Regardless of how it is communicated, a common theme amongst passionate online discussions and fervent investigation is determining the basis by which definitive The Secret solutions are vetted and validated. Some believe that every time we find commonly found things and flippantly assign clue associations, we have solved a puzzle. As a response to this phenomenon, some believe that only a casque proves an answer, although there is no reservation to disqualify a proposal based on subjective qualifiers even without a casque…which seems inconsistent. We seemingly concentrate our focus on identifying the answer with little regard for how we get there and what objectively qualifies.
What does a true solution look like and how do we know…or can we know at all? The insistence that we can’t know an answer before obtaining a casque comes from people who have never found a casque. What if we CAN know an answer prior to a casque, and the assumption that we can’t is hindering definitive results?
Thousands of people all impossibly believe they have solved the product of a singular answer. Does this condition “prove” that there is no solution without a casque, and Byron made “bad” puzzles? Why does this condition not conversely prove collective confusion, user error, and the misappropriation of Byron’s puzzle? Why does it seem that accountability is a unilateral condition?
Popular assumption commonly proposes one of two inverse positions: either Byron was incapable of communication exceeding a 3rd grade level, or he is the mastermind behind the most perplexing intellectual orchestration in human history integrating inconceivable levels of history, science, geography, and math only an elite minority of intellectual specimens are capable of deciphering. In either case, the same issue remains: we fail to explain why these are Byron’ ideas and not our own.
This commentary aims to address common interpretive flaws compromising the determination of authentic answers, and establish a set of objective, universally applicable criteria designed for eliminating false positives, while confidently validating true solutions without requiring the presentation of a casque first. A summary of these principles can be found at the end of the article. I highly recommend applying these principles to personal proposals in the spirit of determining authentic answers.
One of These Things is Not Like the Other
If applying the theoretical framework that these puzzles are “solvable” and Byron was capable of even adequately applying his professional skill set, how do we logically differentiate trained communication from the product of a coincidence for determining definitive The Secret solutions? How is Byron’s puzzle telling you a chosen interpretation is the one and only possibility?
There are a few ways to think about it. Consider the proverbial trail of breadcrumbs. Following the “breadcrumbs” as it were alludes to an intellectually discernable trail of interconnected information. One crumb leads to the next. So, how do we guarantee that this trail is the product of purposeful, intelligent intension? We might look for patterns and elements that exceed the likelihood of a coincidental occurrence. A consistent line of evenly spaced crumbs is unlikely to happen on its own. A specific shape created or a word spelled out is next to impossible to occur randomly. Each crumb in a pattern or series represents a point of reference within an interconnected system. Each crumb related to the others increases the statistical probability of intelligent design. Byron’s puzzle works in a very similar fashion for determining definitive The Secret solutions.
I also liken this process to a murder investigation. An eyewitness, a murder weapon, and a muddy footprint will only get you so far. It’s when we can illustrate how the evidence all interconnects, consistently pointing to a singular possibility that the answer becomes incontrovertible. Multiple eyewitnesses who know the perpetrator, placing them at the scene of the crime within the window of death, outside of the alibi timeframe, further confirmed on closed circuit cameras with a license plate match placing the accused near the scene…is all extremely compelling. That muddy footprint becomes more meaningful when the matching boot is owned by the accused, with the same soil composition found on the boot, which is later linked to the victim’s burial site. The more interconnected the evidence is, the more compelling the case becomes. You might even say that the evidence fits together like a “puzzle”.
This same framework applies to The Secret yet represents a missed opportunity for the vast majority of investigators. The prototypical approach involves finding literal, one for one matches of commonly found things and artificially stringing them together for a proposed solution. This means that every time we find rocks, trees, and something round and red…we have solved Byron’s puzzle. Every time we find a door in a stone wall, a normal sized flagpole or streetlight, and a streetcar reference in San Francisco…we have solved The Secret. Beyond offering no significant level of confirmation, this investigative approach neglects the very nature of a “puzzle” called “The Secret”, and does not lead to definitive The Secret solutions.
On the other hand, inadvertent patterns can be misinterpreted as intelligent intension. Innocent people are wrongly convicted “beyond a shadow of a doubt” all the time. In most of these cases, the quality and degree of available “evidence” is not the issue. The motivation to find something that isn’t there can be stronger than achieving an authentic result. Satisfying feelings behind that motivation therefore become the new priority. As it relates to “The Secret”, interpreting “clues”, and solving Byron’s puzzle…are often two entirely different things. Supporting beliefs takes precedence over finding answers. In some cases, Secret investigations are compromised as a result of theoretical frameworks. In other cases, investigations are compromised as the result of emotional motivations. In other cases still, it’s a little bit of both.
Knowing is Half the Battle
The perception is, because there are easily hundreds of alternative interpretations for each case, it is therefore impossible to “know” the correct answer. We gloss over evidence and investigative criteria to instead focus on the presentation of a casque. But do we have any chance of finding a casque if all answers are indistinguishable from a coincidence? It means we cannot eliminate possibilities without digging a hole, which prioritizes a physical investigation over an intellectual one. In reality, we can know whether or not, within a reasonable degree of certainty, an answer is objectively valid.
So, how do we define and identify real, discernable, definitive The Secret solutions? The first step is developing a set of criteria and ensuring that these standards can be fairly and evenly applied across all proposals. This criteria should be based on the standards and qualifiers identified by Byron and his book, as well as universal brands of communication and logic.
No Subjective Rules
This means that subjective rules based on perception and misconception are off the table. For example, some attempt to invalidate proposed solutions based on the physical length of an intended path to the casque from start to finish, which is never explicitly qualified in the book. Chicago and Cleveland are extremely compact solutions, so the conventional logic dictates that all nine unconfirmed cases must conform to this same standard. However, the validity of this line of thinking begins and ends with the perspective applied. The Chicago path is roughly one-half mile, while Cleveland is roughly one-quarter mile. This means that Chicago is twice as long as Cleveland. If Chicago can be twice as long as Cleveland, how many subsequent cases can be twice as long as each other?
From an alternative perspective, this perception of comparable path length is one of the few congruent elements between two solves that are otherwise almost nothing alike. This also does not account for Boston, where we know the casque was buried at Langone Park, while the names Thucydides and Xenophon from the first two lines of the verse appear on the library façade more than two miles away from the casque site, which is why some reject the one for one matches they would otherwise instinctively accept.
At face value, why would all remaining cases offer comparable distances from our starting position to the casque if we already know all cases are different, each case has a variable degree of difficulty, each verse contains a variable number of lines, and some images are more detailed than others? Is it possible that more information may mean a longer path? But the better question is: why are longer paths impossible in someone else’s puzzle? This does not offer an objective standard for determining definitive The Secret solutions.
Accuracy
Proposed interpretations should be accurate when compared with the source material. Far too many unsubstantiated interpretations are subjectively justified in support of personal answers. If the verse says “giant pole”, then average sized flagpoles and street lamps unrelated to the word “giant” do not qualify. If the verse tells you to go 100 paces or travel southeast, interpretations that do not explicitly accomplish these instructions are disqualified.
There is also no need to play a six degrees of Kevin Bacon style word association in which the final product in no way resembles the original language. Through this method we can justify almost anything. If the image shows a flower, I can connect the flower to a bee, and a bee to honey, and honey to a grocery store, which places the casque in aisle 12 past the condiments. My example is a little facetious, but unfortunately very close to the truth of what people talk themselves into. Most people refuse to understand just how incredibly easy it is to arrive at a false positive. I have easily built dozens of alternative “solves”, incorporated into discussions as an illustrative tool. It is possible to make a “solution” out of almost anything in almost any location given the loose, liberal nature of most clue applications.
However, this does not mean that every interpretation must be perfectly literal, although they must be accurate. For the Milwaukee solution I propose, a sewer drain is utilized as the “culvert”. While this application may not be typical, a “culvert” is defined as an enclosed engineered drainage system typically consisting of large tubes, while the sewer drain is a part of an enclosed engineered drainage system consisting of large tubes. By definition, although unorthodox, this application is feasible.
Comprehensive Application of Verse Lines and Qualifying Words
Byron provides a variety of criteria designed to qualify definitive The Secret solutions. In that spirit, no word or instruction should in theory remain unutilized. Let’s look at the following lines from verse 8:
“You’ll see a letter from the country/Of wonderstone’s hearth/On a proud, tall fifth”
There is a lot to unpack here. We should expect to see a letter that relates to the country of origin for this particular gemstone, referenced as a “wonderstone” in the book. That letter will be found on something that relates to the terms “proud”, “tall”, and “fifth”. The vast majority of proposed solutions neglect one or more of these qualifiers designed to illuminate the correct interpretation from a sea of potential false positives. Under no circumstance should we selectively omit Byron’s content to artificially validate our own.
Clues should Serve a Clear Purpose
This being said, some clues offer countless, technically accurate matches. This is where we might identify the specific purpose a clue is serving. Devices that seemingly exist without function beyond generic existence offer unconvincing relevance. For example, verse 8 Montreal interprets three lines of the verse as an obscure painting inside of an art museum existing two blocks away. Neglecting to find this device does nothing to negatively impact the final result, which is just walking straight.
Interconnectivity
For determining definitive The Secret solutions, not only should they offer explanations authenticating the directly associated puzzle information, but those explanations should render any other interpretation virtually impossible. This is accomplished by validating one clue interpretation through an interconnected network of puzzle-based evidence. Too often we generically assign associations with seemingly no obligation to explain why and how Byron is using his puzzle to communicate that decision.
The hunt is currently teeming with superficial and circumstantial associations that are advocated for passionately despite a consistent lack of puzzle-based justifications. If we can’t differentiate these clue interpretations from any other, what makes them the undisputed product of Byron’s communication? Byron’s answers should answer something and differentiate themselves from products of coincidence or guessing. While in most respects this should serve as the predictable product of a communication based puzzle conceived by a Stanford Masters graduate and successful literary publisher, it conversely betrays the pervasive mentality perpetrated by the vocal majority.
A condition of interconnectivity and interaction amongst clues offers the primary basis for validating pre-casque answers of any sort. The more connections with puzzle devices we establish, the more difficult it becomes to objectively dismiss a proposal. While the Chicago case offers a fairly rudimentary solution, it does illustrate persuasive interconnectedness. For example, if we take the line “M and B set in stone” at face value, we can implement countless false interpretations, as did the Chicago boys in 1983. In contrast, the names Mozart and Beethoven etched in the stone facade of the Theodore Thomas Orchestra Hall on Michigan Ave provides an accurate correlation further validated and confirmed by numerous corresponding elements.
First, we begin with an accurate interpretation of the line, applying the capitol letters “M” and “B” to proper nouns, subsequently found “set in stone” . Accurate although not exclusively literal interpretations are the foundation of any authenticated solution. This is why applying line one to the Bowman statue on Congress, as initially assumed by the Chicago finders, was never a viable interpretation. It was asserted that “M and B” stood for “man and beast” because the statue depicts a Native American riding a horse. However, the words “man and beast” are found no where on the monument’s surfaces, is not the official name, and does not authenticate the use of capitol letters implying proper nouns. In addition, the bronze equestrian likeness is mounted “on” a pedestal of stone rather than set “in” it. These are important distinctions that differentiate definitive The Secret solutions from everything else.
Secondly, these names are found across the street from the Fountain of the Great Lakes depicted in image 5, providing a visual confirmation. Thirdly, we have a straight shot to our second verse interpretation which requires two specific qualifiers to validate, incorporating a second unmistakable image match, this time to the “Bowman” statue. Fourthly, it can be argued that our proximity to the music hall, art institute, and train tracks correspond to “rumble”, “brush”, and “music” despite appearing at the end of the verse. We could even argue that starting near the art institute establishes its existence in the environment, allowing for application later in the verse when we can no longer identify it positively on site. Fifthly, this location is found within “The Loop”, alluded to by a loop earring in the image.
Sixthly, the Chicago Water Tower appearing in the image is found due north on Michigan Ave, acting as a directional clue as further supported by the presence of Chicago coordinates appearing on fictitious windmill blades which themselves imply “the windy city” (although reportedly incorporating the city’s nickname was not intentional). This encompasses six different methods by which we validate a singular clue interpretation through interconnectivity indicative of a traditional “puzzle” and decisive communication of a singular answer. For those who firmly believe that “only a casque” proves an answer, please show me an alternative yet equally compelling Chicago solution.
That sure is a lot of evidence we can connect back to a single verse concept. Generally speaking, this is how the puzzles are intended to operate. In spite of this clearly defined and logical dynamic, a comparable level of evidence in regard to unconfirmed cases is regularly rejected or blindly disregarded. Invasive philosophies and unsupported theories offer a stark contrast of superficial and circumstantial matches indistinguishable from the product of a coincidence.
Avoid Personal Decisions and Justifications at all Costs
In the same spirit, invalid interpretations expose themselves when personal decision-making attempts to compensate for lapses in explicit instruction. How do we find Byron’s casques if relying in part or in whole on our choices? Verse 8 Montreal presents the perfect example of this principle. After ascending the “92 steps”, we encounter an extensive gap in communication that forces us to subjectively choose between four potential directions. The intended destination is an unmarked staircase initiating our ascent half-way up Mount Royal to arrive at what is dubbed the “grand” staircase, which then requires climbing hundreds of additional stairs to arrive at a 200m mountain height exclusively identified through the one-time application of a topographic map. In other words, we are given two words to choose between one of four routes to find an unmarked destination 500 feet away, then ascend 200m up a mountain. Our decision making is thusly governed by two words and an intended destination rather than professional instruction.
We find similar lapses in direction with Milwaukee Lake Park interpretations. For starters, our starting position is not expressly identified nor is our intended direction of travel. Based on this interpretation, we can start in any position on Kenwood Ave within view of Mitchell Hall, which means we could position ourselves at Downer Ave facing west, incorporating Downer, Stowell, and Farwell as our “from 3 who lived there”, and therefore go in the opposite direction of conventional intention. We also have no explanation for why we must view Mitchell Hall WHILE walking on Kenwood as the verse implies.
Language Nuance and Sentence Structure
While making one for one matches proves to be the exclusive focus in the vast majority of investigations, language nuance and sentence structure should not be overlooked. Some lines are awkwardly separated, such as “Pass the compass and reach”, suggesting that “foot of the culvert” may be applied in an unorthodox manner. Some lines are structured to facilitate alternative order of application, such as ascending 92 steps before or after climbing the grand 200. The use of commas might suggest separate but connected elements, such as the application in verse 12 separating “Congress” and “R” as separate yet directly connected elements.
Clarity in Vagueness
It is often stated that Byron made the puzzles “too vague”. Did he make them vague, or are we interpreting them vaguely? How can we blame Byron for vagueness while ignoring words that qualify an interpretation? How can we blame Byron for vagueness while searching exclusively for superficial matches and flippantly excusing error and inadequacy? How can we blame Byron for “vagueness” when we don’t apply his puzzle to ensure the validity of an interpretation? What if the presence of un-negotiable vagueness is a clear indication of faulty belief patterns, inhibiting the determination of definitive The Secret solutions?
Then we have the images, which should conform to similar standards as the verses. Devices don’t need to be literal but they should be accurate. There should be a method for vetting an interpretation beyond a face value association. Visual devices should serve a purpose beyond generic existence. And while we can solve a puzzle without explaining every single detail, the more evidence the better. Unfortunately, proposed solutions far too often ignore a significant portion of purposeful devices and details, especially when we have three or four applications considered compelling or “clear”.
While these standards I have presented collectively offer viable guidelines, applications are subject to contextual deviations. Applicable environments of investigation are more than four decades removed from the original book release. Devices employed by Byron may no longer exist and be potentially untraceable. While Byron was a trained communicator with a master’s degree, he is also a human being subject to error. Mistakes are possible. Just like a handful of matches don’t “prove” a solution, an isolated collection of issues may not indicate just cause to throw the whole proposal out. While the presented principles are predicated upon the greatest degree of consistency possible, case by case exceptions are always possible. There will always be caveats and counterpoints. But generally speaking, this is the best framework available for objectively vetting proposed answers.
These standards should really be thought of in degrees. The greater the degree to which these principles are applied to a proposed solution, the greater the likelihood is of having an authentic, definitive The Secret solution.
Summary of Standards and Criteria
-Interpretations should be accurate and clearly determinable by a general audience, although having a technically accurate match alone is not enough
-Clues should serve a definitive purpose beyond generically existing, although some will exist primarily for confirmation
-Interpretations should be inarguably accurate
-Interpretations should include puzzle-based justifications
-Individual clues should be confirmed through interconnected relationships with other puzzle devices
-Lines and words should not be omitted
-Sentence structure and language nuance should be authenticated
-There should be no major gaps in direction, while personal, subjective decision making is prohibited
-The more comprehensive the solve, and the more interconnected the clues are, the more certain of the answer we can be
-Any deviations from these standards should be assessed on a case-by-case basis. Solutions should be judged on a collective basis, rather than clue by clue.
-No arbitrary or subjective rules
-Solutions are not invalidated if they fail to align with personal perception or expectation
-Verse applications should incorporate clear context clues for determining the applicable city on some level whether “obvious” or under the radar
-Verse applications should offer a direct connection or connections to the image, referred to as “wedding” in the book
Conclusion
In closing, I would like to apply a comparative analysis, identifying the so-called standards commonly expressed in Secret oriented discussions which in truth inhibit determining definitive The Secret solutions. Proposed solutions must conform to the “trends” of confirmed cases, even though in most respects those cases are entirely different. All answers are either equally wrong without a casque or equally possible, although some who apply those standards to others neglect equal application to themselves. Digging random holes across all 9.6 million square miles of North America takes priority over narrowing our search to a singular possibility with an intellectual investigation first. Figurative clue interpretations are strictly prohibited despite the official confirmation of figurative clue interpretations. Clue interpretations that defy conventional expectation, in a subjectively crafted puzzle, are automatically incorrect. Three strong clue interpretations substitute for a full and authenticated solution while blaming Byron for lapses in direction and evidence.
It’s perfectly acceptable to project opinions as fact to unceremoniously suppress undesirable clue interpretations as opinion, glossing over viable evidence in the process. Vague statements based on an undisclosed degree of information from Secret content creators more than 40 years removed from project participation or corresponding events are taken at face value, while a trained communicator is deemed incapable of communicating the answer to his own puzzle from the point of origin. If we fail to acknowledge that vague “I think” and “they seem” statements, from a man who personally professes an inability to solve the puzzles and simply does not know where the treasures are, constitute as “confirmations” of city and image pairings, then we are passively guilty of accusing that man of blatant dishonesty.
Which set of standards appear more objective, more productive, and more likely to identify sound unquestionable answers and definitive The Secret solutions? The biggest question of them all however is this:…will anyone bother listening, or is the natural aversion to change and accountability far too strong?
Leave a Reply