|
AARP LARPer fucked around with this message at 02:02 on Jan 23, 2016 |
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 21:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 10:58 |
|
|
Do Not Resuscitate posted:Listen, man, you're the one who started this all up again by posting here about totally finding it, so either start digging, post your solution, or stfu. Why are you so upset?
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 21:17
|
|
|
AARP LARPer fucked around with this message at 02:02 on Jan 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 21:22
|
|
|
Look we're all upset that the treasure hasn't been dug up yet. At least the guy with the purported solution lives on the same continent as the cask. Us European goons aren't gonna shell out for planes tickets even if we did know 100% where it was. Also: dig up the loving cask already
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 21:37
|
|
|
Never Been Banned posted:Yeah. Before email. They called Ye Olde Byron Priess Publishing and harassed the secretary until she put him on the phone. He didn't get why they couldn't find it, but they had "brute forced" or stumbled their way onto the "fence and fixture / central too" clue. It didn't prove to be precise enough for a clean recovery. The details as to whether they weren't quite competent enough or the clues were to vague aren't clear. It's nice that you're confident in your solution and all, but both of those groups have found a cask while you have found nothing. I understand why you're hesitant to dig, and why you won't just reveal your solution to everyone, but you should cut out the superiority complex until you've dug something up.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 21:48
|
|
|
Never Been Banned posted:Patience dogg. There are things in this world that don't move at the pace of an entertaining thread. let's face it nobody's gonna be happy here until we either get evidence of a hole in the ground or a goon in jail
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 22:15
|
|
|
wa27 posted:It's nice that you're confident in your solution and all, but both of those groups have found a cask while you have found nothing. I understand why you're hesitant to dig, and why you won't just reveal your solution to everyone, but you should cut out the superiority complex until you've dug something up. I get where you're coming from, but this post reads like it came right from Q4T. The fact that the other groups found a cask (one in a completely different era, both with the author still alive) is meaningless. They have no insight to offer (clearly) on how to solve these puzzles, and their opinions are not more valid than a newcomer. In fact, given how that board operates, I'd trust a new set of eyes more than the old guard there. That's one of the problems with Q4T. There is a cult of personality, and Egbert (the main finder of Cleveland) has become this self-important turd who thinks he's some sort of authority on these puzzles. Nothing he has posted since 2004 has been relevant or useful (hyperbole, but not much of one) to finding a cask. I will say that I felt the same way when I felt "on" to NY. When this thread was first posted there was a very community spirit in finding them, but now that the documentary has ignited the hunt again, I agree with NBB that proposed solutions should be guarded. Look, at the end of the day some of us are in this for a little personal glory as well. I really want a cask on my mantle. I want one unearthed in general, which is why I'm willing to fly around the country to dig one up like a lunatic, but I really want one of my own. If you put months and months of effort into something, what do you gain from posting the solution and letting other people dig it up? People who until they read the article on Boing Boing had never heard of the hunt, and may have put a total of 2-3 hours into it. I feel differently now, especially that I'm much less certain of the NY/NJ spot, which is why I'm more comfortable revealing what I have. But I respect NBB keeping it close to the vest until he at least has a shot at it. And if you've spent any time on this hunt or at Q4T his disdain for Egbert/the board in general shouldn't be a surprise. edit: Some clarification on the Chicago solve. When the group first found the site in Chicago, they found the very general area (the area near the fence and fixture), which was covered in temporary construction supplies and equipment. They mailed Preiss their location (possibly a photo) and he replied that the treasure was theirs once the equipment was moved. Well, the equipment was moved and they still couldn't find it, because the verse/images they have are not specific enough to stick a shovel in the ground. none of them are except possibly Cleveland (and the cask wasn't where they expected it to be, though whether that was time or a bad solve I can't say). There's no way that words can lead you to an exact dig spot without some sort of visual - even how far away you are from the Fence & Fixture in Chicago matters a lot. They didn't solve those clues. So they mailed Preiss another "WTF, help" and he replied that he didn't understand why they couldn't really dig it up, and provided the "answer key" polaroid which showed the exact spot. They dug it up. Unfortunately people were just sending in general stab in the dark guesses (and e-mail came into existence) and he stopped playing that game. I think maybe a picture of the planter in CLE would have gotten a reply, but nothing more general than that. To this day the Chicago solvers argue that "M and B cast in stone" refers to a statue of Man and Beast, while Preiss claimed it referred to the busts of Motzart and Beethoven on a nearby building. You can take away two things from that: 1) the clues aren't that amazing, it's very possible to be "right" in your interpretation but not be looking at what Preiss wanted or 2) Some/Many of the clues have dual meanings. A one foot margin of error will make the cask unrecoverable. There has to be more than just finding a few images in the park and following the verse. The verses for the most part do not narrow it down. I think there are also a few different types of puzzles - for one, not all of the paintings contain a human figure. edit: Another important thing is that the verses are somewhat meaningless, as if you can solve something in the middle, the previous parts of the verse are not super important, which is how you can stumble upon a solution. You don't need to go back and solve M & B if you just go "oh poo poo, that's the fence in the painting!" xie fucked around with this message at 22:37 on Nov 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 22:24
|
|
|
CrashCat posted:doobie dig the cask Once again, it'll happen very soon relative to how long the thread has been running in general. It's a little bit of a trip for me as well, and I'm planning/coordinating with people to make it happen at the next possible time. The thread was supposed to put a little pressure on events and it has. I posted the poo poo all boldly because I know how you people demand the blood of anyone who disappoints you in these types of things. I will tone down the confidence though, because I can see how that is unjustifiable and irritating. Whatever happens, you'll get your photos. Cask, mugshot, empty rear end hole, or otherwise. Still gonna sit on the PNW information, but I've got a few side theories that I've worked on a little bit based on what I was seeing in the PNW puzzle. I don't think they're completely new ideas to the whole scene (I haven't read all of this thread and don't do Q4T), but they've got some original content that could maybe be progress, if it's not wrong. I don't really believe you can solve these things properly remotely, as I've said, but maybe something in there could help a local goon do something, I don't know. I'll post a link to my best efforts with the SC puzzle shortly. I need to track down the most recent version and I think it's on a flash drive around here somewhere.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 22:47
|
|
|
This poor thread got bumped so people could go "I totes solved this one but I can't dig it and you can't see my manifesto either SO THERE" Put up or shut up
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 23:10
|
|
|
I like reading about this stupid poo poo. Thanks for the updates NBB and Xie.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 23:15
|
|
|
I've been following the thread for a while now and I am way too dumb to contribute to the actual solutions. However, lately I have seen a lot of discussion about the actual execution of digs, how huge a hole you have to dig, the burden of proof you need to bring to the appropriate authorities, etc. Has it been considered, especially when approaching the property owners, that some sort of soil sampling device can be used? I mean I use a 0.75" diameter hollow tube with a sharpened end to take plugs for soil testing on my lawn. The company that makes my lovely one makes kits that let you sample to 3' or 4' or perhaps even deeper (I see some auger options). The kits aren't cheap, but perhaps you might hook up with some agricultural/forestry department that has access to this stuff and borrow a dude with kit for a day. I mean people were talking about obtaining a ground-penetrating radar ffs, I think borrowing a metal tube might be within the realm of possibility. Anyhow, I was thinking that this would be a fast and, relative to digging a huge loving crater, non-destructive way of improving your chances for success. You'd be able to cover a fairly wide area fairly quickly. I guess it begs the question of "what do you do when you hit an obstacle?" I mean from my experience in New England soil, roughly 30% of any hole I dig is rocks on the order of 0.5" to 6", all of which stop a probe. By twisting I can tell it's a rock by the scraping, you might be able to tell it's not plexiglass. Alternatively you may be able to rig up a borescope to see if you've indeed punched into a plexiglass box. Maybe you need a vacuum and/or a little brush thing to clean surfaces off through a 48" hole 1" in diameter. I don't know I'm not a dirt expert, I'm just spitballing here. All I'm saying is, I'm betting getting permission to put a bunch of 1" diameter holes over a substantial area (pitch it as free core aeration) is going to be easier than allowing someone to dig a 4' deep hole 8' in diameter or a huge fuckoff trench. You can even save the plugs and soil for replacement fairly easily. A 5-gallon paint pail will hold almost eight 48"-deep/1" diameter holes worth of dirt. If you find a casque with a soil probe I want all the credit (I spent 15 minutes coming up with this solution and expect to go down in history) tia.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 23:17
|
|
|
Guys guys I totally solved all the puzzles and have 700 pages of detailed reasons why my solution is right, but no, I'm not going to actually try to dig them up nor will I let anyone else try, because I'm a massive nerd and the wrong person (not me) might dig it up. I'd show you the proof, but wouldn't you know it, my camera wasn't working that day. It's working now, but no, I'm not going to go back to actually put up evidence for my claims. They're totally solved though! But you can't see the solution! Maybe I'll actually grow a spine and do something about this, eventually, stay tuned!
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 23:32
|
|
|
uwaeve posted:I've been following the thread for a while now and I am way too dumb to contribute to the actual solutions. I've had a frustrating experience with both manual and drill probes up at my site that has caused me to more or less sour on them as viable tools for this task. They would work really well in soil that doesn't have much or any rock, but you really honestly cannot tell what you're hitting at 2.5-3 feet with a drill probe. At the PNW site the soil is a nightmare mixture of rock, dirt, and impacted clay. You can get down through it with a drill probe easily, but you hit something solid that feels like it could be plexiglass constantly. I probed the dickens out of the spot I need to dig out, and yeah, the probe grinds away at something solid around 3 feet like you'd hope for, but its done the same thing when I've applied it to spots that I now know are obviously wrong. They aren't quite useless, as they'll reliably tell you if there's absolutely nothing solid in a spot, albeit at one square centimeter or so per drill down, but they've been a big disappointment for me at least.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 23:39
|
|
|
I have a small collection of things that do not work. I once spent an hour pounding rebar into the ground in Boston but couldn't get past 1-1.5 feet no matter how hard I tried. I'm not against them in the right conditions, but I don't think they're as "ah ha!" as it seems. edit: I think a drill probe is very useful in certain areas. People on Q4T have tested them with fairly good results.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 23:47
|
|
|
Alright, so I found my SC theory PDFs and am wondering what the best way to make them available is. Should I just put them up on dropbox or somesuch and link them here, or will that run me afoul of leeching rules?
Never Been Banned fucked around with this message at 00:01 on Nov 8, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 23:59
|
|
|
Google drive or dropbox should be fine. I have what I consider "more than a little" on SC so am happy to dump what I've got as well. It's not written up though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2014 00:01
|
|
|
Alright. In the spirit of contributing something to the thread beyond posturing and vague claims here's some writings about the SC puzzle that I've done over the past year or so. I'm not sure what's new about these and what isn't, as I started from scratch and just tried to work out as best I could what seems to be going on with this one. I'm sure much of it has been discussed here before. Some pieces of this theory work quite drat well imo, and make me think it's on the right track. Some of it leaves me dissatisfied. Who knows if any of it's right. It'll be interesting to see what you guys think. There are two documents, a photographic walkthrough type thing and one of the traditional Q4T like verse tables. Some of the content is redundant but not all of it. Walkthrough: https://www.dropbox.com/s/14zssngv9i7z3v2/The%20Case%20for%20Sullivan%27s%20Island%20Walkthrough.pdf?dl=0 Verse table: https://www.dropbox.com/s/ha1vvl4ped0ue1f/The%20Case%20for%20Sullivan%27s%20Island%20Verse%20Table.pdf?dl=0 Never Been Banned fucked around with this message at 00:51 on Nov 8, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2014 00:35
|
|
|
I think that's real good stuff, whether it's right or not. It's even better with the Poe stuff. BigFactory fucked around with this message at 00:57 on Nov 8, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2014 00:54
|
|
|
Hmm. I think there are some things I want to see before digging much further on this. 1) Confirmation the sites, roads, etc. all existed as they do now in 1980. 2) Some Polaroids. I'm not seeing them here, though that likely requires time on the site. The only ones we've got here are the hexagons (not entirely ready to call that a Polaroid) and the railing, which is more of a shape. There's nothing conclusive going on, and I think something that's fairly important to note is that you can come up with a good solve for almost any location. I cite this often, but as "obvious" as the bridge is to you, the Paul Revere reverence in the 'Boston' poem was so obviously William Dawes' path past the Cambridge Common for me. It's easy to fall down a well with these puzzles. Secluded or not, digging here was a felony in 1980, and while the world was a different place, I'm not positive that Preiss would have sent us digging on federal land like this.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2014 00:58
|
|
|
xie, you mentioned a few pages back that you don't think Roanoke is the actual site of the Outer Banks cask. Would you be okay with sharing your alternative theory? When I first read this thread like a year or so ago, I thought everything in Verse 11 pointed directly toward either the Elizabethan Gardens or Fort Raleigh. I'm not sure how to interpret the verse in a way that takes the reader away from Roanoke instead of toward it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2014 03:34
|
|
|
So what you're saying is I'm not getting any casques named after me. Got it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2014 04:05
|
|
|
I just meant not on the Federal land, not that it was altogether elsewhere. There's a particular bench people on the Internet are nuts over.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2014 04:05
|
|
|
Never Been Banned posted:Alright. In the spirit of contributing something to the thread beyond posturing and vague claims here's some writings about the SC puzzle that I've done over the past year or so. I think you are getting close, but look at "giant step" again. Your photo of the flagpole has large walls made that hold back the soil. They look like giant steps, right? Or am I on  ?edit: thinking a bit more, I don't see the "education" part of "education and justice for all to see". It doesn't make sense that just a little part in the middle is the clue. Nocheez fucked around with this message at 04:08 on Nov 8, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2014 04:06
|
|
|
xie posted:I just meant not on the Federal land, not that it was altogether elsewhere. There's a particular bench people on the Internet are nuts over. Ah, gotcha. I don't think it's under the bench either. You may be thinking of the same place I've been suspecting since the beginning of this thread (i.e. the gate I posted about a long time ago, it's somewhere in my post history in this thread).
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2014 04:24
|
|
|
Never Been Banned posted:Walkthrough: https://www.dropbox.com/s/14zssngv9i7z3v2/The%20Case%20for%20Sullivan%27s%20Island%20Walkthrough.pdf?dl=0 Mama Mia! I think you've got it homie
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2014 05:06
|
|
|
I can't believe how excited I am about the Jeb campaign!
H5N1 fucked around with this message at 23:54 on Oct 18, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2014 05:34
|
|
|
^^ Coupled with: "Hay guyz, here is a solve I wrote up that couldn't work because it is and has been illegal to dig there since the book was made."
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2014 06:01
|
|
|
dig some poo poo up you pieces of poo poo, you guys sound worse than TOS nerds breaking down action sequences, episode by episode.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2014 06:43
|
|
|
Whoa, some people are pretty upset about casques ITT.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2014 08:40
|
|
|
Thanks to the thread I found and dug up the cask. I burned it. Thread over. I win.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2014 08:46
|
|
|
xie posted:It's easy to fall down a well with these puzzles. Hopefully that doesn't happen to anyone. Because, if this thread is any indication to go by, it's gonna take a helluva long time to dig them outta that well even though their location is known.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2014 09:12
|
|
|
I've found the rest of the casques. I dug them up, pooped in them, and then reburied them. Happy hunting!
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2014 09:33
|
|
|
xie posted:Hmm. I think there are some things I want to see before digging much further on this. With the exception of 1) these are pretty much the same issues I have with the thing. The roads and whatnot cited in there have all been so named since the 50's, but as for the other points: As people are noting ITT, a huge problem with this place is that it's such a stupid idea in general to go burying something there. I completely agree. As you say Xie, the world was a different place in 1980, but was it that different that Priess would go doing it like this, and not worry too much about getting caught? That feels dubious. For these reasons, when I was scoping out the various places around Charleston, I really didn't want to end up at Moultrie, but eventually I couldn't avoid it, and was pretty surprised to find that it seems like there could be something going on there. Anyways, as I've said who knows about any of this. I can't really tell if that's the right site. If it is, there will be more going on in the image that you can nail down to the scene. The lowest hanging fruit is picked in the pdf and taken from lookie lou tourist photos, but you'd need to go there in person and look very carefully, probably a number of times, to spot the kind of things that would amount to a totally convincing case. For anyone local though who is still interested in the SC puzzle (even though they seem like proper nazis down there with their parks) I will say one thing--this theory seems to get something important correct --> wherever you end up, you're going to be placing your hole alongside or near something hexagonal or similar, as the flower in the lower left sneakily indicates. The slight of hand the artist is showing down here is very familiar to me, and I don't see anything else going on in there that'd indicate a specific enough plot to dig. I'd be really interested to see some of the other SC matches that people have found around the city at this point. A preponderance of the evidence pointing to inside this fort (afaik/imo) is disconcerting, and if it's at all possible the goal should definitely be to get the gently caress out of Fort Moultrie. Digging a hole there tomorrow would be like holding up a war protest sign at the Reichstag in 1940, and don't nobody need any of that noise.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2014 09:54
|
|
|
xie posted:Yeah, I basically got it as far as you see right here and then my job (as it does from time to time) blew up, since I work in Higher Ed. I haven't had any time to visit during the day since Sept. Ain't trying to hate. I certainly don't want sleuths like you to stop posting your theories. It's the only thing keeping this thread alive. I'm just playing the devil's advocate for constructive reasons. I do appreciate your posting your ideas. Please understand, though, I make puzzles as an amatuer 3x times a week. Telltale even hired me as the chief puzzle-maker for Puzzle Agent 2, based solely on my body of work. While that's def small-potatoes in the puzzles world, I know a thing or two about puzzles, and I'd never use "Isle of B" as a moniker for Liberty Island. Also, some dig advice: Do what the author did... Dig with a lookout. Somebody comes around, walk into the woods, be like "I don't know what's up. That ain't my shovel." My mom was a federal auditor for the national parks for 35 years... even post 9/11 / subsequent bombings...they really don't care about trying to bust people who are acting chill and maybe/maybe not digging a hole. Drunk Nerds fucked around with this message at 10:30 on Nov 8, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2014 10:15
|
|
|
I think it's entirely likely that priess wasn't very good at making puzzles.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2014 12:39
|
|
|
The solution PDF is great and has obviously had a lot of thought put into it. I'm just wondering about the star on the clock's face: why can't that be the place where the casque is buried in relation to the flagpole and it's shadow represented by the clock hands? The solution only gets tenuous at the point of using the railing's shadow to find for me.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2014 13:17
|
|
|
If that's actually the solution you're digging an enormous hole to find it. That's not precise at all.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2014 13:42
|
|
|
quote="BigFactory" post="437405931"] If that's actually the solution you're digging an enormous hole to find it. That's not precise at all. [/quote] Agreed, I'm just throwing ideas out there in an Urban Smurf fashion. If the stripes and star on the clock face are a reference to the American flag, wouldn't they be the other way round though, ie, inverted? (It's stars and stripes, not stripes and stars after all) Looking at the two solved puzzles, it seems likely that none of the cask clues will be accurate to within a few feet. How Priess figured people might find them without pictures of the 100% specific digging place is beyond me. The 2004 find was lucky in a way because it was concentrated within a finite area of the flowerbox thing. When it's in more open ground, the chances are extremely remote. Maybe he figured people would see a patch of ground that had been tampered with in the right area and know that that was it. The passing of time has certainly killed that chance.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2014 15:30
|
|
|
poo poo, I think you got it. Nice work. Probably more stuff will line up visually when you're on the ground, like it did for the other casks. The solution is fairly straight-forward too, again, like it was for the others once they were figured out. I wouldn't over-think this.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2014 16:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 10:58 |
|
|
 Viruswithshoes posted:Agreed, I'm just throwing ideas out there in an Urban Smurf fashion. If the stripes and star on the clock face are a reference to the American flag, wouldn't they be the other way round though, ie, inverted? (It's stars and stripes, not stripes and stars after all) This has been discussed before, but why not the stars and bars?  It also does double duty as the bar that binds in Verse 6.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2014 16:15
|
|
