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
A manufacturer (writer) who creates the demand for goods through print and broadcast media(radio interview) has the responsibility to determine that the product (e book) has the qualities represented to the general public. Some courts allow injured consumers to sue even if they have not read a certain label or advertisement. The standard is that if the advertisement (radio interview and forum posts) is directed toward the public at large and makes claims (see claims below) that a normal consumer would take into consideration when deciding to make a purchase ( Briggs's E book), then the manufacturer (Briggs the author) must stand behind that claim for every member of the public.

Other warranties may be expressed in writing but do not necessarily look like traditional warranties. The words "guaranteed" or "warranty" do not appear, but this claim nevertheless is an express warranty.

An express warranty is a seller's promise or guarantee (see claims below) that a buyer relies on when they purchase an item (Briggs's E book). So even though Briggs shouted about how there are no guarantees, Express warranties made by a seller may not be disclaimed.

Goods that are economic intangibles can only be stored, delivered, and consumed by means of media.
Goods, both tangibles and intangibles, may involve the transfer of product (E book) ownership to the consumer. (People that bought Briggs's E book)

11-05-2015, 07:51 PM,
#181
I have provided the bulk of the correct solution to other Searchers and have saved them vast amounts of money by helping them avoid looking in the wrong places.
If Briggs doesn't provide a notarized Affidavit proving how he helped searchers (who and how many) to avoid looking in the wrong places (and provide the exact right place) and how he has saved them "vast" amounts of money (exact dollar amount) and prove his claim, E book money can be refunded for a breach.
If any searcher spends money and doesn't find the treasure then they wasted (spent and not saved) their money on his solution and claim, Briggs can be sued. Not to mention get their money back from the purchase of his book.

In other situations the law implies a warranty where no express warranty was made. Most warranties are made with respect to real estate, insurance, and sales and leases of goods (E book) and services.

11-05-2015, 04:54 AM,
#177
To me it's obvious that the evidence and conclusions in my solution are correct, What I've provided to Searchers gets them very close to the treasure chest. Remember the majority of Searchers are milling around in New Mexico - three States away from the actual location.
I asked Briggs to show me documentation where Fenn tells everyone the EXACT state the treasure was in. He couldn't. One of 4 states is not the exact state and Briggs can't prove the actual location without possession of the chest. People can't get "very close" using his solution and he admitted his conclusion is wrong. This is a breach.
11-18-2015, 06:34 AM,
#268 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.
Anyone who purchased Briggs's E book can sue Briggs for assistance they didn't get and were charged for if the person has no way of traveling to search for the chest. His solution is not assisting searchers who can't search. This is a breach. E book is useless for assistance, e book money must be refunded.

In modern law the warranty need not be expressed in so many words, but may be implied from the circumstances or surrounding language at the time of sale. I can list each of Briggs's posts stating how right he says he is and the claims he made and since he made them on a public forum and sold e books in the USA, Get your check book out Briggs. God bless America. Troll over and out. Maybe.
(12-03-2015, 01:59 PM)njfl Wrote: [ -> ]A manufacturer (writer) who creates the demand for goods through print and broadcast media(radio interview) has the responsibility to determine that the product (e book) has the qualities represented to the general public. Some courts allow injured consumers to sue even if they have not read a certain label or advertisement. The standard is that if the advertisement (radio interview and forum posts) is directed toward the public at large and makes claims (see claims below) that a normal consumer would take into consideration when deciding to make a purchase ( Briggs's E book), then the manufacturer (Briggs the author) must stand behind that claim for every member of the public.

Other warranties may be expressed in writing but do not necessarily look like traditional warranties. The words "guaranteed" or "warranty" do not appear, but this claim nevertheless is an express warranty.

An express warranty is a seller's promise or guarantee (see claims below) that a buyer relies on when they purchase an item (Briggs's E book). So even though Briggs shouted about how there are no guarantees, Express warranties made by a seller may not be disclaimed.

Goods that are economic intangibles can only be stored, delivered, and consumed by means of media.
Goods, both tangibles and intangibles, may involve the transfer of product (E book) ownership to the consumer. (People that bought Briggs's E book)

11-05-2015, 07:51 PM,
#181
I have provided the bulk of the correct solution to other Searchers and have saved them vast amounts of money by helping them avoid looking in the wrong places.
If Briggs doesn't provide a notarized Affidavit proving how he helped searchers (who and how many) to avoid looking in the wrong places (and provide the exact right place) and how he has saved them "vast" amounts of money (exact dollar amount) and prove his claim, E book money can be refunded for a breach.
If any searcher spends money and doesn't find the treasure then they wasted (spent and not saved) their money on his solution and claim, Briggs can be sued. Not to mention get their money back from the purchase of his book.

In other situations the law implies a warranty where no express warranty was made. Most warranties are made with respect to real estate, insurance, and sales and leases of goods (E book) and services.

11-05-2015, 04:54 AM,
#177
To me it's obvious that the evidence and conclusions in my solution are correct, What I've provided to Searchers gets them very close to the treasure chest. Remember the majority of Searchers are milling around in New Mexico - three States away from the actual location.
I asked Briggs to show me documentation where Fenn tells everyone the EXACT state the treasure was in. He couldn't. One of 4 states is not the exact state and Briggs can't prove the actual location without possession of the chest. People can't get "very close" using his solution and he admitted his conclusion is wrong. This is a breach.
11-18-2015, 06:34 AM,
#268 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.
Anyone who purchased Briggs's E book can sue Briggs for assistance they didn't get and were charged for if the person has no way of traveling to search for the chest. His solution is not assisting searchers who can't search. This is a breach. E book is useless for assistance, e book money must be refunded.

In modern law the warranty need not be expressed in so many words, but may be implied from the circumstances or surrounding language at the time of sale. I can list each of Briggs's posts stating how right he says he is and the claims he made and since he made them on a public forum and sold e books in the USA, Get your check book out Briggs. God bless America. Troll over and out. Maybe.

Only legal gray area I see in your analysis is the application of the 'puffing' doctrine. Puffing is an exaggeration made in advertising about the quality of the goods offered. It's considered an opinion, not a fact - and the public is expected to recognize that it isn't a legally binding promise.
@DaisyMae,
Yes, I'm familiar with that. But he'll have to admit that he's "puffing" then won't he. Let's see if he will or not.

superfly

Andy-- I can "figure" it would take 29 apples to make a pie...but that doesn't mean I figured it correctly. You have repetitively stated F said you had it correctly figured or were "right"...yet he NEVER SAID THAT. Maybe I jumped the gun in assuming since you wrote a book and like debates you are familiar with the meanings of words. Apparently you are not.
Here is the meaning of "figure"
FIGURE
Late 14c., "to represent" (in painting or sculpture), "make a likeness," also "to have a certain shape or appearance," from Old French figurer, from Latin figurare (see figure (n.)). Meaning "to shape into" is c. 1400; from mid-15c. as "to cover or adorn with figures."

PERSONALLY....I completely agree with forrest. You took his poem and covered/adorned many figures. So many you actually smothered it to the point even he could not find his own treasure reading it...and YOU YOURSELF had to write an entire book explaining it in hope that SOMEONE migh understand it since YOU YOURSELF couldn't even "correctly" "make complete sense" out of your OWN figures.

I think you're smart, maybe even brilliant....but there just no way you can believe what your saying....and surely you must understand how irritating it is for others to constantly listen to you misquote forrest to sell books. Surely if there was anything worthwhile in there you you hold people's interests with your ideas and concepts....yet the ONLY selling point you have is misquoting Forrest. You can't even sell your own material!! And it's annoying to constantly listen to you try so were trying to help you figure out why so you can get a little dignity back. Assuming we figure correctly and it's even possible that is.
White Knight,

1. Can you see if that's the exact quote?

2. If that's the exact quote, are you interested in hearing an interpretation of that?
Here is White Knight's own logic, or lack thereof, and statements yet again debunking his own solution. Beyond the fact that he already debunked it when he called his first clue illogical. I will use some quotes of Forrest and White Knight so excuse the length.

White Knight said in post #409 "The main problem you trolls have got and the difference with my solution is that Forrest said- he's figured a lot of it out". It is true that Forrest said that but even if you believe what he said you have another problem. There is not a difference between your solution and other searchers, who you call trolls, if they also had a major part of their solve validated by Forrest in the public eye. I've told you this before and you doubted that this has happened to my or others' solves.

Here is the Forrest public statement that I have spoke of posted on Mysterious Writings on Feb 4, 2014. "It is interesting to know that a great number of people are out there searching. Many are giving serious thought to the clues in my poem, but only a few are in tight focus with a word that is key. The treasure may be discovered sooner than I anticipated". Booooom!!

Quote from White Knight #356 on this thread. "To my knowledge Forrest hasn't mentioned your solution anywhere or the multitude of other solutions that are incorrect". Well, I just showed you that if I'm one of the few that Forrest is talking about in his word that is key quote than yes he has mentioned a major part of my solution in the public eye and I would easily be able to tell I'm one of the few he's talking about...utterly simple.

I didn't say you've got a key part of the solution right. What I did say is a major component of your solution is based off of my solution, if I'm one of the ones that were originally in tight focus with a word that is key, or any of the other few who forwarded word to Forrest of their word that is key before Feb 4, 2014. It is a fact you use keywords so you obviously use the major component of a word that is key/keyword of the original few in your solution. You didn't figure out this part of the logic puzzle that I hinted at and mention that you were one of the original few. Or you can prove I'm wrong and show us your private email or other form of communication to Forrest dated before Feb 4, 2014 that shows you told him of your focus on a word that is key. But you probably didn't do that since you use multiple keywords and not just "a" (singular) word.

Then we get to your unfortunate quote that redebunks your solution. "The fact that Forrest made that radio show statement ABOUT MY SOLUTION HAS ALREADY PROVED YOU WRONG UNLESS THE BULK OF YOUR SOLUTION IS THE SAME AS MINE". Your Solution and mine are vastly different. Since I'm one of the original few in tight focus with a word that is key which was spoken by Forrest nearly 18 months PRIOR to the Santa Fe radio interview I can use the same exact lame logic as you and say that your solution has already been proven wrong unless the bulk of your solution is the same as mine. Even if you try to weasel out of this bear trap I have set, others here can easily see that you debunked your own solution here.

Notice in the two statements below from Forrest how similar they are in supposed affirmation of the lead of the searcher(s) involved. So, no you are not the only searcher that has had major press release about a major component of their solution. You got that flat wrong. Just look how huge a topic keywords became on the blogs after Forrest's quote.

-But only a few are in tight focus with a word that is key. The treasure may be discovered sooner than I anticipated.

-He's figured a lot of it out, I, maybe.
I will add Forrest's other words. "His name must be added to those who have presumed to know the clues in the poem". Richard: So he's one of many? Forrest: "He's one of MANY yeah".

I would rather be in the one of the FEW who are in tight focus camp. Not one of many like you who are presumed to know the clues in the poem. Remind me of the definition of presumed. Also, you see the word(s) maybe in both quotes. So if you are in the White Knight camp of gullibility and tout the Forrest quote as affirmation and White Knight is in the lead when it clearly says maybe then I and a few others can do the same thing or better because at least we got more confirmation with him saying the treasure may be discovered sooner than he anticipated. So huuuuuuuuuuuuge ;-)

So I do enjoy seeing you debunk your solution again in new novel ways. And by the way, no you did not rubbish my fact that you called your first clue illogical in your quote in posting # 194 which states "This is illogical. If someone had solved the first four clues then they must know they've solved the first clue". Ummm...do you see how silly your supposed rubbishing is? My trouncing reply to this is who can point to any searcher on the planet that knows they have the first four clues right, other than Forrest? No one, therefore no one knows he/she is the one who has solved the first four clues.

At least three strikes, yer ooooooout.
Please flush twice
(12-04-2015, 12:21 AM)decall Wrote: [ -> ]Please flush twice
Not yet, some of us are still having fun counting how many times we can make him repeat himself. It's more fun than playing with a parrot.
NJFL

I’ve made it clear that my solution is based on my opinions and beliefs:

Copied from within my e-book:

‘The statements, answers, deductions, evidence and conclusions within this e-book are based on my own opinions and my own work. There has been no input from Forrest Fenn or anyone else involved in the Thrill of the Chase treasure hunt’.

Copied from my blog site:

‘The answers, deductions, opinions and conclusions here are based on the White Knight' s own work. There has been no input from anyone else involved in the Thrill of the Chase treasure hunt’.

Copied from Amazon e-book description

‘Andrew BELIEVES the treasure will be found when someone can add the correct last 5% of the directions to the 95% he has detailed in this book.’

Copied from page 9 of this thread:

‘How do you expect me to prove my claims? I believe I have solved the bulk of the puzzle. All I can do is publish my solution so people can determine whether they think the solution is right or wrong. If people don't think it's right that's their opinion. If they do think it's right what's the problem with me talking to those people directly about it? Why can't those people have a valid opinion?’

Copied from Page 39 of this thread:

’My e-book shows what I believe is the bulk of the correct solution. I couldn’t solve the last bit so there’s no guarantee anyone else will, but I think it’s likely they will. If I could guarantee that Searchers would find the chest I could guarantee that I’d find it.’

’Searchers can decide for themselves about my solution and it’s validity. I believe I’ve got the bulk of it right. There are no guarantees. Just as there are no guarantees they can solve the last bit, or the chest hasn’t been abducted by aliens or the chest hasn’t already been found. It wouldn’t be possible for all the Searchers with the same e-book to all claim the chest at the same time.’

General comments

I believe I have solved the bulk of the riddle. In my opinion Forrest’s comment on the radio that I had ‘figured a lot of it out’ seemed to bolster the strength of my belief that I had solved a lot of the riddle.

Many contributors on this thread hold the opposite belief to me about the validity of my solution and have put many contrary opinions on many occasions.

For example NJFL posted:

‘Your solution is not correct and you can't prove which state is the right state. How could anyone know your solution is correct up to any point? Because you say so? That's only YOUR individual belief. You can't prove anything.’

It’s clear from this post that NJFL is aware that my solution is my individual belief and no-one can fully ‘know’ that any solution is correct until the chest is found.

So it’s all down to the opinion of individual Searchers. Searchers may come up with their own ideas. They may read my posts, blog and e-book and other peoples blogs, posts and books and decide whether they believe there is any validity or anything useful anywhere within anyone’s output.

Publication of my e-book shares ideas with other Searchers and provides a thought process and method of solving the riddle that Searchers otherwise may not have followed. In this way Searchers are able to consider each conceptual step within the book and decide whether they dismiss the concept or agree with it. So they may agree or disagree with all or any part of the solution I have published.

NJFL

Your post about breech of contract is nonsense. I think it’s unwise to offer unqualified legal advice to third parties or suggest I could be ‘sued’.

In addition you have posted other comments on this blog I think are unwise. For example accusing me of paying Richard Eeds to mention my book, stating I called him a liar and accusing me of being a con-man:

‘WK is calling Richard Eeds a liar.’

‘I wonder how much Briggs paid Eeds to make sure his solution was mentioned? We will never know the truth about that.’

‘People deserve to know when a con artist is trying to scam them into searching his area for him. Your solution is not correct and you can't prove which state is the right state. How could anyone know your solution is correct up to any point? Because you say so? That's only YOUR individual belief. You can't prove anything.’

‘I can see right through the con and I hope all who read this see through it too so people won't get duped into searching for you.’

HollyfromMN

Hi White Knight. I think your coordinants are wrong. Wishing you would try again with that part of the puzzle. I looked twice, knowing the second time that treasure would be hard to find even if I stood on top of it. I think people that have gone multiple times should stop going and first find coorninants that fit their area.
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