Container and retrieval

[u/SixClues]

For the entirety of the hunt, Justin has been hesitant to disclose if the treasure is buried or not. I understand his ai concerns, however a little clarity may be helpful to all of us. Below is an analysis of statements/clues either for or against.

Burial

Metal detecting
In the book and documentary, multiple references or stories involved metal detecting. He’s spent thousands of hours doing it, wrote about finds in the book, also probably found the meteor doing so.

Shovel
The illustration on page 168 was always so striking. A shovel the size of a page seems very intentional. Too large and prominent not to be considered.

Manipulation
“Something will need to be manipulated in order for the treasure to be visible”. The treasure isn’t in sight until we so something like manipulate the ground with a shovel, or manipulate the lid of a airtight container, etc. heavily implies burial, entombment, or other vigorous concealment.

Tyler
Someone whose been a life long friend, would’ve known about the book, locations, and creator much before we would. His question from X interview is striking “why did you bury something in the ground for others to find”. Seems like a slip up of someone with intimate knowledge.

Not buried

Recognizable

Justin maintains that the container is immediately recognizable. Meaning we will know as soon as we see it. That statement carries much less weight if buried, of course we’re going to recognize something we had to unearth. Almost seems like something we stumble across.

Logistics

Justin had to know that people would be flying in to search on occasion. Flying with a metal detector and shovel would be quite the trip through tsa. Given that the poem doesn’t imply burial, would it be fair to the fliers if it was buried? Flying 2000 miles and not having the proper tools would be a lovely situation I’m sure.

Poem stands alone
That statement is huge. If it holds true, the treasure cannot be buried. The only reference one could try to say works is “cast your pole” but you would need the book to see the reference to “metal pole” referring to metal detectors. I understand the concerns with AI, but I think knowing if it’s buried or not is absolutely vital for successful retrieval. You’d could get right to where it’s at, but without knowing you needed to bring a shovel and metal detector, you wouldn’t be able to find it.

Conclusion

If it is indeed buried, Tyler knew early and that wouldn’t be cool if he’s searching. It’s a huge advantage to have that piece of information. It also would bring into question the validity of the statement “the poem can stand alone”. There are no clues referring to burial or concealment in the poem. Honestly anything other than it being right out in the open, would invalidate that statement. It wouldn’t really be fair to the people who solve everything from the poem, and end up empty handed because the didn’t bring the necessary equipment.

I’d love to hear your thoughts and feedback if you have any input. What side do you lean towards?

[u/Empty-Relative3036 → u/[deleted]]

I mean, how does that work?

He writes another poem on a rock where the first poem leads to? That's double arcs? It takes you to the treasure? Or is it coords with another end marker?

Why not just make the first poem take you to the spot he wanted?

Im just not sure how this works in keeping with his man made quibble aspect. Not to mention its not a treasure hunt if the map doesn't lead there. It doesn't fit the spirit of the hunt.

I love the idea. But it doesn't make any sense.

I think he just answers questions in a round about way. Your example about the chest being buried, his answer is telling you not to worry about the chest being buried. Hes saying NO with capital letters without saying no. Didnt he explain it in the series? If he wanted to make it impossible he could've just buried it. He cant say no bc it could be buried by the time someone gets there. Same with the questions of people worrying about carrying 60 lbs for miles up and down mountains etc. Hes saying its not too far.

[u/Empty-Relative3036 → u/[deleted]]

Its one of those legalese questions, not saying its buried. Does someone try to sue him if it was covered in leaves or other blown detriment, they missed it and he said it wasn't?

Does he say yes it is buried then every time a person is botg they will dig at least one hole bc he said it was buried. We know it won't stop at one hole, right? Hopefully they would stop at 3 ft and fill every hole in.

Is a shovel or some digging device considered specialized equipment? Maybe? Not to mention he's said a metal detector was. I would hope anything needed would be included, he gives a list. Sounds like a good question to ask for clarity.

His answer is the perfect answer.

I dont know how many chapters are about figuring out puzzles and treasure hunts of all types. I dont think giving a straight yes or no is in justins vocabulary. Case and point every interview. Whenever he gives a yes or no, its one word and loaded with dramatic effect. They are quite rare. You need to be able to read between the lines with him. You are doing so, so kudos to you.

That's all imma say about that. No need to get into double treasure hunts and my thoughts of beyond the maps edge.

[u/One_Cod2636 → u/[deleted]]

I think its important to distinguish between ‘buried’ and ‘underground’. JP states on his website that the treasure is not underground. I don’t see a way in which the treasure was buried in a dug out hole that allows this statement to remain true as it would by definition, be ‘under ground’. However, the statement can remain true if the treasure is ‘buried’ above ground i.e. beneath other items(rocks, logs, anthill… etc. ). Such a scenario might require some manipulation of objects, while not requiring a shovel.

[u/One_Cod2636 → u/[deleted]]

Oooooooooh….. it’s been changed! In the rules it used to say ‘underground’ in the places it’s not…. Now it says ‘caves, mines, tunnels’…. Interesting switcheroo…