Close 500(200) feet or number of clues?

Forrest said that several people had been close. Close? How can you get close and still not find it? Did he not say the clues became progressively easier after the first one?

This is what Forrest said in the “Real Life India Jones” interview:

“There have been some who have been within 500 feet because they told me where they had been. Others have figured out the first two clues and went right past the treasure and didn’t know it.”

He has also said:

"Several months ago some folks correctly mentioned the first two clues to me in an email and then they went right past the other seven, not knowing that they had been so close. Alas, and dame fortune, so often a fickle and seductive wench, never spun her wheel to lure them back."

Many searches assumed because he mentioned these two examples in the same breath that they must be the same people. If so, how can these searchers get the first two clues, skip the rest and then accidentally end up in the correct place but didn’t know the significance of where they were?

I believe this to be a false assumption because Mr. Fenn’s statements logically prove the searchers who got the first two clues correct (and went on past the other seven) were not the same people who were within five hundred feet. He carefully uses the word "others" to differentiate the two statements, which means they are different people/parties. He often quotes these two different statements together when asked if searchers have been close. He says that depends on your definition of close. He then went on to give two separate examples of close:

1) two clues correctly identified and then walked/went on by the other seven; and

2) there have been some who have been within five hundred feet because they have told me where they have been.

The latter statement makes no mention of these searchers being the same people that were within five hundred feet. He even said they were not aware of the significance of were they were, almost suggesting they were there by chance or something drew them there for another reason. Initially I thought this was only possible because the guessed the blaze, but his latest comments suggest that searching for the blaze is a waste of time. So what could bring a search to within 500 feet and they are not aware of the significance? I am positive if the search follows the clues and gets to the end they should be aware of the significance unless the are not following the clues when they arrived there. So did the searchers take a break from searching and go somewhere else and pass by it or do they visit a place of significance, perhaps a tourist place and were oblivious that the treasure was there?

Forrest has since narrowed the “closeest distance” to 200 feet.

Many treasure seekers solved the first two clues but for some reason could not crack the rest, which on the surface is puzzling since he said the clues get progressively easier. Progressively easier is a relative term and since only a handful of seekers out of the tens of thousands of searchers managed to get the first two clues correct, then it may not be all that easy to get the next two or three clues correct either.

Forrest confirmed only a few have solved the first two clues correctly. Many assume Forrest’s confirmation indicates the first two clues are co-located but it could also mean several hundred or thousands of seekers have solved the first clue because it is straight forward but only a few have managed to get the first two clues correct since the second clue is very difficult or not co-located with the first clue. Forrest did confirm that the number who have got the first clue correct is too numerous to recount. He continues to emphasis the importance of the first clue.

This information has me rethinking the first clue. The first clue has been found by many and the first two clues found by a few. That could mean that “treasures bold” (treasure state) or “new and old” (New Mexico). The second clue has been found by only a few but which could be “Begin it where warm waters halt and take it in the canyon down.” If this is true then the warm waters may be fairly easy but the take it in the canyon down may be the tricky part. The same logic hold if "Begin it where warm waters halt" is the first clue and "take it in the canyon down" is the second.

“And take it in the canyon down” seems simple enough or at least the canyon part does, unless the trick is the canyon is not collocated with “where warm waters halt.” Otherwise, did the searchers mistake the “take it in”? Perhaps it is worth exploring what “it” and “take” really mean. What if “it” is why we need to start at the beginning. What if “it” is required to be brought (or was brought) to the end to find the treasure. Without “it” maybe the treasure cannot be found. More on what I believe “it” is later.