Welcome to Uncovering the Secret. This site explores the captivating, enigmatic phenomenon called “The Secret” through an objective, analytical, investigative, observational perspective. The Secret: A Treasure Hunt is a treasure hunt centered publication originally released in the fall of 1982, conceived and produced by Byron Preiss, who buried treasures in 12 different cities across North America. Only three of twelve cases have been officially resolved after more than four decades. Methods for definitive confirmation are presently limited as the puzzle’s creator Byron Preiss tragically passed in 2005 from injuries sustained in an automobile accident.
Despite experiencing an underwhelming, marginal interest upon its initial release, The Secret has amassed an international cult following resulting in thousands of eager investigators and enthusiasts, and culminating in an online community of independent websites, Facebook group pages, and video productions on YouTube.
While the intension behind these efforts are predominantly well meaning, The Secret has devolved into a hotly contested creativity contest in which proving personal or preferred ideas often overshadows solving Byron’s puzzle. The Secret investigations, as they commonly manifest in the digital realm, represent a cumbersome exercise of competing egos, wildly unfounded claims, and ungrounded theoretical musings frequently failing to resemble the puzzle interested parties claim to be “solving”, prioritizing personal rhetoric and effectively eliminating Byron Preiss as the exclusive source of authentic puzzle instruction.
While participants are highly intelligent, they regularly apply that intelligence to subjective justification over logical deductions. Belief appears in many cases to not be exclusively motivated by comprehensive evidence collection, reason, critical analysis, or objective observation. Physical investigations with inadequate solution proposals are incomprehensibly prioritized over conducting thorough and honest intellectual investigations first. We are easily digging hundreds of holes a year…for nine unsolved cases! And yet, some believe we aren’t digging enough.
This condition represents a foundational principle at the heart of forty plus years of futility. Many have seemingly abandoned any hope of truly solving these puzzles. Subsequently, justifying pet interpretations takes precedent over authentic, confirmable, objectively defendable positions. We enable, promote, and participate in objectively outrageous claims, while reserving the right to blindly suppress any undesirable proposal with a single word or catch phrase. The words “opinion” and “theory” replace critical thought and objective investigation, right up until the opportunity to express “our” ideas as superior presents itself. We have hundreds upon hundreds of conflicting proposals, and an intense aversion to perceiving the slightest shred of fault or inadequacy.
The brand of investigation conducted on these pages embodies an unrelenting desire to ascertain the truth at the expense of beliefs, ideas, assumptions, preferences, and opinions. This page rejects the popular misconception that only a casque proves an answer, when in reality a casque is virtually unobtainable without a clearly communicated and objectively defined answer first. The corresponding positions are fueled by an objective and comprehensive appreciation for all available evidence, rejecting conveniently selective narratives. This page is a direct challenge to the status quo of an investigative climate that pronounces bold claims and projects ridged demands yet fails to produce convincing results.
Authentic and comprehensive investigations are often stifled by preferences and perceptions that subjectively dictate how someone else (Byron) is mandated to conduct their own puzzle. Attempts to break the never-ending cycle of conventional contentions and otherwise effortlessly dispelled misconceptions are often met with contempt and suppression. The proceeding pages seek to explore and expose this dynamic, while focusing on definitive answers supported through logic and evidence.
By applying an unwavering position reliant on universally accessible intellectual tools, and an investigative framework which prioritizes objective, evidential considerations and rational scrutiny over endlessly vague and interpretive conclusions, I have put a target on my back. I refuse to patronize objectively incompatible interpretations for the sake of stroking egos at the expense of clarity and progress. I refuse to conform to the assumption that a trained communicator can’t communicate the answer to his own puzzle. For each case…there is ONE RIGHT ANSWER….not hundreds. Something has to give.
As a warning, my style is extremely blunt, honest, and pragmatic. All commentary is intended in kindness, respect, and good faith in the spirit of finding casques, getting answers, maximizing successes, and facilitating optimal critical thinking applicable to all areas of life. You will find a lot of passionate criticism devoid of any ill will or malicious intent. I will undoubtedly ruffle some feathers which is unavoidable.
To some, my words may even appear “unkind”. Kindness is a curious concept in modern society. Personally, I believe it is “unkind” to not only idly observe avoidable failures but encourage and enable such activity. I believe it’s “unkind” to engage in personal attacks and gross mischaracterizations when the targeted offenses are geared toward progress, truth seeking, and collective goals. I believe it’s “unkind” to prioritize personal satisfaction at the expense of others. I believe it’s “unkind” to advertise a spirit of collaboration, intertwining alternative perspectives, while mandating conformity to subjective standards which succeed most predominantly in subverting free and critical thought. I believe it’s unkind to apply standards to others if unwilling to apply them personally.
If critiquing my behaviors and choices, what should be accounted for are all elements completely beyond personal control. I don’t control who has answers and who doesn’t. I don’t control who believes what and why. I don’t control what the answers are and why they are. I don’t control behaviors and mindsets that hinder theoretical successes. So please, let’s not waste any time attempting to hold me accountable for things I don’t control. That being said, no one is above correction, including myself.
On the other hand, it is not completely lost on me that people have poured their heart, soul, time, energy, and various resources into investigating these puzzles. I don’t take challenging proposed ideas lightly. Arguably the hardest part of the process is removing oneself from the equation. This applies both to the pursuit of clearly communicated answers from Byron and fighting the impulse of self-deprecation when a proposed answer proves incorrect.
In this case, being wrong is completely avoidable and in my opinion not based on intelligence whatsoever. Being wrong offers an opportunity to learn how to be more right if we are willing to humble ourselves in that manner. I find no pleasure in bursting bubbles, but that returns to elements beyond personal control. Intelligence and ability are in high supply; willingness is not. What is the goal, and are you willing to do whatever it takes to achieve it?
While the focus of this page is serious investigation, criticisms levied against counter-productive activities within the community are not geared toward casual observers or participants. If endless speculation and social interaction surrounding a common interest are your primary motivations for participation, there is certainly nothing wrong with that, and commentary expressed hereafter is not directed at you but may still inspire interest.
This initiative is designed to discourage activities detrimental to collective goals and incubate increased success through objectivity and honesty. In the spirit of finding casques and determining real answers, my only intellectual obligation is to Byron and universal standards of logic and communication. Informed, analytical, objective challenges to proposed solutions or investigative frameworks are continuously welcomed. Kneejerk aversion, blind dismissals, and uneven applications of standards and conduct are not.
Over the course of countless interactions with excitable treasure seekers, I have observed a pattern of unfortunate behaviors. Hundreds of people all simultaneously possess a singular answer…even though many proposed answers are different, including variants of popular interpretations such as Lake Park for Milwaukee. While critical challenges and clarifying questions are the cornerstone of objective investigation, they are typically avoided at all costs. Questions are routinely ignored or avoided while conversation conveniently and artificially pivots to alternative topics. Excuses are plentiful while direct responses of any substance prove more elusive than the legendary Loch Ness Monster. Investigative standards are applied so inconsistently that respondents more effectively argue with themselves through wild contradiction. On more than one occasion I have literally had individuals explicitly refuse to answer questions resulting from the incriminating nature of a truthful response. In those cases, how can we say finding casques is the goal if we aren’t willing to be honest and transparent?
Amongst a collection of related objectives, this initiative aims to treat the answers to Byron’s puzzles…like answers to a puzzle. This means that the casque is not the answer. This means that the true answer must clearly answer something. This means that a true “answer” is not merely an opinion or a guess. This means that superficial and circumstantial associations to commonly found things are invalidated without in puzzle verification. This means that a trained communicator is fully capable of competent communication beyond an elementary school level despite the contentions of many when “their” answers fail to withstand objective scrutiny, alternatively possessing critical errors and unnegotiable omissions. This means that there is ultimately only one “possible” answer for each case. This page is not intended as a depository for any loosely based, easily contested proposal. Any proposed clue interpretations or associated claims are subject to vigorous analysis.
The goal is not proving “our” ideas, the goal is determining Byron’s. This hunt is not the product of “my ideas” versus “your ideas”. In reality, it is Byron’s ideas versus anything else. So while I may present proposed puzzle interpretations, I claim no personal ownership to their contents. True interpretations belong to Byron, and anyone willing to listen can find them. We do not speak reality into existence. Reality exists independent of subjective will and perception, not because of it. I am no exception. If you find something you disagree with, prove it wrong, but be willing to be proven wrong in the process. But let’s remember, even the best arguments have no power to rewrite reality.
Oddly for many, prioritizing universally accessible answers and objectively discerning authentic puzzle interpretations is an expression of “superiority”. Baseless accusations of acting “superior” are flippantly expressed, while actual examples remain unidentified. Alternatively, exclusively blaming Byron for what can easily be the product of personal misinterpretation or user error is suggestive of “superiority”. Unilateral aversion to correction or perceiving interpretive inadequacies is suggestive of “superiority”. Rejecting the ability to learn something new or suppressing alternative perspectives and evidence is indicative of “superiority”. Applying standards to alternative ideas with an unwillingness to apply them equally to your own is a sign of “superiority”. An unwillingness to field questions and counter-arguments in the spirt of determining true answers can suggest “superiority”.
In contrast, claiming to know an answer to a puzzle designed to be solved without continuous digging is not an expression of superiority. Making any interpretive claim, regardless of how it is received, is not an expression of superiority, assuming a willingness to defend it through intellect rather than tactics of manipulation and deceit. Offering intellectual challenges to proposed clue interpretations with an openness to rebuttal is not an expression of superiority. Accountability must go in more than one direction and be based on consistent standards.
For the record, in no way, shape, or form, does any information presented on these pages assert or imply an expression of superiority. I am nothing and no one, and I am superior to no one in any way. To truly move forward with the hunt we must remove self from the equation. Focus should be exclusively allocated to objectively discerning right and wrong, paying little mind to the reporting individual and any associated feelings generated by a subjective perception of their activity.
At a certain point, someone should ask why I am doing any of this in the first place. What am I getting out of it? I’m not getting paid. I am freely giving away information I worked for with no guarantee of any return either social or financial. If my goal was purely to elevate myself, I could have dug a clandestine hole 5 years ago and done exactly that, evading countless hours of avoidable effort and the mental stress of frequent antagonism and baseless accusations. So why choose to express my “superiority” in such a long-form, labored format that is predominantly ignored? Being right serves little purpose if no one listens.
I will no doubt at some point be accused of making things “too complicated”, resulting from the length and analytical intensity of this commentary. In truth, I would have far less to say if people believed more logical and substantiated things free from emotional motivations. This is a simple case of cause and effect. This commentary is a response. People often do not realize how loaded their statements are. Simply communicated claims cannot always be responded to simply. More reflection and awareness can eliminate the need for novelized responses. As it relates to the Secret solutions themselves, simply worded claims often carry intensely complicated implications. When the attitude is ‘don’t think so hard, I found rocks and trees, that means I solved it’, no single statement or isolated set of statements offers an adequate response.
After more than four decades, these answers deserve to be known. These answers are designed to be known, while conventional wisdom commonly promotes a perpetual state of ambiguity. Byron deserves to be recognized and appreciated for this masterful orchestration of creativity and ingenuity, which certainly does not imply I “agree” with all of his choices. His family deserves some additional closure to this chapter of their lives.
Everyone deserves to know the truth. But many truths come at a price. The Secret is only still a secret because we have decided to keep it that way. The Secret will cease to be hidden when we decide Byron’s answers are the only one’s worth finding. The fervency at which a belief is expressed does not determine what is true, but rather truth determines that for itself. We don’t decide what is true, we decide whether or not we can accept it.
Social manifestations within The Secret “community” represent a micro chasm of society at large. The content on this page applies a systematic approach for loosening the overwhelming grip of social conditioning which induces an environment of conformity and compliance at the expense of freedom of critical thought and genuine progress.
The aim is not to shove beliefs down your throat and persuade compliance via manipulative threats of social ostracization or censorship protocols, but rather introduce a set of standards and principles for consistent and reliable independent discernment validated through overwhelmingly positive results and intellectually inescapable conclusions. Agreeing is not the goal; understanding is. We must unlearn tendencies which have resulted in neither definitive progress nor spoils of any significant magnitude.
I am on a mission. That mission may not make sense to many, and it doesn’t need to at this very moment. The more we progress, the more clear things will become. This is not just about some silly treasure hunt of marginal social interest. This is about the importance of truth, the power it has in our lives when we are willing to accept it, and adopting a systematic process with intellectual resources to objectively qualify what the truth really is.
For myself, this journey has a strong spiritual component which I refuse to shamefully omit. God has led me this far, and I will continue to adhere to his instruction to the best of my ability. It is my prayer that the truth of “The Secret” will benefit people in ways they never anticipated.