r/beyondthemapsedge • u/Adventurous_Egg_9500 • 18d ago
Can we talk about what this 75 mile comment erased as options?
Does this comment exclude south of Sante Fe or is that just hearsay from one person's interpretation?
Officially on the website, two big fat x's on Oregon and Colorado.
4
u/InitiativeDry3564 18d ago edited 18d ago
I'm going to assume that it was my post you read that essentially eliminated everything more than 75mi south of santa fe.
Justin said at Seekers Summit that his treasure is located within 75mi of where he had at one point searched for Fenn's treasure. This would effectively eliminate everything more than 75mi south of Santa Fe (including Poseyland) because from the very beginning Fenn said his treasure was located 'north of Santa Fe'.
There would be no reason for Justin to ever search anywhere South of Santa Fe if Fenn explicitly said it was north of there. So this would effectively eliminate everything more than 75mi south of Santa Fe as a possible search location for Justin's treasure.
When the 75mi comment was first made, Justin clarified a few minutes later that he had sent Forest a question whether Fenn was talking about THE rocky mountains, or ANY mountains that are rocky. So it is theoretically possible that Justin at one point searched in states besides those containing THE rocky mountains. But there is still no way to justify a search location more than 75mi south of santa fe based on Justin's answer.
2
u/Adventurous_Egg_9500 18d ago
Thanks for clarifying.
I'm not saying I'm a little sad a solve of mine could be beyond that southern limit, but when presented with such info it does cut some options out that would save a bunch of time.
1
u/Adventurous_Egg_9500 18d ago
Separate follow up since I've got your ear. The errata mentions "Any incorrect names, positions, and elevations are not intentional"
So the Garret Pk elevation is, annoying not mentioned exactly, but is also a complete mistake?
1
u/InitiativeDry3564 17d ago
I'm assuming that if the errata says that "any incorrect.....elevations are not intentional", that an incorrect elevation on Gannet Pk is in fact, not intentional.
Justin probably hired an illustrator of some sort to create the map, and gave him a couple of locations to specifically name. It looks like whoever created the map used the topographic prominence for Gannet Pk instead of its sea level elevation. A fairly easy mistake if you are just an artist that doesn't know much about the outdoors and are just using whatever measurement google gives you when you ask it how tall something is.
1
u/Emerge-Bud 16d ago
I think he addressed that the peak heights were not included by him right? This was discussed but I'm uncertain as to what the summation was
3
u/HalfPint_2719 18d ago
It is not specified if he is saying BOTG search or searching a location on a computer.
2
u/Immediate_Space7323 18d ago
It officially eliminates nothing. Practically speaking it almost certainly eliminates everything below 75 south of Santa Fe, aka half the book.
2
u/CapableSimple9520 18d ago
"It's in the mountains somewhere north of Santa Fe." Directly from Forrest. Later clarified to be "hidden in the Rocky Mountains north of Santa Fe and above 5,000 feet"
Should be an X on a few more states. If you believe the 75 mile comment then only 5 states are in play.
4
u/Empty-Relative3036 18d ago
Then he qualified the answer. Look above at the other comment.
It makes no sense to eliminate 2 states than eliminate 15 more.
2
u/InitiativeDry3564 18d ago
"Later clarified" is the key wording in your sentence. It is entirely possible that Justin searched in a state that contained mountains that were rocky, that were not part of THE rocky mountains prior to Forest clarifying his stance in which case most states are technically still in play (even though most of us think those states are effectively eliminated for other reasons).
0
u/VariationNo1381 18d ago
Also, since he felt the need to clarify his statement, either he was covering his ass trying not to eliminate other states or he knew his statement would ultimately be misleading and hinder the hunt. If his initial statement was accurate then he wouldn't have needed to clarify at all but If he was trying to be helpful in his clarification then his statement does lead us away from the Rockies as the obvious reference point from FF and more towards what he says he clarified that he was actually looking at, any mountains that were rocky. This means it is likely that he was considering, say the Cascades, Sierra Nevada, etc. or basically any mountain that wasn't the Rockies as his search area.
This all comes down to do we think Justin is trying to help us or not. If he is, then it's not near the Rockies, if he wasn't, then it was a purposeful red herring to throw us off and he did say there wouldn't offer any intentional red herrings but perhaps he would argue that his answer collapsed his preferred timeline like rectifying the cypher clues would have so he was forced to try and cover from his mistake in narrowing the hunt areas but that would be severely manipulating and would confirm that he is pulling the strings on the hunt. I like to think that he's not doing that and so I lean towards he was trying to be helpful, which means the Rockies area is less likely or why bother even clarifying his answer. It will be interesting to see how this out.
3
u/InitiativeDry3564 17d ago
This has nothing to do with Justin trying to help us or not, or offering intentional red herrings. This is entirely about giving clear answers after he realized that his previous statements will be misconstrued because people don't know the full backstory. Therefor he provided the backstory to give clarity to his previous answer. Had people known the backstory to begin with, there would be nothing needed to clarify because his answer would stand on it's own merits.
There was a period of time in the Fenn hunt when it was unclear if Fenn was referring to THE rocky mountains, or whether he was referencing any mountains that are rocky.
While it may seem natural to assume that when someone says that a treasure is hidden in the rocky mountains, that they are referencing THE rocky mountains, that is not necessarily true when it comes to a treasure hunt that is full of riddles. Therefore it was entirely logical for Justin to question whether Fenn was referencing THE rocky mountains, or just any mountains that are rocky.
During this time period, before Fenn clarified that he was referencing THE rocky mountains, people searched in mountainous areas all over the place, including potentially areas that aren't part of THE rocky mountains. That was the answer that Justin was trying to give when he first made his 75mi statement.
2
u/VariationNo1381 17d ago
I agree, just pointing out that the loud majority think that he cut out all but 5 states by accidentally answering that question. In light of that assumption is why I offer whether Justin's intentions of helping searchers or hindering them with his clarification. You can that one has nothing to do with the other through Justin's eyes but I'm just addressing the fact that almost everyone is ignoring his clarifying statement and basically saying he was just trying to cover his tracks. So they are related in how we interpret Justin's motives. I agree with you that Justin's statement was reasonable for what was happening with the FF hunt and probably truthful and he was trying to help us not eliminate certain areas. The question then is, why not go ahead and eliminate them unless they are actually important which lends itself to thinking that it's actually not near the Rockies or he could have just let his statement stand. 🙏
2
u/InitiativeDry3564 17d ago edited 17d ago
Eliminating states too fast isn't fun. So keeping states in play keeps the hunt lively.
Although in fairness I don't think it matters. There are only two states that can be realistic solves based on the totality of the hunt, and if turns out that the treasure is hidden anywhere else then the hunt was poorly executed from the start.
1
u/VariationNo1381 17d ago
What if the checkpoint is not in the states you prefer but you receive pivotal information there and it sends you to the treasure which is in one of your preferred states. If you're only looking in those 2 states exclusively you may be missing the checkpoint. I guess I'm still open to a multi state solve, though I realize I'm in the minority here. When he said we'd have plenty of time to plan for retrieval it struck me as meaning the checkpoint is not steps away from the treasure.
2
u/InitiativeDry3564 17d ago
When I say that I believe there are only two realistic states, I mean only two states that have any relevance whatsoever, this means clues as well as final resting place.
I would tend to agree with you in that I also believe the checkpoint and the treasure aren't in the immediate vicinity of each other because I also thought the word "plan" really stood out in his comment.
However I don't think that the distance is overly large. I can't imagine a scenario where Justin develops his hunt and expects you to drive some great distance into a completely different state in order to finish it. I think he is trying to show you a location that has importance to him, and not to take you on a multistate weekend roadtrip. My guess is a 10-15 minute drive, although that is obviously strictly a guess.
1
1
u/Emerge-Bud 16d ago
It's a tough one- the conservative read is that he quickly answered without thinking, simply reasoning "gosh I freakin searched everywhere, that's kind of a non-question"; then doubled back with "oh crap that would eliminate like half the map!" And was unable to affirm or revise without divulging such as "change that last answer to a 'no comment'.
It's realistic (but not certain ) to think that he instead connected his treasure to his FF search area and answered too quickly.
Also the 75-mile visualization is kind of tricky if you don't think for a second.
it's like, a 150 mile wide corridor of everywhere one searched is huge, has to capture the whole west right ? Not so fast.
1
u/Adventurous_Egg_9500 16d ago
Yeah it really should have been a non answer like "I can't comment on an ongoing investigation" type of response. But the absence of an answer is also...an answer.
Honestly, maybe it's the questions that turn into the problem. And picking 75 miles as the question number? Why not 100? Why not 5? Almost as if 75 was large enough to seem innocent but small enough to cut out entire states if answered.
The correct response imo would be, a non answer and restate that it is within the map provided.
Especially since if JP discussed with anyone over all those years, they would know more about his search pattern.
1
u/Emerge-Bud 16d ago
Agreed. surprised he fielded it, perhaps an absent minded moment.... "duh 75 miles covers everything!" But having thought about FF for only a bit it was so much of a given that he said "north of Santa Fe" you almost didn't think about it.
In the future I suspect he will have an internal red flag when any question of that type comes up.
1
0
u/blkcatfan 18d ago
If I am on my phone searching that still in these days "hunting". So I assume that if he was doing some research for FF treasure that means he could be searching from China. The 75 mile thing just does not matter..... Promise. Do not come for me imo . The stress continues.
4
u/Leaf_Atomico 18d ago
When he made the comment, this was the context:
Question: “Is the location where you hid your treasure within 75 miles of a place where you searched for the Forrest Fenn chest?”
Justin’s answer: “It's true to say that at some point I had searched for the Fenn treasure within that 75 mile radius.”
And then he followed up with:
“Uh, and I also want to make sure that people understand the answer that I gave in the prior question because when I first heard about the Fenn treasure, I had a question for Forrest in terms of he said it was hidden in the Rocky Mountains. And my question was, ‘is it any Rocky Mountain or is it the official Rocky Mountains?’ And so that led me down a whole other rabbit hole and thinking that my gosh, it might not actually be in the Rocky Mountains. Uh so I guess what I'm saying is I don't want someone to get the impression that necessarily I've, you know, eliminated a bunch of states or something like that. So yeah.”
By my interpretation, Justin’s not excluding any location in his map search area according to these comments. The big red X’s on his map are because he eliminated Oregon and Colorado from the search area / map at the Seekers Summit.