ChaseChat - Treasure Chat

Full Version: The Cipher debate
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43
Samsmith,

I thought you said discussing my solution was a waste of your time and effort. So there's no need to hear from you again on this thread that is there to discuss my solution. Save your effort. In fact I'm not sure why you posted anything in the first place.
White Knight,

I am 100 percent certain what you've found is correct. The ONLY quibble--and it's minor in comparison to the body of work you've produced--is your final conclusion.

You've discovered a set of 'directions', and you've assumed it means 'directions to the chest'. That's completely understandable--I would have come to the same conclusion myself if I had managed to uncover what you did. But it also explains why you've hit a brick wall.

The directions don't lead to the chest.

The people who are disagreeing with you appear to be making the same mistake. 'Since your directions don't lead you to the chest, your findings are invalid.' Your findings are very much valid--I KNOW it's right. They go hand-in-hand with the two previously discussed ciphers that djjmcv and Wild Goose found.

White Knight, I believe Mr. Fenn was trying to help you when he mentioned your solution out of the thousands he's read over the last five years.

He was sending you a personal message in the only way he could without violating the integrity of the hunt: publicly.

He was acknowledging your work which in turn pointed it out to everyone else. It's correct. Mr. Fenn then tries to help you out: Your solution won't locate the chest.

It's a simple concept that people are having a hard time getting their heads around: Your work is correct, and it won't help you locate the chest.

What the three of you found, you found too early. I am SUPREMELY grateful to the three of you for finding what you did and posting it.

Because I wouldn't have found any of them in a million years.

Ciphers = kryptonite. LOL.

Doc

PS--I'd return to work on the poem. I've run across something that addresses the 'no cipher' admonition I'm working up for a new thread so I don't derail yours.
(11-17-2015, 04:44 AM)The White Knight Wrote: [ -> ]Samsmith,

I thought you said discussing my solution was a waste of your time and effort. So there's no need to hear from you again on this thread that is there to discuss my solution. Save your effort. In fact I'm not sure why you posted anything in the first place.
RIGHT FENN SOLUTION = CHEST
WHITE KNIGHT SOLUTION = WRONG = NO CHEST
This is simple logic.

(11-16-2015, 05:37 AM)The White Knight Wrote: [ -> ]Samsmith,

Regarding your comments:

’I have no basic premise behind what I found in the poem, it isn't a riddle either simply because I have found a key...The secret in the key is where and how to use it...It is a very basic design by the author’

This means it’s a riddle. Have a look at a dictionary for the definition of ‘riddle’.

'You published your solution, right or wrong, to make money from it...That's fine by me but don't expect everyone to buy into it...Like I said I hope you make gobs of money from it’

Generally people who have read it understand it’s right. I published it to get more Searchers into the right search area to find the chest. I provided lots of answers for free on the Searcher blogs and my own blog (and similar to this bile and venom were spat at me for doing that) but then decided when publishing the whole thing I wasn’t going to give it all away. What a terrible man.

'Can you honestly say that searchers have been within 200 ft of your spot?...Or that people continue to arrive there?...Or that they have no knowledge of the significance of the place?'

Yes.
NO CHEST = AREA NOT RIGHT
CHEST NOT FOUND = NO PROOF AREA IS RIGHT
Njfl,

I keep saying and keep saying and keep saying that I haven’t got the whole thing right otherwise I would have found the chest. What I believe I have got right is the basis and method of the solution and the vast bulk of the solution. This ‘bulk’ isn’t ‘wrong’ because the chest hasn’t been found.

It’s like looking for a missing plane. I’m saying I have located it in a small area of an ocean because I came up with the concrete evidence that it flew west and crashed into the sea there. Other theories with no consistent evidence are saying it must have come down in one piece on land, it must have gone south, east or north due to hijack or disintegrated into small pieces in the air due to a fire or explosion.

Just because I haven’t found the exact location of the plane doesn’t mean that my solution for where it came down is wrong. It’s bl—dy close.

Regarding the search area: If someone was to randomly search within the area I’ve highlighted for the search, this is equivalent to looking for a needle in a small hay bail rather than a needle in a haystack (or for 4 states of the USA – a needle in the entire stock of hay bails in the USA). So this improves greatly the chances for Searchers.

But individual Searchers will have much more of a chance if they can work out how to complete the last bit of my solution correctly and go straight to the right spot within the search area.

Please give Searchers time. Judging by some of the posts on these forums and correspondence I’ve received, it takes quite a while for folk to digest everything I’ve written in my e-book. To me the information in the book all flows together well but I’m familiar with it.

Someone reading it cold has to follow each step and double check it for themselves to make sure they’re happy with the step. I know that some Searchers who have got my e-book haven’t gone all the way through to the end of it yet.

The ones who have digested it all still need to work out their own interpretation for the last part of my solution to take them to a spot that I haven’t thought of.

It took me quite a while to come up with my own interpretation for the final part of the directions. Unfortunately this part of the directions would have been obvious to Forrest because he wrote them but to someone looking at them cold they’re far from obvious.

Bet

(11-17-2015, 10:58 AM)Doc Wrote: [ -> ]White Knight,

I am 100 percent certain what you've found is correct. The ONLY quibble--and it's minor in comparison to the body of work you've produced--is your final conclusion.

You've discovered a set of 'directions', and you've assumed it means 'directions to the chest'. That's completely understandable--I would have come to the same conclusion myself if I had managed to uncover what you did. But it also explains why you've hit a brick wall.

The directions don't lead to the chest.

The people who are disagreeing with you appear to be making the same mistake. 'Since your directions don't lead you to the chest, your findings are invalid.' Your findings are very much valid--I KNOW it's right. They go hand-in-hand with the two previously discussed ciphers that djjmcv and Wild Goose found.

White Knight, I believe Mr. Fenn was trying to help you when he mentioned your solution out of the thousands he's read over the last five years.

He was sending you a personal message in the only way he could without violating the integrity of the hunt: publicly.

He was acknowledging your work which in turn pointed it out to everyone else. It's correct. Mr. Fenn then tries to help you out: Your solution won't locate the chest.

It's a simple concept that people are having a hard time getting their heads around: Your work is correct, and it won't help you locate the chest.

What the three of you found, you found too early. I am SUPREMELY grateful to the three of you for finding what you did and posting it.

Because I wouldn't have found any of them in a million years.

Ciphers = kryptonite. LOL.

Doc

PS--I'd return to work on the poem. I've run across something that addresses the 'no cipher' admonition I'm working up for a new thread so I don't derail yours.

Doc...this is my thread...not White's. You are welcome to post on this thread. I like your work and respect what you are doing. I started this thread because I did not believe that ciphers were in play. I respect the fact the White got some of this right, but I don't respect that he is selling his solution.... Doc what do you mean saying the ciphers were found to soon?? Please explain....?? Thanks!
Mr. Briggs,

We believe we may have found the flaw in you solve. Since your book is published, we will not include your text as to protect your copyright.

We were looking for the batting average of the two players thinking that "an average man" might be a hint that we should refine the coordinates with the batting average.

What we found:

In 1934 cards #44 and #109 were both silver bordered. An unrelated, but odd thing we also found, is that the catcher in #44 was pictured incorrectly on another card, #140a. It was corrected with card #140b.

Would it be possible for you to provide the link to the green bordered cards from 1934?

Xavier
"Some searchers overrate the complexity of the search."
PL289

My e-book is designed to help Searchers find the treasure chest so that they may claim it for themselves. I've stated this in the Epilogue of the book.

I will have no claim on any part of the treasure chest or contents by assisting other Searchers with the solution particularly as I’ve charged for that assistance.

Xavier,

It’s good that you’re double checking everything I’ve done.

My guess is that this set of baseball cards would have been the first thing Forrest collected. I think he would have been ~ 4 years old at the time.

I’m confident I’ve got this part of the solution right.

The cards were manufactured with various coloured block borders within a silver outer line. They were called ‘silver border’ to distinguish them from other coloured block sets with a black colour outer line manufactured in 1935.

The set has only one relevant ED card ‘on green’ block colour:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1934-Diamond-Mat...1767337577

Here’s the JK card ‘on green’:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1934-Diamond-Mat...1827577204

The whole set numbered checklist can be found here:

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=WSs0...et&f=false

Apologies for the length of these links.

HollyfromMN

O cool! Matchbook cards. Wow!
So how many people have you helped with your book?
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43