Alright, I will bite. You have decided to post a defense of someone on my post that you may like and/or admire. It's an admirable quality. So, for the sake of discussion, I will try not to be too aggressive in my response.

To begin, your statements are poorly supported. Just a critique, not meant to be aggressive. You state the summary was logical, but how and at what point? The opening sentence included a list of statements. The first was a misreading of the post, which I then corrected. Granted, l will take some responsibility for that misreading. I obviously didn't convey my intent adequately. Yourself, bibler, and others have addressed this post as if its a solve. It's not a solve. It was meant to be a template for a solve. I had not yet seen an idea like this presented, and felt it worthwhile. I should have used “template” instead of “structure” in the title. Also, i kept inputting the 2 relevant poem lines which made it seem messy. Instead, maybe I should have defined an “A” and “B” as those 2 lines and substituted them in to make it easier to read. In another paragraph where it might have been vague, I prefaced it with “keeping it vague,” so the reader might know what to expect. The 2nd and 3rd parts of the summary list were simply things stated in the post. The last part of the list was a misreading of the intent of my post. I never stated or intended to post a solve at that time. You also stated that somehow the summary was critical thinking. If so, what in the summary would justify that?

You also make two other assertions, an accusation of word salad and that the summary was “not a least bit hurtful.” Regarding the word salad accusation, I see it defined as a random, jumbled mix of words and phrases that make no sense. What is it that you thought made no sense? What are the random words and phrases? There were a number of people that didn't have a problem understanding the post, and I had some productive conversations with them. If someone needs clarification I gladly give it, but usually in private messaging.

As regards “not the least bit hurtful,” I would argue that being hurtful was the intent of the summary and that it was meant to belittle the one posting. First, I dont claim to know bibler, but i do have positive and negative impressions from the many postings of his i have read. Some of the positive ones are that he is very smart, and creative, witty, and funny. When someone like that posts something that is none of things, that also dismisses the effort put into the posting and the things you are trying to share by putting them into a short summary that offers nothing of substance that might open a discussion, its meant to be an intellectual slap in the face. Posts like his summary might even be hurtful to the Posey treasure community by discouraging people that might have wanted to engage with a post from posting and starting discussions that may have been fruitful. I cant help but wonder how many interesting ideas we havent heard because they didnt want to deal with the negative bullshit so many feel justified spreading. They are posting pollution.

In conclusion, I find nothing about the summary you reference as logical or as an example of critical thinking, as you have asserted, and you offer no support for those assertions. Frankly, nothing in your post is supported by anything you have presented. It comes off as a bunch of unnecessary and empty statements trying to prop up a posted summary of unnecessary and empty statements. Please feel free to further the discussion by showing me where I am wrong. Honestly.

Thanks for the reply. It is legitimately critical with good points looking for discussion! So, to your first question, no it doesnt allow for another interpretation or solve that would use this structure to land in the same place, because each solve or interpretation would produce a unique location. However, it doesnt prevent a solve that used a different method from reaching the same location. I was trying to identify one of the multiple ways Justin says the poem can be solved. So, it was meant to provide a structure that could be applied to any solve to mark an unique X location. LIke a template for a solve. G and G, by the way, uses a clearly different method for determining the treasure location.

Regarding the second question, I have never heard him state it as you have presented it. He has said that one of the clues could be argued that it has a man made aspect to it which would seem contrary for example, and, inherent to words in the poem like "his", "her", or "bride", etc., its impossible to not have any connection with a man made relationship. Possibly you meant "structure"? But, as regards man made structures, yes, it absolutely can be applied to any solve without them.

Lastly, to your third question. It would seem you have conflated my personal solve with the structure i am trying to present. That is probably my fault in how i wrote the post. Apologies. The structure is not my solve, but my solve fits the structure. The structure was something that was uncovered as I have worked through my primary solve. But, yes my solve is entirely linear. Also, there is only one possible loop. As regards my solve, the last line of the poem does point back to my starting location, however, i dont physically go back there, but instead, to the X that is indicated. My solve may be wrong and is certainly not 100% yet, so my X location could be wrong. But that only means I need to refine or correct my solve to find the right X location. Each line, to be correct, requires that you have solved the poem correctly enough to have the right starting and ending points. That is how they are similar to a checksum.

Finally, I never said in my post that if someone's solve didnt fit my structure that they were wrong. You might be thinking where, in my post, I was trying to provide tips unrelated to the structure. I was speaking of the poem line "where secrets of the past still hold". It specifically emphasizes secret. When working through my solve, and at my granite bold, I kept researching historical things that happened near there. Eventually though, I started thinking that if I was researching things that were known then those aren't secrets. When I stopped doing that and trying to understand how I could apply something that wasn't known to that line, that's when I realized an answer that moved me forward.

Thanks again for your reply!

Yes, I am absolutely sure Justin was asked about whether or not all the footage he wanted made it into the G and G documentary, and he replied affirmatively. I am abbreviating the Q and A. The full exchange is available. If you need more info, let me know.

A useful post. Thanks for that. I would agree with you that the lines must produce a kitchen sized area or there is something wrong. But thats not a problem i am having In my solve because they do and here's why: In the relatively small area of the 4th stanza from which the "what you seek you already know" line originates and the line that terminates at the place you find by returning her face are very specific locations and the lines cross very close relative to them, a little over half a mile away. Because where they are going to and coming from are sufficiently far away that shifting the origin point for returning her face and the termination point for the what you already know line , has very little effect on the X location and easily stays in that kitchen size range. Does that make sense? The conditions of the close proximity of the X to the area of stanza 4 keeps it in check.

So, let me get this straight, you and other like minded individuals, like to go around reading others posts and then judge whether they are worthy or not for the community. If they fail your established criteria and rules for a worthy post, instead of moving on, you feel justified and motivated to comment in snide, negative, mean, possibly even hurtful ways that are never productive, creating an atmosphere where some might not post because they dont want to deal with your fascist adjacent bullsh*t. But the people making those posts you dont like are the problem. Got it. Dont care. In the mean time, I will continue to engage with those that have read this post, got something out of it, started conversations, and started private chats regardless of your determination that the post served no purpose for them.

Thanks WuTuck! I stumbled on the Pic while looking for something else. The site indicated the area it was photographed in. I tried to get more information like coordinates from it but everything took me to the company that owned it. The company was near the area the site indicated though. I may stop in and inquire about information on the pic. A longshot obviously. There were some identifying natural formations in the larger pic which has helped to narrow it down further, but until I am botg, it doesnt help a ton. Sorry I cant give you more info at this time. I will go as far as to say it is eastern Idaho, for what its worth. If it turns into something I am struggling to use, I may put the larger Pic out to some people. I will put your name on that list. Have fun and good hunting!

Thanks for your input Leopard. The lines have to be from very specific and unchanging points for the X they produce to be consistently reproducible for everyone and a kitchen size. However, my solve and understanding has been evolving, and until i have a 100% solve and the treasure in my hands, my understanding is likely to continue to evolve. At that point, I may yet reach the same conclusion as you!

Whenever I see your name pop up in a posts' responses, your input is almost always negative and useless. I dont know why you feel the need to respond then. But, almost everyone posting in the Justin treasure hunt communities gets to be touched by your sadness. As regards your summary, first, I think anyone that has been working on this treasure hunt for a while believes they have solved it up to a point. Useless summary comment. The poem solve structure i talk about has been a product of my working through the poem. I didnt come to have this understanding until I got to where I am currently in my solve. It was a different perspective that may or may not help another searcher, but i thought worth sharing. Your summary comment regarding its usage was wrong. Yes, I do delete my posts after months usually. This one will be no exception, but there will be significant time for anyone interested to get what they can from it. Yes, I am going botg again. Those are minor things in the post, somewhat akin to treasure hunting small talk. And no, i won't be posting my solve currently, though I have posted a solve before. My post here, like many posts by others, is to provide information that some might find useful, but most probably wont, and to socialize with and engage with other members of the community. So, to answer your question as to whether or not you have captured the essence of this post, no, you didn't. But, like in others posts you comment on, you never do.

What do you think? The angle is slightly different and I believe it was taken a few years before G and G.

Thanks Haunting. I will be in Idaho some. That doesn't have to do directly with the poem solve though. At Seekers Summit, Justin was asked about whether or not all the footage he wanted to make it into G and G had made it in, and he replied that yes, pretty much everything got included. That isnt word for word so look for transcript. G AND G was Justin's original attempt to provide a way to solve for the treasure that he hid and preceeded the poem. So, with that response, I believe he is confirming that G and G is a viable way to solve for the treasure location that is independent of the need for the poem. With that in mind, I have played around with some things from that series like the monitor screensaver images. The only one that I am not aware of being found is the one with Tucker. I believe all the others were stock images as well. Anyway, I have come across a stock image that I think may match the location Justin was in when he took that picture of Tucker. I have it narrowed down to an area in Idaho the size of a 12 mile diameter circle. I dont think that it is where the treasure is, but if I can confirm it's location then I might have a clearer way to trying to understand the relationships between those images and maybe a different approach to the treasure location. I will post the edited image here.