Unknown

Unknown:
the spot they have approximated based on their recollection

Near as I can tell, they have approximated at least three different spots. The only thing these three spots have in common is that they are in the NW corner of the green space over Lincoln’s right shoulder. The important thing to remember is that Preiss sent them a picture of the dig spot after confirming that they were in the right area, which allowed them to dig with confidence, but not necessarily precision.

I just realized I’ve been typing, “NE”….D’OH!!!!
*NW corner.
Sorry, everybody.

Euhirudinea

Near as I can tell, they have approximated at least three different spots. The only thing these three spots have in common is that they are in the NW corner of the green space over Lincoln’s right shoulder. The important thing to remember is that Preiss sent them a picture of the dig spot after confirming that they were in the right area, which allowed them to dig with confidence, but not necessarily precision.

I agree. Here is some harder “evidence” of how far off the story has been over the years. 5′, 15′, 170+’. No big deal.
https://imgur.com/9Mts5NK

Unknown

Unknown:
Here is some harder “evidence” of how far off the story has been over the years.

Sorry BINGO, I’m not following you. With the exception of the exact location of the eventual, successful dig spot, the Chicago story has been remarkably consistent over the years. Keep in mind that there is more than one “decorative” fence post, and the one shown in the image you posted is not the one closest to the wall. If memory serves, they dug at the one you’ve shown because it was approximately 130 degrees (roughly NW) from the Lincoln statue, if Lincoln himself (and the area directly behind him) is 90 degrees (due North*). This was before they figured out (with Preiss’ help) how to interpret the “10 by 13” clue, which led them to the NW corner of the park.
*Note: I am aware that on a compass, North is 0 degrees and East is 90 degrees, which would make 130 degrees approximately SE. In this case however, I think they were treating the area of the Lincoln statue more like a giant protractor, so as to be consistent with the instructions to go “left, over his (Lincoln’s) shoulder.

It’s just not worth arguing over. You all win, I’m wrong. I’ve always been and always will be wrong.
All I was trying to get across is this:
From the FINDER’S solve pdf, the “false dig site” is pictured at the halo fence. (Page 12)
If you look at the map (page 6), when you actually scale the distance from the false dig site (halo fence) to the casque site (#4 on the map), you get over 170’.
I’m not trying to imply that the distance was actually that great. I’m simply trying to show how the information that is out there is flawed. Hell, I got Seabass to triple his known distance in just two posts.
Rant complete, sorry to the OP for derailing the thread.

I don’t know about three cases. There’s the recent video with Renner and the spot where they say they dug. There is also the photo in where Eric has drawn a red square on the grass. Both reports seem consistent with 10 x 13 feet.
This is more problematic given site alteration, memory recall over 20 years ago, and other missing evidence or the lack of clear confirmation. Way too much is being assumed about how these puzzles work. We are still asking questions and we need to be seriously open to some give in terms of unknown factors.

Unknown

Unknown:
If you look at the map (page 6), when you actually scale the distance from the false dig site (halo fence) to the casque site (#4 on the map), you get over 170’.

That’s about right, give or take a few feet. Before they figured out the correct interpretation of “10 by 13”, they were digging at the wrong decorative post, as there are several along the fence line. The landmark post is actually only 30 feet from the wall, give or take a few feet. If I’m not mistaken, they dug at that one as well before Preiss took pity on them and sent them the picture of the actual dig spot.
I’ll concede your point about flawed information. Especially here. Especially now.

I think observation #3 is a misconception.
In Chicago, I believe that the haloed fence post wasn’t actually at the dig site of the recovered casque. It was several hundred feet away from the intersection of the tree lines.

BINGO

I think observation #3 is a misconception.
In Chicago, I believe that the haloed fence post wasn’t actually at the dig site of the recovered casque. It was several hundred feet away from the intersection of the tree lines.

It was a lot closer than that…a few yards away from the post and the wall in the NE corner of that section of the park. Watch the end of this interview:
https://youtu.be/uXrK_DLFkVA

I read a write up by one of the Chicago “finders”. It mentioned that the fence was a “false” dig site. The intersection of the trees was a few hundred feet away. The file had pictures and google earth locations to illustrate everything that they found. I’ll try to dig it up.

MrSeabass

I seriously cannot believe that the cameraman didn’t once check what the white balance/color temp/exposure was when he was shooting this footage. It’s awful and damn near unusable.

Like much of this forum…but, not always.

MrSeabass

I seriously cannot believe that the cameraman didn’t once check what the white balance/color temp/exposure was when he was shooting this footage. It’s awful and damn near unusable.

Haha, right?!

MrSeabass

Watch the video.

Read the write up.
http://kspot.org/trove/chicago_solve.pdf
Pay attention to page 12. Words from the guy who dug there.

BINGO

Read the write up.
http://kspot.org/trove/chicago_solve.pdf
Pay attention to page 12. Words from the guy who dug there.

From what I can see, on page 13, he says the information from Preiss led them to waypoint 4. The map on page 6 shows that’s in the NE corner, the same area they were at in the video. (Unless I’m reading that completely wrong.)
The last page (18) also shows that as the location. (Those posts and fixtures line the fence at intervals. The post closest to the wall/bridge is the one that was close to the dig site.)

Mister EZ

From what I can see, on the last page, he says the information from Preiss led them to waypoint 4. The map on page 6 shows that’s in the NE corner, the same area they were at in the video. (Unless I’m reading that completely wrong.)

I’ve never been to the site, I’m just looking at the numbered map in the write up. I took it as the fence was the false dig site and the NE corner was the casque site #4. By the map, it looks like a good distance between the two.
ALSO, I could be reading it incorrectly and Seabass can jump down my throat for it.
Page 17 shows the fixture. Page 18 shows the dig site. The fence is not seen in either picture. Page 16 shows the fence says is it just southwest of the site. Not sure how far just southwest is.

BINGO

I’ve never been to the site, I’m just looking at the numbered map in the write up. I took it as the fence was the false dig site #3 and the NE corner was the casque site #4. By the map, it looks like a good distance between the two.
ALSO, I could be reading it incorrectly and Seabass can jump down my throat for it.

Ya, the railroad tracks run from top to bottom on the left of the picture….as does the fence, separating the tracks and the park. The false dig site marker is actually farther away from the wall and the NE corner…and, farther away from the post closest to that corner. There are (were?) more than one of those posts in the fence….placed as a decorative feature, because it’s just a chain link fence…by itself, pretty plain looking.

BINGO

Page 17 shows the fixture. Page 18 shows the dig site. The fence is not seen in either picture. Page 16 shows the fence says is it just southwest of the site. Not sure how far just southwest is.

In the video, at the end, they walk from the post to the dig site. It’s not far at all.
(Can’t see it on Google Maps or Google Earth.)

Mister EZ

In the video, at the end, they walk from the post to the dig site. It’s not far at all.
(Can’t see it on Google Maps or Google Earth.)

After rewatching the video, I don’t disagree that is was fairly close by. I just don’t subscribe to the idea that it was directly next to the fence. I just think it was much further than people think. If the fence post in question can’t be seen in a photo of the dig site (page 18), then I think it serves my theory pretty well.
The map from the write up is difficult to judge distance from and that is where I went wrong with my several hundred feet away theory. My bad.
So, how has this exchange helped each other?…

MrSeabass

Huh? The casque was literally 5 feet in front of the fence post.

MrSeabass

OK so it’s more like 15 feet from the fencepost.

So which is it? I counted at least 8 steps that Renner took in the video. That didn’t even show the entire walk to the dig site from the fence.
My overall point is that finding an exact image match doesn’t mean you should be digging directly next to it. I think the Chicago fence proximity has been a misconception.
Stop being a dink.

BINGO

After rewatching the video, I don’t disagree that is was fairly close by. I just don’t subscribe to the idea that it was directly next to the fence. I just think it was much further than people think. If the fence post in question can’t be seen in a photo of the dig site (page 18), then I think it serves my theory pretty well.
The map from the write up is difficult to judge distance from and that is where I went wrong with my several hundred feet away theory. My bad.
So, how has this exchange helped each other?…

Yup…agreed, it wasn’t right next to the fence. But, was closer (in this case) than a few hundred yards….with the fence post visible from the dig site.
I think that without the trees blocking the view, it’s possible to see Lincoln, The Bowman, the Congress Hotel and the Sympony Center (If you stretch….). Only the Water Tower can’t be seen from the dig site. So….I think that the exchange
possibly
confirms that some, not all, of the clues can be ‘seen’ from the dig site and the casques are probably buried close, but not too close, to some final clue.
It doesn’t confirm that because the final clue is a visual, that all paintings will contain similar visual clues next to the dig sites. That final clue or way point might be something from a verse. (It doesn’t discount it, either.)
Heh….none of that hasn’t already been pointed out over the last 35 years.

Re: the Chicago dig spot.
Unless I’m mistaken, the halo’d portion of the fence posts were once there, but removed at some point. I believe the fence post itself wasn’t in line with the treasure spot as a means of determining exactness of where to dig.
With consideration of FIRST HAND evidence provided by the two finders, the spot they have approximated based on their recollection is HIGHLY consistent with measuring a spot exactly 10 feet from wall and 13 feet from fence line, but this is also in conflict with the finders’ opinion and other members on this board who say the tree grid was a 10×13.
I’m not satisfied with either conclusion, since so much time and change has taken it’s course.

Hey fam. I’ve come to realize these puzzles are hard. Am I the first?
I’m proposing this thread to specifically talk about how the previous two casques were solved and found to help us figure out how to approach our own searches. I’ve noticed a few things in the first two casques found and I’m hoping that maybe some of you can share things you’ve noticed too so that maybe we can look at our images/verses in a similar way. I understand that some images might not be similar in clues, but its possible Byron had a system in how he wanted to illustrate where the casques could be found and how to illustrate them in a painting. Heres what I noticed.
1)
The states where the casques are burried are outlined in the painting
– In both there were outlines of each state hidden in the image in one way or another.
2)
You must analyze the photo in different orientations
– As above, the state of illinois wasn’t seen until the photo was reversed. Additionally, the outline of Clevelands Terminal Tour is not apparent until you turned the photo upside down.
3)
The digging sites were apparent in each painting
– I think it would bother a lot of us if the digging site (or atleast near it) was very apparent in the photos, yet we just overlooked it or never saw it. In both pictures, the casque were found within feet of landmarks pictured in the paintings.
4)
Latitude / Longitude hints
5)
There may be useless detail that we are looking too much into
– This seems the most frustrating. It seems in both images there was incredible detail that didn’t lead you to any clues or any closer to the casque. Not every wrinkle or tree branch matched a road or river.
Maybe some of you have noticed different things so I thought I would open this up to you guys. I feel that the way we can find some of these casques is learning how the first two were found.

I love this idea, but I think it belongs in the methodology thread.