Not logged in. Login - Register


All new registrations need to be approved manually. After registration, mail me at tyblossom at aol dot com.
ChaseChat is available for Smartphones via Tapatalk, Download the app at http://tapatalk.com/m?id=4&referer=1048173. After installing CLICK HERE to add the forum to Tapatalk.

Thread Rating:
  • 2 Vote(s) - 3 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
LurkerMike's Maximum Confidence Argument
07-08-2019, 12:01 PM,
#1
LurkerMike's Maximum Confidence Argument
LurkerMike's Maximum Confidence Argument

Tell me I am wrong, I dare you...

Then stick around to defend it if you can as I change your mind about what you know and what you think... I double dog dare you.

Of many solves I have developed, only a few I think are viable in that they seem to meet all of the Chase criteria I am aware of. I have seen a few others that are as good or better than my best solves. Most veterans of the Chase have too. This is why I can have no confidence in any particular solve being the correct solve, only that it is one of probably by my estimation less than a few thousand other viable solves. If I am right, that narrows the odds for any searcher with a viable solve, but it guarantees nothing.

What do we know about the Chase?
We know what Forrest Fenn has written about the Chase and what he has said about the Chase.

Everything else we think, not know. We only think we know, but we don't know. Thinking something is not the same as actually knowing.

Forrest Fenn said this about Confidence:

"The person who finds the treasure will have studied the poem over and over, and thought, and analyzed and moved with confidence. Nothing about it will be accidental." (see link 1 below)

"No, if all you have to go on are those two clues you cannot proceed with confidence. Look at it this way. If you were making a cake and you left out a few ingredients, would you achieve your goal?" (see link 2 below)

I believe that the "Maximum Confidence" a searcher can have is only that they have a complete and viable solve, and not necessarily a correct solve. Maximun Confidence that a solve that has a chance of being the correct solve, but a much better chance of not being the correct solve. And by a considerable margin. A searcher can only think their solve is correct, but only know that it is correct when they open the lid. Thinking something is not knowing something.

This "moved with confidence" Forrest speaks of that the Finder will have done, it is not mutually exclusive to just the Finder's last BOTG on the correct solve. I think it is a suggestion that we be confident that we have developed a complete and viable solve before we go BOTG, not that we are confident we have the correct solve.

But you can't know until you go. And if and when you go, go with what you know, not what you think.

Godspeed, Good Luck, and Safe Searching my fellow bi... searchers.


1) MW February 4, 2013 Six Questions Answer to #5Q :
https://mysteriouswritings.com/six-ques ... the-chase/
2) MW Answer to Question posted 7/1/2014:
http://mysteriouswritings.com/questions ... the-chase/
Reply
07-08-2019, 12:35 PM,
#2
RE: LurkerMike's Maximum Confidence Argument
Didn't get any biters at the land of superior opinion so you think you will try your luck here?
Reply
07-08-2019, 02:26 PM, (This post was last modified: 07-08-2019, 02:29 PM by Beavertooth.)
#3
RE: LurkerMike's Maximum Confidence Argument
It's a reasonable post, with some thought behind it, so it exceeds most of what is posted here.

There is a lot of truth there. I think most seasoned searchers have stepped back to reevaluate their solves and demand more from themselves and their confidence level before they go. For example, while I think I have WWWH, hoB, the blaze, and the ninth and final clue dead on, at a much higher confidence level than any prior trip, I still toy with some of the intermediate clues and wish I could "improve" their confidence level. I struggle to figure out some additional Fenn word magic or twist that moves them to a higher level before I go.

It would be easier to be targeted on one site (like brubr and others) who are convinced that they have the right spot. They won't give up, even if there have been landslides or whatever to get in their way. Some have searched a small area for years. High confidence, indeed. Who's to say whether they are on the right track, or whether "target fixation" has again reared its ugly head.

That raises the point as to how small does your target need to be to make you confident? My early searches were probably limited to an acre or less. I expanded the target areas when I thought the blaze would be an ultraviolet marking seen from a trail (at night) -- I used an expensive ultraviolet flashlight that could highlight things 70-feet wide on either side of a path, so I covered a lot more territory. Later solves developed targets as small as one foot square in Yellowstone National Park, or more typically 10 feet by 10 feet. When those failed, of course, I was like most searchers -- pushed into searching a 200-foot radius around my target (around 3 acres, which can be challenging given the nooks and crannies to be found in a National Forest or a National Park). So does "size matter" when you determine your confidence level in your solve?

Some searchers determine coordinates from the poem. If I were able to do that, my confidence might be high. So far, I have not been able to ascertain any useful coordinates, so I might be out of luck in the Chase. But I would agree that people come up with different coordinates, so it is unlikely that one will jump out as the one and only "correct" solve before you go.

On the other hand, just to stir the waters, if you knew how strongly the poem supported my current WWWH, blaze, and 9th clue, you might agree that a "correct solve" can be achieved at home before you go. But I can't prove it to you without revealing my solve, so we may just have to agree to disagree for now, and move on. Smile
Reply
07-08-2019, 04:51 PM, (This post was last modified: 07-08-2019, 04:58 PM by Top Secret.)
#4
RE: LurkerMike's Maximum Confidence Argument
LM, Since you finally took my advice and started talking almost about the clues (rather than spewing pages of useless trivia or your life experiences), I owe a response to your dare. So here it is:

You are wrong.

Stubbornness is sometimes confused with tenacity. Your assumptions are too simple and there are many omissions. First you omitted Fenn's comment of confidence, "Confidence will take you a long way and I wish you luck." Note confidence only takes you so far, not all the way.

He also said this from TTOTC, "Confidence can only come with knowledge and training, although a good ego helps." [ego you got, knowledge and training you lack]

You said," I think it is a suggestion that we be confident that we have developed a complete and viable solve before we go BOTG, not that we are confident we have the correct solve. "

For someone who just challenged the world to dare you to say you are wrong, you sound very weak with the words "I think." in your conclusion.

This is what you are missing, "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." http://mysteriouswritings.com/six-questi...e-charmed/

Fenn says right there in black and white, no complete and viable solution before you leave the armchair. There is a much better explanation for those confidence statements. Armchair is not the answer.
Reply
07-08-2019, 05:50 PM,
#5
RE: LurkerMike's Maximum Confidence Argument
that quote does not contradict the idea you can have a viable solve before you leave your armchair

it only says you will have to complete it physically. which we already know and have already known since the treasure hunt began
Reply
07-08-2019, 05:56 PM,
#6
RE: LurkerMike's Maximum Confidence Argument
(07-08-2019, 04:51 PM)Top Secret Wrote: LM, Since you finally took my advice and started talking almost about the clues (rather than spewing pages of useless trivia or your life experiences), I owe a response to your dare. So here it is:

You are wrong.

Stubbornness is sometimes confused with tenacity. Your assumptions are too simple and there are many omissions. First you omitted Fenn's comment of confidence, "Confidence will take you a long way and I wish you luck." Note confidence only takes you so far, not all the way.

He also said this from TTOTC, "Confidence can only come with knowledge and training, although a good ego helps." [ego you got, knowledge and training you lack]

You said," I think it is a suggestion that we be confident that we have developed a complete and viable solve before we go BOTG, not that we are confident we have the correct solve. "

For someone who just challenged the world to dare you to say you are wrong, you sound very weak with the words "I think." in your conclusion.

This is what you are missing, "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." http://mysteriouswritings.com/six-questi...e-charmed/

Fenn says right there in black and white, no complete and viable solution before you leave the armchair. There is a much better explanation for those confidence statements. Armchair is not the answer.

TS, I don't think you completely understand what LurkerMike is saying. But I'll let him worry about that. And I am ignoring your cheap shots about Mike's lack of training and knowledge. Presumably all of us are in the same boat -- who can say what life experiences may help solve the Chase puzzle.

More importantly, I think you are wrong.

First, I have been able to solve the last clue (from home) without using Google Earth or a similar map. It is not what you think it might be.

Second, "A physical presence is needed to complete the solve" can be interpreted several ways. It could simply mean to pick up the chest, you have to be there. Alternatively, if a blaze demarcates the hiding spot, you would have to be there to see the blaze (IMO).

Third, How do you infer that "Confidence will take you a long way" somehow means "confidence only takes you so far, not all the way"?

Fenn has said the person who solves the poem will go to the chest with confidence -- doesn't that mean that Fenn believes the person will go with full -- not partial -- confidence?

I think that Mike is focusing on having enough confidence in a reasonably probable solve (ie, 1,000-to-1 odds, or maybe 3,000-to-1 odds) and not being required to have a confidence level of 1:1 odds.

For myself, I don't want to make another BOTG unless I think I have 100-to-1 odds or better. I think I am close to that now. That probably means I am also in disagreement with Mike. Oh well.
Reply
07-08-2019, 06:19 PM,
#7
RE: LurkerMike's Maximum Confidence Argument
(07-08-2019, 05:56 PM)Beavertooth Wrote:
(07-08-2019, 04:51 PM)Top Secret Wrote: LM, Since you finally took my advice and started talking almost about the clues (rather than spewing pages of useless trivia or your life experiences), I owe a response to your dare. So here it is:

You are wrong.

Stubbornness is sometimes confused with tenacity. Your assumptions are too simple and there are many omissions. First you omitted Fenn's comment of confidence, "Confidence will take you a long way and I wish you luck." Note confidence only takes you so far, not all the way.

He also said this from TTOTC, "Confidence can only come with knowledge and training, although a good ego helps." [ego you got, knowledge and training you lack]

You said," I think it is a suggestion that we be confident that we have developed a complete and viable solve before we go BOTG, not that we are confident we have the correct solve. "

For someone who just challenged the world to dare you to say you are wrong, you sound very weak with the words "I think." in your conclusion.

This is what you are missing, "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." http://mysteriouswritings.com/six-questi...e-charmed/

Fenn says right there in black and white, no complete and viable solution before you leave the armchair. There is a much better explanation for those confidence statements. Armchair is not the answer.

TS, I don't think you completely understand what LurkerMike is saying. But I'll let him worry about that. And I am ignoring your cheap shots about Mike's lack of training and knowledge. Presumably all of us are in the same boat -- who can say what life experiences may help solve the Chase puzzle.

More importantly, I think you are wrong.

First, I have been able to solve the last clue (from home) without using Google Earth or a similar map. It is not what you think it might be.

Second, "A physical presence is needed to complete the solve" can be interpreted several ways. It could simply mean to pick up the chest, you have to be there. Alternatively, if a blaze demarcates the hiding spot, you would have to be there to see the blaze (IMO).

Third, How do you infer that "Confidence will take you a long way" somehow means "confidence only takes you so far, not all the way"?

Fenn has said the person who solves the poem will go to the chest with confidence -- doesn't that mean that Fenn believes the person will go with full -- not partial -- confidence?

I think that Mike is focusing on having enough confidence in a reasonably probable solve (ie, 1,000-to-1 odds, or maybe 3,000-to-1 odds) and not being required to have a confidence level of 1:1 odds.

For myself, I don't want to make another BOTG unless I think I have 100-to-1 odds or better. I think I am close to that now. That probably means I am also in disagreement with Mike. Oh well.
Well BT since we are playing this game - YOU ARE WRONG!
You made the same mistake LM did. You assumed I was making a cheap shot. I didn't say his life experiences won't help him - you did. I was referring to his time in the chase.

You talk like the last clue is the blaze, is that your assumption? If so that also is a big mistake. You rationalize ("It could simply mean to pick up the chest, you have to be there.") like most searchers to make this fit your preconceived concept of this solution rather than thinking about what Fenn is really saying, "A physical presence is needed to complete the solve."

There are other very good reasons that makes sense out of his confidence statement and his requirement to solve in situ - if you think the right things. Unless you have chest in hand your claim to have solved the last clue from home is just wishful thinking and you know it.

BT, maybe you need a month away from the blogs to figure it out. It worked for me. ;-)
Reply
07-08-2019, 07:33 PM, (This post was last modified: 07-08-2019, 07:36 PM by Beavertooth.)
#8
RE: LurkerMike's Maximum Confidence Argument
(07-08-2019, 06:19 PM)Top Secret Wrote: Well BT since we are playing this game - YOU ARE WRONG!
You made the same mistake LM did. You assumed I was making a cheap shot. I didn't say his life experiences won't help him - you did. I was referring to his time in the chase.

You talk like the last clue is the blaze, is that your assumption? If so that also is a big mistake. You rationalize ("It could simply mean to pick up the chest, you have to be there.") like most searchers to make this fit your preconceived concept of this solution rather than thinking about what Fenn is really saying, "A physical presence is needed to complete the solve."

There are other very good reasons that makes sense out of his confidence statement and his requirement to solve in situ - if you think the right things. Unless you have chest in hand your claim to have solved the last clue from home is just wishful thinking and you know it.

BT, maybe you need a month away from the blogs to figure it out. It worked for me. ;-)

The last clue has nothing to do with the blaze. I was speaking hypothetically with regard to why Fenn stated you need a physical presence. There are numerous reasons he would say this -- I mentioned two, but there are more. It doesn't mean that you haven't "solved" the puzzle before you go.

You use the phrase "what Fenn is really saying" as if you know what that is. If he was a man who wrote literally, the poem would have been solved years ago. Since he has established a reputation for not writing literally, I wonder why you think he does in this case? No matter to me. Napolean said it best .....

No need for me to spend time away -- I have figured it out. There is an elegant solution to the last clue. It is not an easy one. Call it wishful thinking if you wish. Call it egotistical if you wish. I've been posting on this blog for years. I haven't been prone to wishful thinking in the last 2,000 posts -- why would you think I would start now?

Mike has raised an interesting issue. I am answering his challenge to the best of my ability. You raised some weak arguments in response. I pointed out the weaknesses. I believe that Fenn's Q & A's, along with Scrapbooks, etc. are not often literal, and should not be taken that way by the searcher community. He likes to play with words and meanings. He is like the magician that says "look over here" so that you don't see the trick he is pulling on you. You are welcome to take his words as gospel, however, and claim they are the "Gospel of Fenn". I think you would be foolish to do so. I think other searchers would be foolish to follow your lead in this.

Mike says Fenn didn't really mean that a searcher could get to a correct solution from home and go in confidence to the chest. You support him in a way. I am arguing that you can get much closer to a solution at home (in terms of odds), and that someone smarter or more worldly than me could perhaps get to 1:1 odds.

There is a reason the ninth clue does not get you to a 10-foot by 10-foot patch of ground on a map or Google Earth. That doesn't mean that the clue and other parts of the poem don't tell you what to do when you get "there" (not the 10X10 patch of ground).

-----
P.S. I did not say what you said I said with regard to Mike's life experiences. You are the one who said he lacked knowledge and training. I said that his or other searchers' life experiences could be equal or better than whatever knowledge or training you think he lacks. Please don't misquote me. And it was a cheap shot by you, despite your denials.
Reply
07-08-2019, 08:30 PM, (This post was last modified: 07-08-2019, 08:33 PM by LurkerMike.)
#9
RE: LurkerMike's Maximum Confidence Argument
Perhaps I could simply my argument to say that a searcher's Maximum Confidence can never exceed 1:1 or a 50% chance where either the chest will be found where the searcher thinks it is hidden or it won't be there because it is somewhere else.

But it is a little more complex than that which make the odds less favorable.

Consider many have been within 500' of the Chest. I think the chest is hidden within 500' of WWWH, but I don't know that. And I think the rest of the poem is there to guide the Finder to WWWH in the correct direction to limit the search area from a square mile or so, to just a few acres, but I don't know that either. But it would explain how a searcher could get within 200' as they approach the correct WWWH, and walk right past the chest.

Whatever the case may be, I think that identifying and going BOTG at the correct solve location area is only half of the battle, and because there are no confirmations, one cannot know how close they are therefore how they should make adjustments in how they conduct an intense search of that area.

And there are many excellent solves that all seem to meet all of the known criteria. And these excellent solves are scattered throughout the Rockies, mostly north of Santa Fe according to Fenn.

So I don't see how anyone with the correct solve can have any real confidence before they go BOTG to search there when all they can have is a false sense of overconfidence because they are searching based on what they think they know and not what they actually know to be proven facts. The only proof there will be is opening the lid for that lucky or unfortunate, (depending on how you look at it), Finder.

We know what Fenn wrote and said, but we only think we know what he meant by those words. We don't know what he meant because we have not found the chest and opened its lid yet.

I think much the same way as many others, but I don't know any more than they do nor do they know any more than I do. I don't have any of this confidence in a solve being the correct solution, I don't need it to just have fun searching a few what seem to be viable solves. I see this confidence thing as a major hindrance in that it only serves to undermine objective thinking which only increases the odds of failing.

Play because you love the game, not because you covet the treasure.
Reply
07-08-2019, 08:30 PM,
#10
RE: LurkerMike's Maximum Confidence Argument
LM said...I believe that the "Maximum Confidence" a searcher can have is only that they have a complete and viable solve, and not necessarily a correct solve.

I’m going with this: Pondering if one will have the right level of confidence as one gets to the end of their general or correct solve isn’t what’s important. The important time to achieve confidence is in nailing down the first clue. The clues after that hinge off of that so aren’t as difficult. I don’t think the blaze is figured out last.

"No, if all you have to go on are those two clues you cannot proceed with confidence. Look at it this way. If you were making a cake and you left out a few ingredients, would you achieve your goal?"

It’s right there in your quote. F equated confidence in the first clue to making a cake with all the ingredients and not missing any. I’m going with f provided 4 ingredients early on in the poem.

Baked Pesto Chicken Parmesan is chicken thighs tossed in pesto then topped with marinara sauce and mozzarella cheese, and then baked, lol. That’s 4 ingredients. There’s confidence in what is coming out the oven. It ain’t a cake but you’ll be eating dessert soon.


Howdy, Mister.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  The trouble with confidence... crazyfamily 25 2,524 06-13-2019, 07:52 PM
Last Post: brubr
  ARGUMENT/FIGHT IT OUT 5GIRLS 1 1,534 06-29-2017, 11:54 AM
Last Post: rmannaa
  Confidence Hammertime 6 3,484 08-21-2016, 12:20 PM
Last Post: Hammertime
  Move forward with confidence... inohury 2 2,815 08-12-2016, 11:26 AM
Last Post: pidmt
  There is ZERO confidence in our searches Larsonist 89 40,535 02-14-2016, 08:37 PM
Last Post: superfly
  My take on confidence Hammertime 6 4,138 02-13-2016, 10:09 PM
Last Post: BiggaB

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)
Contact Us | ChaseChat - Forrest Fenn's Forum | Return to Top | | Lite (Archive) Mode | RSS Syndication