In many of the verses, BP mentions trees. Not always the specific type, but at the very least a tree. There are also a lines in some verses that seem a little more cryptic than others. Might he be referring to nearby trees? For instance: Hush - Could he be referring to a Rowan Tree--also called a Whispering Tree? Gnomes admire - A Dutch Elm? A wingless bird ascended Born of ancient dreams of flight Beneath the only standing member - Maybe a Maple Tree (with its helicopter seeds)? There may be a couple of them in Canada. Of a forest Three winged and slight - Already, discussion is around the possibility of a Winged Elm Is an object Of Twain's attention - Possibly a Sequoia? There was a Sequoia named after Twain that was felled in 1891, and there are cross-sections on display. Giant pole At the base of a tall tree You can still hear the honking - wild Gooseberry bushes grow underneath and up trees, and there's even a species native to Florida Was BP a plant guy?

Maybe BP understood trees would be the preferred landmark features for Fair Folk.

Well, at the least a common object found in abundance near areas where one could dig a hole in the earth, and distinctive enough to act as clues.

Question: How can a "common object"..."found in abundance"... be "distinctive enough to act as clues."? Answer: It can't, at least not as a stand-alone clue. In Chicago, 10x13 isn't a tree, but a grid of trees. The same could be true for "in the center of four alike" in Houston, but to date the meaning of this clue remains a mystery. In Milwaukee, we aren't looking for a tree necessarily, but "a letter", possibly on a tree. And I have no idea what Preiss meant by "only standing member of a forest", but it's a good bet that it isn't a tree either. There are two verses that specifically call out trees, but in both cases, we have context. In St. Augustine, we are directed to "the base of a tall tree", but other conditions have to be met as well to know that we are the base of the correct tree. And the same appears to be true with regard to "long palm's shadow" in Charleston. In short, while Preiss may have used trees as Dig Spot confirmers, my sense is that he ignored them almost completely as Treasure Area, or Treasure Ground locator clues.

Erpobdelliforme wrote:: Question: How can a "common object"..."found in abundance"... be "distinctive enough to act as clues."? Answer: It can't, at least not as a stand-alone clue. In Chicago, 10x13 isn't a tree, but a grid of trees. The same could be true for "in the center of four alike" in Houston, but to date the meaning of this clue remains a mystery. In Milwaukee, we aren't looking for a tree necessarily, but "a letter", possibly on a tree. And I have no idea what Preiss meant by "only standing member of a forest", but it's a good bet that it isn't a tree either. There are two verses that specifically call out trees, but in both cases, we have context. In St. Augustine, we are directed to "the base of a tall tree", but other conditions have to be met as well to know that we are the base of the correct tree. And the same appears to be true with regard to "long palm's shadow" in Charleston. In short, while Preiss may have used trees as Dig Spot confirmers, my sense is that he ignored them almost completely as Treasure Area, or Treasure Ground locator clues. Who's suggesting that a tree would be a "stand-alone" clue? You're changing the goal posts here. Trees may be in abundance, but taken in context with other clues, we may be able to pinpoint or get nearer a dig location based on tree type. If you're looking for a "proud, tall fifth", I don't think that considering that "proud" could be a hint toward the type of tree would be a worthless pursuit. I don't see what purpose it serves to shoot down avenues of pursuit out of hand just because they don't fit with what you believe are the parameters of the search. I suppose we're all guilty of doing so at some point to some degree, though. Personally, if I were burying something near a tree, I'd make an effort to figure out what type it was and possibly use it as a clue if it could help. Given the theme of the book and the search, it wouldn't be out-of-character to allude to the visible plant life around the casque location. I suppose if some people out there only have a certain amount of time or mental energy, sticking to the most commonly accepted theories might be a good idea, but I have plenty of both, so I will pursue other possibilities despite the constant discouragement. Keeps it from getting monotonous, at the very least, and with the ground about to freeze and be covered in snow up here for a few months, time will be in even more abundance. Worst-case scenario, I end up with zero casques and have learned something new.

Unknown: I don't see what purpose it serves to shoot down avenues of pursuit out of hand just because they don't fit with what you believe are the parameters of the search Unknown: Worst-case scenario, I end up with zero casques and have learned something new. The key words here are "out of hand". I've spent more hours down that particular rabbit hole than I would care to admit, and I'm not the only one. What I've learned was summed up in the post above. But by all means have at it. Perhaps you will find something that the rest of us missed. So far, that's exactly what my scorecard looks like as well. But there is still plenty of game left to be played.

We've all spent a lot of hours down a lot of different rabbit holes, for sure. Why close up some rabbit holes and leave others--equally fruitless so far--open? Especially one like this, where it would only be obvious that it was a clue when you're at the proper dig site. But as you say, I'll keep at it in case it's a clue that leads to a casque. I have plenty of time, and it's not one of the deeper rabbit holes I've gone into. I'm practically a Boer War scholar after one particularly long day and a 12-pack.

I think the baobab tree is important to the African Diamond puzzle, but that doesn't mean we are going to find a baobab. Instead, my current theory is directed towards finding something which identifies with a common characteristic for which the baobab tree is known: the storage of water. It's possible some of the other indications of trees might also fit in some unexpected way. Where it calls for a "birch" we might be looking for a simple white pole which is not really a tree. My take on "only standing member" is that it has to do with some kind of membership or club. A "standing committee" comes to mind. Chicago used a reference to Congress and R(Roosevelt). Maybe this is along similar lines and this is a reference to a person of Congress. "Long palms shadow" seems to be a very versatile phrase. Yes, a palm is a tree, but it may also be a literal reference to anything that fits the description of a flat spot on the end of an extension as in the case of an oar or an anchor. The word shadow also allows for some variety. Looking again at the image I see a fruit hanging directly above a flower. The open center of the daisy is a flat spot at the end of a long stem, thus a "palm". While most of the petals are brightly lit, there is one that is in a shadow. I think that shadow points to the cistern below. hxxp://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a181/ ... e05fa4.png

Of course, some rabbit holes are deeper than others.

Erpobdelliforme wrote:: Of course, some rabbit holes are deeper than others. Or you can just take your chances like Flash Gordon and reach your hand into a random hole in a tree stump...