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
WK: if its not giving too much away, what text fragments are you using to decipher the clues?

F has said many times all you need is the poem.
(11-28-2015, 06:32 AM)The White Knight Wrote: [ -> ]Fundament

At least now you’ve agreed Forrest talked positively about my solution to a significant level.

Also, if you’re saying my solution uses the secret ingredient used in your solution then now you’re saying I’ve got some of it right whereas previously you were saying I’d got all of it wrong.

Where’s the document where Forrest has named you or another Searcher and said you have a lot of the riddle figured out?
It doesn't matter if I agree that ff has talked positively or negatively about your solve...that's an easy concept to get. As I posted, it's your statements that I chronicled that are the ones that make you look ignorant and they're in the archive now too.


Previously, I can say you got it all wrong because you yourself said you got it all wrong. If you say, like you did, that my first clue is illogical then of course I can say you got it all wrong. I didn't make you say your first clue is illogical then still say you have the bulk of the poem figured out. Doesn't make sense. And no, it's your quote that I posted that says (paraphrasing) no other solve can be right if it doesn't use the bulk of or a major component of my solve. And I replied, since that's new information, that I can say the same thing as I can document that my major component of my solve was talked about by ff nearly 18 months before yours. So you are sucking on the time gap there and on new information that comes out...like I keep telling you.

After you come out with solid evidence or new information on how you rubbished my contention of you saying your first clue is illogical and place a bet on either one of my delusional fantasies then I will come out with the ff quote (the one you can't figure out) that backs up my position.
PL289,

Yes, can't wait to see if White Knight has real confidence in his solve.
Fundament,

Your last two posts are just the double speak of someone who’s been caught out shifting their position and making contradictory statements. It's a load of waffle.
(11-28-2015, 04:51 PM)The White Knight Wrote: [ -> ]Fundament,

Your last two posts are just the double speak of someone who’s been caught out shifting their position and making contradictory statements. It's a load of waffle.

No, my last two posts clearly point out the illogical points that you have made. Oh, and the fact I'm ready for you to bet me if you are so confident in your statements that I highlighted. I'm still waiting..................................
Fundament,

Like yourself I don’t really know what you’re talking about any more. If you’re willing to publish something that backs up your solution then publish it.

Everything I’ve said has been entirely logical and not riddled with contradictions and position-shifts, the hallmark of your output.

The Trolls doing their trolling and Doc blowing smoke up everyone’s arses will end soon on this thread because it’s hard for those contributors to sustain nonsense arguments. They won't want to look ridiculous ad infinitum.
I'm sorry you feel it's blowing smoke. It's not the intention.

Consider the totality of what you found, and not just the set of directions:

1. Nine beasts
2. Two baseball cards
3. Directions

That's not blowing smoke. That's what you found. And, it's amazing. And it's wonderful. And it's right.

You've just drawn a different conclusion from your findings than I have.

And, I can't use anything you've found.

Yet. Smile

Doc
(11-29-2015, 02:27 PM)The White Knight Wrote: [ -> ]Fundament,

Like yourself I don’t really know what you’re talking about any more. If you’re willing to publish something that backs up your solution then publish it.

Everything I’ve said has been entirely logical and not riddled with contradictions and position-shifts, the hallmark of your output.

The Trolls doing their trolling and Doc blowing smoke up everyone’s arses will end soon on this thread because it’s hard for those contributors to sustain nonsense arguments. They won't want to look ridiculous ad infinitum.
@WK
You yourself can't find the chest using your own published solution. You tell people that if they use it that they have to change the last part themselves because you screwed up the end and then you try to convince people that your book is helping searchers when all you're really doing is funding your next search. So, if there's anyone trying to blow smoke it's you.
Njfl,

I’ve published my solution and told people what precise area the chest is in. I’m trying to get folk to search in that area.

By encouraging a Searcher to concentrate on that area I’m reducing my own chances of finding the chest but that’s fine as long as someone finds it.

So how does that fit with you theory that my intention is just to fund my next search? My next search would be carried out within the same area highlighted in my solution.

Any spot I visit may already have been targeted by another searcher and the chest found. Your Troll logic is flawed.
@WK Im not trolling here, I'm just asking:

Do you think what F said recently "Ignore the poem at your peril" has any bearing on your solve?

(I am assuming you are using words sourced from outside your poem in your cipher)
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