foot deep hole around the far bend, and gave us specifics to get out there. Was that Forrest’s ‘secret weir’???

        I tried to walk the shoreline, earlier, to the point where Fritz made his thigh deep BITW crossing, but I got stuck in the quicksand-like mud up over my knees in my flip-flops. Luckily, I was able to get out and retrieve those.

        We headed into YNP on that free park admission day to maybe swim the Firehole, but instead got caught up in trying to find Forrest’s departure point for his Madison River walk in the TFTW preface. I will post a map later, to show where I think that is. The Montana location is exactly two miles from the West Entrance and exactly five miles by car from Baker’s Hole Campground. There were purple Gentian flowers at our feet and yellow Rabbitbrush flowers all around. And what looked like the smooth, easy to navigate river rocks from Dal’s great TFTW cover at this very easy to access put in. We even looked among the plentiful tree and deadfall cover for obvious places to temporarily place a dinghy with camping gear and then a bike. There was a perfect place.

        • JDA – By the way, our plan to put in with that canoe at Baker’S Hole, on Hebgen Lake and downstream to Quake Lake on the Madison River, were thwarted. The canoe from Campfire Lodge was destroyed in a roof snow avalanche this past Winter. That heavy load also destroyed the roof above the fly shop. Luckily, they removed all the store contents over the Winter.

          I was imagining doing a put in above the camp at the Day Use Area and fishing all the way down into Quake Lake. ‘IT’ would have been a challenge, though. The river was running pretty deep and fast, especially below the camp. We stayed in my favorite riverside spot there. So shady and quiet and comfortable. And My Grizz didn’t make an appearance. But he was seen leaving on the entrance road into camp at 6:45am, three weeks earlier.

          • Lisa, I have you to thank for helping me resolve the ATF: “How deep is a hole?”

            “How deep is a WHOLE?”
            No “w” = no double-you.
            We move from the split to the whole. The undifferentiated “I.”
            It’s very deep…

          • voxpops – Glad to be of assistance!

            Or, no (w) as lower case no double-u or no double-omega? My search area is under a backwardS bike S•ingle u-shaped rainbow bend in the Madison. With lots of big Rainbows in ‘IT’. Especially in that 20′ hole Fritz mentioned.

            My single, undifferentiated (I) is an ‘eye’ in the landscape on my topo map in satellite view. That’s my ‘secret where’ by the ‘secret weir’. Didn’t Dal say that Forrest loves double and even triple entendres?

        • JDA – More ‘lies’:


          Found some great holding water on the Big Wood River, North of town here yesterday. My friend caught one Rainbow trout after another. She said I should be a fly fishing location scout. I saw a truck full of guides and guests park nearby this area last year, while attending the supercar race on Phantom Hill.

          Follow the fly fishermen to find Forrest’s bronze chest. And BE the fly fisherman. IMO.

    • JDA, I don’t agree with much of that.

      I think it’s a similar problem as the problem you proposed to Seannm about the 9 sentences being the 9 clues.

      • So let me get this straight. F says the first clue is BIWWWH but it’s actually involves something else?

        Like…if and when the tc is found and the correct solve released, most of the searchers are gonna be passed if f said what the first clue was but turns out that clue includes a few other lines in the poem. F would get booed offstage.

        That would be a the biggest form of ridiculousness imaginable.

        • All,

          There may be many things that most searchers will be upset about when and if this treasure is found, and mostly because the correct solution didn’t fit their preconceived biases or interpretation of Forrest intent.


          • Seannm;

            The way that I look at it is “It really does not matter what a clue is or what a hint is, or even what one considers a clue.” What matters is finding Indulgence.

            I look at the poem one way, and break it down “MY” way. Is “MY” way the correct or only way? Probably not.

            I MAY find Indulgence, sit down with Forrest and ask him how he broke down the hints and clues. “HIS” way may be very much different than mine, and that is OK. What matters is that using “MY” way, I was able to find Indulgence. WHO CARES how I got there? What will matter is that “I” got there.

            IF “I” do find it, I could care less who thinks that I solved it the wrong way, or that Forrest may have said something that “they” disagree with.

            How many ways are there to get from Los Angeles to New York City? Countless. What difference, if I choose to go a different way than you do – but I get there.

            If “YOUR” way works for you, use it. If it doesn’t, consider another approach or a different place.

            Just My Humble Opinion – JDA

          • It’s not like we aren’t on Dal’s site that says this fact in the Cheat Sheet:

            Cheat Sheet

            What we are taking as fact:

            ♦“Begin it where warm waters halt” is the first clue

          • @JDA,

            I agree, it won’t matter how one found it, only that they did. And who are we, the none finders, to question how they interpreted the poem and circumstanced their way to the treasure? And then along that same line of thinking, who are we to say, prior to the treasure being found, whose interpretation of anything is incorrect? Therefore, everything is just conjecture.


          • I think that some searchers being upset about their solve and how it compares to the correct solution is in a totally different realm than having f tell us what the first clue is.

            In comparison, some searchers being upset about their solve not fitting the correct solution will be a big “nothing burger”. Not even close to having the puzzle setter not include all that is included in the first clue.

          • Hi JDA,
            But still I think that there is ONLY ONE way, no other way, no short cuts, direct way, from WWWH to TC. That one way will pass through the hoB, No Place for the Meek (=No paddle creek) and the Blaze, IMO.
            — MajinKing

    • @JDA,

      And as Forrest had said in the Lure documentary “ambush interview”: I don’t that anybody has told me the clues in the right order”


      This, along with the tense nature of lines and or sentences in the poem, makes me believe that the order that we see them in the poem isn’t necessarily the order we are supposed to follow precisely, if you can make sense of that.

      I mean it is even possible that the last stanza, which contains two separate sentences, are clues number eight and nine, and stanza one is clue seven. Who knows. And as I have said many times: it may not matter what the nine clues are if one can simply understand the poem and circumstance their way to the treasure.



      • Good luck doing it that way, Seannm. If you can’t find the TC with one
        “scrambling” of the order of the clues, try another. There are only a
        limited number of ways (that is, fewer than infinity) that 9 clues can be “ordered”. As always, IMO.

      • Correction: he gave us clue #1, so there are only 8 factorial combinations to investigate (45360). Still, no thanks. I’ll solve them in the order they appear in a normal reading of the poem: left-to-right and top-down. That’s the “logical” approach.

  26. So let me see if I got this right, Seannm, Tall Andrew, and a host of disagreements about later clues, those that come after WWWH, I figure if ff emphasized it till he was blue in the face, why don’t we simplify until we at least see the outline of a shape. The activity from Forrest on/of/after “Biscuit Basin” made me feel very speciousness about something being correct and Seeker’s succinct treatment of a good theory as well as all the brain power of the righteous and many great minds, after 9 years, by this time, there should see something forming like a simple shape for the first clue.

    All of us seem to be in agreement with the idea that it is a moving target, but it probably is not, after all I know, not an opinion, a fact where Fenn got those exact words, Where Warm Water Halt, there is disagreement on how he changed or meant those word to be interpreted, but the source is factual, since way before the 50’s it was in the NM Game and Fish proclamation. Forrest got it from there and used it to baffle our ideas into a plethora or problems, if we remember from earliest times of his citing of these words, he said ” As far as I know the closest person to the treasure was a man, but there may have been a woman with him. The most common mistake that I see searchers make is that they underestimate the importance of the first clue. If you don’t have that one nailed down you might as well stay home and play Canasta.f” 06/02/2014 Mysterious, Jenny Kyle.

    I have notice some things about Forrest and am sure you have too, like when he said TC was at least “66000 links north of Santa Fe, NM” which is well documented to mean 8.25 miles north, the miles is not what we should be examining, the number 8.25 is the key IMO, because the most northerly route out of Santa Fe into the teeth of the rockies is US HWY 285. SO come on that was not his only hint…although months and even years people, searchers hashed it over, and still do to this day, but REALITY CHECK! That is simply weird to not get it, so if we applied his early comment of “stay home and play Canasta” may be the simplest, Occam’s razor answer could be the SHAPE of WWWH, Canasta is a basket, in particular, a willow or wicker basket? What could it be the Shape of things to come, try any of his early quips on the ATF’s test and simplify them, we might start to see the simplicity, yet sublime messages, which if ff can spit them out so easily, may be he did that with the poem?

    Who said to try and “simplify” and marry this geographically to a map? It was not Mr Terrific. It was the Oracle himself.

    Now get back in the box where we are comfortable and warm…


  27. Stonerolledaway ~ ‘I can see where Forrest might be telling us to ‘take in the view’ at WWsH rather than to physically travel down a canyon from WWsH. I have a harder time seeing “put in” as another observation rather than some sort of action- that we are to take or that Forrest took.’

    OK… Not unlike a reader’s perspective of “take it in” to be a movement vs. a view or looking at something or look in a direction… their concept automatically has “put in” to be the same types of definitions you posted… a movement of sorts.
    The phrase “put in” has dozens of usages, but we need context for which idea could be understood and hopefully understood correctly. For my theory, the concept of observing, the term “put in” is more like an instruction, to act the same way as “take it in”
    – put in. 1. phrasal verb. If you put in an amount of time or effort doing something, you spend that time or effort doing it. [this is also a factor when viewing something… study something… with word “gaze” means to study something by viewing it. In fact many words in the poem relate to time and observation. So a theory is of the same concept throughout the process of a solution.. no matter which idea or method one proceeds with.]

    Now, the idea of “put in” in this concept allows the idea of ‘time’ for doing something. An effort of watching / looking / searching for something, to be seen… studying what is being seen. This matches the idea of observing from WWsH and the idea of; take it in as a view / observation. Which leads to seeing something “not far” away [ exact distance does really matter ] But too far to walk. “but” relates to ‘yet’ ‘except’ ‘to argue against something’ …or Not Doing Something…. *don’t walk because it leads you too far away, line of thinking.*

    So you “put in” with the same *concept* of “take it in” as viewing something… gazing at something, studying something… I believe this is how hoB might be discovered with the use of imagination. A land feature that will resemble something [ whatever that might turn out to be ]. However, while this land feature could be seen on GE… the question is… can it be recognized as a clue reference from that vantage point [birds-eye view]?

    We are told [ in part ] to plan and observe… the question remains; what are we in need of planning for and observing for? We are also told that the first few clues can get us to the location, but a physical presence is needed to complete the solve ~ “…Rocking chair ideas can lead one to the first few clues, but a physical presence is needed to *complete the solve*…”
    The same idea can be said for fenn following his own created clues when he hid the chest… he need to complete the solve by being there.

    IMO a solve is a completed task… to have found the blaze. The chest and its hidey spot is simply a reward, a lure, to figure out how to accomplish the discovery of the blaze. And we have been told it would be a miracle to find the blaze without the first clue… we are supposed to discover how to find that blaze [ hence the location of WWsH is where I believe the blaze sits and the chest lays in wait ] . There’s seems to be no way anyone can locate the chest without discovering the blaze… and WWsH seems to be key to how that is accomplished.

    When we look at words and phrases within the poem, many of them relate to observation and time… such as; [ a short list ]
    Take it in, to see or watch something.
    Pu it, to look upon something. [using the same concept or thought process]
    Tarry; to linger, stay [time]
    Scant; a small amount [time]
    Gaze; to study something by viewing it [time]
    All of which involves time to view something…

    Some will say this is too complicated. I can only chuckle at those types of comments. We have been told; it’s difficult but not impossible. Told fenn looked up words and definitions words and it [the poem] came out exactly like he wanted. Told every word [in the poem was deliberate]. Told not to discount any word [in the poem]… etc.
    The above descriptions of my usages of word meanings are in Plain English by their dictionary meanings and usages.. while others only hope the meanings are only simplistically arrange for easy understanding. We [the readers of the poem] create an illusion of what should be, rather than what could be, in our theories. I think fenn was hoping this would happen while staying true to words and phrases and their multiple meanings and usages.

    So, IF my thought process of stanza two is; thinking the right thoughts… then stanza three should fall into the same concept as well… not unlike the idea of stomping point to point, as many do, and now stanza three’s concept should relate to that type of idea. Trust me I can see why as well…

    But like I said, and have said in the past, I think we are reading the poem wrong. I believe the illusion of a method, such as stomping point to point, started with the intro in the book: So I wrote a poem containing 9 clues that if followed precisely, will lead….

    Those two words, “follow” and “lead” in one concept of thought seems to imply physical movements through clue’s references… I see how that can be read as such. However, if you look up those words meanings they also relate to the idea the concept I present.
    [In part]
    Follow; Act accordingly to an *instruction* or precept, to obey, *to observe*
    Lead: to guide, *show,* indicator / indication of… information that may help in the resolution of a problem.

    ~ “its not a matter of trying, it’s a matter of thinking. Sure, I mean people figured the first couple clues and unfortunately walked passed the treasure chest.” SF podcast.
    What is it that folks are stumbling on even when they are on site and have indicated the first two clues correctly? My suggestion is… how they proceed, their method of how the execute their preconceived notions of how they think this should unfold, rather than, perceive and recognized what is being seen. And that notion of a stomping method vs. an observation method, *may* start right at two words being misunderstood… follow and lead.

    So, if you can grasp the idea that “take it in” could be understood [ by its definition ] as viewing something… “Put In” can’t be considered a physical movement [for an observational solution]. It should / needs to stay within the parameter / condition of the thought process… “Plan and Observe”

    One question we should be asking is; why would fenn “follow” his own created clues of a location he knew of and apparently knows well to complete the “poem”?
    Many might say he needed to hide the chest… ok, sure. A bit simplistic seeing he was asked the question many times if he followed his own clues, yet, took almost 7 years to make the above comment.
    I might suggest he needed to discover something on sight to utilize as a blaze for his hiding / conceal / secret the chest. He may have done the same as we are being told to do… “and found the blaze.”

    I hope this explains the thought process of why a stomping method vs. an observation style solve, might be why; *A good solve is frequently lost in a poor execution.
    We [searchers] might be oversimplifying the clues from the get go with the notion this challenge is only a stomping mode solve… and over – complicating a solution by exploring vast information outside the poem.

    • Seeker, to your point about F following the clues to hide the chest. Why would he need to follow the clues using the viewing method? If he knows where to go why must he stand at WWsH and search for clues?

      • Aaron,

        I never said fenn was standing there *and search for clues*.. I implied he is looking to see how his clues showed him a hidey spot… a *spot* within a place he knew exactly where he wanted the chest to lay in wait… a place he calls; special to him.. a place he hold with “high regards” and respects… I highly doubt that is a 10″ sq piece of land.
        He knew where he wanted to hide the chest and was going to make it work…

        What I’m saying is, his special place is whatever the first clue refer to, and the chest is hidden there. He *used* his own clues to find the / a hidey spot, within that location. He tells us we need to find the blaze, and the distance from the blaze to the chest will be obvious. Yet tells us the blaze doesn’t point NSEW or took a measurement from it… So how does the blaze reveal where the chest is?

        Two options… the blaze sits where the chest is at… or the blaze shows us where it is located.

        He needed to be at WWsH looking in the direction of the canyon, at hoB and see his clues unfold to reveal that 10″ sq spot. He followed his own clues by watching them unfold while at WWsH [ explained in the theory of this thread] The only distance I think fenn traveled was from the car to WWsH and then a few more steps to the hidey spot, using the same travel route back to the car for next second trip back to the hide….LOL call that the sticky post version.

        I’ll ask this question again… why would movement [normal movement over time] of the RM’s have an impact on the clues 1000 year from today, making it more difficult to find the chest?
        I can think of a good reason… what are your thoughts?

        • Seeker;

          As relates to your last question ; “why would movement [normal movement over time] of the RM’s have an impact on the clues 1000 year from today, making it more difficult to find the chest?”

          Avalanches or rock slides come to mind. Either of which could modify what the land features look like today vs after a rock slide or avalanche, and second, a rock slide or avalanche could bury Indulgence.

          You say, ” The only distance I think fenn traveled was from the car to WWsH…

          I can agree with this part of the statement – but then you continue…

          and then a few more steps to the hidey spot, using the same travel route back to the car for next second trip back to the hide

          Only a FEW STEPS? Here we go again what is a few. Forrest said that he walked less than a few MILES, and yet you say only a FEW FEET! Can you give us an idea of what you mean by a few feet? 10 – 20 feet? 200 – 500 feet? I am confused. Just askin – JDA

          • I take it back -You say, ” The only distance I think fenn traveled was from the car to WWsH…” For my current solve I think he had to travel farther than that. JMO – JDA

          • JDA,

            A few, just like anything else, needs context. In fenn’s statement he gave context of “miles” yet never really narrowed it down any more than that.

            In my post [ the idea of an observational solve and how it could play-out ]… a few more steps is; within the location from the viewing station [for lack of a better word] However the counting or number of steps is unknown until the poem plays out for the searcher.

            What you want to know is not reasonable to estimate… hence one of the reasons a searcher needs to be present on site after the first couple of clues. It’s an observational solve theory… right? Something we need to plan for and observe has it happens.

            Look at it this way… If I walked 1321 feet and back, and did it again and back, I walked 5,284 feet. That’s more than a mile but less than a few miles, right?
            If I went the first 1321 and walked another 300 feet to the hide, and still made two trips… I’d be adding 600 feet to 5,284 .. making the total trip 5,884.
            With these numbers, would you consider 300 feet a few steps in comparison? I mean, that’s less than 10% of my total hike in feet… would you consider that a *few* steps in comparison to more than a mile – 5,884 feet?

            But… without fully knowing how far the clues stand apart and the distance to the hide from the blaze [until one is on site] a few steps is the best I can give.

            As far as Avalanches or Rock slides? I don’t think fenn is going to place the chest near a wall with this is happening, prone to, or a likelihood. Nor do I think fenn could predict an earth quake style event like Earth Quake Lake. Yet, I do think fenn is smart enough to think about those possibilities when he was thinking “down the road”

          • @Seeker-in support of your short distance idea, I offer the two following thoughts:

            1) FF said something to the effect of if you are with a partner, it’s best to have them wait in the car. Does it make more sense that they will wait for, say, an hour while you make 2 short trips to the hidey spot and back, or that FF expects you to have them wait in the car for a whole afternoon while you use those several hours to make 2 trips there and back?

            2) Less than a few miles is still a bit ambiguous because few is interpreted differently by each searcher. Regardless of your upper numerical limit for the term few, it is still a truthful statement by FF even if he only traveled an inch from his car. I know that is a bit ridiculous, but the point is, any distance travelled that does not break the upper limit of FF’s few miles statement is a viable distance, whether it is a half mile, 1 mile, 1.5 miles, etc.

            Given that we know people have apparently been between 200 and 500 feet of the chest after only the first couple of clues, I don’t see why people are so against a short distance solve.

          • Thanks for the reply Seeker. I guess that in your observational solve, several hundred feet might be considered a “few” in some circumstances. I can see your logic. Thanks for the response – JDA

          • Bowmarc: ” I don’t see why people are so against a short distance solve.”

            with a short distance solve, one does not need to make two trips with 42+ lbs in a backpack. if they are in normal physical condition, carrying that small of a box, and that small of weight for 10 mins is nothing. why in the world would one make two trips?

            or why would one say that it took an afternoon, rather than less than an hour? which it would be for a 10 min trip… and how far can one get away from a parking lot which by definition is a human trail in 10 mins… or even have enough time to laugh to one’s self… by the time they finished the laugh they’d already be closing the door of the car…

            We already know he was not traversing dangerous ground, (cliff, jumps, deep or swift water, etc..etc..)

            there simply is zero reason to make two trips if less than 10 mins, heck 20 mins for that matter, for anyone including 80yr olds in normal physical condition.

            it just is not his style to mislead in that way, if he said afternoon instead of less than 1 hr, and if he said two trips, that is something to take to heart because it is not one of his statements that is ambiguous in its over all meaning….

            A “short trip” instead would be a rounding error in those statements, fully misleading….

          • Writis;

            The way that I interpret all this is:

            Let’s say that he parked his sedan. He then hiked 1/2 mile to 3/4 of a mile to his hide area. Let’s say he is in the mountains – a bit of a climb – a “Moderate” hike. How long would it take to go one way? An hour at most for an 80 year old man carrying 20 – 22 Lbs. One hour there – one hour back – twice = 4 hrs (AT MOST) – an afternoon.

            He MIGHT have been able to do it in 1/2 that time – depending on how long he rested at the hidey spot, and how big his sandwich and Dr. Pepper were 🙂

          • @ Writis – The hide process wasn’t just about the overall weight of the chest and its contents. It was a fulfillment of something he had been planning for years, and took place in a spot that was dear to him, so I feel he wanted to linger/reminisce over some of the items he was hiding, as well as linger in his special spot, before leaving it all behind him forever. Two trips allowed him more time to do those things, all without overexerting himself unnecessarily.

            FF knew where he was going, so a relatively short couple of trips time-wise were probably possible for him. We searchers don’t have the absolute luxury of knowing exactly what he did at the time of the hide, so even a small search area solve can encompass more than the 20 minutes to an hour you seem to think are fair time constraints for a small search area solve. Heck, the distance trekked to the correct starting point for TTOTC may take you longer than the trek between the remaining 8 clues thereafter—still doesn’t outright discount that FF did it all in 1 afternoon nor that the area of the actual 9 clues is relatively a small one.

            For FF to narrow the hide process down to “less than an hour” as you put it would be giving too much information away about the architecture of the poem, IMO. The in an afternoon wording gives it ambiguity enough to allow for bigger and smaller search area solves alike without tipping his hat at one or the other. His reply is not misleading whatsoever.

            All IMHO, of course.

          • JDA: “Let’s say that he parked his sedan. He then hiked 1/2 mile to 3/4 of a mile to his hide area. Let’s say he is in the mountains – a bit of a climb – a “Moderate” hike. How long would it take to go one way? ”

            1/2 mile only takes about 10 mins for anyone, including 80yr olds too ( if in normal physical condition)… carrying 42lbs+ lbs in a backback.

            and that is because from a “parking” area, trails usually start extremely flat and then quickly become steep and get even steeper, but since it is only 1/2 mile, and only 10 mins. it has no time to become steep, since it is such a short distance, parking areas are normally a ways away from anything exciting or dramatic or nice for that matter for a reason. let alone a place that someone wouldn’t notice a body… or a place that felt like wilderness.

            1/2 a mile from any parking area will be a place a body is found within a day (week at most) and by someone not even looking, rather than 100 yrs, 1000 yrs etc…

          • Hi Writis:

            “1/2 mile only takes about 10 mins for anyone, including 80yr olds too ( if in normal physical condition)… carrying 42lbs+ lbs in a backback.”

            Almost nobody hikes that fast with that load, off-trail, at mile-high (and probably higher) elevation. I’ve climbed every 14,000-foot peak in California, and in 35 years I’ve never been passed on a trail by anyone, yet I certainly do not average 3 mph when carrying 42+ lbs. Forrest would be fast if he was averaging 2 1/2 mph (on the outbound legs of his trips); I doubt most searchers could match him because Forrest is acclimated to the elevation of Santa Fe (~7200 feet).

          • Aaron: “He didn’t say it took him an afternoon he said it was done in one afternoon, which is different:”

            he also didn’t say he did it in a day or in a week either…

            What I had said in that post was that it is not his style to mislead in that way. He did not have to answer that question or volunteer that, he presented it, So my reply is that he choose “afternoon” in a not misleading way. he also said if one can’t make two trips in (several hours), then that it is not a place one should be looking, (said in another ATF in not exact words). again, it would not be his style to mislead by saying (several hours) when it really only took less than an hour.

            well I should say, IMO it is not his style to mislead in that way. seems not too far from what reality would be in this case I think, it should be a fairly good rule of thumb about how he chooses words like that… imo.

        • Thermal features can change over time. It is interesting how some thermal features can appear that were not there before and some can go dormant that were active. Aside from that I suppose rivers can cut deeper canyons, earth quakes, rock slides ,as JDA mentioned, mud slides can effect things, and even cause a river to reroute or damn and create a lake. Who knows what can happen with climate change. A volcano can instantly change the landscape and features nearby.

        • Hi Seeker: re: “why would movement [normal movement over time] of the RM’s have an impact on the clues 1000 year from today, making it more difficult to find the chest?”

          Lots of potential reasons. Rivers alter course; roads come and go; creeks dry up; and the geographic coordinates of everything in the U.S. never stop changing.

          • Skip the roads scenario, Zap, and I’m with you on most… But, that seems more of a large scale area than a smaller scale area for. The one thing that fenn said; And I don’t even know where to look for this reference.. he looked on GE at the location and not much or nothing has changed since he hid the chest. Regardless of the exact wording… I would think looking at GE from a distance [IDK] Say the lowest you can before street-view, idea gives enough visual information for many of those things you mentioned.

            As far as; the geographic coordinates of everything in the U.S. never stop changing.
            That’s inches or a foot or two [ over many decades, centuries ]… barring anything major happen.
            With that said; I’m not ignorant to the fact that places like YSP movement can be more. However, there are normal, but not common, situations resulting in that area of the RM’s that would affect [lets say] NM or CO by the same measurement displacement.

            So I lean more to the more common idea of uplift and shifting of the range, idea. Not so much anything one place we look into… because the comment was a general statement of the Rocky Mountains are still moving… not so much a specific area.

            LOL but in the theory / method presented.. those movement will have an impact 1000 years down the road. For example; in the theory; could hoB be moved of kilter enough to change the result by many feet or more-?- making it a bit more difficult for preciseness.

          • Hi Seeker:

            “As far as; the geographic coordinates of everything in the U.S. never stop changing. That’s inches or a foot or two [ over many decades, centuries ]… barring anything major happen.”

            Here, you are mistaken. Geodetic coordinate systems change at least an order of magnitude more rapidly than that. Compare NAD27 coordinates for anywhere in the Rockies (i.e. most published paper topographical maps are NAD27) against WGS84 coordinates — those typically reported by a GPS unit for North American locations. The difference is tens of meters after those 50-odd years.

            Remember, we’re not talking about the movement of Ojo Caliente ~relative~ to, say, West Yellowstone. We’re talking about movement of U.S. locations relative to the earth’s latitude/longitude reference grid (actual equator of the earth’s rotational axis and the prime meridian through Greenwich).

            Now it may be that you don’t care at all about these changing absolute coordinates — that all that matters in your theory is local, ~relative~ coordinate differences, in which case those changes will be much smaller (perhaps excepting rare cases where your two reference points are on opposite sides of a tectonic plate boundary). But when people speak of “coordinates,” they are talking about the absolute coordinate reference system at some epoch.

          • Zap,

            You took the RM range and created the changes by the use of the worlds continental drift. LOL sure… the land mass of N. America to Africa is going to be different to a range within a continent. Your using a grid of the world and I’m talking about a mountain range.
            LOL the moon moves farther away from the Earth by two inches a year… But did the RM’s move away from [IDK] TX?

            OF course you have to look at it from any search location [four state]… be that 50′ or 50 miles, But not the a continental movement for basing measurements.

          • Hi Seeker: since geographic *coordinates* was the one item you addressed in my list of reasons why the clues will be more difficult in 1000 years, what you ~should~ have argued was that your proposed system does not use them (because it clearly doesn’t). But many other searchers have solutions that critically depend on coordinates that are extracted in some fashion from the poem, and certainly those folks will have a more difficult time in just 100 years (let alone 1000) unless they account for the epoch of the coordinates.

            Your system does not hinge on any absolute (though arbitrary) reference frame; it only cares about the relative positions of comparatively nearby objects or geographical features. Those relative positions will only be impacted by tectonic changes (which are slow, as you point out, but unfortunately not predictable).

        • Zap: “yet I certainly do not average 3 mph when carrying 42+ lbs.”

          yes, if you were climbing, and had to go 3 miles, no I can’t either.. the point I was trying to make is that for 1/2 mile, and really you are not “climbing” much yet since it is only been 10 mins… then the ratio changes dramatically…

          I had made it a point that the time and milage is a curve, where 3 miles is not 3 times 1 mile (in time) it is dramatically longer… and the reverse is true, 1 mile is not twice as long as 1/2 a mile, 1/2 mile is dramatically shorter… as elevation has no chance to develop…

          • Hi Writis: irrespective of any elevation gain/loss, when you are at altitude and not on a trail (e.g. uneven ground, dodging obstacles, not always strictly walking), you can’t maintain a normal walking pace. Forrest doesn’t like walking on trails — no adventure in that.

            Personally, I think Forrest’s route from car to treasure hidey spot involves minimal gain or loss in elevation relative to the horizontal distance traveled.

          • Hi Zap: “irrespective of any elevation gain/loss, when you are at altitude and not on a trail”

            for ff, altitude is all he has ever known, well known since he had moved to SantaFe. and summers/vacation times from earlier.

            I routinely strap 32lbs to my ankles and hike as a form of exercise (to make the exercise feel as I am carrying much more). ( also a total 60lbs of weights, other weights strapped on waist and wrists so it feels heavier than backpack). On level ground I easily make 1/2 mile in 10 mins at altitude, and I am no spring chicken. This is on a normal Rocky Mnt hiking trail, where the first 1/2 mile is more or less level, then gets much steeper… and then steeper still later…

            the round trip is about 3.5 miles in a loop, and the timing is about 1hr and 20 mins, sometimes longer, sometimes shorter, with 60lbs in awkward places.

            I had described it before as I feel and look like I am walking at the pace of an 80yr old with those 32lbs on ankles… 1/2 mile is ridiculously short even for an 80yr old, even with 42lbs+. no reason at all to make two trips, with the hassle of dumping your goods on the ground to go get the box to put them in, especially since you can pretty much see your car from that distance, heck on a level straight trail you can see your car.

            and certainly not far enough away from a parking area to be “special” and secluded enough to want to sit down next to a tree… imo.

          • Hi Writis: just to be clear, I think Forrest walked considerably more than a 1/2 mile (1-way) from his car, so we are on the same page about that. I can’t guess what the maximum distance would be for Forrest beyond which he would take two trips instead of one. In my opinion, less than a mile. How much less would depend on the difficulty of the terrain, whether you had to do any “bushwhacking”, etc.

          • Writis, just because the trails you have walked on do not have elevation gain the first 1/2 a mile doesn’t have necessarily have anything to do with the search location. There may be no trail involved at all. I’ve been on and off trails that have various elevation gains from the car. One of my favorites in my area involves hiking down to a spot and then back up to the car. Additionally I have been off trail in spots in the Rockies that allow for only a pace of 1 mph or less, and I am in really good shape.

    • Hi Seeker;

      I get your observational solution vs. a point to point solution. I also get the idea that one must actually put BotG to actually retrieve the treasure, so a visual or observational solution, at some point, must, by necessity, become a point to point, physical or BotG solution.

      For me, the line “Just take the chest and go in peace.” is the transition line.

      For me Stanzas 5 & 6 are the instructions as to what to look for once a BotG search begins.

      Do you believe that there is a transition from visual or observational solve to a Physical (BotG) solve, and if so, where is this transition? Does the poem indicate when this transition should occur? Just curious – JDA

    • Seeker, a general solve can be considered very complicated if it doesn’t rely on anything objective. I just see subjective picks of word meanings (and viewing). That leads to billions of combinations. Billions of combinations are very complicated.

      I think we need something objective to start with.

      • After nine years, it would seem that thousands of searchers have not found “something objective to start with.” No one can say with any certainty that there is an objective starting point in the poem. What if something subjective could work just as well – as long as you follow the clues from there?

        • Good question, vox.

          Like I said, if one is gonna start out with something subjective and continue with subjective answers to clues it’s billions of combinations on top of the 10 billion blazes out there.

          F knows that I think. He told us how many blazes are out there.

          So, I’m not saying with certainty that something objective starts us out but it makes sense, it’s reasonable. It’s pretty unreasonable to not have that.

          • We’re only talking about the starting point here – not hoB, nor the blaze, etc.

            I’ll give you an example from my own life – and I bet you could find something equivalent in yours.

            Some years after the breakup of my first marriage, I was at a very low ebb, not knowing if I could keep it all together. In desperation, I tried some mental exercises – the type that require you to ask a question – and trust the answer. My answer required me to travel from my home in the UK to Canada.

            I had no money, and no idea of why I should go or what I should do when there. But a couple of weeks later, a tax rebate arrived in the mail, and it was just enough to make the trip. I had allowed for a month’s visit.

            I arrived in Toronto, made my way to a car delivery company and managed to sweet-talk my way past the bureaucracy. They offered me a car to take to Edmonton.

            A week later, after some interesting experiences, including meeting a Native American who had recently undergone a sun dance type ceremony (excruciating!), I was hiking in the wilderness north of Jasper and making my first contact with wildlife. I have to admit I was petrified at first, particularly when I had a close encounter with a mountain lion, but it was also exhilarating.

            Apart from knowing that I would need to return from Vancouver, I had no other plans, so I hitched to the west coast and hopped on a Ferry to Victoria. Almost two weeks later I was preparing to fly home and wondering what the heck my “answer” had been all about .

            Meanwhile, in Seattle, a woman was wondering what she should do with the rest of her life. To take time out to think about it she took a boat to Victoria. The rest, as they say, is history. She is sitting opposite me right now.

            My decision to travel to Canada was my subjective equivalent of WWWH. Meeting the woman who would share the rest of my life journey with me was the objective treasure at the end of the “search.” By being open to the experiences in between was the way I followed the “clues.”

            This story may not be a perfect analogy for the Chase, but it is an example of how a subjective starting point can lead to an “intended” end. It all depends on whether you are “listening good” and letting something else lead the way.

          • Yes, very interesting, vox. I liked your story. And yes, I can find something very equivalent in my life. I’m sitting opposite of my fiancé and we found each other participating in the Chase.

            So, I know how that goes. I just wouldn’t lean on that in my quest to solve a riddle that took f 15 years to architect. I’d say an answer to a riddle isn’t subjective.

            And I kinda think we are talking about all the clues and if they are subjective or not. At least that’s the big picture I always try to keep in mind, even when talking about how to ascertain the correct beginning.

      • FD,

        You’re smart enough to figure out this is a reading of the poem in a different manner and thought process compared to a point to point process. I never said this was a solve.. general or otherwise.

        Now, about the idea of “subjective picks of words meanings”? Well, yeah… fenn’s wording in the poem is subjective to his intent. It’s our job to understand what is being relayed.

        LOL we have asked;
        Did fenn follow his own clues? He stated he did.
        Some claimed we can start looking for or start at later clues… fenn put that idea to rest as well.
        We argued what the first clue is and where it was in the poem… fenn actually told us [ credit to Loco ]
        And many other comments {AFT} stated in relation to the challenge.
        He tells us he looked up words and definitions and changed the poem many time over a 15 year period…

        My point is… are they not “subjective picks” to analyze meanings and usages of the words presented and to consider??? To think about and attempt to balance a solve, general solve, theory… for any attempt in the correct reading of the poem?
        My attempt is to see words meanings and how they relate to each other, how their meanings intertwine with each… how all the information to find the chest is in the poem… rather than the simplistic idea that fenn only used popular or commonly used definitions that pop up first in a google search.

        We’re supposed to try and simplify the clues, not expect them to be simple upfront. If it was easy anyone could do it. I’m gonna take fenn at is word… “go back to the poem” ~ think, analyze, plan and observe, and good references tools are GE and ‘the’ book. As well as doing what he told us he did… {ATF} and one of those ATF’s was; he looked up words, changed them, until he got the poem just the way he wanted.

        LOL if an 80 year old is not traveling down and up a canyon [twice] be it a car or on foot… I’m not either.
        If he looked up words in his created blueprint… I’m gonna do the same. I’m not dismissing those “subjective picks of word” either.

        Are you not doing the same, FD, when you said; * I just see subjective picks of word meanings (and viewing).*? Using, take it in, to only mean a psychical movement and skipping the hard fact that by definition, take it in, also means to look at something?

        You don’t have to like the idea / meaning… but you can’t sweep it under the rug suggesting it to be my personal meaning I simply created in a subjective manner.

        • Seeker said…
          Are you not doing the same, FD, when you said; * I just see subjective picks of word meanings (and viewing).*? Using, take it in, to only mean a psychical movement and skipping the hard fact that by definition, take it in, also means to look at something?

          You don’t have to like the idea / meaning… but you can’t sweep it under the rug suggesting it to be my personal meaning I simply created in a subjective manner.

          No, Seeker I’m not doing that. And that’s because I’m hinging the correct wwwh to a specific geographical area that I either incorrectly or correctly figured out from the first stanza in the poem and a couple of hints in TTOTC.

          I liken the info from stanza one that I’m using as ingredients in a recipe. If you know the recipe then you know the ingredients that make the cake (or clue).

          The ingredients aren’t subjective. This allows for moving forward with certainty. The following clues hinge on this solid foundation, imo.

          • I’ve also said multiple times before that many searchers go through many different options out there while botg. So, yeah, I’ll go through stuff like different meanings of words out there while at my wwwh and I’ll observe other clues too from there. So, I don’t understand why you don’t include that in your write ups.

            Searchers can do both visualization and traveling clue to clue techniques while on a search.

        • Seeker said…”LOL if an 80 year old is not traveling down and up a canyon [twice] be it a car or on foot… I’m not either.”

          What’s funny is the sentence before that f quote. (People.com July 31, 2017-Rose Minutaglio). It took me two trips in my car to hide the treasure. And I can tell you an 80-year-old man is not going to make a trip into a canyon, then come up and go down again.

          Looks like it’s possible. Like 80 year olds can’t drive down in elevation or up? Us searchers don’t know how extreme the decline of the correct canyon is or how long of a distance. It could take 25 seconds or less of easy driving to traverse.

          So, “make a trip” is open to interpretation of what mode of travel.

        • FD ~ ‘What’s funny is the sentence before that f quote. (People.com July 31, 2017-Rose Minutaglio). It took me two trips in my car to hide the treasure.’

          Yep, it brought up a lot of chatter and cheddar when the interview hit the internet… In this interview there is no audio. It’s quite possible the interviewer mis-wrote “from” vs. “in” or mis-heard what he thought was “in” the car… The fact of the matter is, fenn always referred to “from his car” in every other comment [written by him or audio or quoted by other interviewers, when talking about hiding the chest ].
          Up thread [ Jak, I believe] placed a quote / and link from an audio Q&A that fenn used the term he “buried the treasure”… while for years he has correct everyone else for saying buried and never budge from his original – “hid the treasure”

          It’s your choice if you want to believe either of those comments as they stand… or surmise they are more than likely a simple goof, in comparison to the countless of times he talk about the same subject matters.

          As far as other searchers and their solves-?- I have never seen/read one that is using the poem as observation all the way through.

          Even when someone mentions they started to look for a clue, observe the area for a clue… it was followed by moving to what they thought could be that clue and the next and the next.. That is still a stomping point to point method no matter how the clues were located / found.
          Or as you said;
          ‘Searchers can do both visualization and traveling clue to clue techniques while on a search.’
          Again, that is a stomping mode method, and the way I see it… which I have mentioned many times… they left the idea / theory of how the poem could play-out in an ‘observational method.’

          • Seeker, I don’t think the mistake that has happened by earlier searchers figuring out the first 2 clues and walking by the treasure is that they were on a clue to clue location hunt.

            You take that f statement and theorize that the problem is they should observe for the rest of the clues from their wwwh and stay there till they see the next eight clues. My question about that has always been…when do you stop “observing” from your wwwh? 40 hours? 40 days? We’re suppose to just stay put, even if we have the wrong wwwh and the rest of the clues will magically appear even though some could be a thousand miles away from the correct wwwh? This theory hasn’t been fleshed out enough to tell us what to do if nothing else appears in our “observations”.

            vox, and many other searchers, have documented that after they come back from a botg search they often figure out or “observe” some new possibility from their pictures that they took at their search site. That means they are “observing” their area even while they are not there. Or is that a foul because they are now using pictures of their actual search site?

            This all leads to what I said ystdy. I believe the problem from the earlier searchers who didn’t get pass the first two clues is that they didn’t utilize or have an objective foundation that comes before the first clue in the poem. Imo, anyone just using subjective choices for wwwh will walk by the treasure too.

            My take is that an answer to f’s riddle will encompass the correct geographical starting area. The riddle you have posted many times is just like every other riddle. There’s one answer essentially- which makes it not subjective. “What is black and white and red all over?

            Answer: A newspaper

            I liken the early two clue solvers’ problem as not solving the black and white and red all over riddle. Imo, the problem wasn’t them walking around, it was that they didn’t pull a newspaper out of their back pocket.

          • FD,
            What others observe is pic and things remembered as the moved through a hopeful solution… that still a stomping mode process.
            When they get to the third stanza they still are attempting to go somewhere… again a stomping mode method.
            The observational method is not unlike the stomping method IF you’re in the wrong “location to start with.. so it doesn’t matter if nothing “appears” as you said, it would be the wrong solve “location”… hence fenn’s warning, to have certainty of “the location before hand” for the “path” to be direct.

            I also have used the riddle you posted to provide a thought about how we perceive word meanings wrong or mis-interpreted the intent of the word or phrases.
            *red* when heard with black and white seems to be a color of red. However, Black and White are not colors.. so .. red [ with a little bit of common sense and thinking, is meant as read [ past tense ]. Black and white now represent something completely different than the first idea of colors… because a person reads them… words printed on a newspaper.

            The idea might be explained the same way with “take it in” as a line of sight, seeing, looking for something, rather than stomping…
            In every thing you have said, your observation is always about finding something to go to. That’s the premise of a stomping mode solve, not an observational solve.

            It’s not rocket science to understand.

            Example; you are given a map of NYC. You are told to start at “our lady” but you are not told exactly where to end up.
            You are given, not only directions, but instructions as well.
            You stand at “our lady” {statue of liberty if you have figured it out} and told to “take it in the canyon down”.. you have two options; look down the avenue of tall building sides- through a canyon [by description]..or.. you can consider “down” as on a map or GE begin south.

            We have been told even little Indy might be able to get that much from a map of the RM’s or use GE { both mappings being equal }. At this point you see the representation of hoB [which some searcher may have seen]… yet, what did all seemingly do at this point? they left WWsH and moved to that place… THAT’s a stomping mode solve. They screwed up on understanding the prior line / lines believing “take it in” as a movement of a searcher.

            I think this is why “begin IT where warm waters halt” has IT in the line. We need to decipher / understand IT for it’s intent… I say the line can be interpret as~ Begin observing where warm waters halts. Otherwise, for a simple stomping mode solve, the line could have read as ~ being where warm waters halt.
            Yet, fenn deliberately placed “IT” in this line.

            So what is IT? Well, some seem to be in tight focus of a word that is key… in understanding what we might need to do. An “important possibility” to a winning solve?
            Your idea of observation is only for the idea of seeing something then going to that something, somewhere else… again, that is a stomping mode process. You just left the poem.

            In this stomping method and line of thinking, a searcher automatically has stanza 3 as places they also must travel to… I say that stanza is more of instructions of what to do.. not directions to go.

            I’ll add; stanza 2 has “directions” for the purpose of which directions to look towards.
            IF we take into consideration that the first two clues can be found on a map, yet a searcher can not get closer than the first two clues.. a physical presents is need to complete the solve [ at that point ] AND clues 3 and 4 seem to stump all… It appears to be the action the searcher does, that has been wrong. [stomping on and on].

            The directions in stanza two is simple to comprehend:
            Lets say WWsH is west of the canyon, so we look east towards said canyon. Down can be either, in elevation or south on a map. I think it means south since we can locate those clues on a map [ yes, even little Indy , or a boy from TX or someone from Europe] So the idea of looking at maps / GE gives us south for the direction [ even if the canyon flows north ]… its not rocket science, just a bit of common sense.

            A searcher now has eliminated 3/4 of the viewing area to concentrate on and figure out what is represented for hoB [ which I think can only be determined by seeing it from that vantage point [wwsh], from ground level, correctly as fenn has seen it and did when he hid the chest. Those are the directions.
            NF, BTFTW is telling us this is accomplished by a viewing of an area… BUT don’t walk away.

            If you want to play more with NF but TFTW. “far” in “Not Far” could meaning not far way to see it. But, the second “Far” has a definition of; right side. OK… using the idea of the canyon placement to WWsH in the above example; Looking at a canyon on a map, the right side would be on the east side on a map. Only we started on the west side at WWsH. This is where a searcher is looking south, on site, and the canyon is on their left side. The *direction* of ” Far” explains two things. You [ a searcher is on the right/correct side of said canyon [ this is important ] *When on site* A map is no longer useful at this point.
            The second reason is; This idea explains, we don’t need to cross said canyon to the *mapping right side*

            Our concentration is from our viewing station and our right side looking down [southward] with the canyon. The *need* to be present on sight to complete the solve.

            If we only look at a map… the right side of that canyon is on the east side, folks then would follow that map North, Down in elevation, in most cases. in this scenario.

            Regardless if a searcher did stay on the west side of the canyon while looking at a map… the next step they all seem to do is… stomp to hoB or later hopeful clues. I say this is the mistake that folks do… they are leaving the instruction [stanza 3] in the poem on what to do at this point. { explained in the post }

            Unfortunately, no matter how many times I attempt to explain the idea of an observational solution… two things happen; Searchers are so tuned in on their hopeful WWsH that IF this theory doesn’t work in their location, it must be a wrong theory, rather than, a wrong location.
            The second thing that happens is; like you seem to be doing, FD, is fighting the urge to move somewhere… not allowing the instructions to play out to complete the theory /poem.

            You keep harping that some searcher may have did a type of observational solve. Maybe a few have… but I have not seen any solve, general or otherwise, that has ever been posted on any site… Do you know of one? If so, I would love to read it.

            In theory……..

          • Well Seeker, I don’t think you’re ever gonna see an “observational” solve, at least not the likes of what you’ve been harping about…one where searchers are suppose to stay put at their wwwh observation platform and get super glued there forever until who knows what is to be observed.

            Not much else to say about it other than imo, it’s not too compelling a theory for the reasons I have put forth.

          • Well, FD,

            Like I said… it doesn’t matter if it’s a stomping mode through clues, or an observation method of three [directions] in a location to find the blaze. IF it’s not the correct WWsH it’s all a bust for any method.
            Now, if you’re stuck at the wrong first clue, never to let go, because you think it has to be correct, in any area on any map in the RM’s… you can walk till your boots melt off hoping to find a path that is not there.

            In my theory you need to know how to locate hoB from one single vantage point. If not found, it’s the wrong location.
            But, you should know prior where to look and see it, from a map or GE, and have some idea of what you’re looking for… anything else is a guess.
            {again I don’t think hoB can be seen *correctly as intended* from a map or GE… it requires a searcher to be on site.}

            If you don’t have WWsH nailed down ya got nothing…

            You said: ~ ‘one where searchers are suppose to stay put at their wwwh observation platform and get super glued there forever until who knows what is to be observed.’

            Seriously, did you read the post-?- about stanza 3 giving those possible instructions?
            LOL I gave the premise /process of a single day and why, a time of day and why, as well as why a searcher can only see it unfold from WWsH.
            How do you get the idea a searcher will be ‘glued there forever’?
            Ya don’t have to like the idea … but the poor excuses you gave don’t align with the theory presented because they require a searcher to move from point to point

            All good… many are stuck on a conventional way of thinking right from the start. I only presented an alternative idea… and yes… attempted to check and balance with information [ATF] we have been give over the years. But many like to dismiss anything that contradict their personal idea of what is done. I get it… this post wasn’t meant to change anyone’s mind… it was meant to chat about how the poem might be read differently than what has been discussed before.

            You still haven’t, or can’t, show me a posted solve [or part of] that works in this manner… so what’s is it you don’t see in this method that is not workable / plausible?

            **Being clued there at WWsH – forever?! That’s a poor end run of an excuse.

          • Nope JDA,
            It’s not a lot to think about….
            That’s my point.
            All I really did was learn meanings of words, then attempted to see /apply them to how the poem can be read by the usages of those multiple meanings.

            However, I have said… fenn has kicked my butt on what WWsH is about.
            I have guesses and possibilities of what it could refer to… but I need to know where to actually look for it for it, first and foremost… “Certainty of the location beforehand”
            In my mind this means where all the clues are at, not just the first clue’s reference. I think WWsH ‘is’ fenn’s special place he calls his own and the clues are about that place… the chest lays within in.

          • I think it wold be a mistake to dismiss Seeker’s theory. It makes a lot of sense to me (although I don’t think we need any particular day or shadow direction). However, it doesn’t account for two things: the past tense of “If you’ve been wise and found the blaze” and, even more importantly, how to find this location at which things come into perspective.

            IMO, there is only one way to get yourself to the all-important hoB, and that is to find WWWH. Unfortunately, WWWH is not to be found IN the poem, but only THROUGH the poem. Like Alice, you have to go through the looking-glass, because that’s what the poem is – a dusty mirror. Once you begin to wipe away the accretions of years, you start to see.

            In the same way, WWWH is not a place to be found on a map of the Rockies. We can look for a thousand years and we won’t find it there. It lies where searchers, armed with the poem, find themselves at any one time. The trick is to allow the clues to take us where we need to go. So, in one sense, WWWH is something metaphorical, which is why, by finding it, we’re already more than half way there, metaphorically speaking.

            As for the blaze, IMO, it also has both a physical and a metaphorical meaning, which I think is perhaps partly why Fenn answers a question about it being a single object, with “In a word – Yes.” Although you can’t start off looking for the blaze, at some point in your search it will manifest. But you have to be wise first.

            So, this endless search for WWWH is counterproductive, IMO. It’s right there, right now. Why look elsewhere?

          • Vox,

            I had to read your post a few times to kinda get a grasp on it. I’m not even sure I truly get it, yet if the premise is the poem explains what WWsH is in a manner that the poem explains how WWsH works and is still working… I think I’m picking up whatcha r puttin down. [ basically; learning the geography of this location ].

            In one manner of reading the poem I can see stanza 3 repeating stanza 2.
            BIWWWsH is, and/or, relates to NPFTM… they are one in the same, idea.
            ATIITCD is TEIEDN….. etc.

            In this manner of looking at a map or GE we would need to consider that the location is being described as where and what WWsH is ~ “twice.”
            At this location of the correct WWsH.. a searcher.. is at hoB or the idea of hoB as described as ‘HLs’ ..and.. WWsH as ‘WH.’

            This has been one reason I have asked; how many clues does it take to get an answer? [a single clue by itself is not a full answer, it’s only part of something, line of thinking].
            In this particular reading of the poem [a mirror image of itself] The clues are simply telling us this all goes down in one single location / spot /place… without the idea of having to have 9 different place to go to.

            The question I have is; could the poem be [ for lack of a better term ] telling a story of Warm Waters Halt? Giving up not only where but what hoB is? Which I think is the blaze .. where the chest dwells, where its home is.

            Whether I have understood your post correctly or not… you created a thought in my mind that stanza one is telling of this location, but in a slightly different perspective then we have heard of by others [ at least the folks who have posted their ideas of this stanza ].

            As I have gone a lone in there [when he hid the chest]… is meant as fenn. And with my treasure bold.. is meant with those close to him as well [different time periods in is life, with those people]… family mostly and maybe friends at one time or another.
            His treasures are the people closest and most important to him that he took to his special place. [only they may have never known this as his special place]
            Kinda like; finding the beer cans scattered all over in a place he thought he was first to be there.

            This changes the perspective of: and hint of riches new and old. It may relate to different times along the way fenn may have visited his special place. IF so, Then this place ‘should’ have been known of from his youth, as well as, his senior years, line of thinking… hence the book can help with the clues, overall, but not so much the individual clues to be deciphered.. that is still our job.

            And I’m right back to the idea; certainty of the location beforehand is what we need first and foremost…
            So, while WWsh can be describing many places in the RM’s… two things we may need to consider first.
            1. Where the location is… where this all takes place in one single small scale search area. [not so much miles apart for clue’s references]
            2. hoB is more than likely the blaze, but a physical presents is needed to see it as fenn did when he there.

            Q) How much knowledge do you think a normal East Coast Kid has to have to find your treasure? Or is Imagination enough. As an example, would an East Coast Kid have to become familiar with the western ways, languages, and other manners of the Rockies?
            A) It helps to know something about Rocky Mountain geography when making plans to search for my treasure. **Rocking chair ideas can lead one to the first few clues, but a physical presence is needed to complete the solve.** Google Earth cannot help with the last clue. f

            This answer is not about retrieving the chest as much as is seems to be saying; a map will show us the location for the first few clues [ imo, the first two from the many ATFs over the years]. after that, we need to be on site, mainly to see hoB at ground level to imagine it as fenn sees / saw it.

          • Seeker;

            Your comment earlier about FD changing an observational solve into a BotG solve struck a nerve.

            I have been trying to follow your OBSERVATIONAL process, but I too fell into the BotG trap of wanting to GO to the places I had found..

            This has caused me to look for a new and different WWWsH spot. A spot from which I can observe ALL of the clues, including where Indulgence might be.

            In my new Solve, I have picked a spot from which I can see all around me. I then focus on a cliff face across a canyon. I focus in on this area, and slowly (following the clues) narrow my view to what is right in front of me – a small creek, HL&WH spots and what COULD be the blaze on June 22, 2020.

            Where I think Indulgence might lie, is just a few steps away from my WWWsH spot or my “Viewing Spot”.

            It “SEEMS” to mirror your Observational Theory. I will just have to wait and see if it works out.

            Thanks for the ideas. What I have been doing has not worked, might as well try your ideas – 🙂 JDA

          • JDA… It may be a possible way to do it[seeker theory] … but wwwh still needs to be absolute. Seeker has admitted he does not have an absolute wwwh from reading the poem HIS way. How does YOUR wwwh figure into his reading of the poem? As usual… I’m confused.

          • Hi Ken;

            Good question. As you say, seeker’s theory only works IF you have an absolute WWWsH. Nothin’ is absolute in this world. Am I confident in my WWWsH? YUP. It is a “Logical” WWWsH, and ALL of the remaining clues CAN be seen from that one spot, and Indulgence (IF I am right) is just a FEW steps away from my WWWsH spot. All I can do is get there and give her a look. Thanks for askin’ – JDA

          • JDA,

            Right, wrong, or indifferent.. you seem to miss the point again. I’m not say this theory is correct, I’m saying I followed the words and phrases from the poem in a pattern of those usages.

            You said you looked across a canyon or on the opposite cliff face, and found clues… ok… but now aren’t you force to go to the other side-?- or down in the canyon?

            You also said; ~ ‘ This has caused me to look for a new and different WWWsH spot. A spot from which I can observe ALL of the clues, including where Indulgence might be.’

            That sounds like a predetermined setting because of hopeful later clues and a backwards look at WWsH as a viewing station to see them… when it should be the other way around.

            As fenn said, if you don’t have WWsH nailed down stay home… and looking for later clues is a folly. It seems IMO, we can’t know hoB without being on site… as fenn said; “a physical presences” is needed after the first few clues… not just at the spot of the hide.

            And yes, I know his other comments about general solve vs. a solve by retrieving the chest and the situ Q&A. But we’re not looking for the chest only… we ‘need’ the blaze.
            The chest is nothing more than ‘proof’ of a correct solve.
            “been wise and found the blaze”

            This is one reason I think this theory is hard for many to think about… the first mention of the “blaze” is in stanza 4, so folks think stanza 3 must be of ‘different places’ then where they are at to start with.
            The theory I present only have three physical places… the staring point [which is also observation station] A direction to look towards.. south along said canyon. And hoB, which should be on the same side of the canyon the searcher is on… and imo, the blaze itself.
            Stanza 3 is all instructions.

            IF you’re attempting to work this theory to your location… I personally think if the later clues, you are hoping are correct are on the other side, you just left WWsH.
            Might as well say, hypothetically, ya just left the poem… at least in this theory / process.

          • Hi Voxpops: “I think it wold be a mistake to dismiss Seeker’s theory.”

            Agreed. His theory can’t be outright dismissed by any combination of logic and the ATF comments Forrest has made.

            “It makes a lot of sense to me (although I don’t think we need any particular day or shadow direction).”

            I think it has flaws (e.g. I’ve never liked the glaring grammar flaw introduced by the theory that “Take it in …” means to observe/absorb/appreciate in the context of the poem. You’re left with a hanging dependent clause without a verb.) And I don’t like having any element of the poem’s solution tied to a day of the year (which year?) and a time of day. But just because I don’t like it doesn’t mean Forrest didn’t employ it. But if he did, then that would certainly explain why the chest hasn’t been found, because I don’t think it would be findable in that case.

            “IMO, there is only one way to get yourself to the all-important hoB, and that is to find WWWH.”

            Agree with you there. It’s the same argument against trying to solve for the blaze first — Forrest has said you’ll never solve it that way (ten billion blazes, and probably almost as many homes of Brown). He designed the clues with the intent that they could only be solved in sequential order.

            “Unfortunately, WWWH is not to be found IN the poem, but only THROUGH the poem.”

            In the strict sense that the geographical location of WWWH is not explicitly named anywhere in the poem, I agree with you.

            “In the same way, WWWH is not a place to be found on a map of the Rockies.”

            Oh, I’m 100% sure Forrest’s specific WWWH place is on the map. IMO, the place doesn’t have a name, but it is nevertheless clearly identified. This is why the little girl in India can figure it out with nothing more than the poem and a map of the U.S. Rocky Mountains.

          • Seeker, it’s not a poor end run of an excuse.

            You said…How do you get the idea a searcher will be ‘glued there forever’?

            I’ve already posted why it’s reasonable to say what I said and it didn’t take me many words to do it. It’s because your superglue theory hasn’t fleshed out what a searcher is suppose to do if they don’t observe any other viable clues from their wwwh platform (that they’re not soppose to leave).

            It’s that simple.

            Your theory suggests they need to be superglued to their wwwh spot until something clicks. If nothing clicks the theory tells them not to move. Hence, forever superglued.

            When you write a super duper long post I might not be inclined to get every point you are trying to make. It’s too hard. I suggest breaking it down into focused segments.

          • And I don’t think the hoB is the blaze. To me, that would short circuit the poem and the rest of the clues after the hoB. If the clues get us closer to to tc but we don’t need to travel to them, then why have clues other than the blaze after the hoB if it’s the blaze?

          • FD,

            Like any theory, if it doesn’t pan out as planned it’s most likely wrong – [ next trip try Gorilla glue ].
            As I explained [ for this theory ] a searcher needs to see hoB from that vantage point [WWsH]. No other spot will produce the image of hoB. I say image because i think hoB is a land feature that needs imagination to see it. IF hoB is not identified… it’s probably not the correct WWsH.. back to the drawing boards.
            I also explained that some, if not many, may have see this image… but all seemingly when to it [ I don’t care if it’s 10′ or 1000′ away or more ]… they moved away from the vantage point… which is needed to see the rest of the clues [instructions] unfold.

            This imo, is the reason that~ after the first couple / few clues are deciphered a physical presence is needed [ as fenn stated ]. I don’t know how to make it clearer than that.
            That is a main downfall of a stomping method… is the need to have all [majority] clues as places.
            A clue can be of instructions.

            When we look at a map, normally we know where we are starting from and the destinations, and we create a route… be it the fastest or a scenic route.
            All I’m saying the poem’s map is of a single “location” with “places” within it. It’s not a hard concept. A mapping needs more than just directions, it needs explains how to accomplish something.
            If you look at a map and you want to take River street to First street you might be in trouble if you don’t know by the instructions on a that map, that river street is a one way.

            We don’t know the destination until we follow the instructions.. Because… we’re looking for something hidden at one of those places. Personally I find the idea that we will just walk here and there and come to something that isn’t mentioned in the poem a bit foolish. And if it is mentioned and found… what did folks do… they probable went to it because they got NF, BTFTW as some distance needed to be travel.
            I say the line indicates Not To Walk… it puts you too far way from where you need to be.

            Fenn was asked about the idea of the blaze being “predetermined” or “only known” on site. He took 30 minutes not to answer the question, but still had MWs post the Q&A.
            I say it can be predetermined ‘by it’s clue’ – hoB…but not know of until on site as to its ‘deciphered clue’ [whatever it looks like] ~ answer to what it is. Basically saying hoB is the blaze, but we won’t know what it is exactly until we see what it represents…the way fenn sees it on site.

            What most don’t understand or don’t like about this idea is, the word usages. Zap called the idea; a glaring use of “take it in” as a view. Sorry I have to laugh when folks don’t like what words actually mean.
            Take it in; to encompass something; encompass within its limits, to observe… [dictionary meanings, not something I made up]
            One dictionary example is; he swept his arm around taking in all of city.

            The same idea can be said for the word “place” in stanza 3… not of a physical place by one definition… but of a situation by another definition and usage of the word.

            also, just because words are repeated in the poem does mean their definitions and usages are the exactly same or repeated. fenn has told us he looked up words and changed the poem many time over 15 years of creating it… explains to a searcher “wordsmith” to look up the word several and see that many people don’t understand the words they use every day.

            Multiple meanings and usages of words is my approach to reading the poem as fenn may have intended… not as many hope it should be.

          • Seeker, we’ve been over this subject before and you have never given a satisfactory answer, so I’m going to spell it out as simply as I can for the umpteenth time until you do. It’s one sentence, spread over 3 poem lines:

            “Begin it where warm waters halt, And take it in the canyon down, Not far but too far to walk.”

            Perhaps you want the beginning to mean: BIWWWH, and take it in. Full stop, end of thought. Oh, but there’s no period there. What are we to do with the remainder of the sentence?

            “… the canyon down, not far but too far to walk.”

            The canyon down *WHAT*? There’s no verb there, Seeker. It doesn’t say “the canyon down IS not far, but too far to walk.” Perhaps you mean it to be a continuation of what we are “taking in.” For example, this would be acceptable:

            Begin it (yada yada), and take it in: the canyon down, (the one that’s) not far, but too far to walk. Where’s the colon? Or a dash?

            I guess you’re going to argue, “It’s a poem, Zap. All rules are suspended. He can use or not use punctuation as he sees fit.” Balderdash! Not when that missing punctuation completely alters the meaning of the sentence. That is neither “straight forward” nor straightforward.

            “*Don’t look for a trick or subterfuge from me, because there aren’t any. f”

            “No Seeker, The poem is straight forward with no subterfuge in sight.”

            That colon or dash is not optional, if that’s the meaning you want. It’s as essential as the missing comma in “Let’s eat Grandma!”

          • Seeker, you said “Like any theory, if it doesn’t pan out as planned it’s most likely wrong.”

            Do you mean the theory is wrong or location? Above you said location.
            Just sounds like a catch 22. Travel thousands of miles, at hefty expense, to just stay put at one specific spot. If you don’t observe anything, or walk over and turn over any log, then shrug your shoulders and head home. Stifling, especially if you don’t have anything certain about the first clue.

            Can you cite the source/link for this (thanks)?:

            This imo, is the reason that~ after the first couple / few clues are deciphered a physical presence is needed [ as fenn stated ]. I don’t know how to make it clearer than that.

          • Zap,

            All I can say is; IT’s A POEM…
            The whole thing is grammatically incorrect. Ask any English teacher.

            YOU seem to want the idea I stop at “take it in” as if there’s a period there. On the flip side, I have explained “the canyon down is a Southward Direction” No far to look for what we’re looking for, “BUT” [by the meaning of the word]- *used to indicate the impossibility of anything other than what is being stated.*
            What is being stated is to look by the phrase “take it in” …Is an action…

            Take it in: verb
            verb: view; 3rd person present: views; past tense: viewed; past participle: viewed; gerund or present participle: viewing
            1.look at or inspect (something).
            “the public can view the famous hall with its unique staircase”
            synonyms: look at, gaze at, stare at, peer at, eye, observe, ogle, contemplate, regard, scan, survey, watch; ….

            Am I suppose to listen to you about verbs and periods you claim I’m imagining or need to have because of my explanation of reading the poem…or…actually learn what words and phrase mean.
            Heck you have said we shouldn’t need a dictionary at all.. even when I posted the T&E interview with fenn saying he did just that ‘looked up words and definitions of words’… it [the poem] came out exactly the way he wanted.

            Here ya ‘re.. a simple google search…

            Does a poem have to follow literature rules?
            That there are no rules–it’s all up to you! Of course there are different poetic forms and devices, and free verse poems are one of the many poetic styles; they have no structure when it comes to format or even rhyming. … A free or blank verse poem doesn’t follow any specific guidelines.

          • Seeker: the poem as written is grammatically fine. You could write it out as straight prose (without the capitalization that is only there because of a poetry convention) and it would still read the same. If someone recited the poem’s words to you, you would not be able to tell whether what they were reading was in prose form or poem form.

            More importantly, when Forrest reads the poem, your interpretation of the meaning of “take it in” is certainly not a sensible take away. There is no pause between when he says “in” and when he says “the canyon down.”

            Please, anyone else out there: tell me I’m not the only one who sees no way for Forrest’s “take it in” to mean “enjoy the view.” I can’t be alone in this, yet I seem to be the only one ever willing to call Seeker on it.

          • FD,
            Like any attempt to solve the poem in any manner… if it doesn’t work… go back to clue one, right?
            In a point to point method a searcher could get something backwards while stomping place to place… so I guess they could try a different way, over and over and over until the area is exhausted. Hmm how many trip from home would be needed for that?

            In my theory… IF you can’t discover hoB… WWsH is likely wrong. And Like I said prior… we need to know the locations of all the clues, first and foremost, to find the correct WWsH out of the many.

            As far as all the expenses, travel time, etc. involved? BOO HOO!!..
            I’m so dang tired of hearing this from so many, it actually makes me nauseous.
            IT is your problem if the solve is wrong, no matter which method you attempt… a searcher make their own conscious effort and expense to even try the challenge.

            Now to one of the ATFs that you asked about… which has been posted here 100’s of times as well as other site, but originally; MW’s FF Friday questions… and easily searchable for by the few words I posted.

            Q) How much knowledge do you think a normal East Coast Kid has to have to find your treasure? Or is Imagination enough. As an example, would an East Coast Kid have to become familiar with the western ways, languages, and other manners of the Rockies?

            A) It helps to know something about Rocky Mountain geography when making plans to search for my treasure. *Rocking chair ideas can lead one to the first few clues, but a physical presence is needed to complete the solve.* Google Earth cannot help with the last clue. f

            Another comment used the first ‘couple’ of clues… but I ain’t doing the homework for ya.
            Little Indys Q&A states about the same… She or basically anyone [ a boy from TX or someone from Europe in a town Churchill once visied “can not get closer than the first two clues”
            Yet seemingly getting the first tow clues from a map is a likely hood…
            and other ATfs related to the subject have basically implied the same.

            Ya can’t hang your hat on any one single ATF… you have to read them all to get some kinda idea of what is being relayed. It’s up to you how you think they are meant… I see a physical need to be on site for clues after the first two…
            Might that be why fenn answered the Q&A;
            “Craig, there is no substitute for thinking and planning and observing and looking at maps, unless it’s the desire to keep it simple.f”

            Planning and Observing???

          • Zap ~ ‘Please, anyone else out there: tell me I’m not the only one who sees no way for Forrest’s “take it in” to mean “enjoy the view.” I can’t be alone in this, yet I seem to be the only one ever willing to call Seeker on it.’

            While I like your debate, even if you’re wrong… I never said or claim – as you state it “enjoy the view”… It’s ludicrous to even suggest this [ the theory ] is nothing more than a tourist adventure.

            As I have said and shown with many words from the poem… folks are not taking in to serious consideration other usages of words and phrases.
            Yet we have been told all the information is in the poem… and … go back to the poem… and … every word was deliberate… he looked up words… work on the poem changing it for 15 years… and just about everyone here and other blogs call fenn a wordsmith.

            I can’t help it if you don’t like ‘take it in’ as a view… I didn’t make the different up, some academic did, complain to that guy … but it’s also not as simplistic as you’re trying to make it be as, just a tourist sight seeing adventure, in the explanation of the theory.

            LOL if I posted every word in the poem and the usages by their definitions Dal’s sight would crash…
            The solve is difficult but not impossible.
            If it was easy, anyone could do it.
            The poem is written in Plain English.

            What I find interesting is… the ones who argue against the wording of “take it in” and NF,BTFTW, and Place in stanza 3 have driving in or around a canyon in their solve. Is the reason to dismiss the actual meanings caused by the idea there might not be a need for alternative transportation?

            We can debate all day… but neither you nor I can change the word’s meanings. We can only ask why fenn used each word he deliberately used.

            With that said… what can you find wrong with the theory? Explain how it is not a workable idea in the physical world on site.
            Remember this is not a solve [general or otherwise] with completed deciphered clues… it a theory of how to read the poem for the purpose of understanding what is expected for a searcher to do… to complete the task.

          • Seeker: one point I’m trying to get across is that you can’t just use a dictionary to arbitrarily swap in any synonym for a word or phrase. Context matters. No one denies that “take it in” — IN ISOLATION — can mean “drink in what you’re seeing, absorb it, understand it.” But those same three words spoken to a tailor or seamstress have an entirely different meaning when handing over a pair of pants for alteration.

            I make the same argument about people thinking nigh and left are interchangeable. They aren’t. Nigh as an adverb (as it is used in the poem) always mean near or nearly, never “left.” Nigh as an adjective ~can~ mean “on the left side,” but that is incidental due to historical tradition that horses are mounted from that side (no doubt because most swordsmen were right-handed, and thus kept their swords on their left sides). If you have any doubt, next time you’re giving the Uber driver directions, try telling him to “take a nigh at the next light.”

            At least in the case of “nigh” in the poem, Forrest has worded it in such a way that it could be taken as a double entendre: the end is ever drawing near and (possibly) leftward. But the words surrounding “take it in” do not allow such leeway. (I am sure you aren’t arguing garment alteration is potentially what he’s talking about, yet I find that no more unworkable than what you’re suggesting.)

            The only reason I wrote up above that your theory *cannot* be logically dismissed is that there *is* a way of reading those three lines from the poem that can be interpreted as a non-traveling instruction, and do so without butchering English or slipping in some missing punctuation. If you had ever argued your case in this fashion, you wouldn’t lose me right out of the starting gate.

            So I will tell you how — and if afterwards you claim this is what you’ve been saying all along, I will vehemently disagree and challenge you to provide a link to one post that describes it this way. 😉

            To make your theory work, the solution is simple: let the instances of “it” in the second stanza mean “your gaze”:

            “Begin your gaze where warm waters halt, and take your gaze in the canyon down, not far, but too far to walk.”

            This achieves your goal of observing and planning without “stomping,” follows all the rules of ordinary English, and is unambiguous in its meaning. If you had ever argued it this way, I could at least get as far as the end of line 7 of the poem without objection.

            But I think with line 8, the jig is up.

          • Seeker, yeah, this is why I asked you for the source of the f quote(s). I don’t agree with you that this one f quote, or any of the others, “have to” equate to how you interpreted this f quote. What’s not proper to do so is to take your interpretation of an f quote, or quotes, and state that’s what f has stated and that’s why I asked for the specific quote.

            Let’s review, you said both of the following…”This imo, is the reason that~ after the first couple / few clues are deciphered a physical presence is needed [ as fenn stated ]. I don’t know how to make it clearer than that.”

            *Rocking chair ideas can lead one to the first few clues, but a physical presence is needed to complete the solve.* Google Earth cannot help with the last clue. f

            I don’t interpret that f quote as you do and I can see from your write up that your interpretation is important to how your theory plays out after the first few clues. There’s nothing definitive there that says one must be botg at the correct site to figure out all of the remaining clues after the And take it in the canyon down line. The same with the other f quotes you mentioned.

            That’s partly where I have a problem with your theory if you are badly jumping to these kind of conclusions. The same thing when I asked you earlier upthread…Is it possible that f drove his sedan down the canyon once and back up? You said there’s no possibility. I say there is.

            Then you said this…”And Like I said prior… we need to know the locations of all the clues, first and foremost, to find the correct WWsH out of the many.”

            Since this is also important to your theory, I think your theory isn’t possible. That’s because the clues get one closer to the tc as f has told us. You’re simply going backwards if you need to know all clue locations before you can find the correct wwwh. Also, to me, there’s no way to know for sure that any of those other clue locations are correct until you’ve figured out wwwh, not the other way around. Imo, most of the remaining clues after canyon down won’t have anything objective about them. I’d say they hinge off of the correct wwwh.

          • Zap,

            You say i’m setting the phrase by itself, “take it in” ….I’m not.
            The use of “and” includes the the prior line to the next line. That is exactly what I’m doing, not unlike you’re doing with the idea of going in a canyon. We are just doing it differently because the phrase can mean two different and opposite things… not unlike looking in a mirror, for example. It’s the same image only different. We “see it” that image differently to how we see ourselves looking at it.

            The idea using the term as a view is an ‘action’ of the searcher… what you are forgetting or overlooking in this theory is the word “IT” prior, needs context, and context doesn’t always have to be in front of a word or phrase.
            This is why many enjoy the idea of IT to mean a journey, or the challenge… IT can be of something the author wants us to do, rather than a simple subject matter.
            Otherwise, grammar correctness would be;
            *begin where warm waters halt* and “take it in” would then likely be a physical movement .. yet, fenn add IT for some reason. Like it or not… IT needs context for the sole fact it is in a line we know is a clue. Not only a clue, but the first clue and the clue we are told to have or we have nothing.. might as well stay home.

            A stomping method doesn’t “require” WWsH as need, especially IF there is any chance we can actually solve any later clues references with that clues location… example; HLnWH.

            The word “but” can be completely opposite in intent of its usage. It can mean; exclude and/or include .. being something; other than.. or.. something; already mentioned. However, your comment that this theory and word usages ‘butchering the english language’ is meaningless to the actual facts of word meanings and phrasing of those words.
            As well as the idea that synonyms break some kind of rule doesn’t make sense either.
            That like saying gaze and look can not be the same. They are, and yet they ‘also’ can be slightly different to the intent. Gaze can imply to *look steadily*, *to study what you’re looking at*… while look can be of a simpler; *glance at*.
            Yet again, if the word quickly is added to look, it presented as time involvement, such as a fast glance, line of thinking.
            Now add; but tarry scant with marvel gaze, and the subject of look changes. It has the idea of; a short time to look and study something.
            This line might be telling a searcher to actually linger a small amount – of time- to study something that needs to be seen.

            Again, context of what is being relayed does not have to be prior ‘only.’
            If that were true [context, needs to be prior]… everything stated after; take the chest and go in peace, is completely useless to anything mentioned within the last two stanzas to anything in the prior stanzas.
            In the wood..poof,
            brave.. see ya,
            hear me all and listen good.. no need to.
            why is it we should know of anyone or anything leaving anywhere…

            That idea doesn’t hold water… so when I suggest that “IT” relates to the idea of “take it in” as an observation of what is expected to be done by a searcher, this doesn’t break any grammar ruling… as you seem to be suggesting. So, IT now has a meaning and usage… it {IT} has context for; how to proceed.

            There’s no butchering of the language.

            However, I do like the analogy of telling the uber driver to turn nigh… You implied “nigh” as to say this is just an uncommon usage [left or left side]. You would rather use, turn left, for an easier, faster, non- difficult message. Yet “nigh” is meant as left by its meaning, nonetheless.

            This is why the poem is difficult to begin with… we [ the readers ] want this challenge to be simplistic right from the start.. easy common to date style understanding of word’s usages… not much thinking… little analyzing, and less logic to the fact that the author wanted it to be hard.

            fenn could have hidden clues in the book itself eliminating the avenue of a poem. Yet, he choice this avenue, right?
            One possible reason for using a poem is the ‘fact’ it allows freedom of word usages that are not of the norm or common. But that doesn’t mean the usages are incorrect, or butchering anything.. the sole idea behind any poem is for **interpretation** of the intent the author is trying to relay… and doing so in a poetic manner so the reader needs to figure out the exact intent. Not just to pick what they think it should be.

            So far, the poem has do its job… it has 300,000 plus people, over a 9 year period, scampering all over the Rocky’s.
            Might it be the way we read the poem-?- and not allowing ourselves to realize words and phrases have more than ‘just’ common meanings used by the public on a daily basis?

            Those meanings and usages of the more common expressions are to make things has easy to as possible on a daily basis. The / a poem is not common by any means… it whole purpose if for interpretation.

            I’ll add… clues are meant more as hint than answers… a clue is a piece of information, an indicator, to make something more aware of…. This allows a single word, phrase, line, sentence, stanza to be *part of* an answer that has been deciphered.

            We’re supposed to try and simplify the clues.. to make sense of the intent of what is being relayed by word usages in A POEM… not have them handed to us as clear as a bell’s ring.

            “It’s not a matter of trying, It’s a matter of thinking…”

          • Seeker said…”A stomping method doesn’t “require” WWsH as need, especially IF there is any chance we can actually solve any later clues references with that clues location… example; HLnWH.”

            I don’t agree with this at all.

  28. FD, so pleased that the Chase has brought you happiness!

    My solve involves strict logic, and as near absolute precision as nature allows. In fact, I found my starting point years ago using logical criteria. But as time progressed, and particularly in the last year, I realized that my end point didn’t require me to start where I did. And what I had thought was THE hoB back then, was in fact just a place where I could practice my way of interpreting the poem’s logic. My final hoB revealed itself only recently using a very specific technique.

    The reason I came to the conclusion that my original WWWH was subjective was that, although, it was connected in a logical and straightforward way to my end point, I could probably have picked any one of a thousand starting points and found the same end location. Weird, I know, but there it is.

    • Awesome, vox. I’m excited to hear your new found finds and hope you get to explore again. I’ve enjoyed your wonderful botg write ups!

    • I agree that the starting point isn’t necessarily one tiny specific location (say,
      smaller than a typical 2-car garage). Any one of several starting points could
      work. As always, IMO.

  29. AWWWW, IMO
    WWWH = Where warm waters never were
    (at least in most recent 1mill. yrs.)
    after all the TFTW, canyon down & HOB,
    do a BAT TURN,
    Pay attention to your port eye, look
    sharp for Texas umbilical
    Go to ground, tread carefully but easy
    less than a mile.

  30. this is what I think about the 2 clues, and someone being close to 200 and 500 to the tc .I think that they started at the end- thinking it was the beginning , couldn’t find the tc – they kept going south and went pass the other 7 clues

  31. I personally have no doubt that “take it in” is not a command to observe. If that was the best Forrest could do in 15 years of crafting, I am sorely disappointed. I see possibilities like:
    1. Waters halt and then continue in the canyon down (you could actually then go upstream NFBTFTW from this)
    2. You start the search and then continue in the canyon down (the simplest interpretation)
    3. Note that canyon down is a variable also.. I personally think it means the canyon is full of feathers, but I haven’t been able to find it. (feather canyon, anyone)
    4. Actually, down could be a Forrestism for downs, and you actually go up the canyon downs.

    There are lots of ways to meaningfully mangle the words, but your “take it in” interpretation doesn’t work for me. Just two darn awkward, and not the way he reads the poem.


    • OK Bigguy,
      Break it down even more.

      # 1 you say you actually go up stream..OK fine, the direction doesn’t matter to me. What matter is, how do we go upstream if its “TFTW”? Apparently we can’t walk the distance, right? it just too far. {That is, if we’re keeping it simple in *the simplest interpretations*}

      # 2 you say the simplest interpretations… great. you are looking for simplistic right up front … I’m following so far.

      # 3 ya lost me completely… feathers? and as well as # 4… how does a canyon have downs. Doesn’t downs have to do with an animal.. a bird..

      However… *mangling* as you said is not unlike Zap *butchering* …I still find it humorous those words you guy toss out… when the dictionaries definitions of take it in – take something in, is just that… a view.
      Tell Funk and Wagnell they got it the definition mangle and butchered.

      • Sounds like a feather bed to me with lots of blankets and sheets – someplace warm and comfortable.

        At least that’s what I see from my duck blind – of course this is only my view IMHO.

      • Seeker: you keep using “take it in” in isolation. No one disagrees that it ~can~ mean what you’re suggesting it means. Where I vehemently disagree is that it can mean what you suggest it means when surrounded by the words in Forrest’s poem. Context, context, context.

        • Zap,

          The words in the poem are of “clues”.. not answers of the clue’s references. Our job is to figure out what the words mean to understand how a clue is deciphered as.

          decipher; to discover the meaning of (anything obscure or difficult to trace or understand):

          We have fenn telling us the poem is straight forwards, no intent to fool anyone, in plain english… and what he did, to look up words and definitions of words and changed the poem over many years to get it just as he wanted….
          Can you tell me what is more plain then actual words meanings and usages?

          You keep harping at the idea I’m isolating “Take it in” as if I use those word only in the explanation of the observational theory method.
          Yet, I have shown how other words relate to observing [from the poem] to have context of not only a line, and several lines in the poem, but the poem as a whole.

          It was those meanings of words and phrases from the poem that gave the idea the poem could be read as observing something to figure out how to locate something only 10″ sq that is hidden… Not to mention fenn’s own words at the top of this page, and the reason I put it there. We are to “plan” for something [ and I highly doubt he say we need to check airline schedules or pack extra sock ] and tells of we need to “observe.” [ I highly doubt observation is done at home, just reading maps ]

          I used “take it in” first and foremast in my explanation in the attempt to show how an observational method is being talked about in the poem.
          I could have jumped all over stanza 4 in the same manner.. because it also scream of Time and Looking [ observing ] something needing to be done for our quest to cease… something done to finalize the task… something done to “complete” the poem’s challenge.

          LOL we have stanza two possibly taking about observing, stanza three possibly talking about when, where, and why to observe, stanza four talking about more of the idea of looking, gazing,.. tarry and scant, and quickly as time related for a task… But what many don’t like is not so much the idea of the task at hand having anything to do with observing… even though fenn says we should… and more about the possibility is can only be completed in one month of a years and closer to the mid – end of that month.

          I guess some think a million plus in gold and trinkets and precious stones, as proof of the find ans reward of finding it, should be easier to figure out.

          I hardly see in all my attempts to explain the theory, that I’m only ‘isolating three little words’ and running a muck about just them.

          Context of an observational method is all the way through the poem… IF you only choose to look at definitions of the poem’s words.. and.. how they can relate to each other in such a manner.

          Besides fenn’s comment I have listed in arguments for the theory and to give it a check and balance. I’ll add food for thought;
          Why the heck can’t any one find the chest on spring break or a sunday picnic?

          Those are powerful words to say we can’t do it. That comment has been repeated many times, so I hardly think it’s a fluke to say; well it is hard, you need time to figure it out or you need many trips to figure it out.
          I think he was being very literal / truthful repeating this message over and over again.

          C’mon Zap.. throw me something to chat about [ in-regards to the theory ] other than you think I’m trying to isolate a few words. Anyone… I didn’t post this theory because I’m high on my own hog or pats on the back. I’m one of the very few that actual ask others to shoot down my theories because ya’ll are attempting the same thing.. with the same information we have had for 9 years running.

          Unless of course ~ your desire is to keep it simple.

        • Seeker, I’ve responded to your theory in the only way I know how, trying to explain my points in plain English. You don’t have to agree with my response, but that doesn’t invalidate it. We are at an impasse: you have tried to make your case. I just disagree with it, and you don’t follow my logic. It’s clear we can’t have a debate on your theory because we’re just talking over each other. Even when I provided an alternative way of interpreting the first sentence of stanza #2 that I could get behind that would support your view and not require a twisted view of English, I got silence in return for it. So we can’t even get to line 8 of the poem because you won’t even accept the barest concession on my end that would allow the conversation to proceed.

          So the topic no longer interests me because there is no give and take. In the end, it really won’t matter — there is no sensible way to interpret “Put in below the home of Brown” that doesn’t involve moving ones carcass. You will claim otherwise, I will be diabolically opposed, and that’ll be the end of it.

          • Zaphod, you said,”there is no sensible way to interpret Home of Brown.”
            One possibility is a literal approach. Maybe IMO It’s a home or property owned by Brown – doesn’t mean the treasure is associated with it. You just start below that property. Maybe some large ranch or game preserve previously owned by Brown and given to the state. The reason little India or anyone for that matter can’t determine it with a map is because you need to determine property ownership. I’m a bit surprised this isn’t discussed more.

          • Hi 42: you left off the distinction that I was making — that “Put in below the home of Brown” is an action statement, not a passive observational statement.

            “Maybe IMO It’s a home or property owned by Brown – doesn’t mean the treasure is associated with it. You just start below that property.”

            That’s an acceptable interpretation, 42, except that I don’t think Forrest’s “Brown” has anything to do with a specific person with the last name Brown. Too specific, and besides, having to research property ownership sound like specialized knowledge to me.

            “The reason little India or anyone for that matter can’t determine it with a map is because you need to determine property ownership.”

            IMO, Forrest has never limited the number of clues that Little Indy can solve. All he ever said was that she couldn’t get “closer” than the first two clues. That may say more about the answers to those clues than anything about Little Indy and the resources to which Jenny limited her in the question.

          • Hi Zap and Seeker,
            It’s been a long time since checking in. I just had a thought that either of you might like. I just looked up the definition of fawn. It is both a baby deer AND a brown color. So, what if home of brown is named Fawn something that is in an area that his home of baby deer? For Example, what if Fawn Pass Trail around Mammoth Hot Springs is the home of brown? The name means brown, therefore it is capitalized and geographically speaking, it is the home of baby deer.

            I thought of this because I think that THE canyon that F refers to in the poem is special and so he says to take it in visually and to take it in as to actually travel down the canyon.

            My opinion is that multiple meanings of words are how this poem is solved – in order to go with confidence.

          • Zap, ~ ‘there is no sensible way to interpret “Put in below the home of Brown” that doesn’t involve moving ones carcass.’

            Did ya look up “put”
            One meaning is; to move or place in a position. which matches your thoughts.
            It also means; Image one self in a institution { there’s that word again }
            ;bring into a particular state or condition.
            Are those last two definitions too far off the wall to consider the ‘put in’ is a situation a search will find them self having to do… watch this clue reference hoB and why below is where they need to watch?

            Yep I had a hard to looking at the poem like that at first as well, Until stanza 3’s wording described what it is a searcher needs to look for when the ‘put in’ as observing the situation that is about to happen.

            Our job is to understand what is written to form a line of thinking. You have only used the simplistic and more commonly used meanings… mostly the first meaning that always pops up first for each word. I tend to dig deeper and attempt to align a theme [ for lack of a better term ] My theme isn’t conventional… and I think fenn was relying of folks only thinking of the words in a simplistic and convectional manner. Not unlike your uber example that nigh would never be used as left.

            We are creating our own illusions hoping this challenge is easy enough that even a caveman can do it.
            { I knew that commercial would come in handy one day…lol }

            It may not be sensible to you, but it is factual by the meanings of the words. In this theory… that carcass you talk about will have to move when it is all said and done… the searcher now need to go to that last spot and retrieve the chest that is “hidden” there.

            The only question is… am I thinking the right thoughts?
            Like ya said… you see it your way, like most do, stomping from one point to another.[ and like I said, I think fenn was relying on just that ].
            I see it differently by word choices and their meanings [ multiple meanings ].

          • Hi JBL: great to hear from you! Yes, if a place name had Fawn as part of its name, then I would think that was perfectly fair game (no pun intended) for a home of Brown. It’s not obvious (doesn’t actually include the proper name Brown), it’s synonymous with the color, and it would be proper for Forrest to capitalize it home of Brown because in this case Brown refers to part of a proper name.

            There are lots of synonyms for the color brown, many of which you can find scattered across the four-state search area. Fawn is a good one (particularly since Forrest used it describing Bessie in TTOTC); others include chestnut, hazel, chocolate, maroon, cinnamon, coffee, mahogany, umber and auburn.

      • Hello Seeker. In regards to #3, I once considered Pajarito Canyon (Birdie in Spanish) as such a place.

      • #1: I guess I tend to the interpretation that you put in somewhere that is far enough away that you wouldn’t walk it. It’s possible that you are never actually at WWWH (all the ATF’s that are cited to indicate otherwise are subject to interpretation, that is, are not solidly definitive)

        #3: one definition of down is a layer of fine feathers. The canyon full of feathers is my idea of a joke, BTW, but the “canyon down” could be referring to the name of the canyon, or the name of a stream (feather creek?). It’s weak.

        #4 The definition of “downs” is “low hills covered in grass”. You can easily have a large canyon with areas of downs (when does a canyon become a valley?). It’s weak, I agree, but I always consider it when I research a potential starting point.

        Of course, I have no idea, really. But I do know that I don’t subscribe to your “use take it in out of context” interpretation.

        BTW, by mangle I didn’t mean doing something bad or wrong. I meant mess with possible definitions in a creative way. Maybe “twist” or “skew” would have less negative connotation.

        I assume you have listened carefully to Forrest reciting the poem to see if there is any inflection or pause that hints at your interpretation. I have not heard it.


  32. Seeker., ……
    “With that said… what can you find wrong with the theory? Explain how it is not a workable idea in the physical world on site.”

    Hope you don’t mind me cutting in Seeker, but let me try to explain my thoughts.
    Here is how: A searcher has to get to WWWH in the first place. How did they get there? Most likely they drove there. Fenn says begin it (there) WWWH, then it seems more likely that from there you drive straight down the canyon not far but too far to walk, instead of taking in the view of the area and canyon to determine what NFBTFTW means. To me it makes much more sense to continue to drive straight down until you get to below the HOB.

    The Place that you put in is a place that you turn, either right or left. You must, at this point, be on sight to determine where to go. I believe that you can find WWWH and CD on a map or Google Earth, but not where to put in BTHOB.

    Now, I also can see your point of view and search around WWWH by viewing the canyon down, but how do you account for NFBTFTW? If it’s too far to walk then how do you proceed to BTHOB? Sorry, but I just don’t follow your logic. Hope this will help. Maybe even change your thoughts on this and go back to your original way of thinking. By the way, what made you change your mind from moving down the canyon to viewing down the canyon?

    • ManOwar… jump in.

      I don’t mind your idea of the driving or something other than just walking/hiking. However, you have to explain how we get around some of fenn’s comment, Q&A’s… ATFs…

      He has said he made two trips from his car to the hide. In your scenario that could be, as you said.
      But we have fenn also saying he followed the clues when he hid the chest… as well as he took the say route from the car to the hide… and we have fenn saying an 80 year old is not going to travel down and up a canyon [ all paraphrase to save time and space].

      This would mean, he followed only some of the clues in the poem once, by vehicle, and then hiked other clues twice to the hide. This is not an uncommon argument that has been presented before.
      The problem I see is, we are told we need to follow the clues in the same manner as the poem and as fenn said he did… he “followed the clues in the poem.”
      IF we are to accomplish this by the use of a car [ lets just stay with that ] a searcher needs to know how far-?- what distance to drive to. It doesn’t matter to me what each searcher thinks that distance is or how the came up with that distance… what matters is to accomplish a stopping point.
      A third clue reference , and possibly the fourth clue reference must be solved to accomplish that stop.

      {Example} drive to WWsH, drive down a canyon… then stop someplace. That someplace must have a clue reference connected to it.. be it a distance or a “put in” as many like to use… Only for years we have been told only the first two clues were deciphered by several, many, a few, searchers.

      To get anywhere we would need the distance solved, but apparently that [ if it is clue 3 ] wasn’t solved. Now we have the idea that maybe clue four could have been solved, and clue three could possibly be skipped. That doesn’t seem to jive with fenn is telling us we need to follow the clues “precisely” or the idea we need all the ingredients [clues] and there are no short cuts…

      However. some have suggested; NF, BTFTW is not a clue… ok fine… but we stall have PIBTHOB [ and we know that is a clue ] For anyone to “put in below the hoB” that clue *must be know of.* .. solved.
      That’s the first 3 clues solved in their correct order, in either scenario.
      LOL… yet fenn has said, only the first two clues were solved, mentioned, indicated… not 3 [for the first 7 year]

      Now, I’m not totally unreasonable to the idea, but more needs to be thought out… lets say… there’s a place along this drive that forces a searcher to stop. We can’t drive any farther… Ok that may settle the idea of known a distance… At this point we are hiking clues, right?
      Don’t we still need to know the next clue?

      Think about that for a moments… searchers figure the first couple of clues and walked past the chest. Yet we have fenn saying; If you can’t make two trips from your car to your solve in several hours, then don’t go.
      I’m I to believe that a few, several, many, more than several, searchers walked through the location of the remaining clues and by the chest by a matter of 500′ ish after several hours?
      Lets break down several if we can… more than two for two trips? or one hour each way? Does that sound reasonable?

      LOL yet no one could pick up any later clues [now in stomping mode] and continue correctly, to the blaze and the hide? And still be within 500′.
      I would have to ask… how in the world can folks travel the minimum of an hour and not pick up any other clues along the way and still be 500 or 200 feet from the finish line?

      What makes more sense to me is;
      Park the car and having to walk about a 1/2 hour or so [ an hour maybe] one way to the clues location and the hide, all within a smaller area.
      That walk would be [ in this time line ] two hours in and out twice on the short side, or 4 hours ish on the longer time line… while taking the same route in and out from the clues location and the hidey spot.
      In this scenario folks left the location [ by walking ]… leaving and passing the remaining clues and walking by the hide… because they got screwed up on clues 3 and/or 4 and left to go looking/searching another area.
      I’ll also say again, I don’t think hoB can be *seen correctly* unless on ground level, on site. If searcher did see while on sight… I can imagine [ who ever did ] went to it. And the need to be on site after the first two clues have been discovered on a map.

      Nope, ManOwar, It’s a hard pill to swallow that we drive anywhere with only two clues indicated as solved, and we drive away from them. A third clue is needed to have us stop and walking to the location of the chest… I can’t see that any other way.

      • Seeker,

        It doesn’t matter the clues’ number, just follow them in order.

        I think you would agree that it’s probably right to assume that a searcher(s) drives their vehicle to get to WWWH, the place to begin your search which is in a canyon, or at the beginning of one. So then you take it in the canyon down. What do you take? You take yourself, what else? “You” began it and now “you” take it. How? Do you walk, drive, cruse, fly? You don’t walk, it’s too far to walk, you don’t fly or cruse who takes an airplane or boat with you? And don’t say a boat, most people don’t. Yes, you drive yourself down the canyon until you find the HOB, and no, I’m not telling you what HOB is, but, you need to go a little farther to get to the point of PIBTHOB, I will say that the distant is about 10 miles from WWWH. That is Forrest’s own words in his book TFTW.
        So then, have you ever considered that when a searcher gets to the point of PIBTHOB after driving down the canyon that “put in” means to turn your direction? FTINPFTM, and TBNPUYC tells me that this “put in” place is a creek with high rocky banks making it somewhat arduous to travel via botg to get to JHLAWH, (That’s why he says FTINPFTM), but there just happens to be a road leading up along side, somewhat close to this dry creek, that gets you to the same area of JHLAWH. So you drive there.
        From there, this is where you park your car and make two trips, this would be the wise way to get to the Blaze. You would be at, or near, HLAWH, now to find the Blaze which should be within an hours’ trek. In this scenario the whole search can be done in one day or even in one afternoon.

        This is all based on a physical not metaphysical interpretation. As Forrest has said his poem is straightforward.

        Sorry, Seeker, but I don’t buy your viewing and staying at WWH theory.

        • Manowar, you said: “You don’t walk, it’s too far to walk”. If you are asking what it is “to walk”, wouldn’t your answer be “too far? In that line, you are asked what you have “to walk”, not far, but “too far” “to walk”. It sounds to me like he is saying we must walk “too far”.
          Moby Dickens bookshop interview, 52:53 mark,: Forrest may I suggest that you tell the audience for those of us who aren’t searchers, tell the audience who is not searching why the phrase “too far to walk” is so important?
          I didn’t say it was too far…err, important.
          That slip of the tongue says he is not saying it’s “too far”.
          If what we have “to walk”, is the question, the answer can be found here:
          A polite-like email from Kristie, who admits to being a desk person, prompts me to say that if you are walking long distances in search of the treasure, you’re walking too far.f
          So there is your definition to “too far”, it constitutes a “long distance” “to walk”. If you like, replace “too far” with “long distances”, Not far, but long distances to walk.
          Just coming out and saying you must be driving because it’s just too far to walk doesn’t fit some of the other things f has said. If you drive past the first clue, you open yourself up to shortcuts. Like a lot of the recent write ups, I don’t need to go to the first or second clue, I could just drive to the third or forth clue. If you park at the first clue and walk, you are guaranteed to follow all the clues. Driving to later clues does not fit his second trip, but take it as it is, I’m not trying to change your mind, just trying to point out that everything is open to interpretation, and if you can find another example of where f defines “too far” then I’m all ears.
          This is not trying to agree or disagree with Seeker’s theory, a lot of what he put forth is legit, we all see it in our solves. It’s basically known, I think searchers will understand more if and when he puts it together in one flowing solve. But for the basics of reading a poem, I have no problem with what he has put forward. If it gets searchers to start looking at the poem for answers instead of some map or outside info, then it’s all in the good. I don’t buy staying and observing either, but, if you look at the poem, it very well could be that f is basically reminding himself. That he is just looking forward and making an observation. The 7th and 8th line especially. If the end is ever drawing nigh, he must be observing something, or how would he know the end is drawing….? If we are to find some of the clues, we would need to be observing, so I can see a lot of what this write up is putting out.

          • poisonivey,
            NFBTFTW is plain English, It’s not very far, but it’s TOO far to WALK!, so you resort to other means, like drive! That distance is about 10 miles according to Forrest in his book Titled “too far to walk”, in the preface he says he walked about 10 miles down the Madison River, that was when he was younger, but now he says, now it’s just too far to walk. If that isn’t enough for searchers to understand then, here’s more, Fenn says he didn’t even
            realize until later that he had put a clue in his book. To me that was the clue.

            I guess it’s all in one’s interpretation. To me, the “but” means “except” so you have, “not far, except it’s too far to walk”, especially for him now. So if it’s too far to walk then what? The poem tells you to take it in the canyon down. It doesn’t get any plainer than that. You drive down the canyon, imo, and about 10 miles for that matter. My opinion, take it or leave it. I don’t take yours.

          • I agree ManOwar with “too far to walk” being just what it says. No subterfuge. However, I do not see it as a clue seeing I don’t think he would title his book after a clue in the poem and then give a distance to travel in his book.

            I believe Fenn said “too far to walk” – “That part of my Preface I think is a metaphor for my entire life.” and reminds me of when doubters say you can’t do this or that (meaning it’s too far or difficult for you to walk or do).
            So Fenn had to prove them wrong.
            Moby video near the end.

          • IMO, if one were to take the 10 miles in the preface of OUAW, then any distance past 10 miles is also too far to walk. I think NFBTFTW AT LEAST 10 miles, but could be more. Now what could be defined “Not far”? Not sure…

          • Jake, good point. So you think NFBTFTW is not a clue? Then why would he even take the time to painfully and deliberately put it in his poem? 15 yrs. of thinking. What if he had left that sentence out.? Does it change the meaning? Probably not, but it does give you the idea of distance in between, canyon down, and put in. Without that sentence one might think of 30, 50, 100 miles or just the end of the canyon. (Hey, I think I just discovered something, end of the canyon…hmm) “Not far” tells us it’s not that far, but maybe a little too far to walk it. So you get some idea of the distance between the aforementioned. Yes, Fenn also used it as a metaphor for his life, he’s very good a double entrende.

            Neal,…. My guess is that less than 10 miles would be the definition of “not far”, maybe less than a few miles, as Fenn was able to do when hiding his treasure.

            Oh darn, probably gave it all away, should keep it to myself. No, really, good luck everyone.

          • just answer Manowar, what do we have “to walk”? plain English, “too far”. That’s what it says. No guessing, no “I think it’s 10 miles, nothing but exactly what he says.
            He then defines it. What more do you need? Guess all you like, that won’t find anything.
            You even said it, “It’s not very far, but it’s TOO far to WALK!,” What does “TOO FAR” equal? LONG DISTANCES, plain English, f’s words.(and yours).
            “in the preface he says he walked about 10 miles down the Madison River, that was when he was younger, but now he says, now it’s just too far to walk.”
            He has trouble now with 50 feet, what are you trying to say?
            I’ll stick to f’s words and not your interpretations.

          • ManOwar,

            I get confused / dumbfounded when folks say NF, BTFTW is not a clue.
            Even if it’s not a physical place [ a geographical place ] It’s still is a clue.
            IF we break down to what is being relayed, It could read; NF- meaning near. I don’t know what else that could mean, because we don’t have any fix distance known of. [every distance is just a guess]

            BUT in BTFTW seeming to say by its usage / meaning; to *exclude* what is being said next from what we know of prior ~ NF as near.
            [ But, is one of those words that can imply two completely different meanings depending on the context given with it. *But* at one time can mean *exclude*, and at another time mean *include* by it’s definitions and usages]

            BUT TFTW as it stand with NF prior, is saying, what ever is seen or done is not far away, but *don’t* [exclude] walk… it’s too far away, for some reason, to walk there.

            *We need to figure out the reason we shouldn’t walk to something that is not far way.*

            Sorry… the line is being read wrong imo, as implying we need to have a physical distance / measurement. This is why the mind set of a stomping mode only, has to force an unknown distance. lol or dismiss it as a clue altogether.

            I think some of the problem we have reading the poem to decipher what a clue could be, we tend to want an answer for something – right then and there.
            For example, this line were talking about; We want to [hypothetically] stop thinking about the rest of the poem and find the solution of this line before reading on, line of thinking, then go onto the next line /clue and work solely on that one. [lacking thought for the poem; as a whole]
            And that is another reason the stomping point to point mind set seems to be having readers dismiss things as not clues [because they can’t find a direct physical answer for it] or forcing something unknown in as factual… imo, being too impatient and needing any individual line’s decipher at the time of reading. {don’t bark yet folks.. we all have read this poem many times… I get it}

            The same can be said for fenn’s comment [ in part ] ~ Try and marry the clues to a place on a map.
            The conventional, simplistic, point to point, precondition mind set seems to force the idea that “the clues” are only meant as as 9 individual clues… this makes [ or fakes ] the idea that “A Place” is to mean as; 9 different places for each clue.

            IF we take away the precondition factor of a point to point conventional thinking… the comment can read as “the clues” All clues in the poem, married to “A” single “Place” on a map. The word *all* doesn’t need to be in the original comment, as some argue it must be to read the comment this way…

            The words “THE CLUES” already tells us fenn is talking about his clues in the poem… all clues in the poem.

            But here’s the kicker. In reading it this way… any non physical clue [ be it a direction or instruction ] is includes as: THE CLUES

            Allow me to show some examples of fenn’s comments / postings to show the same premise in wording.

            ~ fenn: Although I not ready to say the chest is not in water… this was a Q&A talking about the sealing of the olive jar.
            Then later on, fenn came out with; the chest is not under water.
            Many who were dead set that the chest had to be in water [ that precondition mind set, because water is talked about in the poem ] dismiss what is being stated hear.
            He simply stated; he wasn’t *ready* to say as fact… that the chest is not in water… lol… yet he did just that.

            SB 124; {in part} ~You see – once I went fishing with Joe Billy Bob. He was an acquaintance from the neighborhoods. Most people called him JBB, but I called him JB for short. I caught a nice fish and with it he took my photo. I mean he took my photo with it.

            This above example shows the same pattern [ if you will ] in the writing of the Q&A and the line[s] in the poem.
            “I caught a nice fish and with it he took my photo. I mean he took my photo with it.”

            Just thoughts to mull over, folks… But with almost every thing fenn talks about in regards to Q&A and such… he is being fully truthful, not just 85% of the time.

            However, for someone to say the line NF,BTFTW is not a clue, especially [ as you said, ManOwar ] where fenn deliberately include and placed it in the poem… IMO is also misunderstanding the concept fenn might have meant with his comment;
            “Try and simplify the clues”

            I hate to beat the stomping mode precondition mind set to a pulp… but it seems many implement “try to simplify” as simplistic right from the start.
            On the flip side; and truly attempting to keep and open mind… if we can’t lose / shake off any and all preconditions of how we *hope* the poem should be read… we may find ourselves stuck on a marry-go-round… only to move that to different locations, and rinse and repeat.

            My logic tells me, this challenge is difficult because each and everyone of us, walked into it with a conventional mind set of; how WE think the poem should be read… only to change names and places along the way.

            Yeah Yeah! I know… who wants to be the first to say… Seeker, you’re over complicating?
            OK.. fine. I say we are trying to oversimplify clues with just one thought process in are minds.

            If ya read the response to this thread… the arguments against it, and even the comments for it, also find there way back to the same thing… somewhere along the way folks return to a point to point method.
            I get it…lol… it’s a very hard implanted, precondition notion, to let go of. Almost an unconscious urge we may not be aware of.

            I think fenn knew this as well.

            It’s not what I say, it’s what you think I said, idea.
            The idea of letting those preconditioned, and in some cases, keeping up with the Jone’s, of how many are doing the challenge… opens up different meanings /usages of the words fenn used in his poem. Words he deliberately chose to use.

            NF, BTFTW might not be a physical clue, a measurable clue, But to imply its not a clues, imo, it maybe for the reasons I explained above… the precondition mind set;
            If I can’t find a physical place that works, or a physical measure that works, or even make up one or both of those, or hope fenn gave us the answer three years ATF, and still it doesn’t work for a point to point solution… it must not be a clue?

            I can’t disagree more….

          • I still love the point to point method. I haven’t seen anything compelling yet that has changed that for me.

          • poisonivey, you wrote”
            “just answer Manowar, what do we have “to walk”? plain English, “too far”. That’s what it says. No guessing, no “I think it’s 10 miles, nothing but exactly what he says.
            He then defines it. What more do you need? Guess all you like, that won’t find anything.
            You even said it, “It’s not very far, but it’s TOO far to WALK!,” What does “TOO FAR” equal? LONG DISTANCES, plain English, f’s words.(and yours).”

            answer: you don’t walk because it’s to long of a distance to walk, TOO FAR TOO WALK! as you yourself said, it’s LONG DISTANCE! Too far for Forrest to walk. “But it’s too far too walk!” He’s telling you not to walk!

            Are you saying that Forrest walked that long distant of too far to walk which is about 10 miles? He followed the poem clues.

            He started by driving to wwh then drove down the canyon about 10 miles , put in below THOB, drove up alongside the dry creek to HLAWH area, parked his car, made two trips to the location of the blaze and down from there the spot where he left the goodie.

            The problem is finding WWWH and knowing it’s the correct one which you cannot know until you have the TC in hand or have seen it and left it there.

      • Seeker – I would think that put in would also mean man made something that was put in by men and that’s what I think wwwh was put in

        • Hi Frank, I was just stopping by the website and saw your post. I hope you are doing well. Just said a quick prayer for you.

          • JBL lol thanks JB , what a nice thing to do for me , well JB I have good days and bad days but I have a bunch of cancer people that are looking out for my well being , they are great people still taking kimo and it looks like things are holding steady – thank you JBL – a prayer goes a long way

          • Well, you’re very welcome. I’m glad you have good docs in your corner. Keep fighting the fight.

        • Frank,…I agree that put in could also mean man made something, such as a road, Put in the road below the HOB next to the creek.

          • thanks for your reply ManOwar – that’s true – but I still think that wwwh men had something to do with the making of wwwh , some of it any way -enough to make it a place where warm water halts

          • Frank wrote: thanks for your reply ManOwar – that’s true – but I still think that wwwh men had something to do with the making of wwwh , some of it any way -enough to make it a place where warm water halts

            I also agree that wwwh is a place that was partly made by men/women.

      • Seeker,

        Please pardon my interruption. Your recent post about viewing things might work for the third or fourth clue. Some of those things that mention of ATF are old and may not be applicable now.

        The problem is with viewing, how do you propose to see, npftm, the no paddle creek and the blaze and looking quickly down with a marvel gaze? IMO you are already looking down with your viewing and then again the need to look quickly down doesn’t compute.

        When you said, “But we have fenn also saying he followed the clues when he hid the chest… as well as he took the say route from the car to the hide… and we have fenn saying an 80 year old is not going to travel down and up a canyon.

        Sure ff isn’t going down and up a canyon, that IMO is from where he parked his car. Your solve doesn’t allow movement from wwwh at all and this continues to the end of the poem, I think. Truth be told, looking for AFT most of the time when ff talks about 200′ there is no indication of a tie in with wwwh.

        From People Magazine 7-31-2017 they quoted as ff saying, “It took me two trips in my car to hide the treasure.”f Which IMO a miss quote. Here on HoD under Safety First there is a quote from ff, “Please remember that I was about 80 when I made two trips from my vehicle to where I hid the treasure.”f note one says in my car and the other says from his car.

        On 6-19-2014 at MW Joe’s Q: Forgive me if this is redundant, but were both trips made on the same day/date? Not to be anal, but that would be one spinaroo of the giant ball we call Earth that constitutes a single 24-hour day to its humble inhabitants.
        Answer: “Joe, you make this thing so complicated. Reminds me of the reason I don’t like meetings. I hope you don’t belong to a PTA someplace. I made two trips from my car to the hiding place and it was done in one afternoon.f”

        With all of the comments related to this, I could never find a mention he hid the tc at or near wwwh. I would love to know the mention of being from wwwh after he parked the car. What am I missing?


      • ManOwar, ~ ‘It doesn’t matter the clues’ number, just follow them in order.’

        It does if we want to figure out which clues folks are stumbling over that can’t get anyone farther on. Although I don’t like to count anything while working on a theory.. so we agree on that part.

        You also said; ‘I think you would agree that it’s probably right to assume that a searcher(s) drives their vehicle to get to WWWH, the place to begin your search which is in a canyon, or at the beginning of one.’

        Naah, I really don’t think we drive up to WWsH [ if you are being literal as to once we step out of the vehicle we are standing at the first clue ] I think the only major hiking is from the car to WWsH. LOL your distance and mileage may vary.

        The rest of what you’re talking about sounds like your personal search area… I can’t really debate or comment about the area its self, and you seem to have settle on the stomping mode for this area by your descriptions of your movements.

        I’m fine with that… I just hear the same old same old for my almost seven years of the challenge with the same results… not only no chest, but it still seems many have not got past the first two clues.

        Even with fenn’s one and only comment about 4 clues possibly solved, he himself seem reluctant to say it as factual. At this point in time… we only have searchers at the first two clues and indicated them correct enough that fenn says those clues are solved, but even then feels searcher didn’t know they did so.

        The question is why and how folks who live and breathe the challenge didn’t know?
        Some other ATFs, it seems the got stuck on how to proceed correctly.
        Some comments; related, but there are many…
        Q-Why did they quit?
        A -They didn’t quit they left the poem.
        – A good solve is frequently lost in a poor execution.
        – People figure the first couple of clues and unfortunately walked past the treasure chest.
        { that one comment above, and other related comments, don’t appear to have a vehicle involved. For searchers to drive from the first two clues and walk past the chest, something made them stop at the correct area… and more than one did so… people is plural, right? To accomplish that the third clues is needed. I doesn’t matter if its hoB or NF,BTFTW or any clue that is consider the third clue… } Only fenn hasn’t said [ to this date ] the third clue was correct solve.
        It might have been by now, and he just hasn’t stated it… but when those comments [ many of them ] were made, only two the first two clues were solved.

        My other complaint about driving from the first tow clues is; fenn finally stated; he followed the clues in the poem…
        He’s talking about the poem’s clues and he has told us there are 9. IMO, he followed all 9 and did so on both his trips.
        LOL others don’t agree, and I have to be fair and say there is wiggle room… but I’m going on the assumption fenn is being up and up and truthful to the ATFs… two trips from his car to the hide, the same route from the car to the hide, he walked less than a few miles and done in one afternoon, following the clues [ all of them ] in the poem when he hid the chest. I say all of them because he is talking about the clues in the poem.

        With that said; FD has commented [ paraphrasing ] he could have drive the clues at and left the car to finish the clues to the hide, idea. That seems logical [for one drive] until we have to figure out how he and yes, searcher came to a stop. I still say to do that the third and possibly fourth clue is needed.
        Should NF,BTFTW be the 3rd clue we need a distance… if it’s not a clue… then we need a place we put into, which is hoB… either way another clues must be solved to bring us to that point in the solve, driving.

        Of course there could be another reason… I’m all wet and fenn is only telling 85% of the truth.
        Yeah! I’m not buying into that either.

        • Seeker, you are not following the poem, you are following his ATF statements, by the way he has said many times the way to find the TC is to follow the poem, not his AFT statements or info. on the blogs, papers or any where else. Correcting that, the statements that he put out as factual clues on TV, i.e., 5,000 to 10,200 ft. altitude, not in an outhouse, wwwh not a dam, etc., etc. are all legit.

          His comments about people finding clues in no way can help you find the TC. The poem and its clues are the only way. Everyone’s interpretation can be different but their logic must be founded in the poem.

          It doesn’t matter if people have figured out 2, 3, 4 or even 5 clues and not found the TC. What matters is you need to have discovered all 9 clue locations.The problem is you won’t know it until you have the TC in hand. The blogs are for entertainment, lol.

          • Some legitimate points ManOwar, however there are some ATF and other Fenn comments that do provide some helpful guidelines that help prevent going too far into the weeds.

            One sticking point with your comment is based on [your] interpretation of one of Fenn’s comments[ATF]. [The problem is you won’t know it until you have the TC in hand.] I believe that reading the entire exchange and understanding what is said possibly changes that premise… or not.

          • ManOwar, Liked. Staying Square and grounded with a solid base. I find this helps my free throw shooting. My problem is my court slopes down and if I push off too hard it is counter productive. Developing a nice fade away though. g

          • Ken, even Forrest has said that the searcher, and I take that to mean any searcher, won’t know if they have any of the clues correct unless they find the treasure. How could you know for sure you have any correct? I can think of only 2 ways, one: if you have found the TC, and two: If Forrest himself told you that you had the discovered the correct clue. That’s it, you cannot prove you have a correct clue until the TC has been located.
            Do you know of another way? I’d been interested to hear it. Good luck.

          • OK FD….

            This one is on me… apologies all around.

            Chalk it up to being a poor typist and lazy proof reader.
            But my last post tried to explain the thoughts behind the comment.
            As basically stated; we can’t find the first clue without knowing “the location” [singular] …Of All the ClueS. [emphasizing for clarify]

            Other wise we are just tossing dart at a big map. And as explained in the other post… I think fenn hinted to the “right map” with the right “details” in the correct “Location”….

            This, in part, is the idea of confidence and certainty of where the site is… beforehand.

            Again, that mess up is on me… my bad… hope the cleans things up for ya.

            Ha! I never claimed to be intelligent or talented, just good lookin.

        • Seeker, it’s not that hard to find a possible stop sign in the poem for when to switch from vehicle to botg….the semi colon.

          That wasn’t tough.

          • FD,

            You’re using the semicolon [ which connects to sentences ] as the stopping point between a drive and botg combination.. basically, making the connection and disconnection [transition] where to do this…… I get the idea / concept.

            Yet again, from the first two clues and driving away from them, to get to that stop [ signified as the semicolon in the poem ] we still need the next clue or clues in the correct order, “solved” to do that.
            Only we have been told that only the first two clues were solved [ for how many years?]

            To use the semicolon [ and I like the idea ] we still need as little as the next clue in order [ clue 3 ] or more to utilize the semicolon, and its meaning for; to spot driving and hike from there.

            Unless you feel that;
            lines 7 – 9 and/or 10 in the poem [ prior to the semi colon ] are all one clue or somehow not clues [ yet some kinda information].
            You would need to explain * how * we can get to the stopping point without the correct 3rd clue or more clues deciphered …

            Because all I’m seeing is; drive to WWsH and drive down the canyon to stop and start hiking at whatever NPUYC refers to.
            What happened to everything else-?- NF? hoB? Meek?
            To even drive past or put in somehow at hoB, that clue needs deciphering.

            Sorry, just saying it’s the semicolon that indicates a stopping, doesn’t automatically make it plausible… when folks told fenn the first clues and then walked by the chest. w
            Without correctly mentioning the 3rd or other clues?
            That would mean we can actually skip knowing clues and just drive to the ‘end’ of “nigh” find a creek and then HLnWH.. all from just clues 1 and 2 solved / indicated.

          • Seeker, I have no idea what you are talking about.

            I simply don’t see the problems that you keep bringing up. We simply don’t know everything that the few searchers told f.

            I have no desire to try and reach conclusions, or base a theory or solution, on stuff like that when I, or anyone else but f, knows much about.

            It’s partly why I don’t take your theory seriously.

            Stick with what you know. Focus on the poem is my approach. Not crap that I’ll never know the answer to.

          • Seeker, FD, why people have walked by the other clues and the TC after finding the first 2 or 3 clues is because they didn’t know they had the clues. If they don’t know that they have discovered the clues then it only makes sense that they weren’t going to find the next clue. If you are lost and don’t know where you are you can only guess at which way to go. These people had no chance to find the next clue because they didn’t even know that they had any clue solved. So much for that!

            Now as to Fenn’s comment of people telling him where they were and Fenn saying that they had mentioned one or two clues and walked right on by the TC or the next clue. I think he was just using “walk” as a figure of speech, meaning “went by”, as he has also said the same using “went by” on occasions. It’s unfortunate that sometimes that he uses words that he didn’t realize he had said or even wrote, especially small words that can mean many different things. It’s just what pop’s up in his head at the moment.

            Look at the NM video where he said some things he wished he hadn’t. Also, when he said the TC was buried several times and then had to correct himself. I wouldn’t bet the farm on “walked by the TC” statement. I think it’s more like “they went right on by the next clue or clues to the TC.” Of course they did, they didn’t even know they had the first clue solved.

            Those statements only clogs up thinking, planning and using maps as a way to solve the poem and its clues, imo. Work on WWWH. Why is it so difficult to discover this place? IMO it because it’s right in front of our face. Everyone seems to be looking for it all over the poem. IMO it’s right there in the words WHERE WARM WARTERS HALT. Go no further, look into that phrase and you will find this place. BTY Seeker, “walked or went by” suggest a point to point solution.

            I think the answer to each clue is just like that, the answer is found within each clues’ phrase, i.e., BTHOB,
            NPUYC, HLAWH, etc.,…..look for an answer within the words. His words are simple but remember he is a wordsmith. I think this is maybe the first time that this idea has been brought up, correct me if I’m wrong.

            This is an opinion not to be taken as fact.
            I hope this will help someone to discover where the treasure lies.

          • ManOwar ~ ‘BTY Seeker, “walked or went by” suggest a point to point solution.’

            Sure it could… and then again… it could be suggesting the clues are closer than most might think, and that would explain how folks went from clues 1 n 2 “went by” the remaining 7 clues [ which encompasses the whole poem, I know that because I had to take my shoes of to count that high] and “walked” by the chest.

            This is what I’m talking about when I say; we may have a precondition mind set when reading the poem. We are thinking this hunt as any other ‘conventional style treasure hunt. All I’m saying is… fenn may not wanted *his* to be conventional. So, I’m attempting to see how the solution can unfold by what we have been told… plan and observe.

            What do we need to plan for and what is it we need to observe?
            Both “plan and observe” are about time and seeing… and so are many other words in the poem, while other words are about situations – one may find themselves in.
            Coincidence or intentional?

            But Like I said before… if you can’t remove the idea of stomping point to point is the only way to read the poem, ya just won’t adhere to this theory at all.
            So when someone says they are open minded… they truly need to be for this theory to be considered. Just leave that precondition mind set of a point to point method out of the equation.

            LOL But I know most just can’t do it. They want to fight to hang on to it.. even when simply chatting about something that is not a stomping mode.
            It says a lot for human behavior.
            A good salesman’s know about human behavior.

          • Hi Manowar — just one chime in here:

            “…why people have walked by the other clues and the TC after finding the first 2 or 3 clues is because they didn’t know they had the clues. If they don’t know that they have discovered the clues then it only makes sense that they weren’t going to find the next clue.”

            Convenient theory, but dead wrong in my opinion. Plenty of people were at WWWH by design, not luck. Did they “know” it was Forrest’s WWWH? No — not that level of certainty (no chest, no true certainty). But they knew it enough to take the time and money to move their carcasses there. That speaks to their confidence.

            Searchers can try to make themselves feel better by assuming that all the two-clue solvers were lucky bystanders, but the facts do not support that. They told Forrest they were there, they told him why, and he concluded that they had figured out / deciphered the first two clues. That’s not luck.

          • zaphod, wrote:

            “Searchers can try to make themselves feel better by assuming that all the two-clue solvers were lucky bystanders, but the facts do not support that. They told Forrest they were there, they told him why, and he concluded that they had figured out / deciphered the first two clues. That’s not luck.”

            You are right, the searchers went there for a reason. They thought they had the right WWH, but they didn’t “know” for sure that it was. Not knowing for sure vs knowing for sure is two different things.

            I never said it was luck. And, yes Forrest concluded they had the first two clues, but not them, they only thought the did.

            One: if you “knew for sure” it was the correct WWH and CD then you would be more determined to find the next clue, You would really dig down and not give up and move on. Wouldn’t you be so determine knowing for “sure”?, You would be, what did Fenn say, 50% of the way or something like that, I can’t remember the exact quote.

            Two: If you only thought that you had the right WWH and CD and then not find the next clue after trying several times. You would then probably just give up, or leave the poem -by leaving the area. Remember you only believe it’s the right WWH and CD, but just think if you really ‘knew”, like Fenn told you it’s right, you would never give up getting to the next clue.

            See what I’m saying here, many thought they were correct but couldn’t get the next clue, they just gave up or left the area of the poem. You may ask why they couldn’t find the next clue, I think it’s because they lacked the confidence of their WWH and CD when the next clue didn’t come easy. But your confidence would be soaring if you “really knew” and you would never give up on the next clue and at some point I believe you would find it and then the rest of the clues.

            IMO: You will always have doubt because of the way the treasure hunt is set up. Doubt is what stops searchers.

          • It seems that the more you think and argue about the first two clue solvers and the reasons why they were not able to find the chest it kinda proves the merits for Seekers’ theory.

            Forrest uses his words carefully, if you read all his comments regarding the first two clue solvers they all seem to indicate how close they were to the spot but decided to walk/pass (moved away) towards the next clues and away from the area (left the poem). Forrest said: “They didn’t realize they were so close”. That only means they ‘stomped away from the area’ and failed to recognized (observed) what was in front of them. Where they hell bent in walking the required 10 miles suggestion from TFTW (LOL) ? Or was their 3rd clue at some driving distance away? Both scenarios are wrong apparently.

          • I still don’t get this focus on the searchers who told f the first two clues but walked by the tc. We don’t know exactly how they went wrong. We never will. We haven’t read their correspondence.

            So, all you can come up with are possible scenarios. If you can come up with a reasonable scenario that explains why a point to point search could get derailed at the third clue then the point to point search is still a viable method.

            And it’s not that hard to find reasonable possibilities for why those few searchers didn’t understand the third clue and any after…they didn’t have a good map and all that entails.

            Seeker still has a major problem with his theory if I didn’t miss a reply. He says (paraphrased) that one must know all the clues before figuring out wwwh. Plenty of f ATF quotes that suggest otherwise.

          • Zap, ManOwar, etc., The conversation about the two clue solvers is one that gets mentioned way more than some other topics. My thoughts on this have varied back and forth like most serious searchers. As far back as 2012 we have Fenn confirming that several months prior folks had indeed mentioned the first two clues blah blah. That’s pretty early in the search.

            Anyone that has actually gone botg with a potential solve presumably goes with a very high level of confidence. I can’t imagine too many serious searchers… especially early ones just casually heading out on a lark. Regardless of those circumstances… it seems plausible that folks that actually had the first two clues figured correctly and went there did so but did not have any of the remaining clues correctly defined. To our knowledge[collectively], this has not changed for seven years now…. with the exception of one comment from Fenn mentioning a maybe on clues three and four.

            This is where all of us can say whatever reason we want to fit is the reason why things go haywire. Just about any theory could be a possibility… even Seeker’s idea. I think it becomes pretty clear that the basics are that the third clue and how it relates to the first two clues has not been figured out… period. My thoughts keep circulating back to the idea that the problem revolves around a simple directional problem… how the first clue relates to the second clue and then moves or changes direction in relation to the correct idea of the third clue. In this case it could be physical movement or a visual change[ that’s for seeker]. Either way the problem is still a failure to correctly decipher the third clue.

            Folks got there early on in the Chase… and that was not purely by chance… even if they did not fully understand. To me, this says that the first two clues cannot be that complicated at a very low level… but entirely loose enough on a higher level to send folks spiraling out of the picture without the critical ingredients to successfully move towards the treasure. This thought makes me aware that the clues and the hidey place could very well be in a very compact area and thousands of folks have passed by with no idea whatsoever.

            Go right straight to it and sure for the one that did and other uncomplicated comments from Fenn assures me that the correct solution CAN be figured out and instill a higher sense of [knowing] vs a poke and a hope.

          • Nice post Ken, I agree with all of it. The third clue is the kill clue when it comes to solutions. Even people that may have got it, or somehow managed to make it to the area of the fourth clue likely didn’t do so purposefully.

            The more I think about it the more I think the clues are all located in a compact area as well. If I were to make a BOTG treasure hunt I cannot see the reason for including clues that require driving. “Begin” may just mean begin walking at IT WWWsH. It is highly probable in my mind that the 2 clue solvers believed that TFTW meant they needed to travel a long distance and went to far.

          • FD, ~’ Seeker said -That one must know all the clues before figuring out wwwh. Plenty of f ATF quotes that suggest otherwise.’
            I didn’t say that.. but I can see how you falsely read into it as that. { WWsH is not mentioned because I don’t know what or where that little !@#$ is. Hence if you don’t have that puppy ~ don’t go.

            I have even stated we may not know hoB prior, and only figure it out on site because it needs to be *seen* “correctly” from ground level. I mean, that is the main idea of a “physical presence is need”.. and not so much, just to pick up the chest.
            ~ MW’s ~ “Rocking chair ideas can lead one to the first few clues, but a physical presence is needed to complete the solve.”
            Now IF having ‘THE’ right map or having GE as your guide [ either or is equally the same according to fenn ]… in a stomping mode theory we should be able to solve all the clues right to the point where we can go and pick up the chest… apparently that can’t be done. What can be done is… knowing *what to do( on site to complete the task… how to proceed.

            That is what was lacking with searcher *on site, who solved two clues, and got stumped on the 3rd and 4th clues, only to leave the poem and walk by the remaining clues and the chest* They left all the physical clues by not proceed with the instructions.. which are clues that many force to be places.

            ManOwar… searchers didn’t quit and walk away, fenn stated as such; he was asked why searcher quit; “they didn’t quit, the left the poem”
            There’s a big difference between *giving up* and not *following the poem correct.* They left the poem because they were in stomp mode… lol… and no matter how many time i attempt to explain this, it goes in one ear and out the other with some of you guys.

            Logical scenario ~They arrived with a good knowledge of what WWsH and the CD. But this is where everything fell apart. They needed to understand NF,BTFTW [Yes Jake, it is a clue. Just not a physical clue or a distances that needs to be made up] The precondition mindset of stomping point to point has searcher trying to find a distance and they move on with their guesses of that distance.
            I have also said, [FD], hOB may have been seen by those searchers and they automatically went to it. { as ManO war said, who would go there? in so many words } again that was the mindset to start with… go to a clue’s reference. And again, they left the poem, because the didn’t follow the instruction.. they wanted everything to be directions.

            In this theory… hoB is the blaze… the confidence of the challenge is not about going to clues, it’s about know what to do when you see them. The first thing is: don’t go; it’s too far away from where you actually need to be… at WWsH

            This is what I call the poem’s insurance policy. The precondition mindset of needed to stomp point point is the flaw in “following” the clues vs. understanding how to “follow” the “Instruction”… I’d bet a nickle down that some have stood right at hoB, yet still had the uncontrollable need to go and look for NPFTM… this “place” does not exist in the real world… it is the “situation” the searcher is now in to complete the task. They need to stay put at WWsH and watch { Tarry scant.. linger a small amount – this is all about time, time needed to be spent on site }.

            Tarry scant with marvel gaze… at WH and observe HL [ hoB… the blaze].

            The clues didn’t exist when fenn was a kid. because he didn’t create the clues until 1988 and beyond. But most of the clues reference did.
            IMO, clues references are physical landscapes features and instructions vs. directions.
            WWsH – Physical place. First clue
            CD – Physical place and a direction to look towards to guide the searcher.
            NF- is telling the searcher what they need to see is just that.. NF away. BUT it’s too far to walk to… don’t go or you leave the poem.
            hoB- Physical place,only seen ‘correctly with a bit of imagination from WWsH… not a map or GE.. but can be seen from them only not truly recognized properly or as fenn intended. That is accomplished by seeing it from on vantage point.. can ya guess what that is?
            End of stanza one… Three physical places. The first two can be found on a map/Ge the 3rd only recognized on site
            One directional clue – CD
            and one clue that say… don’t leave the dang poem BTFTW.
            Stanza three holds the remaining instructions; using the blaze [ that was “found”] but not “discovered” … to discover the blaze, you had to have been “wise” to know what hoB is for… beforehand. Discover mean.. knowing what you found as to what it is.

            Ya’ll can count them as you wish.. I don’t count clues.
            By attempting to count clues, it forces clue to actually be something like, a place or a feature and force the idea of directions between places… hence the birth of the conventional treasure hunt… stomping point to point.

            Right or wrong with this theory…I doubt very much there is anything conventional about fenn’s solution.

            Oz, thanks for at least attempting to see the possibilities of the theory… but I’ll ask… Do you see a flaw, something not fitting, something questionable that possibly can’t work?

          • Ummm…Seeker,

            You did say that and you did use “WWWsH” in the quote. Here it is…

            “Like I said prior…we need to know the locations of all the clues, first, and foremost, to find the correct WWWsH out of the many.”

          • Seeker, here is the copy and paste of said post…

            on August 25, 2019 at 7:51 pm said:
            Like any attempt to solve the poem in any manner… if it doesn’t work… go back to clue one, right?
            In a point to point method a searcher could get something backwards while stomping place to place… so I guess they could try a different way, over and over and over until the area is exhausted. Hmm how many trip from home would be needed for that?

            In my theory… IF you can’t discover hoB… WWsH is likely wrong. And Like I said prior… we need to know the locations of all the clues, first and foremost, to find the correct WWsH out of the many.

          • FD ~ ‘that one must know all the clues before figuring out wwwh. Plenty of f ATF quotes that suggest otherwise.’
            That was your paraphrase…

            Then you posted what was said ~ “Like I said prior…we need to know the locations of all the clues, first, and foremost, to find the correct WWWsH out of the many.”

            And like I said; I can see how you see your paraphrasing..
            But it’s not what I said. You left out the “location” OF all the clues [ not the locationS of each individual clue]. That is all the clues combined at one location.

            I have even posted fenn’s comment about ‘certainty of the location beforehand” for just that reason. what I’m saying is…No “path will be direct” [the clues] without knowing where site is first and foremost. WE can not find WWsH without knowing where all the clues are located, before hand, [physical clues]… and that is why a good map is needed [ or GE ] we need the right map known of.
            The question is, how do we know what map is right? or how do we know where to point GE?
            My hint; only forrest fire knows.

            **That implies we should [ even early one searchers ] figure out something about this site… “learned” where it is… *to* learn the correct WWsH out of the many.**
            I think that is a subtle hint from the book. But not necessarily needed. Just helpful “with the clues” all of them.

            I should clarify.. I personally don’t think fenn’s comment about… there are many WWsH in the RM’s… to be of different things or different features that could refer to WWsH. I think he was only taking about one thing and there are many of them, when he talked about WWsH in his poem.

          • Hi Ken: good post (as usual!) In particular, I think you brought up the most helpful takeaway regarding the early success of two-clue solvers over 6 years ago: that identifying the general nature of WWWH is not as hard as people think, and that even correctly guessing its specific location is doable. But “knowing” that it’s correct (beyond a reasonable doubt) is another matter.

            Each searcher has some confidence threshold that must be passed in order to commit to a BOTG trip, and an even higher threshold to keep them there when subsequent clue solutions are not immediately forthcoming. Little is to be gained from speculating about the current status of such searchers. It is enough to know that there was a long delay before there was even a possible 3- or 4-clue solver. But even that information is only helpful for excluding from consideration solutions that involve a trivially obvious 3rd clue answer.

            “This thought makes me aware that the clues and the hidey place could very well be in a very compact area and thousands of folks have passed by with no idea whatsoever.”

            I agree 100%.

          • Just to be clear…to me, saying “we need to know the locations of all the clues” means solving all of the clues. How can one “know” a location of a clue without solving it? Heck, even f has said “ Until someone finds the treasure they will not know for sure that they have discovered the first clue.“. (Tarry Scant).

          • FD,

            Being very picky of my explanation and my use of “knowing”… about the location of the searcher site.

            That’s ok I get it. If you can’t dispute an overall theory, might as well pick apart the an explanation with a single word or two, but complete skip the idea behind that explanation.

            So in an extra attempt… I have said fenn is telling us;
            “I warned the path would not be direct for those who had no certainty of the location beforehand, but sure for the one who did.” { note ‘certainty, sure, beforehand..I’ll get back to those in a second}
            I have explained the path imo is the clues themselves, and explained the location in my mind is; where the site is for searchers to search for all the clues… starting with, and need, the first clues [ no shortcut BS ]
            You use one comment to make the implication that we can not know until the time one finds the chest {comment}
            ~ “Until someone finds the treasure they will not know for sure that they have discovered the first clue.“.

            Sure, sure, that is an absolute. No searcher can claim a solve until there is **proof** of a solve… common senses.

            However, it seems to me, it was very convenient to leave out other comments fenn made;
            Nailing down the first clue or stay home. [ you know it has well as 300,000 other searcher do] Even now, that’s not really saying we need to know something or have certainty about something. it’s common sense we need somewhere to start with any clue that is consider the first.

            Lets add into play yet another comment; If you don’t have WWsH ya got nothing [that as been post a few times in the last few week in its exact working… I ain’t doing others homework, anymore ]

            Should he be warming us that the “location” is needed to be certain of, AND that certainty is to be known of “beforehand, as well as, the certainty is of the path being direct…and the path is of the clues, because they, and only they, get us closer to the chest, and, we have to have the first clue or we have don’t have a leg to stand on, YET, there are many to choose from in all of the RM’s… What is it we need to have certainty OF?

            I’ll revert back to the warning. certainty of the “location” beforehand. not so much the path.. the path [ clues] are only direct when we know- opps sorry- are certain of where they are.

            What are the tools we are told to use? The book? Maps?
            so how could we possibly know — opps sorry “be certain” of a location beforehand… Might is be the map fenn talks about? Might it be the map Forrest Fire burned? Might it be a location within a reasonable size to actually searcher compared to a state [ for example ]
            Yet we still need to nail down WWsH with in that location… in comparison to look for a single representation of whatever WWsH is.. within the [now known] area… of some 1400 miles of possibilities.
            Would that be considered certain enough? IDK I have said IDK… this post is just about how to read the poem in a method of observing the clues

            So now you know that the word *know* I used is, for the wording ~ “certainty of the location” which by definition of certain / certainty; Quality of being reliable; Firm conviction that something is the case; A fact that is definitely true……. and those are the common usages of the word.
            Oh! and some synonyms of certain / certainty; confident, sure, truth, fact, know …

            OK I hope that is all settled now.

            You did ask a very good question at the end of your post.
            My example above seems fairly reasonable… but as said… IDK what WWsH is, nor hoB etc. and I have said I not sure of the location, but I have ideas.
            The whole point is… with fenn’s comments [ Especially his warning comment ] the clue’s path [including the first clue] can only be direct with knowing… crap! there i go again… having “certainty” of where they all are to be found. so we can figure out the rest.
            Or we can throw a dart at a big map and hope to come close to the correct first clue… whatever floats your boat.

          • Seeker, you said…

            “That’s ok I get it. If you can’t dispute an overall theory, might as well pick apart the an explanation with a single word or two, but complete skip the idea behind that explanation.”

            This is how theories are analyzed. Sorry if you can’t understand that. Many a theory start to fail when finally the basic, small details start to emerge. The small details count big time, you know that.

          • Seeker, I think your theory is starting to leak more now after you get further into explaining it.

            I think it’s got problems with how you define “closer”, as in, the clues get us closer to the tc.

            How do the clues get us closer to the tc if we don’t travel to them?

            I’m didn’t bring up other f quotes like nailing down the first clue, as those type of quotes only deal with the first clue.
            My post above was about all the clues.

            It brings me back to what I’ve said many times before, even on this thread. Imo, one won’t know if you have the first clue correct, or most of the following clues, because you’ll only be able to know the hints are correct that come before the first clue. You’ll know the path is correct only because the clues hinge of knowing the objective hints.

          • ken: “To me, this says that the first two clues cannot be that complicated at a very low level”

            Makes perfect sense to me as well.
            As far as the clues being “very compact”, I don’t see that in the poem, seeing canyons can be long as well as creeks and of course “not far, but too far to walk” doesn’t sound “very compact” to me unless there is subterfuge.

        • ManOwar,

          Folks keep saying I’m following ATF as if I think they are clues… even when I describe how I think the poem’s clues work, in detail, without fortune cookies explanation.

          YET, I do utilize those ATF’s to check and balance my thought process no matter how I attempt to read the poem and decipher the clues.
          Otherwise… Mountains N. of SF could be the Adirondacks, Canada could be in play, or the chest could be at the Cody Museum…
          I don’t pick and choose one ATF over another to make a theory… however… if I sat here and explain ever AFT in some manner to be truthful to any concept / method / thought… Dal’s site would crash.

          So here’s what I’ll do… throw any ATF at me and why you think it may not work in aligning with the poem and poem’s clues [for this theory], and we can go from there.

          I’ll even start: First off… I think your idea that I’m not following the poem, is different to my usage of the word “follow.” Follow can be as a physical tracking, idea [ which everyone seems to be using as a stomping mode process ] while I think of it by its meaning; act according to *(an instruction or precept).*
          “act accordingly” is to understand what is expected of a searcher to complete the task. It doesn’t have to require point to point movement. All it really requires is to know where the “act of following those instruction” unfolds and understand the “instruction” [and yes, physical place are involved as explained and the reason for this thread]

          So right from the get go.. you and I may differ on how we read the words in the poem. That’s ok..lol we don’t have to agree.

          BUT IF, you can’t except the factual meaning of one definition of the word “follow” as follow the instructions precisely, as instructed for this *theory / method*… there’s no sense going any further.
          I’ll add this; some like to say I’m using alternative meanings. I can’t really disagree… each word as different usages… Yet, by saying alternative, it seems to imply I’m somehow NOT using the *correct* meanings.

          I say that is our job to figure out which meanings and usages of the words fenn deliberately chose, to read the poem as “HE” [capped for emphases] may have intended, and not how WE hope it should be.
          Hence the idea this must be a stomping solution from one point to a different point only. That is precondition mind set I mentioned. And I think it’s not only the wrong way to read the poem… but fenn was rely on us doing just that.

          Want to play?

          • Seeker,

            About your ATFs from ff, I’m going to try emailing ff if his ATFs will help in aiding to located the clues and treasure or use them as a check and balance. Just curious whether he will reply.

            I don’t think most of his ATF comments will help.


          • Hi Rubber to Boots: Forrest has said and written a lot since TTOTC was published, and there are quite a few ATF’s that can be used to eliminate bad solutions. For instance, you don’t see any folks today searching in Canada, Utah or Idaho, do you? Or atop any mountain, at the bottom of a lake, or in a cave, tunnel, mine, outhouse, graveyard or desert.

          • Boots,

            I can tell you the answer… Nope.

            ATFs are Q&A’s we searchers ask. Interviews others/reporters ask questions to fenn about the chase, statement placed on web owners sites [ talking about the chase] to have posted on their site [s]
            They are in no way; as you say; stated to *help in aiding to located the clues and treasure or use them as a check and balance.*

            I use them [ for a check and balance ] because I believe things fenn says are truthful in nature to the challenge / chase… I’ll clarify I use them *all*… I don’t pick and choose only the ones that might work in relationship to given solution I’m working… nor make excuses that fenn is only telling 85% of the truth.

            But you go ahead and ask if ya like.. the way you stated that question as I read your post-?- the answer has to be, No. Because we already know he doesn’t do that… he has said he won’t help/aid a searcher. But has in the past level the playing field on occasions when he felt it was important to do so.
            I’ll even go back to the Today Show “clues” and fenn later saying, they are useless clues… which lit a fire storm of of conversations. However, those comment on the show are stated truthfully by fenn, imo. and we have other comment to back them up.

            Example; ~ The chest is in an outhouse.

            Does that aid a searcher to get closer to the end of the tack? or point anyone in any certain direction or in solving a clue? Nope.
            Yet when we add: the treasure is not associated with a structure, and yet another, the chest is not under a something man-made… and even some second pieces of information; one being [ in part ] when a searcher was talking about home of Brown… fenn is reported saying something to the affect; ~remember I said the treasure is not associated with a structure.

            While none or all those comments actually aid in “helping decipher clues” or “find the chest” they do have a pattern for thought.
            So it’s up to you if you personally think they are clue helpers, or if they just provide a thought process of what is not plausible… Like thinking the treasure chest is hidden in a museum idea… a building / structure.

            Now if we take other comments about; comprehensive knowledge of might help, or if you know the geographical location of the clues etc etc.. and think about not associated with a structure… One can conclude reasonably that because fenn is the creator of the *all clues* they are *all directly* related to his trove / treasure, and shouldn’t be related to a structure by default of their created sole purpose.

            That above, is an example [in a short example] of how I check and balance a theory / method. It’s more about common sense, than the idea of forcing a single comment to be golden on its own.

            I’ll even add: there is a difference between ATFs and factual deliberate comments from fenn.
            Those factual comments [ for example ] the chest is not in water… can not be disputed in any shape or form. fenn made that [ and other comments ] in a manner that there can be no challenging them as anything else but the full truth.
            LOL but even before that direct comment, fenn stated in as Q&A; although I’m not ready to say the chest is not in water… in a Q&A.. makes one think he did tell us, if we only listened, before he *had to tell us* because of searchers putting themselves into situations that were not remotely reasonable…
            Knock your socks off, Rubber boots. I liked to see, if and how, fenn response to your question.

          • Seeker,

            I should have here but did with the email to ff about excluding where not to look and not do, should his past comments be used…..etc. This help?

            Almost every word in the poem needs to be followed, interpretation is different for some words, this is what is messing things up IMO

            To each our own, using a ATF check & balance system with the poem’s clues will not help, because the poem’s clues will be the check & balance.

            I follow your theory, but I don’t agree.

            Best regards

          • Boots,
            Here’s an interview and one question asked in that interview is below;
            Q~ Who else knows where the treasure is buried?
            A~ I never said it was buried. I’ve avoided that word. I hid it. I don’t mean to imply that it isn’t buried. I just didn’t want to give that as a clue. It took me two trips in my car to hide the treasure. And I can tell you an 80-year-old man is not going to make a trip into a canyon, then come up and go down again. As for who else knows, I’m the only one. My wife doesn’t know.

            Two things before we chat about this. fenn says he never said it was buried [and in many ATFs he always says hidden and mostly corrects someone when they used the word buried] But there is an audio of fenn saying just that… the buried treasure.
            The second thing is; fenn in ever ATF I ever heard or read, repeats “two trips from my car” In this one Q&A [ the only one I know of ] he says; two trips in my car to hide the treasure.

            With that said; I tend to look the other way when I come across what seems obvious mistakes or contradictions to the “dozens” of other ATFs .. examples above. We can’t expect perfection all the time. But I give credit to the fact fenn has held his own in keeping his answers and comments the same after 100’s is not 1000’s of questions and inquiries for the past 9 years.

            So did fenn walk into a canyon back up and did the same again? Its seems that is not an option, by this comment.
            Did he drive a canyon? Well, if all we use is this one comment, we could say that is a possibility. However, we can’t just stop here… we have many other comments to consider.
            One being, he followed his clues when he hide the chest. OK so he could have drove once down into a canyon and drove to the last clue he cloud and hiked from there… a reasonable assumption. Until we have his comments of the first two clues and what folks did from there… the walked past the treasure chest, or at least within 500′ of it.

            Now, the problem. For searcher two go from the first two clues ans drive into said canyon… they must have a place to stop at. This must be accomplished by having the next clue [3] solved or more in the correct order for a driving solve to be plausible / actually usable for a solve. A driving solve requires a clue to have them stop… and I’ll add: it can’t be a later clue without clue 3 or more deciphered. Otherwise the idea all the clues must be followed precisely is false if we can skip other clues.

            Using this above Q&A from Peoples.com…
            Does it help answer a clue or clues, or aid a searcher to get closer?
            I say, No.
            But what it does is make searchers think… is driving into a canyon truly plausible with only the first two clues know and still get out of the vehicle in the correct solution spot to walk past the chest?

            What the ATF’s do [ in most cases ] is eliminate ideas that can cause a good solve go bad while proceeding through a solve.
            Fenn has implied and finally stated the chest is not in water… are you going to follow a solve where it leads you to a watery grave for the chest?

            Folks don’t seem to listen when I say the ATF can work at a check and balance.. but they love to try and disprove the idea by saying I use them for solving the clues. That can’t be done… but they can keep ya from doing something that might be wrong to do and kill a good location, and the clues there.

            That’s why the theory I suggest hasn’t been challenge directly, so far. All I’m hearing is i’m using ATF to make a solve… I guess my explanation didn’t explain the process well enough… or… diehard stompers might feel they wasted a lot of times on a method that may not work, and don’t want alternatives thoughts to be remotely possible.

            ~~~Forget what I do to get to where I am… [folks don’t seem to understand the background of that anyways]… tell me why the method presented in the post /thread is not realistically workable or plausible.~~~
            That’s the reason for posting it in the first place.

          • Seeker, your theory has been directly and reasonably challenged on this thread. You might want to reread some of the posts.

          • FD,

            Give me an example of one… thus far I haven’t read one, but I may have missed a couple post.

            Yet, so far, most of the arguments against observing from WWsH is simply that folks don’t like the meaning of “take it in” as looking, observing, *take something in” visually… even though it is a definition… I have posted from different dictionaries.
            You can’t argue the definition. Not even fenn could argue the definition.
            All he could say is that it’s not the correct one… because he would know which meaning he used.

            Other argument is that folks don’t like my interpretation of the word “place” as its definition of a “situation.” Again, you can’t argue the meaning. The part you can argue is my interpretation.. only its been argued not because it can’t work, but only it keep a searcher in one place… so some think it can’t work because a searcher isn’t moving.

            That’s not a good argument against the theory… and more to the idea of just not liking the theory.
            Kinda like the idea that IF the solve is presented in such a way it can only be solved in a certain month and within a day or two of that month… doesn’t make it wrong… just not popular.

            I’m not looking for popular, or a pat on the back… I’m asking, what is not feasible?
            So, what might I have missed? or better… what haven’t I explained well enough, or having trouble understanding and needs more clarification?

            But… if all anyone is going to do is say; that can’t work in my solve, or you have to move point to point to correctly solve it.. those aren’t *arguments against* the method… that’s simply disagreeing with the method because of the precondition thinking of what a solve should be like… without entertaining the possibility.

            Sorry, I can talk till I’m blue in the face if folks don’t want to budge from the stomping mode process. But that’s not *reasonable or direct challenge* about the theory being flawed or unusable.

          • Okay Seeker,

            I think most would agree that Forrest is a simple man with simple thoughts. Just read his books. Everything he writes is straightforward, somewhat as I do, simple logic and common sense.

            For instance, take the “it” in BIWWWH. What does “it” mean in that phrase? What do you think Forrest meant by that “it”? Well I’ll give you an example:
            Forrest wrote in his book TTOTC on page 131 and 132,”At almost-eighty, I figured it was time to act. So I wrote a poem containing nine clues that if followed precisely, will lead to the end of my rainbow and the treasure.” Next, the poem is shown, So the poem is a treasure hunt, right?

            So when he wrote BIWWWH he means “it” to be the treasure hunt, as begin the treasure hunt where warm waters halt. He doesn’t need to be redundant and say treasure hunt , just replace it with “it”, See what I’ve done there.

            He has even said “it” was the first “clue”. Now what do you think I was referring to when I said “it” in the last sentence? Yes, it’s a reference to what has been already mentioned. Just as Forrest mentioned in the story right before his poem.

            The only logical and common sense definition of “it” is the treasure hunt, the search, your hunt, or the chase. All meaning the same thing.

            As far as after the fact statements, some directive ones i.e., not in an outhouse, 5,000 to 10,200 ft., wwh not a dam, not in water, and not buried in a graveyard are all okay to consider as true and helpful, but some searchers knowing the first two – four clues tells us nothing except you can guess what it might mean. And, that is all you have with that; it’s a guess.

            You say the point to point method hasn’t work. How do you now that? I can then say that your method of viewing hasn’t worked. So there you have it!…It has not been verified that the treasure has been found , but that doesn’t mean that it hasn’t. It could have been found years ago but never disclosed. And don’t tell me that Fenn would know, lol, the only way he would know is if the finder tells him or he goes back to the spot and looked. I would not tell, I might suggest that it’s been found but wouldn’t say where or when, or give out clues that could be confirmed.

            So if you found the correct WWWH you would not move from there and only view to find HOB, HLWH. the Blaze, and you could just view the TC, haha…If you saw the HOB would you then leave your WWH or just stay where you are? Of course you would move from point to point!
            I rest my case. Good luck viewing!!!

          • IT, is a big part of understanding the observation method, so is NF, BTFTW for the same reason as IT in this theory., and they work hand in hand with other words in the poem as an observational method.
            And fenn has told us we need to “plan and observe” LOL that’s an ATF as well, right?
            Do we toss that aside because it may not show up on a cheat sheet somewhere?

            But do you really think it {IT} is *needed* at all since we know it’s a treasure hunt from the book alone?
            I can see why you think it refers to the hunt. but are you skipping over the ATFs you didn’t mention as fact?
            ~ every word was deliberate. Is that a Fact? or Not?
            ~ shouldn’t be discounted any words… Fact or Not?
            ~Looked up words and definitions of words changed the poem many times and worked on it for 15 years… the poem came out exactly as he wanted. Fact or Not?
            ~ say we need to nail down the first clue or stay home and says, if we don’t have the first clue we have nothing.
            Fact or Not?

            If we’re not taking this information as truthful.. why the hell bother asking the man any questions at all?

            Honestly, which seems more reasonable… being told what we already know.. that this is a treasure hunt? Or that we may not understand IT without serious consideration to why it might not be redundant?

            You said; that I said, a point to point is not working. Then you said, you could say the same about this theory. Really?

            You can read hundreds and hundreds of solves and all are of the same method [stomping].. and all have failed to produce a chest. Statistically, it has failed 100% with as many as 300,000 people trying/participating in one form or another.

            *So far, as far as I can tell*… no one has mentioned or tried an observational solve.
            Will someone, anyone, show me a solve that anyone has even attempted a solve in the manner shown on this thread? or anyone lurker want to jump in and tell of their solve working in the same manner?
            I’d love to hear from you… if you’re out there.

            ManOwar. sure, I can see how you can come to that idea of IT is a hunt.
            But it doesn’t really explain why it {IT} is needed to be repeated.
            So, there *can* be another reason fenn might have wanted IT to be *where he placed it in his poem* that he says he didn’t write but, created, and felt like an architect blueprinting the poem, right?

            While fenn maybe a simple man in personality and nature… he has said this was one of the few things he ever planned, and there’s a trove as well, worth a million buck plus up for grabs… Yet, you want to believe IT is just repeating what we already knew / told about in the book…

            At the top of this page fenn answered a question;
            “Craig, there is no substitute for thinking and *planning and observing* and looking at maps, unless it’s the desire to keep it simple.f”
            Can you tell me if that ATF should be counted as fact and not?
            I don’t see this on your list of facts or on the cheat sheet.,, just wondering…

          • Seeker,

            I’m not saying his ATF statements aren’t truthful. Sure I believe them to be true. What I’m getting at is many of them won’t help in solving the clues in the poem.

            You say that only you are trying the viewing theory, maybe that’s because most if not everyone thinks it’s a long shot and not a viable way to solve the poem. 300,000 people as you say doing the point to point method, well that should tell you something. And, you, we don’t have the knowledge of it being found or not.

            Sure I use the point to point method, but I’m not saying just go from here to there without viewing the place for further clues. Sure, think, plan, look, view, maps, search at each location for things that will help to solve, and point you in the right direction to the next clue. What is the benefit to just looking and thinking without moving? Surely, you would have to move from point to point at some point in you search.

            I can see your point of “it” being something else in your view theory, but I can’t see how your theory can work without going from point to point..

            Thinking, planning, and viewing maps is a given, one doesn’t need Fenn to tell you to do those things. And, as you stated that this is one of the few things he ever planned. Well tell me something that you can do well if you only have done it a few times, especially when one is not accustom to doing it.

            Fenn’s probably sitting back and laughing at all the craziness of the blogs and what he has created.

            Fenn: “Look at them going at it, haha!”

            Peggy: “Just look at what you started, they’re bickering just like we do.”

            Fenn: “Haha, It’s good entertainment, better than anything on TV.”

            Peggy: “It’s been almost 10 yrs., Forrest. Please give them some more clues and get this over with.”

            Fenn: “Let them fight it out, come on ManOwar give it to him.”

            Peggy: “I like Seeker, come on Seeker. Tell him like it is.”

            Fenn: “Oh darn, this is getting boring. I guess I’ll give them another clue. Here is what I’ll say; The “it” in the line BIWWWH means “the treasure hunt.” lol…..

            Have fun, Seeker…….. I do like your style. Keep at it.

          • Yeah Seeker, I’m not talking about all that “subjective” stuff because it’s non compelling.

            I gave an example in my last post elsewhere on this thread. It’s about you saying that your theory tells us that we need to know all of the clue solutions before we figure out the correct wwwh (paraphrased).

          • Hi Seeker;

            I just read your post of Aug 28, at 5:32. In it you said, “You can’t argue the definition. Not even fenn could argue the definition.
            All he could say is that it’s not the correct one… because he would know which meaning he used.

            This confused me. In the first line you say that Forrest could not disagree with your definition – That “Taker it in” can mean observation – But then you say, “All he could say is that it’s not the correct one… because he would know which meaning he used.” This line SEEMS to say that Forrest then does NOT agree that it could mean OBSERVATION. Can you help clear this up for me. JDA

          • JDA,

            I’d love to play pictionary with you.

            Fenn can’t argue a definition, just like anyone else can’t … it is what it is.
            LOL although there’s no real rule for bending them a bit.
            The only argument is, which definition is correct for the poem, and only fenn would know.
            That includes every word in the poem.

            It’s our job to figure out which is correct usage of the words.
            So, the point is and was… no one can argue the ‘theory’ by saying I’m simply using “take it in” the wrong way… because one of it’s meaning is; to take in the view. Nobody can argue it’s not.

            Example; some have implied that definition is wrong because you can’t get you ‘closer’ … That is a physical movement idea and cause the searcher to leave WWsH, to get closer to something else, right?
            In this theory, WWsH is a vantage point to locate hoB… which I think can only be seen correctly from that vantage point.
            As well as, Little Indy or anyone else “can not get closer that the first two clues”
            At this point a physical presence is needed on site.. because we need to see hoB from that vantage point and see it for what it is… the blaze.

            However, what some don’t seem to understand, or don’t like, is the idea of the rest of the poem is mainly for the purpose of; studying / viewing hoB and the morning sunrise and what unfolds at that time.
            They may not care for the idea because fenn wants folks out in the mountains and exploring.
            Well, thus far, the poem as done its job well… folks stomping all over the RM’s with little or no results, and stagnant at the first two clues not knowing what to do, while on site.
            That’s when, what I call excuses, start popping up. I call them excuses because the ideas *only* revolve round one method to read the poem… stomping point to point. So folks create the need for distances unknown, create driving or alternative transportation [boat, trains, horses, bikes…] and this forces the idea that no place for the meek has to be a physical place to go to.
            I’m saying it’s a situation one is placed in. And that is one of the definitions of the word “place” to be in a situation.
            Like it or not, ya can argue it doesn’t mean that.

            So, what is happening… searcher go exploring… they have a nice vacation… they leave the poem… because imo and for this theory… they didn’t observe what was needing to be observed and “why.”

            In theory… this is why WWsH is the first clue, the needed clue or don’t bother going, without it you really do have nothing to go on.
            But hey… those are just ATFs and we really shouldn’t rely on those that much… right?

            The above was sarcasm.. just to clarify.

          • Hi Seeker – Thanks for the reply. Your first paragraph:

            “Fenn can’t argue a definition, just like anyone else can’t … it is what it is.
            LOL although there’s no real rule for bending them a bit.
            The only argument is, which definition is correct for the poem, and only fenn would know.
            That includes every word in the poem.”

            Clears it up a bit, but the two lines still seem somewhat in conflict with each other – But that is OK. Conflict is sometimes good 🙂 JDA

          • JDA,

            LOL apparently I need more coffee, and need to keep clarifying some of my comments.

            The “bending” part is meant by what fenn tells us he does when he uses words from the dictionary. It’s from the preface of TTOTC. I assume all would remember that.
            So, the way I see it, the arguments against “take it in” as a view have been because it’s not a common enough term as “take it in” as a movement is.

            Both definitions are correct to each usage… I simply disagree that fenn is only using the more common version that many search enjoy using.

            Its not unlike the word “BUT” it can mean to include, and it can mean to exclude.
            Many like version that say or interpret as; Don’t wait or linger [ for tarry scant with marvel gaze]
            This idea never made any sense to me. Heck fenn suggested to bring a six pack to celebrate the finding of the chest.

            I think ‘but” means to actually stay, linger for a short time to gaze [ study, follow by watch what unfolds / is happening ].
            Hence the reason to: “look” see, “quickly” time relates, “down” an area to watch, the blaze you have discovered [hoB] below it.
            and all seen from a single vantage point from WWsH.

            LOL am I really the only one that sees [pun intended] how the words in the poem all seem to suggest an observational solve – throughout the poem as a whole vs. different points, and sometime miles apart, needing alternative transportation [ in many theories we have read ] only in the hopes of finding an unknown, unnamed, not described, blaze at the end of it all?

  33. Zap, Seeker, I’ll respond down here. (Trying again without URL link, as previous post went into moderation).

    Over the past twelve months I’ve changed my view on what WWWH really is. We have all had our own WWWHs nailed down, and none has led us to the treasure. But, notwithstanding what we call our starting point, we all have a chosen geographical place to begin our search. Mine has remained unchanged since 2014.

    It’s instructive that there are so many different places WWWH, supposedly all derived from the poem. Logically, that would suggest that we’re either all reading the instructions incorrectly (except, of course, for the self we inhabit ) or, after nine years’ trying, there isn’t any way to derive WWWH from the poem, or maybe we just don’t know how to get from the correct WWWH to the treasure.

    When I look back over my search, I see a pattern emerge. From a reasonably imaginative start, I veer off into the weeds for a few years, vainly attempting to draw meaning from chaos, before returning to something far more straightforward and elucidating. (It is at this point that I see some correlations with Seeker’s methodology.) But what stands out is that throughout my wanderings, there have been discoveries, both on the ground and in my research, which my imagination could use. Some have lain dormant in my mind, awaiting the time when they make sense (a bit like the SBs), others have been put to use as markers and signposts. What they all have in common, though, is their subjective nature. While they hold huge meaning for me, and have led me to a place many miles distant from my starting point, they only do so in the context of MY search and MY reading of the poem. Others would be (and are) bemused by them, as I have discovered when sharing them from time to time.

    What that tells me is that my WWWH must be subjective too – and by extension, all of our WWWHs. And if that’s true, then the poem is presumably about a subjective journey. Each one of us must go alone in there. So is the whole thing subjective, without a “real” ending? I would say most definitely not. The ending is where subject meets object – a real canyon and a real treasure. In other words it’s a journey from potential to reality. We have to make it real… to be or to become.

    So what I have had is a subjective WWWH, eventually leading (by circuitous means in my case) to an objective destination – hopefully the right one – where I can stand at the blaze and view part of the canyon, the hoB and the ending place. But does that imply that WWWH is fictional? Again, I would argue, no. Looking back, I can see that, by following the map FF gave us, I had to enter a very real place WWWH, and I had to take it in the canyon down. And after a very long and arduous journey I would hope to be able to take it right to the bronze casket. It comes with me – as would everyone’s, from whichever starting place they chose. Trouble is, I keep losing sight of it or forgetting it! John Bunyan wrote about it in “The Pilgrim’s Progress – From this world to that which is to come.”
    Although it is written from a 17th century Christian standpoint, whereas I think the Chase is universal in nature and philosophy, I see parallels with the Chase. Like Piers Plowman, I should have read it decades ago but never got around to it, and so I’ve just begun tackling these old works.

  34. Seeker, I have a couple of questions about IT, as you see it. If we look at the definition of IT we have: used to refer to a thing previously mentioned or easily identified. Is there something previously mentioned in the poem that leads you to believe IT is view?

    Second question, in the line FTINPFTM, do you believe that this IT’s is referring to the view as well, or is this something else that IT is referring to?

    • Aaron,

      I gotta run, but for now the short version to your questions are;
      The definition of a prior thin mentioned is a bit more difficult to explain and needs more time than i have… what I can say is; stanza two is the prior information, line of thinking. It’s the first clue.

      The second question; It’s references the meaning of “From there” LOL zap will have a coronary with that meaning.
      But, IT’s is about the meaning of “Place” [ in that line ] as the definition of a situation.

      That should give you enough to work on [ if ya want to ] and see how “From there” “It’s” and “place” can relate well with each other to understand *why* meek is referenced… as a situation a searcher may find themselves in.

      • “stanza two is the prior information, line of thinking. It’s the first clue.”

        The second word of stanza two is it. It is both prior and current information at the same time?

        • Ok I’ll bite, Aaron, what is the prior and current information-?- for IT.

          And Let me clarify once more… the intent of the post is not a solve, as much as, a reading of the poem’s process to complete a solve. No diiferent from folks readininto the poem as stomping point to point.
          I just happen to read the poem as; it is all unfolding @ WWsH.
          I don’t know WWsH reference, I don’t know hoB reference, I’m not sure which canyon is talked about.
          My only goal for a solve at this point in time is; to find the “location”… meaning… having certainty of the location the clues are all at. Then find what WWsh could be in the location.

          The other thing many disagree with me on is; I think when fenn mentioned there are many WWsH in the RM’s.. he’s talking about his reference in the poem… not a multitude of other possible types of waters that could be consider WWsH [ a waterfall, a lake, a glacier, a basin, be it what it may… it’s only one type in my book of thoughts.]

          What I would like to hear from the nose-bleed section, is there anyone that reads the poem differently than the two method mentioned on this tread?

          • “what is the prior and current information-?- for IT.”

            The IT I am going with is defined in the first stanza. Once defined I found a spot that warm waters halts along or within this IT. Who know’s if it Fenn’s WWsH, but it’s the best example I have personally found so far.

            I don’t knock your viewing strategy. As a matter of fact the IT I am using could possibly be taken in as a view. I’ll try various methods with this WWsH until one fits the best.

            I’ll keep an open mind about it. The most important thing though, in my opinion, is finding WWsH and then working out the rest.

          • Hi Aaron: agree with you. IMO, both occurrences of IT in the second stanza refer to a specific thing Forrest hid in the first stanza.

    • Just a quick reference to the usage of *it* and possible meanings of *it*.

      One common definition of *it* is exactly what Aaron posted. Another common definition and usage is; [used instead of the subject of a sentence, when the real subject is a phrase or clause at the end of a sentence].

      Another one is; [used after a verb in place of the object, when the real object is a phrase or clause at the end of the sentence].

      Throw in the fact that this is a poem everyone is trying to understand and things just get murkier by the minute. *It* could be possible that the correct method to understand is to keep all of the possibilities on the table…. combining previous and later mentioned subjects/objects… or not.

      • Here’s a guy that took a moment to refresh what he may have already known.

        The point is; IT has to have some content and context.. it {IT} needs to be satisfied for it’s usage.

        A simple idea of a method for stomping point to point would not require this little two letter word. The line could have read as; begin where warm waters halt and take it in [go down a canyon] … for that method.

        fenn deliberately placed “IT” in this line for a reason. How do I know this? He has said; every word in the poem was deliberate… it’s risky to discount any words. To dismiss even a word like IT can be the difference between thinking the right thoughts vs. the personal desire to keep it simple.

        In keeping with the explanations of the post, the subject matter doesn’t have to be prior, as I stated before [ and Ken just shown by a little research ] . It {the subject matter} can be later in the same sentence.
        Should “take it in” be of it’s definition of; looking, observing, studying something visually… the subject matter is something “not far” away to see, BUT, too far to go to it [walk to] for some reason. The reason is *how* we *put in* and it {IT} refers to a visual contact of something we *put in below* visually.
        The reference we have in this stanza to work with is, hoB. {I’ll add; while I think this is the blaze, my reasoning is the line; “If you’ve *been* wise and *found* the blaze” past tense from a present tense prior stanzas… it seems to me, we can find the blaze before it is mentioned in the poem by its name [a blaze]. The question is; will we know it as such when we find it, or only discover what it is for, later within the correct reading of the poem?}

        The questions now that need to be consider is;
        Why do we need to see this particular clue reference?
        Is it only seen correctly from a single vantage point? vs. seen from GE differently.
        Do we go to it?
        What is it’s true purpose?
        But the big kicker is… How do we read the next stanzas in the same context as this theory is presented?

        IMO… and not unlike the meanings discovered in stanza two… certain words in stanza 3 have different usages as well, than the more commonly of simplistic ideas of each word… such as the words “place.”

        I pause to think… is this what fenn meant when he said he reads emails looking for keys words? Could someone [ not me, I don’t bother the man with my theories ] sent fenn an email / read a blog with a theory / method / information… that had explained or indicate the first four clues, but working them with the wrong process through the poem? Causing him to be uncertain…

        The concept it simple … [and explains a lot of the ATFs to some reasonable satisfaction]… unless you’re only willing to see this as a stomping point to point only.

        • One simple way to make sense of the content of a sentence with a conjunction[and] is to break it into the two implied subjects. In this case that would equate to; Begin it where warm waters halt.[one sentence/subject] and; Take it in the canyon down.[second sentence/subject]. I actually have remembered(surprisingly) this from my school days. When doing this to interpret the meaning of a sentence it clearly defines what is going on in the content. In this case it seems to imply the action[verb] of physical movement vs the idea of a visual action. Combined… the inclusion of *it* brings the focus or highlights the idea of a continuous or contiguous action…. or not.

          • While I have seen that myself, ken, The first problem is, our we creating a subject that is not really there by that exercise?
            The first “sentence” [ broken down] does have anything to tell what IT refer to. So, we still need the second sentences to give it context.
            Begin what where warm waters halt?

            Without knowing IT for the first broken down sentence.. what we did was to have the second sentence action still unknown. And take it in the canyon down, for what reason?
            I say “action” because both observation and movement are actions… but there meanings for the action changes depending on what IT could refer to.

            It doesn’t matter how the stanza’s first sentence is broken down… we still need to know how the sentence was intended… especially in a poem. This is where I disagree with many, if not almost all searchers… the full context must flow through the poem because we need to decipher what is and is not physical places or a direction or an instruction through out.

            The simplest Idea is to think all references as a clue must be of different places. That is a ‘precondition’ thought process… that there must be movement between “different” places.

            IF that precondition thought process is wrong, what happens? Folks wander all over, manufacturing those different places that may not be places at all.

            In my theory, when folks attempt to implement the idea to their area… they still [ some where along the reading of the poem ] convert back to movement to somewhere else… never really following through with the theory of an observational solve.

            I get it… it’s a hunt.. a treasure hunt… and our very first notion is to start at some place and play hide n seek.
            I think fenn was relying on just that.

            fenn made a comment about early drafts of the poem [ I don’t have the comment at the ready ] he said he thought it would be found in a few weeks or little time. The cancer went into remission and he had time to tweak the poem making it harder.

            Regardless of what was tweaked… the one thing he repeated a few time… he was thinking down the road 100, 1000, maybe even 10,000 years down the road.
            While others like to think this challenge is basically a conventional treasure hunt… I think fenn created something unconventional to look convectional… to make it difficult but not impossible.

            In the nutshell: it’s not what I say, it’s what I can make you think I said.
            “It’s not what you are that counts, it’s what they think you are that counts” line of thinking. And I think fenn was counting on just that.

            We could be creating an illusion right from the get go… our own preconditioned idea of how this poem has to be read as… rather than… what is the true intent of reading it.
            Tens of thousands plus searching in the basic stomping mode, on site at the clues, not truly knowing they solved the first couple of clues, went by the remaining clues, and the chest. LOL clues that supposedly can be found on a map at home { in theory }, and possibly 4 clues figured out???…

            What’s wrong with that picture?

            My theory aside… something is very seriously wrong with the conventional idea, this is a conventional solve… point to point stomping mode. That’s not an opinion… just look at the numbers.
            est. 300,000 attempting to solve the poem, folks at the location, multiple searchers and searches, and apparently by fenn’s comments… we still don’t know much about solving the poem… people didn’t know they solved clues.

            Baffling to say the least, right?
            Unless.. we are reading the poem wrong. IMO… and my way of looking at all that…Even IF a searcher could decipher clue’s “reference” for their “physical places” ~ prior ~ the wrong method to proceed could be the killer of a good solve.

            fenn has even said as much…” A good solve is frequently lost in a poor execution”
            I can’t say it enough… all the methods I ever read, in full or part of, by blogger, youtubers, book writers, etc. are all the same method. Only names and places change.

          • Doesn’t sound to me like anything’s wrong with the traditional travel to locations method. Sounds Lille a decent start.

          • I agree that you are not wrong in that there could be something incorrect about a traditional solve. Either that or finding the combination of WWsH and the third clue is just very hard.

          • Seeker: I still say the point-to-point searchers have the right method. “More than several” have figured out the correct starting point, and by your reckoning they managed to do so without using your proposed approach. All it would take is a difficult third clue to derail all of those folks, and if you don’t solve the 3rd clue, you can’t solve any of the others — it’s as simple as that.

            By November 2015, Forrest says some may have solved four clues, but he isn’t certain. So the 3rd clue logjam may have been broken almost 4 years ago. Still, if so, it’s apparently not enough for the remaining 5 clues to be a slam-dunk.

            So for your theory to be right, it should have a ready explanation for how searchers not using your method (since you seem to be suggesting that no one ever has) can still manage to solve four clues (probably). Or on the off-chance that they DID use your method (and are not on the blogs), you need to have an explanation for the long delay between solving 2 clues and solving 4 clues, and an even longer, ongoing delay between solving 4 and finding Indulgence.

          • FD, ~’Doesn’t sound to me like anything’s wrong with the traditional travel to locations method….’

            Yep, but so far it has failed miserably.

            With fenn’s est. of 300,000 folks attempting to solve the poem, we can break that down to 1/2 might be actually BOTG, respectfully. Divide equally for each state we have possibly 37,000 searcher [over a span of 9 years to be reasonable]. IF only a few, several more than several have indicated the correct location and the first two clues… Hypothetically… a very small percentage of 1% for any given state could be 375 folks that have been on site with possibly the first to clues solve [ all hypothetical and using fenn’s est amounts of searchers ] even if that amount is close to being actual… That still a lot of folks on site, where all the clues are located and yet there has been no advancement, that we know of per fenn, that is any different since as early as 2012-13.

            Method of operation or we just can’t read a map?

            Unfortunately we don’t know actual numbers of who was on site and how they got there with clues. What we do have is the overabundance of searcher using the stomping method.

            Doesn’t sound like the traditional method is dong anything right either.
            This reminds me of those silly inkblots test. Everyone sees a butterfly, I see smeared ink on paper.

          • Zap.

            Yep, I even said; folks might be able to figure out the *physical clue references* and still not find the chest, as well.

            Why? Because they don’t follow through with the observational system? [for lack of a better term].

            Even while chatting about this topic, folks here, always seem to revert back to moving to some where. That won’t work in this theory.

            The third clue.. [and let just agree for the sake of argument it; NF, BTFTW.]
            Anyone could say; for example; Mr, Fenn my first clue is this and my second clue is that.. my third clue is saying I shouldn’t go down the canyon.. so I when around it instead and found my hoB… etc etc. Wrong, idea.

            They even could have said… I didn’t go into the canyon because I saw my hoB from WWsH and went to it, then I went looking for NPFTM… again, wrong idea… they walked away from WWsH.

            POINT: I can almost guarantee, even if they knew not to go into a canyon and found hoB by seeing it from WWsH… They still “left” WWsH to go to hoB. They left the poem, line of thinking.

            Four clues possibly solved, but uncertain about what to do… they got the *physical references* correct but not the *process*… and that process starts by knowing this is an observational solve right at Begin IT.

            Of course.. in theory.

            I’ll add; we can’t see the last clue from GE… I can’t argue that. The last clue is not the blaze, as much as, what the blaze is utilized for to locate the hide. Yet, the blaze was found / discovered in stanza two.
            The question is; did they know it for what it is?? because IF the rest of the poem is not read properly… just finding *physical clue’s reference* will not “complete” the poem.

            hence the “been wise” part “and found” the blaze. been Wise and Found are past tense… IMO, not only is the blaze needed to be found, we need to be wise to what it is for… Thats why I say *discover* the blaze. Discover means *knowing* what it is we found, and why we need it.You won’t like that explanation either, but at least you are trying to dissect the theory.

            Note: This is an attempt to understand the poem. The norm that has been chatted about has only produced folks on site [ mostly by the use of a map and a really good guess imo. ] but after that… the building blocks fall over. I’m looking for the cement that holds it up.

          • I stand by what I said, Seeker. Sounds like what I would expect from such a tough hunt.

            I ain’t bothered by your projections.

          • Hi Seeker;

            I am probably one of the few that wants to give your Observational Process a chance. I am trying to apply it to a spot in my General Search Area.

            Problem #1 – Like anyone in the search, using any method, is deciding on a WWsH Location. So, I find a likely spot.

            You then say that from this WWsH location, one will find a hoB, which is a land feature seen when looking south – at ground level. It will be NF,BTFTW – It can be seen, but one should not walk to it – I get that part. You say that this land feature (the hoB) will also serve as the HL and Blaze – all-in-one. And, that WWsH will serve as WH. (No mention of meek place or end place)

            So, we are to find this land feature, and then what? If I understand correctly, we then have to go to your “Shadow Solve” and wait until next June to see a
            shadow that will point to where Indulgence is. This shadow may, or may not relate to the hoB.

            I am confused. Am I reading your two ideas correctly? JDA

          • JDA,

            Stanza 3 says; in interpretation; no “place” is a situation a searcher is going to go through. Not all will be bothered by this, but the folks who are timid, easily spooked will not care for this… NPFTMeek is to stay until the morning light… an overnight stay, In the mountians. “I’m sure you must ave at some point… you may recall how everything seem much different at night there.
            That’s one things needed to plan for.

            Fenn wouldn’t have needed to imo, he obviously knows the place like the back of his hand. He could have gone just before the morning light… not unlike he did with his dad when he encountered Bison in the dark, fishing, just behind him.

            Anyways; the end IEDN, is of the night becoming day.. So we have a time of day to start off [another thing to plan for] in order to watch the blaze to show where the chest lays in wait. IMO stanza 3 is all about instructions on how to find the hidey spot.
            In doing so, the poem is now complete, completed, because it needs the searcher there to see it unfold.

            Note: fenn may have not needed to do this, IF he observed this at another time [earlier time in his life] on the same day in June.
            So he could have know where he was going to place the chest from his memory of this place… hence he hide the chest before the poem was completed.
            But he still needed to guide someone there by following his clues… and … instructions, for them to complete the poem.

            One thing I think I need to clarify. While hoB is the blaze in this theory and seen correctly from WWsH… depending on what WWsH in size, a searcher may need to move around a bit to spot the blaze correctly.. but not leaving from there.
            What the blaze could represent? IDK. but I don’t think anyone will know until it is seen from ground level. This is where imagination may kick into high gear. Most won’t even think hoB would be the blaze, and even if they have a good hunch it is [because some have stated they think is it], most will have the uncontrollable urge to go to it, and continue on looking for more physical clues… when in this theory, those clues are what to do, not where to go.

            Call it the wise part of discovering the blaze… predetermined to the clue in the poem, yet still unknown until “discovered” on site to what it is seen as.
            Is the blaze “predetermined” in the poem or “only” found on site? 30 minute it took not to answer that Q&A.

            LOL I call that the poem’s insurance policy. fenn’s going to make the searcher think and work for that prize.

            The real question is… what is it representing? {hoB}

            What are we looking for???
            [hence the name of the thread]
            We are NOT looking for a chest, we need to discover the blaze… the chest is nothing more than a lure, and the prize / proof.

          • Thanks Seeker;

            IF I understand you correctly, IF I have the correct WWsH I SHOULD be able to find the hoB / Blaze
            if I move around a little. Once I find IT, I still will have to wait until next June at sunrise to see the shadow – made by the hoB / Blaze in order to know exactly where Indulgence rests. Do I have that right according to your two theories – The Observational one and the Shadow one? Thanks for your answer – It helped clear SOME of the fuzz in my one-celled brain – JDA

          • You pretty much have it, JDA.

            IF you can find the blaze any time of year, and can figure out the angle correctly, you could locate the chest any time. I wouldn’t be able to… but some folks here might be able to.

            That is why I think fenn designed the poem in this manner, he is giving us information how to solve the poem.
            We just need to figure out where it all take place.
            That is my achilles heel.

            “My audience is every Texan redneck with a pick up truck who lost his job and has 12 kids and a bedroll”

            Ever wonder why he included the last apart?

          • Thanks Seeker;

            It gives me a wee bit of hope that I don’t have to wait until sunrise next June Summer Solstice. But if I fail, I am willing to sleep in my bedroll – 🙂 JDA

      • Thanks for adding that extra info about IT Ken. I like the way I use it because I feel I can define it in the first stanza, but it should be made known that there are other ways to do it, and we must continue to explore all.

        If we use: [used after a verb in place of the object, when the real object is a phrase or clause at the end of the sentence], then we must be saying Begin the warm waters where warm waters halt right? Which I can see as a possibility. If there is a warm creek then we need to begin it where they halt and work up stream in the CD. In this case it we would further define down because we are taking it up stream so down would need to mean south. I like the fact that it can help give you direction, yet we are still left with determining WWsH, as always.

        The other definition you presented seems about the same as the last. [used instead of the subject of a sentence, when the real subject is a phrase or clause at the end of a sentence]. It is used after a verb and would be used as the subject in both cases.

        • Aaron,

          I like the way you broke down, Being warm waters where warm waters halt. Yet, what is the real subject matter-?- warm waters or halting of warm waters? I see you may be implying both [warm waters halting idea]. But my question is: how do we determined warm?

          Is that not the true subject? In the broken down version?

          While I like Ken’s exercise, I’m not sure if we can use it. We still need the idea of what is being done in the stanza.

          Again, I like how you broke down the sentence, but not for the reason you seem to want to say. It gave me another idea about learning WWsH. Because as you said; …yet we are still left with determining WWsH, as always.

          If I’m right in the idea WWsH is fenn’s special place… stanza 5 may hold the key to what it is. LOL I know you might like stanza 1 for that, and it could be… but ya made a thought pop in my head.

          • Well, glad I can help with popping a thought. That is what usually happens with me too. Talking about a subject on here makes other possibilities pop in your mind. Stanza 5 is very similar to stanza 1, and it is possible that they echo the same info, sort of. Gone alone – why must I go. Treasures bold – trove for all to seek. Secret – answers. New and old – Tired and week (not sure how new relates to tired).

            Since the post I have been thinking about water flow direction a bit more. Water flow direction could feasibly help with narrowing down things about many of the clues such as CD, PIB, NPFTM, and NPUYC.

        • Aaron I’m actually good with how you are using the word [it] as a previously mentioned subject/object. The examples I threw into the mix are a bit more involved as far as implied content when breaking down a sentence… but still possibly important given the nature of the poem and the entire first sentence of the second stanza. Read on… or not.

          Begin it… and … take it, broken down from the conjunctive sentence seems to eliminate the idea of the [take it in] idea by keeping [it] consistent to the whole sentence vs breaking apart the two actions[verbs] begin and take. Adding the adverbs[where, in] results in the appropriate modifier to qualify the preceding verbs which expresses the relation of place, time, circumstance etc. as should grammatically be the case in the complete sentence. The words, where and in… as adverbs… both denote the idea of *in* or to what *place* as a whole but includes further info from the word [in] expressing movement with the result of someone/something becoming surrounded by something else. There is a difference between a subject and an object in a sentence. The object is acted by the subject. Which is which becomes problematic…

          • The only time I ever get grammar correct, is if I use 3 or 4 word sentences. 🙂 and that is only about 50% of the time I think.

            speaking of which I love pointing out that unlike French and Spanish and several other languages: There actually is no “official” grammar, or “Spelling” rules/books/institutions/dictionaries or anything at all for English.

            Despite what the companies that produce the dictionaries would let you believe.

            There is only what Pirates would use as a rule/code for english: “… the code is more what you’d call “guidelines” than actual rules”..

            sort of fitting that ff uses English 🙂

          • Thanks for the good reply Ken. I had to read this a couple of times to get it. I agree that which is which is problematic.

            As to “expressing movement with the result of someone/something becoming surrounded by something else.” To me it seems “Take it in” as an action can still be referring to the something other than the searcher, specifically the waters. This is where I can see it possible that a searcher may need to view or look around where to take it. Not saying it’s right, just a thought.

  35. Very good questions, Aaron Smith! I used to believe that all instances of “it” referred to “The Chase.” However, I now believe the 1st and 2nd “it” refer to The Chase (as previously mentioned in TTOTC). IMHO, using the 3nd “it” as meaning The Chase still works, but assigning it another interpretation adds to the richness of the poem and provides confirmation of your location. Only f really knows and we will not know for a bit longer, IMO.

    • Thanks ED, many refer to IT as the chase, and it very well could be. I tend to think that we need to use a little more imagination however.

      By the way, I am there person that posts as Aaron. Auto-fill filled in my last name and I wasn’t paying attention unfortunately.

    • Since ff says I think a couple times in videos or otherwise that he was flippant when he capitalized words, and flippant when he put punctuation in sentences of his books…. (I have to put imo, since I am not going to look them up again)

      that yes he was flippant.

      how else can we interpret what ff had said in interviews. (imo again, since I have not relooked it up for you) but I would suggest you look for those times in interviews, (written or otherwise). it would be of value for your deciding on that point.

      • The treasure hunt is a much bigger deal than a single sentence in one of
        FF’s books. The capitalization of Brown is very significant. All IMO.

  36. “Oh good Lord there is some great chat on this board. I could literally watch the servants do the laundry and iron it before some of these windy conversations come to an end. But it’s all in good fun isn’t it? Oh I do hope someone finds the Treasure soon and let’s me take the credit for it (winks with a grin). I will most definitely pay you quite well if you keep your lips zipped so to speak, and allow me to garner the applause. (pours some tea into a china cup and winks). Well, best be off now. I have a boxing lesson at 9 sharp. Cheers!”

    Queen Elizabeth

  37. “Well, I can now proudly say that I have put boots on the ground. I am DOING and not just talking this time. I took a step out of Buckingham Palace towards the awaiting vehicle that would take me to the airport.

    But bloody hell wouldn’t you know it? It was raining. So I have postponed my first journey to look for the chest until next month. It was bloody exciting to step out of the Palace though”

    —Queen Elizabeth

    • Ms Queen, would it be more proper for you to say you put “Galoshes on the ground”? over those fine pumps you have on.

      and for those conspiracy theories out there that says ever word spoken by ff and searchers is a “hint”, yes “Galoshes” is a hint.

    • Sparrow – even your infatuation with Queen Elizabeth, you might enjoy linking her to Wyoming history, and also a rich history of polo ponies from Big Horn.

      I recommend a beautiful history of horse culture from the Crow Indians to Worlds finest polo ponies, set in Big Horn, Wyo “Where the Rivers Run North”

      • “Oh do go on 42”. (begins to down a bottle of Royal Crown Cola). “Yes I do enjoy a good rodeo. Prince Philip and I often role play. Tonight I get to be circus clown. My favorite!”

        -Queen Elizabeth

        • Sparrow…I believe HRH Queen Elizabeth II’s spirit of choice is Gin.

          Seriously though, she has relatives in Big Horn, Wyo who are also descendants of Lord Canarven (highclear & king tut fame)

          The British Royal family has purchased war horses and polo ponies from Big Horn, Wyoming for over 100 years.

          • 42— yeah. Sorry for joking about it. I did read where she visited Wyoming and has descendants there. Thanks for sharing that—very true.

  38. “Oh Good Lord!!” (pulls out a small notebook and writes feverishly) “galoshes”. There are bloody clues everywhere!!” Thank you Writis. Is your first name Arthur? Arthur Writis? (Bends her head back and laughs heartily. Pulls her small notebook back out) Speaks while she writes ” Arthur Writis. I must remember that one. Cheers!!

    –Queen Elizabeth

  39. what are we looking for?
    for me, I looked for the chest mentioned in the poem.
    this chest is not the bronze box.
    this chest is not the treasure.
    this chest is not at the end of his rainbow.
    i took it (a photo) and went in peace.
    end of story.
    unless anyone here would care for me to elaborate.
    which i doubt. i think.

  40. What I have come to believe. Simplify. WWWH is New Mexico trout regulation.
    Being applied to the TTOTC Book. And outside New Mexico. Brown trout fishable
    waters within the Book. Probably not a unnamed mountain lake or pond.
    Not ruling out New Mexico too. but. Trying to go where the book takes you.
    Promises made and Promises to be kept I guess. Which seems to be going by
    the wayside. I think if you can find the chest you should come forward.
    If you can find it and set it on your knees and open it you would think there is
    some protection from elements but maybe not. zip lock bags. that would be nice.
    Well That’s IMO of WWWH.
    Stay safe.

    • Okay Mark, why is wwwh “New Mexico trout regulation”?
      We can test that. Without giving a history of why, or something researched, and with just the poem in front of you, can you explain why wwwh is the “trout regulation”?
      There is nothing in the poem at face value, so, by just using the poem, how did you come up with that spot?
      You can’t say you think this or that, or because some trout are brown, you have to just use the poem and show where it says your wwwh.
      If you can’t just use the poem, it’s most likely not how f intended a searcher to find wwwh.
      If you can show with only the poem how a searcher gets wwwh, then you have to contend with this ATF:
      “You have said to read the poem and read TTOTC to help solve for the 9 clues. We all know there are many options to choose from regarding, Brown, hoB, wwh, and blaze hinted at in the book. My question is, “In the book, do you also, in a more subtle way, tell which is the correct answer to one or all of the above?” ~BW
      No I don’t madam, sorry. F”.
      So, given that it’s not in the poem at face value, and, it’s not hidden in a subtle way, and, you only have the poem, and f has not given the answer, now, with all that, how did you get NM trout?
      All wwwh’s have to take all these things into account. So, if you were to do a write up, you would need to show how you arrived at your wwwh by using just the poem, not using any subtle means to solve for it, and show how f did not even give the answer to wwwh. And then remember that you need to do the same thing for the blaze.:)

  41. Seeker,

    I’m having trouble with your post, it’s a theory and that is understood. To view, you have mentioned as a birds eye view and not using GE as a viewing tool, not your exact words. How do you view things without GE unless your standing there looking down a canyon with binoculars. Even then to view things with or without an aid such as binoculars that is “too far to walk” it would be hard to see things that are 3 miles away and next to impossible to spot 5 miles away unless the hoB is a huge mountain or dry barren area.

    When do you move physically towards the tc in your theory, below hoB, no paddle creek, HL&WH?

    IMO the “planning” part has already been completed by ff. Yours is definitely different, I am having a hard time to try and put it in practice even with my wild imagination. I guess it’s not real unless you make it real.

    Good day, peace be with you.

  42. Seeker,
    You wrote…June is the correct month to ‘complete’ the poem.
    I suggest you go read chapter 3 in TFTW.

    • Why read a chapter of any book that was three years later?

      I’m being serious. If any information in the tftw book that wasn’t in TTOTC book… what does that say for the first book?

      Don’t get me wrong… there might be something that can produce a thought… but I would think it would have to relate to the first book as well. right? or the first book is dead in the water.
      I don’t have the tftw book… maybe you can be kind enough give me the gist of what is being said.

      • Seeker,

        Agreeing with you (and that has not been real easy) when you say, “Why read a chapter of any book…?” I believe the correct answer to that would be because you enjoy the writings of ff and the stories around The Chase. My position has always been that reading the book(s) would cloud the mind and blur your vision as you search.

        I look forward to reading TTOTC because I enjoy the wit, humor and writing style but continue to force myself to wait. Too late for most and still tempting to others, the book serves as a statement of purpose behind The Chase and the wrapping papers for (the gift) the poem.

        Some of us live about as far away from the hidey spot (IMO) as you can get, and still be an American. So getting back to the spot is not easy. Patience has been a force-placed virtue and a solution for the ethical dilemma is (IMHO) the final piece of the puzzle.

  43. Seeker, on this thread you said, “And fenn has told us we need to “plan and observe”

    I remember ff speaking about the importance of planning, but can you please point me to where Forrest says we need to observe? Observe what?

    Now I know why Dal asks that we link the quotes.

    Thanks for your help.

    • Good grief Charlie Brown…….

      LOOK UP …the Q&A quote is what this is all about and posted with a link [ set up Dal because I’m computer illiterate ] in the very beginning of this thread. It’s high light in burnt orange and sticks out like a sore thumb.


  44. I think Cat Stevens said it best https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0TInLOJuUM
    LOOK UP – it’s a new dawn, a new day.

    Forrest said we need knowledge, imagination, and confidence to solve this poem.
    But I believe we also need to add INTUITION to this list.
    Don’t you think his mother would agree?
    And that is “my gut opinion.”

  45. Zap, Ken, Seeker, JDA and others,

    Some of these thread bubbles are getting way too long so I’ll respond here.
    Regarding the first two clues statement from Fenn:
    1. Maybe he realized at some point that it was a mistake to give us that type of information.
    2. When he said maybe the 3rd or 4th clue may have been discovered is when he realized it.
    3. So it’s possible that others have told him even more clues, but he’s just not ready to say.
    4. He doesn’t want to give out any more clues, remember.
    5. Five or six clues may have been discovered but not known for sure by the searcher.
    6. Fact is we just don’t know, as Ken said in his post above; which I agree with.

    Another subject:

    Remember the video of Fenn standing on a rocky hillside in the N.M. ad? And him telling us that if he was standing where the treasure was that he would see trees, animals, etc., smell pinion pine nuts, etc….Well, this is for Seeker. For your theory to work, WWWH, and all of the other clues would have to be there on the side of that rocky hill. Not likely.

    To my knowledge Fenn has never said people have discovered the first two clues and then “overlooked” the others, he only said “went by” and “walked by”. If everything is right there at WWH wouldn’t he have chosen “overlooked” instead? This all doesn’t rule out your theory completely but it makes it more difficult to follow. How does one view “put in”, NPUYC, etc., and why is he tired and weak if he doesn’t move from WWWH. He even says that he walked less than a few miles from his car. Car to TC spot, point to point. Are you saying that WWWH covers an area of two miles? If so, how do you just view such a large area and not move from point to point? IMO you use both methods.

    • ManOwar;

      You say, “For your theory to work, WWWH, and all of the other clues would have to be there on the side of that rocky hill. Not likely.” Boy, do I disagree. Here is the quote you referenced:


      “If I was standing where the treasure chest is, I’d see trees, I’d see mountains, I’d see animals. I’d smell wonderful smells of pine needles, or pinyon nuts, sagebrush—and I know the treasure chest is wet. Well you’ve asked me a lot of questions and some of them—most of them I answered, a few I haven’t, but I’ve got to tell you—there’s one thing I told you I wish I had not.” f

      From one hillside why can’t one see: Animals – Smell wonderful smells of pine needles (Forget pinyon nuts) – and sagebrush ? This is not a lot to see – I certainly have seen all of the above in my General Search Area – time and time again from a multitude of spots

      These few items can be seen almost anywhere in the Rocky Mountains – in ANY of the four states. He mentioned Pinyon nuts, but then said that he meant Pine Needles, and that he wished that he had not said it…. the pinyon nuts that is.

      From one spot I can see a WWWsH spot – from there I can see a canyon, I can see a hoB, I can see a place that could be the “meek spot”, I can see where it might all “end”, I can see a creek (or two), a place that can be HL&WH as well as a blaze. I have a panoramic view (Marvel gaze) that I would want to spend time looking at, but maybe shouldn’t (Tarry scant). ALL, from just one spot. Maybe you have not been so lucky, but spots like the one I am thinking of abound in the Rocky Mountains. All it takes is a moment to take it in, and a wee bit of imagination.

      Have you ever had BotG in the Rockies ManOwar? If not, I hope you do soon – Happy viewing – JDA

      • JDA,
        I think you misunderstood me. I’m not saying it’s impossible, I’m saying that it’s not likely that you could see all of the clues from where the treasure lies. Of course you could see tress, animals and such and smell the pines, you should count on them being there. I never said you couldn’t see them! I was referring to the clues.

        I think a good question for someone to ask Forrest is “Can a searcher see all nine clues from the treasure spot?” What do you think most searchers would say? Hang in there JDA it’s all fun and games.

        • ManOwar – I am not Forrest, but as I posted – YES, I can see ALL of the things mentioned in the poem from one spot – the WWWsH – except Indulgence, but I hope to remedy that soon – 🙂 JDA

          • JDA, Don’t you mean you can see all of your “assumed things” (clues) mentioned in the poem? That’s probably why Indulgence has escaped you. If you have all 9 clues solved then I commend you. You are way ahead of me.

            How many other searchers think that you can see all 9 clues from the treasure spot? Please let us know your thoughts. I’m sure Fenn won’t answer such a question, will you Forrest?

          • ManOwar;

            OK, ya got me, I did not say IMO – or that they were my assumed locations.

            But, as Seeker just stated, assuming (by you, not me) that one can NOT see all of the clues from one spot, automatically forces you to spread out the clues in a larger geographic area. Why NOT consider the possibility that they are ALL in a small geographic area?

            Another question is – Why must all of the “things” mentioned in the poem be places? Why can’t some of these be “instructions” not directions to “places?”

            Another question – Why can’t Forrest be describing something (Anything – a rock, a land feature – some water) using different words?

            warm WATERS halt – No paddle up your CREEK –
            Just heavy loads and WATER high -Done it tired and now I’m WEAK (like a watered down drink)- Hear me all and LISTEN GOOD (Listen for a sound like a babbling brook) – Your efforts will be worth the COLD (Like a cold mountain spring) Multiple lines that COULD ALL relate to WATER in one way or another. COULD ALL, or even some of these be related to the SAME water feature? Possible.

            Same with home of Brown (Could be a brown land feature) – Just Heavy Loads (Same land feature) – And found the Blaze (Same land feature) – But Tarry Scant (A black stone – or land feature) – Done it tired (Seek to lie down, get closer to the earth or ground – a land feature) – If you are BRAVE (Brave can mean bold or strong – like the earth) Possible?

            Using the above, all we really need to find is a warm WATERS place, a LAND FEATURE – probably stone, and finally, Indulgence. All of the rest relate to these two things / places. WATER and a LAND FEATURE

            Just something to think about – Two “Things” – described in a multitude of ways, in one spot – Not too hard to imagine. Just a thought – JDA

        • ManOwar ~ you said ti JDA ~’I think you misunderstood me. I’m not saying it’s impossible, I’m saying that it’s not likely that you could see all of the clues from where the treasure lies.’

          Why? Why can’t, or not likely that we could see all the clues…?
          Isn’t that just a precondition thought that makes clues placement seemingly covering a large area and covered /blocked by obstacles?
          Doesn’t it also say or thought to be, that clues should be in different locations?

          Is that not preconditioning a solve before it’s even get rocking and rolling?
          LOL doesn’t the thought almost force the idea it has to be a stomping point to point solve?

          No offense, truly… but that doesn’t seem to be analyzing and thinking.
          I KNOW… and I get it. I thought the same when I first started , read the poem a few… hundred… times. Even when I started thinking about Multiple Meanings of words, I found myself returning to a stomping mode over and over again… with all the same thing in all different places across the map.

          It’s almost an addiction because of things we say to ourselves, Like what you just stated to JDA… So… Why is it to be “unlikely” we can’t see all the clues?

          • Seeker…. you are correct it is a preconditioning a solve before you get started. It is so because IMO Forrest is straight forward point to point type of person. It’s all in his writings and comments. I didn’t says you can’t but I did say it’s not likely, and the reason being; he walked more than a few miles from his car. That in itself makes it unlikely to me, not to mention the clues themselves.

            You are free to think whatever you want, just because someone challenges your theory doesn’t mean it’s wrong just as challenging anyone’s theory makes it wrong. It’s only wrong when proven wrong. In this case it’s when the TC is found or if Fenn says it’s wrong.

            NO offense, but you seem to suggest that planning, observing, analyzing and looking at maps are not part of the point to point method, or as you say the stomping the ground method. It doesn’t matter what method you call it what matters is does it work for you. There’s a 2 million dollar prize up for grabs.,…… please, anyone try anything that you please.

            Sorry, Seeker, I’m just not seeing your view method and that’s okay because you see it that way, and I thank you for purposing your ideas. It is another way to see the chase.

            As you asked, and JDA answered….We are all searching for “Indulgence”.

  46. Hi All;

    Seeker’s post – Aptly titled “What are we looking for? Answer – There are a thousand answers. We are looking for Indulgence. We are looking to solve a riddle. We are looking for WWWsH. We are looking for a dream. We are looking for an “Area” or “Location” somewhere in the four states, in the Rocky Mountains that will satisfy all of the clues. Or, we are looking for the correct way to read the poem – The way that Forrest wants us to read it.

    All are good answers, and I would even say that all are correct answers.

    Lots of theories abound. I have mine, CharlieM has his, Poisonivey has his, and, yes, Seeker has one or two of his favorites. Who’s theory or process will prevail, or will it be a combination of several, or a totally new one? My guess is that the “Correct Process” has been discussed here on the blog. Mine? Seeker’s? or any one of a myriad of others? Not sure, but Good luck to all – Including me.

    May each and every one of you out there follow your own dream, and your own path, and may you find – “What are we looking for”… “What you are looking for”. JDA

    • OK – JDA, I’ll ask this way… What does the poem say we’re looking for?

      I’ll bring up Becky’s Q&A again. The question was;
      Can the blaze be pre-determined by the poem or can it only be determined at the search area. The answer took 30 mins not to answer the question, yet fenn still had MWs post it.

      Another Q&A; How far is the chest located from the blaze? Casey
      [in part] the answer was; logic tells me that if you don’t know where the blaze is it really doesn’t matter. If you can find the blaze though, the answer to your question will be obvious.

      So “what are we looking for?” It’s a serious question, not just a title for a blog thread.
      You said the chest… nope, you can’t not find the chest [it hidden]… you “need” to find something else to find the chest.

      In a stomping point to point mode, the only answer is, the last place one ends up.
      That has to be HLnWH or at least WH. it’s the last mentioned clue before the blaze… [reasonably]
      Is that not an easy predetermined clue for the blaze, and by the stomping mode method, on site, is only to arrive at that clue… especially IF, as many want to believe, this all can be solve at home and/or know what a decipher clues is, and all that is need is to locate it [ the blaze ]. LOL that all sounds predetermined to me.
      AND if so, just about any good guess of a deciphered right clue beyond WWsH is good enough, right? I mean, if we can actually find HLnWH or the place that is not for the meek… on a map as a physical reference / feature, what’s to stop anyone from not looking for WWsH and still find the blaze?
      I mean what’s the difference between finding a clue that there many of them… to finding any other clue… no matter how many there are? IF all they are for is to stomp to and go to the next one.

      In a observational solve [ mode ], a searcher *Needs* WWsH, there’s no way around it.
      That matches what fenn as been saying about the first clue, or ya have nothing. In this method we are looking for one thing… the blaze [ Casey’s Q&A ].
      In this theory; the blaze could be found on a map, but, only if you can determined *what* it is prior. That can’t be done from seeing it from above.

      I explained the blaze can’t be determined, yet it can, as well…
      We can figure out which clue represents the blaze [ in the theory that’s hoB] Yet we can only determined exactly what it is by seeing if from ground level [ a map or GE sees it from a different view]…. The answer to the question is both yes and no … but… not either, or.

      So … with this method in mind, and how it is explained to work… try and answer Becky’s question without giving the cow away, and still have Casey’s question be true… that the answer to how far the chest is from the blaze will be obvious.
      Keep in mind, in all solves that have been mentioned with searchers stomping point to point they all have stanza 3 as places to stomp to… [ all of the ones I have read over the past 7-8 years.] So most stampeders think hoB shouldn’t or couldn’t be the blaze, because the blaze is at the end of their stomping of clues.

        • Nor mine. The Becky Q&A is one of the most important ATFs, in my opinion, for the very reason that Forrest couldn’t find a way to answer it — yet went to the trouble of explaining to us that the wording of her question apparently put him in a pickle. He didn’t have to answer at all, or he could have said something like, “I don’t want to answer your question because it would give too much away” (similar to how he has replied to other questions he didn’t want to answer). It reminds me of his response to the “other methods of transportation” question.

          What this tells me is that Forrest’s blaze is not ordinary. It could be something entirely unexpected and of a nature that is not yet on anyone’s radar: e.g. not an “F” on a tree, not a conspicuous rock or a scar on a rock, not a white streak on a canyon wall, a waterfall, a rainbow, or an owl flying away. Something no one has mentioned.

          • or it simply could be the “path”.. if you’ve been wise and found the trail… (that sort of blaze). If one were to read those ff answers and (for arguments sake) the blaze was actually the path one took. Then ff’s answer make a great deal of sense.

            not that I am leaning that way yet.

            I also go back to the 200′ person, the blaze must stand out to be… well a blaze. yet the person within 200′ did not notice anything that stood out. There is no person on earth that would be within 200′ of lets say a “water fall”, and not get closer to check it out… or even more unlikely, then not also say to ff that they ‘checked’ out the waterfall, basically telling ff that they were closer than 200’…

            imo it is impossible for the blaze to be a waterfall in that situation, nor anything else for that matter that “stands out”… at least from 200′ away.

            if the blaze were a point marker, or an object, it just about has to be less than 3′ tall/big… for someone to not notice something that is supposed to ‘stand out’ from 200′ away. (that is if the blaze were a marker/object)

            for sure we have the wrong idea for the blaze… it really can not be anything that people have described in the past (except for possibly a small marker on a small object) but then it would be fairly easy to remove… rather than difficult to remove…

            I would have to agree, the blaze is something entirely unexpected… or a path… 🙂

          • HI Writis: like you, at times over the years I’ve considered that possibility: that it’s just the path you’ve been following. Certainly works fine with his use of past tense in the poem, but in that case it really isn’t a clue at all. It is more the totality of the string of clues you’ve solved up to that point. And in that case, we have a conflicting ATF:

            Outside: Live Bravely (8/11/2015): “The problem searchers make is that they don’t dwell long enough on the first clue. If you can’t find the first clue you don’t have anything. People driving down the street looking for a blaze, because that’s one of the clues, but you can’t start in the middle of the poem and find the treasure.”

            So if the blaze is the path (the trail you’ve been blazing), then I don’t think you can call it a separate clue. Is that how others feel about it?

          • I can go with that, Zap.

            Writis, why do you think this?…”for sure we have the wrong idea for the blaze… it really can not be anything that people have described in the past.”

          • FD, to answer that, I’ll repeat the same thought, the person that was at 200′, did not recognize something that stands out, everything mentioned in the past that is something you can look at and physical. (marker/object) would be recognizable at 200′ (i’ll go over what is small enough that has been mentioned further down).

            waterfall for instance.
            white streak through rock face for instance…

            basically anything larger than about 3′ as a physical object would be recognizable at 200′ as something that stands out.

            we know the blaze is physical, we know it’s job is to stand out. yet someone at 200′ did not see a “physical” thing that stands out.

            which is also pretty much anything that people have described in the past that is physical.

            now what about things that are less than 3′, like a mark on a tree. or mark anywhere that people have described in the past.

            it can’t be that either, because we are to believe that it would be difficult to remove… anything smaller than 3′ or anything that is a mark on an object that is less than 3′ is fairly easy to remove and/or destroy…

            so we are left with something that has not yet been described.

            (or it is a path, which others including me have described in the past)

            but it is probably not something like that either…

        • Zap… It’s a typical Fenn answer that keeps the audience glued to their seats waiting for more. It seems like one of those [I’m not ready to say] type deals to me. I think the blaze is cleverly incorporated into the poem… and… I don’t believe it has been spoken of [pause] anywhere. I also do not think it will be found on a map or GE.

          • Hi Ken: sounds like your blaze idea is similar to mine. I vetted my blaze theory against my list of 20 blaze-related ATFs that Forrest has made over the years. It works just fine with 19 of them. However, one is possibly problematic depending on interpretation, and unfortunately one conflict is all it takes to kill a theory. This audio transcript is the one that may be tripping up my idea — perhaps it’s problematic for yours as well? It’s from Dal’s in June 2014 — you don’t see it mentioned nearly as often as the other blaze quotes:

            FF: “The blaze is a physical thing. It’s not theoretical. Boy did I give you a big clue. (Laughter.) That’s not a clue … I mean, it doesn’t take a scientist to figure out that a blaze is something you can look at.”

          • Zap-and everyone
            Please cite your Forrest quotes…preferably with a link to the original source.
            That quote is from part of Nick Lazaredes’ interview with Forrest for the DateLine program on the SBS network which is the Australian Public Television Service. I was at Forrest’s house when Nick was there and we went to Fennboree together where he met several searchers that he interviewed for his story.

            I audio recorded some of the interview with Forrest. Not all the questions/answers from an interview end up in the final product. It occurred to me that all of what Forrest told Nick was meant to be public…yet we only hear the parts that end up in the final program. I can’t remember if that quote made it in the final program or not but I thought it was interesting so I posted it from my audio recording.
            Nick edited up two versions of the story. You can watch them here:

            You can listen to my audio recording (where Forrest’s quote in Zap’s comment above came from) here:

            You can find more than a hundred interviews with Forrest in print, radio, and TV on the Media Connections page of this blog…For the most part they are in chronological order?

          • Hi Zap
            I’m familiar with the [blaze] info… I’ve quoted that one here at least a time or two. None of the comments about the blaze from Fenn are a deterrent in any way for my idea. I’m thinking that our blazes are not the same. Fifteen years is a long time to sit on an idea and tweak things. The important thing is the right one is out there.

          • Hi Ken: I’m quite sure our blazes are not the same, but they may share the same underlying idea. My blaze is certainly something you can see, so that’s not the issue. The reason I supplied the caveat “depending on interpretation” is simply that since my blaze is something you can see, that technically means it’s a physical thing and therefore not “theoretical.”

          • No… I get it Zap. The fact is, the important one is out there… as in… out there. Ha !

          • Hi Dal: apologies for not including the link — in my notes all I had was the date it appeared here, so thank you for digging it up. I’ll update my file to include it!

          • I remember watching and rewatching the Nick Lazaredes’ videos with interest early in my searching. Not only did Nick tag along with two of the rock stars of the chase- Dal and Diggin’ Gypsy- but Dal was even searching in one of my spots, Tres Piedras. (Actually, Dal (and many others) where there first, so I guess I was searching at his place). I then remember trying to figure out if Forrest actually said “the blaze is white,” or if that was Dal’s educated interpretation/ deduction of something Forrest said ( I believe it was the latter).

          • Stonerolledaway, no that is not the case, this is the only thing that I know of that he said about that:


            Did you really say the blaze is a white streak, as has been rumored? Thank you. ~

            “Thanks Deb,
            No, I did not say that. There is a lot of bad information floating around the blogs and many posts that are not well thought out. One person said (I’m paraphrasing) ‘He said the treasure is hidden in the trees.’ Then he contradicted himself and said it was in the sun. How could it be both. Makes me wonder if that person has ever been in the forest. “

      • Seeker, oddball thinking..it stands for reason that hoB is not the Blaze, if it were the Blaze then why put in below it to get to it. Why NPFTM, etc., etc., until you find the blaze. If you think that hoB is the Blaze then you leave out half of the poem. BIWWWH, TIITCD, NFBTFTW and PIBTHOB look quickly down and find the TC. In order to put in below the hoB you must first identify it. And, if you do that, in your view it’s also the Blaze and you would just look down the oblivious distant from the hoB Blaze to the TC. Faulty logic at best.

        • ManOwar;

          I don’t want to toot Seeker’s horn, but if you are going to be critical of Seeker, at least read what he has posted. Seeker has said that “put in” can mean something like “Fix your gaze on” so, fix your gaze on something that is below the hoB. You don’t go there, you look. So, you don’t “get to it.” as you stated.

          He has also explained, more than once how he interprets NPFTM etc. All of which makes it possible for hoB to be not only the Blaze, but also the Heavy Loads. You may not agree with his ideas, but at least give him credit for stating them, and make sure that when you say something critical, that you are factual – JMO

          Seeker is a big boy, he doesn’t need me to defend his theories. I just get a wee bit upset when people throw stones without reading (or understanding) what someone is trying to say. Seeker may not always be the easiest person to understand, but he has the courage to put ideas out there. I do not recall you having posted any critical new ways of thinking – Did I miss it?

          I will now get off of my soapbox – JDA

          • JGA,

            Yes, I have given him credit, look above at 4:50 pm of today. And, yes I posted my ideas many times, go back and read them. In fact I think you responded to some of them. So you were incorrect on both of your charges. Yes, Seeker is a big so why do you need to defend him? He full out criticizes others PTP methods, his methods are not exempt. With that said to each his own. Happy hunting JDA.

          • How is this, what are we looking for; well after locating clue 1,2,3,4,5, beings you to, If you’ve been wise and FOUND, clue 6- the blaze, clue 7- look quickly down, and your quest to cease, but tarry scant with marvel gaze at all there to retrieve something that you must have that will help pinpoint the chest and clue 9 -If you are brave and in the wood.

          • That’s why you’re not going to be able to just get out of your car and walk over in the wood and retrieve it. You’ll have to work for it.

        • I agree with what you said, also Seeker has put up a good fight for 12 days now, down for the count, the Ref is administering smelling salt, stay tuned.

          Best regards

        • LOL… what can I say ManOwar… JDA said it for me.
          You don’t seem to understand or didn’t read the thread fully. NPFTM is not actually a place. Look up the definition of “place” .. be sure to read all of the meanings and usages, ya may even want to check a few different dictionaries and/or google searches.
          Again, I’ll say; you can’t argue the meaning of the words fenn chose in his poem, You can argue the method I came up with from them, but the words are what they are.
          What I find funny is how some of you guys or gals call fenn a wordsmith yet don’t like the definition of the words, because you feel its too complicated.
          Ya might want to look up the word difficult while you’re at it… the simplest, easiest, less complicated meaning of the word is;
          ~Something that is difficult is not easy to do, understand, or deal with.

          • Haha, really funny, dream on, Seeker, dream on; dreaming by the way is not too difficult.

          • You can’t in other’s opinion say what NPFTM is, just say there is a creek named Ghost creek; that could be no place for the meek! How about Monster Gultch , oh ya! differently no place for the meek!

          • Seeker: “you can’t argue the meaning of the words fenn chose in his poem”.

            That’s pretty much what everyone has been doing for 9+ years, Duh.

          • TT,

            I’m not saying NPFTM couldn’t be what your example is, overall.
            For this theory’s method, “Place” can mean to be put into a situation, and I explained what that is… I explained what the end is ever drawing nigh could represent in that situation, and the rest of stanza 3 as well… all relating to what the word “Place” means in one of its definitions, and all relating to why they could be instructions, rather than, physical locations.
            Instructions that carry from the idea that “take it in” is to visually watch from WWsH.

            So sure, it could be a scary name of a place, oooOOooo… but it just doesn’t work for the theory / method.

          • Well, Jake…
            I can’t argue that argument.

            Only most meanings used by searcher still relate to an idea… one idea… we have to stomp point to point. And just like TT said, NPFTM could be a name of a place like Monster Gultch.
            That’s ok for the point to point method, yet there is very little or no planning and observation for that method / solve itself.

            Do we need to observe maps? … no, we don’t watch maps we read them. Do we need to observe for snakes and bear or big cats? I guess we should keep a watch out for them, but they have nothing to do with the poem.

            Anyways, I’ll make sure to pack extra sock for the trip… yep, that sounds like a plan.

          • So, the divine question is…
            What are we looking for?
            The blaze.

            The poem doesn’t say – If you’ve been wise and found the treasure or chest. No

      • The word “obvious” is misused a lot. I think even Forrest misused it.
        But he did indicate that he has the right to make mistakes. All IMO.

    • John,
      If that is only an idea of how a geological feature can work.. sure. I remember a searcher posting a natural created whole on a large rock one could see through, so yes, the premise is very plausible.
      IF, by the pictures from that link is what you’re talking about… I’d be thinking twice, they are of man-made structures.
      I don’t like the idea of anything man-made or any built structure [ beaver dam for example ] for any clue.
      fenn said; the ‘treasure is not associated with a structure’
      As far as I’m concerned, the clues are directly associated with the treasure by default… fenn created the clues for the sole purpose to discover the location of the treasure.

      • John Edo; you may be interested in the link I provided to Seeker in support of his calendar/clock/compass theory; he clearly was not but now I can see how Seeker might consider culturally modified trees to be a “man made structure” and not of interest in his theory or the chase. However, I believe Forrest is well aware of and interested in archeoastronomy . It just occurred to me that the poem itself could be interpreted as a “man made structure” – but surely the treasure is associated with the poem. Sometimes we are too literal, IMO.

        • Sally,

          By some definition of the word structure, everything has a structure of sorts… even the little atoms. When you add; Man Made into the equation [ which fenn did ] structure becomes pretty obvious.

          Anyways, I don’t down the thought of archeoastronomy for what it is. However, it’s main Idea, the way I see it, is more about how culture, and people seeing their cultures to the study of the topic.
          I lean to the more physical use of it [ for lack of a better term ] something we simply see everyday, and use what we see for different aspects of daily life.
          For example; today we have lights and vehicles and many jobs and activities we do at night, clocks for quick references of different time, day and night etc.
          However, back when, we needed to work around day light for many of those things. We used star and the moon etc. to create a calendar, and worked around their movements for timing things [ for one example ], and that can date back thousands of years, maybe even tens of thousands.
          Places like the medicine wheel does a lot of those things… yet man also used them for the purpose of spiritual and cultural ideas. So in part, it is a tool and a place of worship at the same time.
          The question is… are we to see a simple sunrise, or celestial anything, involving the cultural Idealism, which can take an idea into many alternative man made beliefs…
          or … just the fact it happens and can be relied on as; a reliable and timetable event? – without all the mumble jumble of believing there is a spiritual event happening.
          Because my question would have to be; who’s culture and beliefs are needed to be followed? and/or what time period do we look into for that? I dare say in a 1000 years all our beliefs will be exactly as today’s [ in any culture ].

          I mean, by 2050 the computer could be come self-aware. LOL who’s culture and beliefs will a searcher in 3009 work off of? Its too much fluffinutter for me.

          For this theory / method… a sunrise is just a tool that could help *how* we locate the hidey spot. The only studying that is needed is to watch the blaze during a time of day.

          Just out of curiosity you said; I believe Forrest is well aware of and interested in archeoastronomy. In many of his field of life I can see that… to some point. even if it’s just a curiosity thing.
          Why do you think so? or maybe a better worded question should be; why would you think it as something to do with the poem’s clues-?- involving the cultural side of the topic.
          It kinda borderlines on history… and I’m [personally] very careful when walking that line.

          Note; I won’t call the study of cultures as ‘special knowledge’ we do that in in grade schools… But I would call archeoastronomy as “advance knowledge” of the subject, and that alone, makes is specialized.

      • I wonder if Mr. Fenn considers the poem simple, yet complex,
        complex, yet simple?

        • Fenn has said that some things that seem simple to him can be so complicated for others. He knows the answers and we don’t… easy for him but not so much for us.

          • Funny that the rest of that Fenn comment says that he thinks we should take another look at our definitions.

          • Ha! Ken,
            Ya found another clue… the chest may have been meant to hold a book… was Funk and Wagnells around in 1150 ad.?

            I always proof read when using that reference tool.

        • ‘The poem in my book, is something that l changed over and over again. When you read the poem, it looks like just simple words there. But I guarantee you I worked on that thing … I felt like an
          architect drawing that poem.’ -ff

          The answer to your question and the key to the poem is right there in that comment. Some still say this is a simple poem from a simple man because they think comments like these are not to be taken literary.

          He also said: “It doesn’t matter who you are, it only matters who they think you are, and everything in the chase revolves around that statement” -ff (I think that is the quote)

          • The first part he said or wrote too many times to count; but he surely never said or wrote the “. . . everything in the chase revolves around that statement” part of what you attributed to him.

          • You were right, that is not what he said, that’s what I remembered. What he said was “It doesn’t matter who you are, it only matters who they think you are. Everything comes back to that in the thrill of the chase.”
            To me it means the same thing but in the spirit of keeping the quotes exactly as spoken…

          • “It only matters who THEY think you are.”

            Who the heck does ff mean by “THEY”?
            Sounds a bit paranoid IMO; but he might simply have been speaking about patrons of his art gallery.

      • Seeker, agreed on the man made structure; has to be natural. The start is alone; confined. The poem moves to open and free. Much like the smell of freedom was too much and he went out the window, or much like his current den. Surrounded, alone time to think. But a window in his office with a hanging bell. When the bell rings class dismissed and you go free!

    • What a coincidence, John Edo! I was just looking through that very embrasure in Caen in June!

    • Wisdom is readily available, but not from the wrong sources (such as social
      media, television “news” shows, fashion ‘zines, etc.). As always, IMO.

      • TA
        I get your point- but it is generalizing and not agreeable. Sorry DAl this is all off subject.
        No disrespect but I think wisdom comes from knowledge and experience to were those things you mentioned can be usefull if looked at thought with what wisdom and knowledge you already have, therefore questioning and drawing a better understanding.
        In the end a much wiser mind.
        No need to respond
        Just my opinion on the way you stated that.

        • Grasshopper ~ ‘I think wisdom comes from knowledge and experience to were those things you mentioned can be usefull if looked at thought with what wisdom and knowledge you already have…’

          Sure, and fenn is a person chuck full of wisdom and knowledge from his experiences.

          But if someone like a guy from NYC who’s never been farther west than NJ, worked at the same job for 20 years, a high school drop out… where does his experiences and wisdom come into place for the challenge?

          The guy is handed a poem and told all the information to find [ figure out ] where the chest is, is there… and the only real tool you were given is the book the poem is in… what good is the guy’s wisdom and experiences going to do for the challenge?

          For this to be relatively an even event for anyone… the wisdom must be in those to things.
          He just needs to pull it out correctly. That gives him and someone who lives in the RM’s with all their experiences and wisdom, both a fair shake at the challenge. Like Goofy implied; How did fenn get around folks like him and Dal who have been all over the RM’s and keep it fair for all?

          What I think is hurting both of those guys [ and probably most searchers ] is.. a precondition idea of how a treasure hunt should unfold… mainly a point to point method… so wisdom and experience just fly out the window if that is all anyone considers.
          Where it the idea; “The blueprint is challenging so the treasure may be located by the one who can best adjust. To illustrate my point go to YouTube – Smarter Every Day. f ”

          A little imagination might be a better avenue to explore.
          I’ll add; MWs Six questions with Forrest Fenn.
          Q~ In your memoir, The Thrill of the Chase, after the poem, you mention there are subtle clues sprinkled throughout that book. You have said you hadn’t deliberately placed these subtle hints in your book; but have you done so in any of your other writings mentioned in Question two (scrapbooks, vignettes, etc)? Or, even if maybe not purposely sprinkled in those writings of Q2, would you consider some of those to contain subtle hints too, like in The Thrill of the Chase?

          A ~ I don’t want to broaden the clues and hints I’ve written about by pointing them out. What surprises me a little is that nobody to my uncertain knowledge has analyzed one important possibility related to the winning solve.

          What important possibility?
          Do we really think either of those guys / gals have an advantage, of sorts, from their wisdom and knowledge over anyone else?
          I don’t.

          • Wisdom and knowledge is not the same thing.
            Thou we all possess the same information we are do not possess wisdom.
            Wisdom knows what to do with the knowledge.
            Imagination on the other hand is where we all differ.
            We bring to the table what we know and have experienced in life.

          • Thou we all possess the same information we are do not possess wisdom.
            Thou we all possess the same information we do not possess wisdom.

          • Me,

            You made my point, we all have different wisdom for our experiences [ that includes teachings from school and from life and people we meet etc. ]

            fenn has said; everyone has the same opportunity.
            opportunity; a set of circumstances that makes it possible to do something.

            So I ask; Is the opportunity in the challenge; our sets of circumstances, or more to the idea of what we were given for the task of the challenge.

            This brings me full circle to what you said; Wisdom knows what to do with the knowledge.
            Who’s knowledge do we work with?
            Ours from our experiences, information
            The information [ knowledge ] given to us?

            I’ll even take it a step further. The poem is the avenue the information fenn wanted us to have…. wouldn’t the first thing to do is look up that information-?- and see it from his knowledge?
            and to be clear; the information are the words in the poem.

            If you want to call that act, wisdom… ok. I call it common sense.

            The wisdom we all collect from the knowledge we obtain through out our personal lives… imo… falls flat.
            We need to listen to the new knowledge presented to all… that is why I think… that knowledge give us all the same opportunity.
            It doesn’t matter if you’re a rocket scientist, a baseball player, a house wi.. I mean.. domestic engineer, or a photographer…. we need that new knowledge to create new wisdom… we all are in a learning curve at this moment.

            The only question left to ask is; will we see it the way it was intended?

            That is the main problem I’m seeing; our personal knowledge, and the wisdom we gain from it our lives, forces a precondition notion of how we think we should proceed.
            Call that; poor wisdom .. a folly.

            I’d almost say.. wisdom collected from our personal experiences could be our Achilles heel.
            I think this is what fenn may have meant when he told us to get back in the box… go back to the poem… the thing he felt like an architect creating.

            But, I may not be as wise as most folks in the challenge… so go with ya know best.

          • Seeker
            Thiank you for seeing that as I posted it above. I was not implying that one with more knowledge would have an advantage over one from NY with little experience or education. Mr. Fenn. Possibly Implied that when he spoke of hoping a RN family from TX would find the treasure. I m not quoting and this just my rememberence of that statement.
            Therefore as you stated all you need is the poem and the book. I may have disagreed with that in the past but think you are correct in that as time has corrected me along the way I could see that point of view.
            Maybe your methods will solve the big mysteries of this chase and the book will reveal what imaginary thoughts are to be had. And you get to open hat box for the first time in past 9-10years

          • Seeker
            For the sake of this question I will answer it.
            That is a question of how someone of a different education and source of wisdom has just as much of an opertunity to solve as one from the education experience or wisdom.
            I truly believe that was Mr. Fenn s
            Yes their is a simplistic form to the solve. How do you get to that place we’re you can comprehend that.
            That goes back to the basics of mankind our primary instincts that we educate ourself away from.
            To bad we cannot reconnect to that for what it is and embrace that natural element for our current survival. Without we would not be doing this.
            Given that it is hard to find yourself thinking very simplistic thoughts to solve this.
            When I speak of these things my audience At home go blank. As many on the chase.
            I don’t proclaim to be able to think in that mindset. I am as many point to point. Fortunately I have an ability to see ahead enough to see something that is out of place and that does not always help me in the life I live. And I am sure there are others of the same. The only winner in the solve has been written into the solve as the one that can answer the directions perpis d in the poem to the solution.
            Not the box full of gold.
            If I am or have misspoken on this please let me know.
            My objectiive is to solve the poem and return the broken stoned heart.
            Price paid upfront.
            Sincerely. GH Pesticide or not.

          • Howdy Seeker,

            Ofttimes after reading your posts I find myself wondering if you are “him” trying to help us get the gist of this challenge. Other times… well, I think I’d been better off just asking for a swift kick to the nads, jk!!

            I was only answering the question- “What are we looking for”. Regardless of our individual backgrounds, it seems apparent to me that Forrest expects we have gained the needed knowledge along the way to be wise by the time we reach the fourth stanza of the poem. And just to level the playing field; I believe he provides the answer at that point. So very simplistic, and yet… so very clever!

            I plan on exposing where that has lead me later today, at the appropriate time; as I have reached the end of my line.

        • Since there are no other reply buttons to use I will be here.
          Tonight I tried to explain some things to my wife as to how when wh were this all happens.
          She looked as if she saw a ghost.
          She didn’t want to even here the story. Who would believe or be part of this to this extreme except those dedicated. I don’t have negative feelings towards that but it does tell me of my isolation. If you have not experienced this you have not given it your all.
          I have and still am paying the price for my choices.
          Is it worth it. Personally. Yes family. No. Is this a personal venture. In a way. Very much so. Family. I the end yes in my mind. But I think not in the primitive way so am I doing the right thing.
          I wish I had the answers.

          • To Seeker
            Wisdom and knowledge is not the same thing.
            Thou we all possess the same information we are do not possess wisdom.
            Wisdom knows what to do with the knowledge.
            Imagination on the other hand is where we all differ.
            We bring to the table what we know and have experienced in life.

            Let me see if I can clear this up.

            Wisdom knows what to do with the knowledge.

            Wisdom is knowing how to use the information presented and what to do with it.
            Poem is the instructions to a map. I see three different levels when I look at this poem. I’m not gonna try explain this most won’t get it. The books and any info off the internet might help if you know what you are doing. Most people trying to solve this poem go with what they have been thought or try what others are doing. Many fall short because of the limitations they are putting on themselves. Forrest has taken this challenge to a whole different level. If you can’t adapt and start thinking like him you don’t stand a chance. Personally I’ve traveled a different route than most, at least I think so. I have been learning as much as I can about Forrest. At least what he willing to share and he has shared plenty.
            I spent more time studying Forrest then the poem when I first started.
            I use what nature has thought me and apply that wisdom and work all the knowledge into a solution.
            Knowledge being all the info I’ve gathered be it the poem, books, internet and interviews of Forrest.

            Imagination on the other hand is where we all differ.

            We are thought different ways of looking at the world and life. We all live on this planet yet we perceive it indifferent ways. It is that different way of looking at things that come into play when looking at this challenge. I would like to share more but I think I’m going to deep here and I better stop. Wouldn’t want to reveal all the mysteries of the universe. LOL.

    • No worry; I think I’ve found all that is needed about 50 miles further/farther down the road.

  47. I think we should thank Seeker for presenting his original and well thought out hypothesis and giving us something new to think about. I say hypothesis because it is a “supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation” as opposed to solution that has been thoroughly checked out. As such, a lot of the criticism here is largely as hypothetical as the hypothesis. But his idea flows well and, if we’re fair, must be considered as plausible as any other solution that has been presented. There are several points in its favor: requires an observational component, keeps the clues in relatively close proximity as opposed to driving all over creation, and seems to provide an explanation for several of the ATF’s we love to hate.

    Unfortunately, I think the biggest mistake made here is the argument that the “stomping method” hasn’t worked in 9 years so it must be wrong. This doesn’t elevate the validity of the hypothesis. Here’s an analogy. Say you’re panning for gold in a stream where no gold exists. Would it be correct to conclude that ‘panning for gold’ (the equivalent of using a given solve technique) is an invalid method for finding gold? Of course not. Going a little further, suppose you are panning in a stream where there are gold deposits but still you fail to find gold because you aren’t reading the river correctly/finding the right places (similar to having been close to the treasure but went by the other clues). Well you still can’t blame the tool….you’re gold pan is only as good as the operator and his ability.

    Personally I think that it’s entirely possible that the real solution will include elements of both styles (point-to-point with observational clues along the way). I really can’t think of any better way to prevent short-cuts, keep the search simple yet difficult, and require that the searcher must ‘adjust’ along the way( http://mysteriouswritings.com/featured-question-and-weekly-words-from-forrest-fenn-get-back-in-the-box/ ). Why not a hybrid? Remember this exchange with Shaun Whitehead early in the going: Q4, http://mysteriouswritings.com/six-questions-with-shaun-whitehead-archeologist-creationeer-and-treasure-hunter/ to which Forrest reportedly replied: “You are a class act Shaun and your comments are mostly correct.” (Reported by Shaun)

    For a very well reasoned discussion on this and a few other thoughts from JCM look here: https://dalneitzel.com/2016/04/17/the-nine-clues-42/#comment-132653

    • Colloid said- “Personally I think that it’s entirely possible that the real solution will include elements of both styles (point-to-point with observational clues along the way).”

      This is what I’ve been saying all along. The part about observational clues is that this method is not some new, clever thing to be used. It’s been done in conjunction with the point to point method by probably every searcher out there since day one. I don’t think any searcher has not stopped at points along their search to look, observe and plan.

      It’s why I think Colokid’s quote I pasted above is the biggest mistake made by Seeker’s theory. Seeker’s theory originally forbid this hybrid approach, even down to not being able to move 10 feet from one’s wwwh. After I brought up that means one would need to bring superglue, than Seeker clarified that he didn’t explain well enough that a little movement was possible. I would like to see an updated and condensed explanation for where Seeker’s theory is now.

      Colokid also said “if we’re fair, (Seeker’s idea) must be considered as plausible as any other solution that has been presented.
      On this point, it’s not on par with other solutions because it’s not a solution, it’s a theory as Seeker has reminded us and like Colokid said- a hypothesis. It’s comparing apples and oranges.

      There has been ample evidence that the point to point, traditional search method has worked, or made progress. So, I never understood Seeker’s argument to the contrary. I see a few searchers think this is a all or nothing thing when trying to understand progress made in The Thrill Of The Chase. I don’t agree with that.

      I also have been looking for Seeker’s explanation for how the clues get us closer to the tc if we don’t physically move closer after attempting a solve of each clue…

      • As a side note, I read the JCM link provided by Colokid and read about this quandary of JCM’s- “If TTOTC has hints in it that can help lead one to the chest and a person cannot figure out what those hints are and actually find the chest, then I can’t imagine how heaping on more material and hanging onto everything else f says is going to magically take one to Indulgence. It is irrational in my mind…”
        We’ve heard this thinking before. It’s what the poem purists bring up as their reason for not looking for hints in TTOTC book. I get their thinking, but I think it’s not well thought out, or too thought out (ants versus elephants).

        I don’t think what is more important to look towards is that there is more material to comb through. I think the important factor is that it’s comparatively easier material to get an actual solution to the correct starting point to the first clue area.

        That is what is universally known as a hint does for everyone in any situation. A hint that is given to someone helps them more efficiently solve whatever quandary they are stuck on.

        That is simply why it’s rational. It’s the symbiotic relationship between a hint and a clue that has endured throughout time.

      • FD,

        You still are forcing [ there is not other way to say it ] a physical movement through points by using the definition of “close / closer” as to physically move towards. ***Only!***
        Close; One definition is ; (of observation, examination, etc.) done in a careful and thorough way.
        Closer; comparative of `near’ or `close’) within a shorter distance.
        If all you’re going to do is ‘think’ you need to move to accomplish “get closer” by *the physical act* only.
        You will never grasp the concept of the observational method… because that needs to be *planned out* to see it *played out.*

        Every thought on any blog is, at this point, is only a theory… why whine about theories.. it’s all we have .

        The catch is, the method of following through has been all the same… point to point. Even when someone “looks” while on site… they then move to somewhere else, again and again. It’s a precondition behavior.

        You are correct… the observational method doesn’t allow a hybrid method.
        But I don’t totally dismiss it myself… it just isn’t workable in this method, with this theory, with the attempted solution, of reading the poem in this manner. That has been my position for a long time… I think we are reading the poem wrong… and it start right from the intro in the book ‘Follow” and “Lead”
        We automatically assume the meanings of these words can only be the most common / easiest to understand usage of their definitions.. yet both words can be of an observation, as well.

        I have shown many words in the poem all relate to the same premise… you, and probable most, simple dismiss those fact of words usages. So when you say searchers have used the observational method… I say Nope. its has always been followed up with movement between clues. That is still a stomping mode method – hybrid or otherwise.

        fenn stated in his preface of TTOTC he bend words [specifically talking about words in a dictionary] Tells us others think he corrupt words…. This/these comments, imo, are “very subtle hint” Because a clue is information, a hint is to make someone think / helps to think….. not tells.

        You said ~ Seeker’s theory originally forbid this hybrid approach, even down to not being able to move 10 feet from one’s wwwh.
        Nope, YOU like to think a searcher has to be ‘glued’ [your words] to some magical foot print at WWsH…
        All I say / and imply is, you can’t *leave* that clue’s reference. Then explain in detail why. Yet, also explain a searcher may need to adjust a line of site to see whatever is to be seen [ in this case hoB ] properly.
        I even explained why GE / maps can’t accomplish that…
        You’re nitpickin excuses for arguments against, WWsH is a viewing station, by implying a searcher stays in one tiny little spot /glued to it / not allowed to move around WWsH…. is just silly at best.

        You also claim; ~ ‘There has been ample evidence that the point to point, traditional search method has worked, or made progress.’

        Really? lol where? All we have is folks arrived at clue[s] one and two and it seems the did it simultaneously… meaning they are probably close [near] to each other or *seen* together when a searcher arrives at the first clue. So far nothing has been indicated those clues are far apart.

        The only part of the “traditional method” so far [and there’s that precondition thinking again] is that folks walked away from every clue and the chest.
        Theirs more evidence… no, wait, I don’t like that word… there’s more common sense logic to assume, by many ATFs that the scale of the search area is much smaller that many think… not miles between clues.

        I guess when people say they can have an open-mind to possibilities and WhatIFs… they seem to miss the imagination part of opening one’s mind.

        Again, because some here seem to think I’m claim this theory as ‘the one’ an only…
        I’ll clarify once more… We might be reading the poem wrong by the precondition thinking this challenge is conventional / traditional / and only physical movement between clue’s references… is the only way to solve it.
        I disagree. And I think I have shown that an observational method is more than doable. Well, not only doable… but it seems we been suggested to consider it as well… Think and analyze and *plan and observe* and use of imagination…oh right.. an look at maps and/or GE as good tools to help with any method.

        • Seeker, counterpoints to things you said that don’t make sense to me…

          You said- “You still are forcing [ there is not other way to say it ] a physical movement through points by using the definition of “close / closer” as to physically move towards.”
          No I didn’t, I just asked your idea of what closer means to your theory.

          And with your response, are you saying that’s the only definition of how f used the term “closer” in that quote about what the clues do for searchers? Or it could be a hybrid deal and mean another definition also like what you think I’m stuck on but actually am not? I just wanted to know if you think more than one definition of the word “closer” was being used by f. I would think the opinion that he used “physically” closer has to show up at some point not less one parachuted precisely onto the tc. You might think that’s being absurd but I say we can’t assume any small detail when precision is the way forward.

          You said- “Every thought on any blog is, at this point, is only a theory… why whine about theories.
          Whine about it? Are you joking? I wrote solution once way up above to describe your theory and you corrected me. So, now I can’t correct it when I see someone post the same? Or, if I do I’m whining? That’s lame!

          You said- “The catch is, the method of following through has been all the same… point to point. Even when someone “looks” while on site… they then move to somewhere else, again and again. It’s a precondition behavior.“

          You said- “You are correct…”the observational method doesn’t allow a hybrid method.”
          Now you’re back to no traveling. I thought you told Colokid you could see the merits of a hybrid approach. Confused as usual.

          Maybe you can show a graphic of how the clues are laid out on a hypothetical map so we can understand how they relate to the searcher who is not suppose to travel to most of the clues after observing and planning. Showing how far one is allowed to move would be helpful cause your explanation has changed (you clarified above). And you did say or imply I don’t care if a searcher travels 10 feet it’s doesn’t work for this theory. This is the long quote for context- “No other spot will produce the image of hoB. I say image because I think hoB is a land feature that needs imagination to see it. If hoB is not identified…it’s probably not the correct WWWsH…back to the drawing boards. I also explained that some, if not many, may have see(n) this image…but all seemingly (went) to it. [I don’t care if it’s 10 feet or 1,000 feet away or more]…they moved away from the vantage point…which is needed to see the rest of the clues (instructions) unfold.

          You said- “I have shown many words in the poem all relate to the same premise… you, and probable most, simpl(y) dismiss those fact of words usages.”
          No, I don’t and haven’t simply dismiss(ed) those “subjective” word usages. I have just repeatedly stated that they are “subjective” so it is non compelling for me to do anything with them. So, please don’t speak for me when you can’t remember what I have clearly stated multiple times.

          You said-“ Because a clue is information, a hint is to make someone think / helps to think….. not tells.“
          I prefer f’s definitions for what a hint does for us and what a clue does for us.

          You said- “You’re nitpickin excuses for arguments against, WWsH is a viewing station, by implying a searcher stays in one tiny little spot /glued to it / not allowed to move around WWsH…. is just silly at best.”
          This is absurd. I was going off of how you explained your theory in the beginning and the small, important details that you hadn’t fleshed out yet. It’s only after I wrote about and asked about how far can one move from wwwh in this theory that you said you needed to clarify things and added that one could travel around a bit.

          You said- “You also claim; ~ ‘There has been ample evidence that the point to point, traditional search method has worked, or made progress.’

          Really? lol where? All we have is folks arrived at clue[s] one and two and it seems the did it simultaneously.
          Yes, really. Many have figured out the first clue. A few have figured out the first two clues. I don’t know where you are coming up with that they were done simultaneously. The first four clues may have been figured out. Walked by the tc.

          Some have been within 500 feet and 200 ft. An unknown concept of a word that is key has been uncovered. Uncovered by a few that have tried to figure out the poem with a traditional botg mindset by your own admission. Sounds like progress and the opposite of what you thought progress was. Like others have brought up, tell us what progress your theory has provided.

          I’m wondering if f has been given all of the clues in the wrong order. Reminds me, you don’t think f would tell us once 7,8 or 9 clues got figured out, do you? How about 4,5, or 6? I don’t think he ever would in a concrete fashion.

          You said- “there’s more common sense logic to assume, by many ATFs that the scale of the search area is much smaller that many think… not miles between clues.
          I agree with you that the search area is relatively small. But I think “much smaller” is subjective.

          I think plenty of imagination had been shown by the traditional point to point method searchers…Shrug my shoulders.

          • Every time I see that word “concrete”, I wonder about the
            poster’s true identity. This is NOT merely an opinion.

  48. Colokid,
    First, thanks for this comment; I say hypothesis because it is a “supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation” [ and your overall response ].
    While I agree a method of any kind can’t be ruled out. There comes a time to ask if it is the correct method at all? You even suggest a combination might well be worth consideration… I can’t disagree… But I would like to take the theory presented a bit further for reasoning.

    Note: I’m mostly posting ‘answer’ to save time and space… it’s the possible message of all the answers that is of the thought that matter…

    ~ It helps to know something about Rocky Mountain geography when making plans to search for my treasure. Rocking chair ideas can lead one to the first few clues, but a physical presence is needed to complete the solve. Google Earth cannot help with the last clue.
    {for the sake of argument, “GE and/or a good map” are of the same helpfulness}
    ~ No Steve R, The only requirement is that you figure out what the clues mean. But a comprehensive knowledge of geography might help.f
    ~ Q~ How much progress can be made by someone just thinking and searching the Internet from home? (Anot–her way of saying this: How many clues can only be decoded in situ?) 
    A~ FF: All of them, in theory, but not likely in practice. A searcher must go to the site to find the treasure.
    ~ No, the first clue in the poem is begin it where warm waters halt… if you can’t figure that clue out you don’t have anything.
    ~Q: “How do you know searchers have been within 200 feet of the treasure?”
    A: “Well, because there … people have told me exactly where they were, and that’s the only reason I know. And, and, that 200 feet I think is pretty accurate. But there weren’t very many people within 200 … lots of people within 500 feet of the treasure. But, uh, the people that were with(in) 200 feet didn’t know that they were that close to the treasure, and they walked right on by. And of course I would never tell ‘em that, ‘cuz they’d, uh, they’d try to remember where they had been.”
    ~Searchers have routinely revealed where they think the treasure was hidden and walked me through the process that took them on that course. That’s how I know a few have identified the first two clues. Although others were at the starting point I think their arrival was an aberration and they were oblivious to its connection with the poem. Playing a hunch is not worth much in the search and those who start out by looking for the blaze, are wasting their time.f
    ~It’s not a matter of trying, it’s a matter of thinking… Sure, I mean people figured the first couples of clues and unfortunately walked past the treasure chest.

    The first two comments seem the same yet different at first glance. One speaks of Comprehensive knowledge, while the other seemingly say, “know something” about the RM’s geography is much less important as it counterpart. I find the wording “Know something” almost as a care free answer, at first thought. Yet Comprehensive is more about advance knowledge. Most who read the two would probably refer to “know something” in the same manner I did at first… YET, is it as care free as we might think, or does it mean we need to actually “Know something about RM’s geography.. especially with the first clue? The clues; as one comment relays above; if we don’t have it, we don’t have anything [ and if we don’t have that clued nailed down, stay home]
    My biggest problem with a stomping method is, should we be able to solve actually “solve” a later clues… WWsH isn’t truly needed. I mean, can’t any point on a path be considered a ‘starting point’ if we can decipher / solve it at home?
    Hence My next thought and Q&A. Fenn was asked if that could be done.. solve clues from home. “All of them, in theory, but not likely in practice…”
    The kicker here is two folds; Not in practice is an actual attempt. So again, if a later clues is possibly solvable, Say; NPFTM. why can’t we seemingly start there-?- in stomp mode. Some will say; and I would somewhat agree, fenn said; “to find the chest”
    However, now we have fenn saying in another ATF; the first few clues can seemingly can get one to the site [we can argue all day to what a couple and few mean] but in the overall aspect from dozens of related comments, it is of the first two, [a couple of those are above as well] and it seem here is where things fall apart.
    I do get the gist that the idea could be [ in any method ] we just have a difficult clue to understand. Hence my point. Why is it being so difficult to get beyond it. [ lol, I’m sure some will say, but but, Seeker we don’t “know” someone hasn’t… sure ok… and the sky is purple ] Comments above, and many other, have related to fenn, searchers process that took them on that course. and that’s how he know the only clues to date [ thus far ] have been solved. We know it because he tells us. In a short summation, and being fair, an interpretation of those comments … searcher have solved the first two clues, and many ended up within 500′ while only a few with 200′ of the chest [ and even though I didn’t post this comment [ searcher went by the remaining clues ] to walk by the chest. One comment from the Torge and Elliot radio show states; ~ people figured the first couples of clues and unfortunately walked past the treasure chest.

    With all that said, and with as little as I posted [ because there are too many ATFs to collectively place here] I see a small location for folks to be able to go from clue on and to the location of the chest, missing it by 500′.
    While this doesn’t exclude stomping point to point, it does question a need for any alternative transportation. But what seems to be the hold up is the possibility of misinterpreting NF, BTFTW. I do agree that we don’t “KNOW” if this is clues 3, but logically it very well should/could be. I don’t think the majority would argue that assumption.
    This is where I think the “process” fenn is told of, the exact area / place / location, [call it what you will], people tell fenn they were to get close to the chest, is the flaw of a stomping mode. My hypothesis for this is NF, BTFTW [ in almost all cases I have read ] has searcher leaving WWsH… I get it… sounds reasonable, yet, this seems to be the stumbling point for all those cases. In another Q&A fenn was asked why he thought people quit? he responded; they didn’t quit, they left the poem. I’m saying [ for the observational solution theory ] they left the correct process that eventually took them past remaining clues and the chest by a distance of 500′ or less in some cases.

    Wait!!! WHAT? How the heck can people who live and breathe the chase miss it all? Not come across any other clue that they could possible know of as a deciphered reference [ from home] or on site with clues references] and not “stomp” from that point and stomp the rest of the clues??? Even if they didn’t follow a couple of earlier clues… they manage to get to 500′ of the chest, right?

    This is where the idea of “planning and observation” comes into play One reasonable thought / conclusion is, a precondition idea of a point to point method. So I get it… many do like the idea that NF,BTFTW might be as explained in the theory. The other is many don’t like stanza 3 to be of instructions and/or how it was interpret.
    Regardless of liking it or not… it does explain the many comments above and other {the ATF} But here’s the next question; [ lol, did you thing there wasn’t going to be a question?]
    What is it about the RM’s geography the we should no “something” about? I don’t think it about the complete solution, but about how we learn WWsH.

    Colokid, I’m not ruling out stomping or a hybrid version.. the above is just the reasoning I even looked into the observational method in the first place. The stomping process has failed with many searcher on site doing it. ya hve to ask why? Is it as simple as they all took a wrong turn? Is it that one clues doesn’t give the stomping mode enough information to work out? or is it the method itself?

    ~ Sorry folks, I’m not going to proof read this… just live with any grammar problems, spelling errors, punctuation mistakes, or email me at Idontcare dot opps. [all small caps, because it’s no big deal].
    But if ya have a question … toss it out!

    End of commentary….

    • – What is it about RM’s geography that we should no something about?

      Well, I think that some of the clues point to specific geographic locations- rivers, creeks, lakes, hot springs, boulders/ rock outcroppings and the like, so in that sense geography could be important. But how about simply a better understanding of geography in general? Will gaining a better understanding of things like location, place, movement, region, and human-environment interaction help? I’m starting to think so. (Is that what Forrest meant when he said a comprehensive (broad) knowledge of geography might help?)

      • I think so.

        I also think once you have that comprehensive knowledge of geography that something specific in the path to the clues will stand out as being odd so your geography knowledge will solve that anomaly. So, you got to bring that geographic knowledge to the focused area.

      • Stonerolledaway;

        I think you hit the nail on the head when you mentioned human interaction with the environment., if by this you mean human interaction with the area we are talking about. How did humans interact with the geography around them? JMO – JDA

      • Hi JDA: “How did humans interact with the geography around them?”

        By putting in roads, bridges, dams and trails (clearing forest and blasting rock as needed). They also applied names to things, surveyed and gridded the land into one-square-mile sections, and added various geographic boundaries (e.g. National Forest, National Park and Native American). Basically, all the things you find on a good, detailed map.

    • Seeker said- “My biggest problem with a stomping method is, should we be able to solve actually “solve” a later clues… WWsH isn’t truly needed. I mean, can’t any point on a path be considered a ‘starting point’ if we can decipher / solve it at home?”
      If that is your biggest problem with the point to point method than you don’t have a very big problem.

      A reasonable explanation for your quandary is that solving later clues is hinged to solving the first clue correctly.

      Mysterious Writings 12/11/2014:

      You say the clues in the poem are to be followed in consecutive order. You have also said the book holds sublte hints. Are these ‘subtle hints’ in consecutive order (in relation to how they help with clues in the poem) too? ~ Thank you, joseph

      That’s right joseph, you should start with the first clue and follow the others consecutively to the treasure. Hints in the book are not that organized.f

      • FD – even the quote you used is open to interpretation.

        “You should start with the first clue and follow the others consecutively to the treasure.”

        As you know, one of my theories is that I start with the first clue as my goal/the place I want to get to at the end of my trek.

        I then follow the other clues consecutively to arrive at that ending.

        Even though I have a conceptual start to TTOTC, I am still using clue #1 as a beginning, just not the physical start most feel is required.

        I then follow the other clues consecutively to the treasure.

        Isn’t that exactly what FF is saying in the quote you provided?

        • Bowmarc ~ ‘even the quote you used is open to interpretation.’

          Exactly. any one ATF alone can be thought of differently [ in my post to you below, I gave ideas of how we read into thing in a general manner ]
          That is why I’m constantly saying.. when I use a check n balance of the ATFs for any theory.. I have to use all ATFs to align not only with a theory, but align them as being truthful to each other overall.
          We can’t rely on one ATF and skip another because the ‘one’ works best in a theory. even IF those ATFs seem unrelated or seem to conflict… they must hold truth to each other somehow.
          IF we’re told we need WWsH or we don’t have anything, don’t go etc etc. And we have a theory that could possibly have us guess correctly a later to only to skip any clue that might be hanging us up [ in this case clue 3 and possibly 4] … the theory is flawed right from thought one.
          THE clues [later clue] might be correct, but the method is in questioned on ‘how to proceed’

          • There are many more relevant ATF and Fenn utterances being totally ignored in this thread. Folks still seem to pick and choose the one or few[couple/three/several] that fits the idea… but not others that are available. It really does not matter much in the end if the right person figures out the correct solution to the clues by using TTOTC, GE and/ or a good map.
            The discussions are great… but become tedious when it becomes mired in nitpicky issues that could go either way upon scrutiny. Interesting ideas being thrown around….

          • I’m not relying on one ATF. I just don’t want my posts to become super duper long. Anyone is invited to add an ATF that you think makes my point or points invalid.

          • Ken and others, bring up what you think are nitpicky issues.

            Others could prbly say they are important, small details that need to be dealt with for the precision needed.

          • FD ~’Anyone is invited to add an ATF that you think makes my point or points invalid.’

            I have, but will do it again…

            AFT ~ The clues must be followed in consecutive order.

            I’m not saying folks or you are not following your solves with all clues deciphered as you hope.

            I’m saying the method allows clues to be skips because we should already know where they are on a map [individually] to stomp to them. Again for example; I know wwhs and cd but I’m crapped out at at nf,btftw… only later to pick up a clue and continue on.
            The flaw is, it allows missing ingredients, even if you think you solved them but not found them… a point to point says; we have the eggs but don’t have the milk, but that’s ok… I as long as I have the vanilla flavoring.

          • FD… so far in this Chase there is very little [precision] to base anything on. Ideas and theories are not precise until proven and used to a successful completion. To argue a point no matter what it is without sufficient viable proof of a particular avenue can often go only so far if there is no give or take… or at least some common ground.

          • Seeker, I used that quote so you aren’t adding an ATF that I didn’t use to make my point or points invalid…as has been suggested here.

            And I just posted that I have repeatedly addressed your skipping clues or ingredients claims. That claim is still not accurate. There is no way to skip clues in the method I have described.

          • Ken, again…without specifics it’s no use bringing up your original complaint. What one says is nitpicky others will see someone analyzing the good and the bad of an idea.

          • Hello Seeker. At 12:57 p.m., in part you stated:
            ‘I’m saying the method allows clues to be skips because we should already know where they are on a map [individually] to stomp to them.’ I’ve tried searching for a quote I believe Mr. Fenn may have said a while ago, but I’m having difficulty finding it. I’ll probably get it wrong, but it went something like, “If you already know (e.g. heavy loads and water high ), why worry about (e.g. home of Brown). I hope someone can help post the exact quote. With this, do you feel skipping clues is being suggested?

          • pd;

            Here is the quote you were lookin g for:
            Question posted 7/2/2014:
            “Do you think that someone who is sure about the location of the home of Brown could reverse-engineer where warm waters halt? ~Ben Raylor
            Thanks for the question Ben.
            If you are sure about the location of home of Brown why are you concerned about where warm waters halt? But to answer your question, sure you could and a few searchers might throw in some gas money for a percentage of the take. Good luck”.f



          • Thank you SO much for your help, JDA! I greatly appreciate you finding the quote! 🙂

          • Hi Seeker: just want to address one point you made about a perceived flaw in any point-to-point search. You prefaced it with the ATF about the clues having to be followed in consecutive order. There have been a couple ATFs on this, so might as well quote them exactly:

            Lorene Mills (5/13/2011): “Well, in my book there’s a poem, like I said. And there are nine clues in the poem. And the clues are in consecutive order.”

            MW Q&A (12/11/2014) answer to Joseph: “That’s right joseph, you should start with the first clue and follow the others consecutively to the treasure. Hints in the book are not that organized. f”

            You then claim this “flaw”: “I’m saying the method allows clues to be skip(ped) because we should already know where they are on a map [individually] to stomp to them. Again for example; I know wwhs and cd but I’m crapped out at at nf,btftw… only later to pick up a clue and continue on.”

            You have an unstated premise: that a clue *can* be solved without solving all preceding clues. Forrest doesn’t share that view:

            Forrest Gets Mail (2/8/2017): “You cannot solve the problem by starting in the middle of the poem. You should start with the first clue and then solve the other eight in order.”

            Not quite as strong an ATF, but here’s another in the same vein:

            MW Q&A (6/20/2014): “I have a question for Mr. Fenn: When you hid your treasures, did you take the same path that is described in the poem, or were you able to skip some of the steps because of your familiarity with the area? Thank you, Curtis”

            FF: “The clues should be followed in order Curtis. There is no other way to my knowlege.f”

            Finally, this one lends strong support to the idea that Forrest doesn’t think it’s possible to solve the clues out of order:

            MW Surprise Words (7/14/2016): “Mr. Forest, I was just wondering. If I can find the blase, why should I worry about where warm waters halt? All I need to do is look ‘quickly down’ like the poem say, and there is the treasure, right? ~Philadelphia Franklin”

            Forrest replies: “That’s correct Philly, but that’s not a plausible scenario. If you can find a fish already on your hook you needn’t go fishing, right? Don’t force those kinds of aberrational thoughts on yourself or you’ll likely walk back to your car with a very light back pack. f”

            Forrest *believes* that he has constructed the clues in such a way that clue 2 can’t be solved before clue 1, clue 3 before clue 2, and so on. Now, he may be mistaken about this, of course, but his intent was to have a design that thwarted short-cutting.

            Now, I believe your argument is that if you’ve got the first clue or two, and you’re staring at your detailed map (or are there in person), the other clues that are associated with places ought to be obvious. Even if one of them eludes solution, just spiral out — the next one’s gotta be there somewhere, right?

            The trouble is: what if the clues become increasing vague such that the further along you get, the more solutions that can be found that fit a particular clue — and only in solving the immediately preceding clue could the correct answer be singled out? For instance, say you’ve solved WWWH and canyon down, but home of Brown is crossing you up. You figure you’re close — can’t you just skip ahead and check anything and everything that could be construed to be “a blaze”? I don’t think you believe that’s a sound strategy; even in a confined geographic area, there could be hundreds or thousands of blazes, and no system for choosing the correct one because you didn’t follow the clues in order and let them lead you there. Same goes for identifying what he means by “no place for the meek” or “heavy loads and water high.” Out of geographic context, there could be a very large number of possible answers.

          • I agree, Zap. Good write up.

            It’s as if Seeker is saying that the searchers who try the point o point method can somehow guarantee or know that they can skip a latter clue and find the tc. This is ridiculous. No one, other than f, knows if it’s possible to skip a latter clue and like Zap showed and I’ve been saying f doesn’t think that’s doable.

          • Zap, ~ ‘You then claim this “flaw”:
            My comment; “I’m saying the method allows clues to be skip(ped) because we should already know where they are on a map [individually] to stomp to them. Again for example; I know wwhs and cd but I’m crapped out at at nf,btftw… only later to pick up a clue and continue on.”’

            In which you replied; You have an unstated premise: that a clue *can* be solved without solving all preceding clues. Forrest doesn’t share that view:

            How do you interpret what fenn meant in the reverse engineer from hoB to WWsH comment?
            Doesn’t that Q&A seem to say theres no need for WWsH if you know hoB?

            Q -Do you think that someone who is sure about the location of the home of Brown could reverse-engineer where warm waters halt? ~Ben Raylor

            A -Thanks for the question Ben.
            If you are sure about the location of home of Brown why are you concerned about where warm waters halt? But to answer your question, sure you could and a few searchers might throw in some gas money for a percentage of the take. Good luck.f

            I mean, you like straight forward ideas, doesn’t this seem to imply you might be able to start at a later clue-?- hoB

            OK .. I don’t like that idea myself because we have too many comments about needing to nail down WWsH or we don’t have anything.

            I would also have to ask you, what your thoughts say on the comment; “Try and marry the clues in the poem to a place on a map.”

            You said; ~ ‘Forrest *believes* that he has constructed the clues in such a way that clue 2 can’t be solved before clue 1, clue 3 before clue 2, and so on. Now, he may be mistaken about this, of course, but his intent was to have a design that thwarted short-cutting.’

            I agree with the premise… yet… still If it’s at all possible to locate the clues on a map or by GE prior. The method allows “those point” to be known of… so, IF this is a stomping point to point solve.. with clues yellowed out on a map… the method allows a searcher to go to another clues other than the first or the second or the third and so on

            Unless you are saying only the first two clues can be found on a map and all the rest must be stomped. Then I can’t argue *your thoughts,* but argue ya might be wrong on that thought.

            In the method I present, clues can be found on a map, but I question if they can be known.
            I know, that doesn’t seem plausible.
            As explained before, I don’t think we can see hoB correctly… a physical presence is needed to see it at ground level “correctly” – but it can be found on a GE, just not known. { like looking at a house on GE but not knowing what color the door is. }
            WWsH can be found, the CD can be found hoB can be found. Stanza 3 are instruction on how to find the chest..and.. “JUST heavy loads and water high are hoB and WWsH.
            Now you can argue how I got to those deciphering… but, like the Q&A above; IF we are *sure of hoB location* why be concerned about WWsH… the comment rings true IF WE CAN BE SURE… I don’t think we can be unless seen from WWsH.
            But if we could *know* hoB, it would lead right to the chest, right?
            That comment, about hob, is in a video, and well known, But I’m not sure which one.

            fenn also said; “if you knew the geographic location of each clue it would be a map to the treasure. f.”
            Then tells us the poem is map. right?

            Again, IF the clues can be located on a map… in a point to point method, that method allows later points to be found.
            That is the flaw of the stomping method.
            And again,
            In an observational method… clues can be found on a map / GE… but one needs to be watched to “complete the poem” that’s were stanza 3 kicks in.
            And all the clue’s are in consecutive order to be followed, and a presence on site is needed after the first few clues. The last clue can’t be seen on GE or a map, because it is an instruction.

            So, all your quotes posted basically say all the clues must be followed and there are no short cut… right. but if we can stomp points found on a map… all we need is the last clue right?
            The observation method does need all the clue.

          • Hi Seeker:

            “How do you interpret what fenn meant in the reverse engineer from hoB to WWsH comment? Doesn’t that Q&A seem to say theres no need for WWsH if you know hoB?”

            My interpretation is that if you KNEW with certainty the solution to home of Brown, or the blaze, or really any of the later clues, then WWWH becomes irrelevant. But that’s the “finding the fish on the end of your line” situation: it’s not possible to know you’ve got it right (or at least Forrest doesn’t think so), therefore the situation is irrelevant.

            “I would also have to ask you, what your thoughts say on the comment; “Try and marry the clues in the poem to a place on a map.””

            In another ATF he uses “places” plural. Depends on the geographic scale being discussed (e.g. Wyoming is a “place on a map”).

            “I agree with the premise…”
            (clue 1 before clue 2, clue 2 before clue 3, etc.)

            “… yet… still If it’s at all possible to locate the clues on a map or by GE prior. The method allows “those point” to be known of… so, IF this is a stomping point to point solve.. with clues yellowed out on a map… the method allows a searcher to go to another clues other than the first or the second or the third and so on.”

            Sure. I see no problem with that. The fact remains that you have to solve the clues in sequential order. I don’t think you have to walk them all. (I know you disagree on this point, but I’m completely inflexible on the subject, so no sense in us harping on it.)

            “Unless you are saying only the first two clues can be found on a map and all the rest must be stomped.”

            No, I’m not saying that. For one thing, not all clues are places, IMO — some are directions. Nevertheless, I believe all the clues can be solved using the poem and a map or maps.

            I realize in your method, a physical presence is required in order to have the proper perspective for a visual phenomenon — something that can’t be achieved looking at maps or using GE. I see nothing wrong with that idea, but the devil’s in the details. Without the details, there’s nothing to critique.

            “But if we could *know* hoB, it would lead right to the chest, right?”

            Not in my opinion. I’m confident people solved home of Brown years ago. But they might not have *KNOWN* they solved it. Solving it is apparently no free ticket to finding the chest.

            “That comment, about hob, is in a video, and well known, But I’m not sure which one.”

            Yes — Jennifer London interview in 2013 at the 10:40 mark:

            I don’t think it was a serious reply from Forrest. He had essentially the same reply to Richard Eeds on his radio show in May 2015 in response to a completely different and much more innocuous question:

            Eeds: “What kind of shoes? What kind of footprints did you leave? What kind of boots did you have on?”

            FF: “Well if I told you that, you’d go out and find it.”

            “fenn also said; “if you knew the geographic location of each clue it would be a map to the treasure. f.”
            Then tells us the poem is map. right?”


            “Again, IF the clues can be located on a map… in a point to point method, that method allows later points to be found.
            That is the flaw of the stomping method.”

            Again, I see no flaw. IMO, I will (I must!) know the answers/locations to all of the clues before I leave home. I’m not solving anything in the field.

            “So, all your quotes posted basically say all the clues must be followed and there are no short cut… right.”

            There is no shortcut in *solving* the clues — correct.

            “… but if we can stomp points found on a map… all we need is the last clue right?”

            Technically, yes. But IMO the last clue is so generic that the only way you could navigate to the correct one, and carry out the correct action once you got there, is if you had solved all the previous clues. This is 100% consistent with Forrest’s answer to Serge’s question:

            MW Q&A (7/4/2014): “Forrest, What’s the minimum number of clues that we need to solve to find the treasure, assuming that we follow the clues in order? ~Serge Teteblanche”

            FF: “Just one Serge, the last one.f”

          • @ Ken – I’d (we’d) be happy to discuss and dissect the other ATF’s if the one’s you want to discuss were known. Nudge nudge. 🙂

        • Like that theory. I agree with what is said here. You say

          “I then follow the other clues consecutively to arrive at that ending.”
          If you don’t have the key with you when you get home you can’t open the lock.

        • Bowmarc, your first response wouldn’t violate what I brought up or f’s quote.

          Imo, it wouldn’t violate Seekers biggest problem that he stated with the point to point method.

          • Bowmarc, I meant your idea isn’t taking a short cut, nor does it skip wwwh, like Seeker worries about.

      • FD,
        Thank you for bring this up.
        Fenn stated al lot about the first clue… the need to have it is *critical*

        The first clue is WWsH. We now all know this as fact. [I won’t argue against the idea stanza 1 doesn’t have information, it just doesn’t hold the first clue…]
        OK. Now it has been implied that later clues should be found on maps. One comment that seems to bring that thought to light is; marry the clues to a place on a map. Great, if folks want to read this about 9 clues to 9 different location spread out over different measurements, or any amount of clues being of different location to be stomped … IF that reading is correct… a later clue can be found *prior* to going to the search site, and a searcher can simply start at that point… It’s a flawed concept… read on.

        In other ATFs we have been told a physical presents is needed after the first few clues [couple]… and that those clues [ seemingly the first two ] can be found by a “rocking chair” searcher. This doesn’t align with the possibility of actually knowing what and where a later clues is. [ I gave reasoning why in the above post yesterday ]
        The point is… it seems, as fenn as stated, clues 3 – 4 have folks stump.

        I have to ask why… seemingly all have been stumped at the same point where fenn tells us we need physical presence to be. Because if [ lets say HLnHW] can be found on map… why not skip the clue that is stumping all [ even if we have the correct WWsH] and stomp to that later location found on a map /GE prior? This is one flaw of a stomping mode [ a big flaw ]… it actually *allows that possibly.*
        Only fenn as been instant we must have WWsH or don’t bother going… stay home, we don’t have anything without that clue. For a stomping mode to be the, um, how do I word this, most comparable / suitable, best, correct, call it what ya will… this flaw I explained can’t be there… but it is.

        In the theory I present it gives reason for the *need* of WWsH and that clue can not be skipped by ‘any’ means.
        A stomping method can’t explain why we can’t go to another later found on a map prior clue.
        It’s just that simple… there’s a flaw in this method right from the start.
        My theory eliminates that flaw.
        I’ll add; to better think about the theory; I believe the comment above is actually saying; Marry the clues [the poem clues, all the clues] to A [single] place on a map / GE [ no mileage between clues that need or can’t see other clue’s reference ]. Both ideas of this comment could be correct [ in theory ], but only one has to be /can be the correct intent behind the comment.

        In closing. I see many problems with the “traditonal” as you call it… method, when we take into the consideration of the ATFs as a check and balance-ing act. But in no way do the ATFs get anyone closer by aiding a searcher in decipher clues. But they do give thoughts to what could be or what may not be a good idea.

        “A good solve is frequently lost in a poor execution.”
        Weekly words from Forrest Fenn. MWs
        Do listen to me… try listening to what we have been told.

        All I see are stomping method general solves… hybrid or otherwise. It hasn’t work out well, it has stalled in the same place, and there is certainly no “evidence” I see to show it has… as you claim, FD. But I’m more than will to hear your reasoning for that claim. And, more than willing to debate / give arguments for or against what you consider as evidence.

        So, thanks again for the Q&A you posted… I agree… later clues hing on WWsH… It is critical for how to solve the challenge. Not just to find later clues on a map. [as explained above]

        • Seeker said this but it’s incoherent. I’ll try to make it more coherent to what I think he means- “A stomping method can’t explain why we can’t go to another (clue) later found on a map prior clue (the last two words I’m not sure what they mean in the sentence).
          It’s just that simple… there’s a flaw in this method right from the start.”
          What’s simple is that the flaw is in what you keep posting with this thought.

          I have more than once posted a reasonable explanation for what you say here a point to point method can’t explain.

          You say- “In the theory I present it gives reason for the “need” of WWWsH and that clue can not be skipped by ‘any’ means.
          What I have provided does the same thing. I don’t get it? I’ve said that the first clue, subjective on its own, and the clues (all subjective) after the first one, “hinge” on something objective in the poem that comes before the first clue…a hint.

          I’ve said this theory of mine suggests that nearly all of the clues are “subjective” on their own so there’s no way to take a short cut and skip wwwh. Imo, the only objective part of the clue path are the hints which one could be lurking in the first stanza.

          Can you please update now your incorrect claim that the traditional method hasn’t explained this problem you’re incorrectly sticking with.

        • Seeker you stated
          Fenn stated al lot about the first clue… the need to have it is *critical*
          The first clue is WWsH. We now all know this as fact.

          I believe you meant the first clue is

          “Begin it where warm waters halt”

          It really is critical to start here.IMO Not a good idea to leave out words
          People like me might get lost trying to follow your train of thought.
          Move along nothing to see here. These are not the words your looking for.lol

          • Yep… you are correct, Me, I mean you, not me, me.

            I would hope by now folks have gotten a grip on that. LOL then again fenn has never said “W Ws H or W W W H” we made those up. There’s no C D in the poem either, of hoB… in fact the line reads as; Put in below the home of Brown”. Which really isn’t a line but a sentence. It only becomes a line because it is contained in a stanza of a poem.

            The again fenn called the blaze a clue, when talking about folks driving down the road looking for it, because it’s a clue. Do leaving out “If you’ve been wise and found the”______. because fenn said the blaze is a clue??

            “I mean, there’s people driving down the street looking for a blaze, because that’s one of the clues, but you can’t start in the middle of the poem and find the treasure, I don’t think, I mean, it would be a miracle if someone did.

    • We share a lot of beliefs regarding TTOTC, Seeker. Not having to travel vast distances between clues via alternative means of transportation is one of the big ones. Stomping point-to-point is another. As you put it above, “My biggest problem with a stomping method is, should we be able to solve actually ‘solve’ a later clues… WWsH isn’t truly needed.” I tried to tackle this very topic a few months ago (over on Odds ‘n Ends, I think) whereby (short version) someone gets lost in a storm en route to what they thought was WWWH. When the weather clears, they emerge from where the weather forced them to go take shelter and solve one of the later clues at that exact point, follow the remaining ones exactly from that point on, and retrieve Indulgence as a result. How was WWWH necessary in that scenario? It wasn’t, unless one considers the possibility that whatever is the correct WWWH location is also the resting place of indulgence, thereby making WWWH 100% necessary for a correct solve.

      Many did not like that idea.

      Many like the idea that the search area is relatively small even less, despite some searchers only solving the first couple of clues yet being a mere 200 to 500 feet away from the treasure. I invite everyone to take a look at those ATF’s again and decide for themselves if it’s plausible that clue #1 IS NOT the same thing as the correct starting point. Separating the two concepts is hard to do, but does allow for both distances to be accounted for, as well as validating all the associated ATF’s.

      Where you and I differ, I think, is that you want to use WWWH as the vantage point to take in other clues, etc., and move with confidence from there, maybe as little as 1 specific clue away to retrieve Indulgence after tying in the other clues visually. My theory is that we have to get to WWWH (clue #1) via the correct starting point (clue #2), and from there we then observe the remaining clues from that correct starting point up to WWWH, thus traversing the 1 way FF knows of to get to the chest (his way).

      Both are plausible in my opinion/open mind.

      • OK bowmarc,
        Bear with me here. I want to make sure I got this correct.

        You’re saying someone can start at WWsH and later, for any reason of being lost, discover a later clue. OK sure… Only for the fact of my theory and method [ the topic ] lol you went stomping. But I get what you’re saying… Let me continue… and lets for get about the idea we can ‘think’ the chest is near WWsH, again that is still another precondition thought. I’m trying very hard not to have those ideas and allow then to dictate anything… I’m just using the Multiple meanings of words as the overall guide.

        I also can see and understand how you get clue to as the starting point vs, the first clue. In fact, two comments seem to relate to just that idea [ if one can read them as such ]
        Need to start at the beginning.
        Need to know where to start.
        At first glance they seem the same, only they might not be exactly the same.
        An example of what I mean is; I’ll use SB 124 for example only;
        You see – once I went fishing with Joe Billy Bob. He was an acquaintance from the neighborhoods. Most people called him JBB, but I called him JB for short. I caught a nice fish and with it he took my photo. I mean he took my photo with it.
        LOL call it fenntalk if ya like.. folks seem to like to label things in a cute way.. But what I see is a pattern to how fenn relays information in a way that we need to think about what was just said. Your clue two and starting point idea vs. clue one idea kinda matches the idea of having to think twice about what is being said… hence my addition of the two comments. OK we kinda still agree, here.

        But i’m a bit lost of what actually is happening next [ you may have explained better in the other post you mentioned ] but mu gist from this is, we still follow clues back in the direction of WWsH? IF that assumption is correct… isn’t that circling back to WWsH only following the remaining clue from CD [clue 2]?
        It is a thought [ and if I’m reading into it correctly ] But doesn’t that conflict big time with the comment in a Q&A [ and I’m recalling it off the top of my head as I red this post ] maybe at a book signing and Q&A section… fenn was asked would someone find themselves switching back / circling back? He answer in the negative {I’ll look it up and try to post in… but it’s an audio, and I don’t keep great records so it will take time for me to find it}

        How do you get around this? again, if I’m reading into your explanation correctly.

        • Let’s forget the scenario and settle on that we both agree that there has to be a reason why WWWH is 100% necessary. For you, if I understand your thoughts correctly, it is 100%necessary because you have to be at WWWH to take in other clues, decipher them correctly, then move with confidence based upon the information obtained from the WWWH observations. For me, WWWH is 100% necessary because it is the place where Indulgence is hidden. I see both as plausible concepts worthy of thought/discussion, hence I chimed in.

          In my theory, you only arrive at WWWH 1 time, and that is after you start from the correct starting point (which isn’t physically at the 1st clue WWWH) and follow the rest of the clues from there to WWWH. You have to follow those 7 clues from the correct starting point to WWWH exactly or you will not find Indulgence. Being at either location is not enough as, IMO, evidenced by the is the 200 and 500 searchers—those searchers may have been at the correct WWWH location, but did not arrive there via FF’s designed pathway (the other clues), then left the poem in search of the other clues in different remote locations, OR they were at the correct starting point and did the same thing—left to go stomp out the remaining clues elsewhere. There is no circling or switching back in this scenario—it is 1 precise trip from the correct starting point to the exact spot at WWWH where Indulgence is waiting to be found. I guess my theory would be considered a hybrid, since you orient on WWWH from the correct starting point (the second clue), then use the remaining 7 clues to visualize and/or traverse a pathway from that starting point to WWWH.

          Does that make any more sense?

          • I get your process, Bowmarc. I even like it because it doesn’t force external research or applies alternate transportation… etc.

            LOL but it still a stomping mode method. And regardless of area size or displacement of clues… there is still a possibility of skipping a clue and happen upon another [ that alone loses the consecutive order idea is needed for all the elements involved. [ingredients], and still the idea of starting at a later clue… I mean technically you could just find “the” canyon with a lucky guess skip a couple of clue by mistake and find a correct clue later. It doesn’t matter what dirt path brought you there.

            This bring up the Q&A about reverse engineering from hob… if we “know” what hoB is it would lead us right to the chest. In my theory hoB is the blaze. And the only way to know of it is to see it *correctly* from WWsH… ground level only.
            In your theory you still have to be lead through other clues before you get to the blaze and/or chest.

            With that said; I think the comment is actually saying; hoB will lead you to it without anything in between to stomp to.[ Explained in the theory].
            But like some of the other examples of the ATFs I mentioned, we tend to read them more generic and little consideration to how all the ATFs work together without conflicting each other.
            [As you implied we can interpret one in different ways]… I’m try aligning them in those different way and there are holes, some times deep holes. Trust me that is not an easy task when you add in 166 words and their meanings and usages… and check balance ATFs as realistic to any solve.

            So I get it when folks say – Seeker, your over complicating. I say most are oversimplifying right from the start.. right from the intro to the poem and it leads right into the poem…
            hence why many have an uncontrollable urge to say; Take it in isn’t a view. Even when the definition is shown.
            At least Zap can agree to that, and other meanings… he just doesn’t like the method it created.

            I also can see why many don’t like it because of all the man hours and trips and expense and on and one, for ‘possibly’ not thinking the right thoughts.

            I know i sound like any other theories method must be wrong. I’m not… I’m showing flaws within them.
            Flaws that should not be there.
            Flaws that don’t allow the ATFs to be fully truthful [ but only the idea if 85% true, which create more problems ].
            I’m reverse engineering fenn’s comment of; he “thought of thinking of everything.”

            If there’s a flaw I can see that creates a problem…with information we have{ATF} I need to know why and what it is I missing.

            IF I can collectively find a theory/ method this way that doesn’t seem to have those problems.. LOL It might help me to figure out what WWsH is and where, instead of manufacturing one.

            The B!@&ch of the matter is… others did just that, and it doesn’t appear to be some so elusive to find.. Heck Little Indy could. But I still say the stomping method isn’t working, it’s flawed.

          • I’m with you to an extent, Seeker. In any method, even yours, there will have to be some movement at some point, stomping or otherwise. I think it is the geography that is important and will serve to limit how much we stomp around while solving many clues in situ—-you from your vantage point at WWWH, and me from the correct starting point up to WWWH. I cannot stress enough that being at WWWH or the correct starting point is not enough, the remaining clues must be utilized in situ to go with confidence to Indulgence. My method also has another layer or two of ingredients that make it difficult to bypass any of the clues because, like you are suggesting, you have to visualize many of them in situ—failing to do so will simply result in you walking from the correct starting point to WWWH without discovering/understanding “where” Indulgence is hidden.

            We agree that any such movement between clues will not be over vast distances. I’m not going to use “hotspring X” as my WWWH, only to drive a half hour away to “canyon Y” that I think is the answer to ATIITCD, another half hour drive to the next clue, etc. IMO, such a stomping (driving) point-to-point method seems to not only support discovery of a later clue (CD, for example) that will allow you to bypass WWWH altogether despite FF’s insistence that it is 100% necessary, it adds an impersonal tone to what has otherwise been designed to lead us to a place that FF is almost umbilically attached to. Conversely, IMO, that umbilical reference seems to lend credence to the idea that the area is smaller and “sheltering” as compared to a 100 mile swath of clue-laden terrain that cannot realistically be walked through twice in one afternoon.

            We seem to be working a similar methodology from each extreme of the spectrum. You want to go to WWWH and then analyze some clues, then react/respond to the data derived, ultimately culminating with discovering Indulgence via a combination of visual and “slight” movements(?). I want to arrive at WWWH only after finding the correct starting point (NOT WWWH) and utilizing the remaining clues visually as well as movement-wise culminating with correctly isolating where Indulgence is secreted at WWWH. Both methods require the (correct) use of WWWH 100% without bypassing any clues, IMO.

            The use of ATF’s, even ones that seem to be polar opposites, is a good method of checks-and-balances for any method/solve. Like you posted further up, there is a layer of Fenn-speak (I think that is how you referenced it) to everything he says/writes, but each is 100% truthful to the topic at hand at the time of the ATF and any theory/method should validate, and be validated by, such ATF’s 100% (not just 85%). Explaining one’s take on ATF’s is hard to do sometimes as the underlying “logic” is lost on some, or, more often than not, just discounted because it does not support a popular method/solve. A good example is all the talk about consecutive and contiguous. I do not argue that the clues are consecutive in the poem. They absolutely start with WWWH and end 8 clues later. Where I see wiggle room/Fenn-speak, and such is part of the basis for my current solve method, is when FF later speaks of the clues being contiguous. The easiest way to explain it, I think, is to think of a triangle and how to solve for the missing angle. If you are given 2 angles of the triangle, you can solve for the missing third angle because you know that all 3 angles must add up to 180 degrees. In the TTOTC, if you are given the end point, then the correct starting point, don’t the remaining clues have to then fall in between those two necessary extremes of the end and the beginning of the quest if all the remaining clues are also necessary to solve TTOTC with precision? All the clues are certainly contiguous (contiguous = touching or connected throughout an unbroken sequence) along a line between the end point and the start point of the TTOTC, right, if that line is the unbroken sequence? And if FF did set up the clues in his poem as clue #1 being the end point (WWWH), clue #2 the correct starting point, then the remaining 7 clues as descriptors from that correct starting point to the end point, the clues are certainly still in consecutive order in the poem just as he said they are, so the integrity of the consecutive (consecutive = in unbroken or logical sequence) and contiguous ATF’s are both preserved. You just have to believe that in this riddle of a poem, FF was audacious enough to make his architected poem difficult but not impossible to solve by listing the goal first, the correct starting point second, then the rest of the clues to guide you with precision between those two points! Certainly plausible in my book and why I am exploring such method.

            One caveat regarding ATF’s, however, is the context and/or “atmosphere” where the ATF was delivered. Not everything FF utters has deep/cryptic revelations regarding TTOTC and/or can be very specific to the setting/material/question at the time of the ATF, and yes, some answers are even in jest. Each of us has to decide how much stock we put into any ATF we decide to use to validate/repudiate a TTOTC related premise/method/solve. I’m not sure I needed to tell you that, but my fingers just keep on typing, and I think it expands upon what you were suggesting above when you mention deep holes and applying them realistically to a solve.

            As to your HOB/Blaze idea, I currently do not subscribe to HOB as being a clue because of the other layers of ingredients I mentioned above. This idea isn’t popular, and I say that because it was ignored almost entirely the other few times I mentioned it on this site. I will say that since HOB is referenced early in the poem, if it is not a clue as I am suggesting, one thing comes to mind immediately—-this is the point where searchers, despite having 1 or 2 clues solved, leave the poem because they are searching for an ill-defined HOB. I have my reasons and my validating ATF’s to support this notion, but the notion is all I am willing to share about this point.

            Agreed – Search expenses will add up quickly if you don’t lock down your WWWH correctly, and/or are looking for the wrong clues/thinking the wrong thoughts, and/or not understanding the intro/stanza 1.

            Agreed – the method employed should reveal the correct WWWH as a result/summation of correctly reading the poem—at least that is what I am hoping. LOL

      • Bowmarc writ – “Many like the idea that the search area is relatively small even less . . . .”

        I think there’s a very respectable and active number of us small-area advocates.