Bad Habits Exhibited by Investigators of The Secret

Any endeavor participated in or orchestrated by fallible humanity carries a propensity for undesirable aspects of human nature to manifest.  This puzzle can bring out adverse or counterproductive behaviors in people, whether it’s mean-spirited banter, prioritizing personal ideas over collective goals, or unequally asserting superfluous standards personal ideas are inexplicably immune to. 

Here are common bad habits exhibited by investigators of The Secret within the online community and related interactions.

9. Subjective Rules

An effort to justify personal puzzle interpretations, or refute undesirable ones, frequently spawns superfluous rules and subjectively identified qualifiers never once established, or in most cases even alluded to, by the creative force behind “The Secret”. 

Some subjective rules represent a common misconception frequently referenced during related discussion.  Some will say that casques can only found in parks; a belief soundly disqualified on the introduction page of the book.  Some will say that the active path is limited to “short” physical distances, namely because Chicago and Cleveland share this characteristic, although these two cases are completely different in almost every other respect.  Some will assert a heavy or exclusive reliance on common or even temporary environmental devices such as trees, when known cases use such devices sparingly.  Others still will say that clue interpretations must exclusively offer literal one for one associations, while I have yet to find a cloaked woman juggling foreign objects at the base of City Hall.  The search continues…

Other projected rules manifest on a more individual basis.  I was once told when interpreting the verse that switching between a “map view” and a street level view is impermissible…despite the fact that using a map in general forces you to switch between both “views”.  I have heard that allusions to war of any variety are strictly prohibited, despite a military reference being officially confirmed in one case, and the extreme likelihood that multiple military memorials are incorporated in the Charleston case with regard to Whitepoint Gardens.  I was told that clue interpretations cannot be validated through an interconnectedness with other clues, referred to as “stacking” by this individual, although they endorsed a solution almost exclusively reliant on “stacking” to validate.

On the other hand, not all “rules” or standards are bad.  There is certainly something to be said for universal logic and communication standards, provided equal application across all proposed solutions.  Interpretations should be accurate but not necessarily literal.  Interpretations forged in hopeless ambiguity, offering no in-puzzle validation in light of trained communication and one discernable answer fail to objectively persuade.  Puzzle devices that serve a definitive purpose versus generically existing certainly offer a more compelling claim of expert communication.  For a comprehensive identification of universally applicable investigative standards, intended for increased investigative successes, click here.

In that same spirit, we have an awful lot of “solutions” that don’t involve really “solving” anything.  So “my” personal standard is, the puzzle should act like a puzzle, requiring interpretation exceeding a mundane matching game, and the “solution” to this puzzle should involve “solving” something as opposed to just finding things.

These bad habits exhibited by investigators of The Secret allow for subjective justification over real results.

8. Premature Conclusions

Fielding proposed Secret interpretations online has the tendency to offer a frustratingly repetitive experience.  There appears to be little obligation amongst the feverishly enthusiastic masses to explain why a proposed interpretation has merit or what machination of substance it is based on.  We are really good at assigning every conceivable interpretation of a particular puzzle device, often blindly asserted as indisputable or “obvious”, but we fail to acknowledge the thousands of other participants all doing the same thing despite one true answer, and we can’t use the puzzle itself to explain or defend interpretive validity.  It takes more than confident declarations…it takes evidence.

It’s quite common to prematurely assume how a clue should be interpreted.  We see Milwaukee City Hall in image 10 and assume it must be seen along our path.  We see the letters g and h in image 1 and assume this must mean either Great Highway or Ghirardelli, although these same letters appear in many other words or word combinations.   Jewels can certainly “abound” in places other than New Orleans, while New Orleans is not the only place we can find references to New Orleans. While many things are “grey” and “giant”, they don’t all exist in New York.  Numbers appearing as coordinates do not have to be exclusively utilized as coordinates.  Appearance alone does not prove intended application, especially in light of official acknowledgement of blatant misdirection in the puzzles.  In many instances, investigators make great observations, then jump the gun on how to apply them.  Just because we can, doesn’t mean we should.  We don’t determine how a clue is applied, Byron does that.

The aforementioned phenomenon is taken to an extreme level when every conceivable contour from Secret images is applied to random tree branches, tree knots, mulberry bushes, or satellite images of land formations subject to gradual reconfiguration over 40 plus years, asserted as either a general clue or in many cases a precise dig location. While clearly defined visual devices of inarguable importance are casually pondered, ambiguous blotches are assigned unwavering identities. These bad habits exhibited by investigators of The Secret have led to a plethora of strongly asserted possibilities but few positive results.

The impression we give ourselves often takes precedence and priority over acknowledging the freewill decisions of a single, unique individual and his subjectively crafted creation. Interpretations are often asserted as a result of notoriety or quantifiable historical ramifications rather than in puzzle evidence. One example is found with immigration assignments. Why do we assume that immigration focus for a particular case is qualified exclusively through historical population levels and cultural impact rather than a qualitative characteristic? By these measures, assigning Greek immigration to Cleveland is unwarranted…yet Byron did it anyway.

Proposed solutions regularly do not illustrate reliance on the puzzle to indicate how we are intended to apply a particular device, and instead we decide for ourselves how to proceed.  In which case, whose puzzle are we trying to solve?  Byron is under no obligation to conform with conventional expectation.  Byron is just as likely to defy expectation in order to facilitate a more difficult puzzle.  In light of JJP confirming blatant misdirection in the puzzles, we should be far more careful with the terms “clear” and “obvious” when arguing how a device is meant to be used.

When assessing the validity of a clue interpretation, I often ask what that interpretation is based on.  The collective investigation is infested with generic, face value claims offering no profound explanation or puzzle-based justification for a particular application beyond unverifiable, one for one associations.  So, under whose authority do we confidently endorse clue interpretations?  If this is Byron’s puzzle, shouldn’t he be telling us how a clue is meant to be used versus investigators blindly assuming as such? 

7. Proclaiming “My Solution” or “My Dig Spot”

This nasty little habit betrays an underlying motivation to claim ownership of something that does not belong to us.  In many cases, Byron and his communication cease to be the exclusive focus, redirecting emphasis to the projection of self-determination with terms such as “my ideas”, “my solution”, “my dig spot”, “my opinions”, or “my beliefs”.  In this regard, presented ideas rendered inaccurate, inconclusive, or unrepresentative of source communication fail to inspire diminished confidence or perseverance. 

When an extreme premium is placed on personal ideas determined through preference and perception, Byron’s source material ceases to carry importance.  It’s no longer a point of how we can determine Byron’s answers, but rather how we can justify our own, which is one of the counter productive habits exhibited by investigators of The Secret.  Secret investigations have morphed into a self-serving endeavor, which ultimately and quite ironically defeats personal goals of finding casques and getting answers.

In fairness, as a result of the “only a casque proves an answer” philosophy, investigators are specifically conditioned and encouraged to take this approach.  Claiming to know Byron’s answers is by some measures characterized as an expression of superiority, while claiming his answers for ourselves, or assuming it’s Byron’s fault when we can’t figure his puzzle out, is apparently not.  Interesting.

6. Skipping Lines and Words

It should go without saying that purposeful linguistic inclusions from a trained communicator regarding an unsolved, 43-year-old treasure hunt should be comprehensively applied for illuminating a singular, collective answer.  Inexplicably, even arguably seasoned investigators can justify bypassing verse lines or entire sections in support of a subjectively compelling proposal despite incomplete interpretation. 

In a specific example, I found it quite troubling that a team of investigators interpreting verse 7 felt justified skipping three entire lines they deemed “unimportant”.  At the end of their presentation, they suggested that their proposed solution transcended the typical “only a casque proves on answer” standard, despite holding other investigators to that very standard.

Under whose authority is authored content from the source material unceremoniously dismissed as non-essential?  Is it logical to ignore words, lines, or entire sections intended to differentiate an authentic answer from everything else?  Does this accomplish anything beyond justifying personal ideas?  Should an incomplete interpretation not potentially suggest an invalid proposal?   Why is “every line, every word” not a common standard in the Secret community?  It should be.

The counter argument to this position is that casques in both Chicago or Cleveland were exhumed without complete and comprehensive solutions in those cases. However, authenticating a solution is different than finding a casque, which can be found without following the puzzle at all. While it is true that casques “can” be found without solving the entire puzzle, that doesn’t change the intent and design behind the puzzle to validate or invalidate a conclusion.

Otherwise, if we can just skip or diminish the importance of any particular line or word that doesn’t fit our proposal, then it is indistinguishable from hundreds of other answers that all do the same thing. If the words and lines of the verse are not there for discerning a true answer, then what are they there for? If a particular interpretation renders certain lines as arbitrary or redundant, how do we know that’s not alternatively the product of a false positive and/or forcing a fit? In the case of Chicago and Cleveland, previously misinterpreted or neglected clues are in hindsight recognized as possessing definitive interpretations reinforced by supportive evidence, fitting perfectly with an overall solution that lacks a comparable alternative.

With all of this being said, a proposed solution that struggles or fails to assign values to all aspects of the verse is not automatically wrong. In most cases we can intellectually confirm a solve without EVERYTHING, however; this does not conversely imply a diminished importance or utter lack of involvement. The goal should be to explain everything. These bad habits exhibited by investigators of the Secret prevent real discoveries from being made.

5.  Ignoring Counter Evidence

When we look at the online Secret community, the intended purpose is extremely positive, while the activity that manifests is consistently unproductive toward overall goals, aside from isolated examples of objective attitudes and logical frameworks.  While the community (ie Facebook group pages) is designed to promote information sharing and collaborative efforts from investigators offering diverse perspectives, the actual result is extremely counter-productive and deceptively binary. 

One such product of this dynamic is the exclusive expression of supportive evidence, at the expense of counter arguments which in many cases immediately compromises the objective validity of a particular claim.  We add more “ideas” to the heaping mound of “possibilities”, while eliminating proposed inclusions through a deductive process is commonly considered a capital offense.  Focus on Byron’s puzzle is minimized while a warm and fuzzy brand of unconditional inclusion is elevated.  Finding real answers is sacrificed for proving and supporting preferred ideas, while enabling avoidable failures is perceived positively.  More ideas don’t uncover casques; the right ideas do that. 

The goal for the vast majority of investigators appears to be proving a preferred answer versus solving Byron’s puzzle, given that these conditions are not mutually exclusive.  In the same spirit, a desire for “openness” is commonly expressed.  When it comes to The Secret, openness is an interesting concept.  How should openness be qualified in Secret investigations?  Is “openness” qualified as agreeing or uninhibited positivity?  And yet, if one idea is right, then by default this means all other ideas are wrong, since there is only one casque for each case. 

What if I “agree” as the result of the social expectation of conformity…but those ideas don’t agree with Byron?  Is it really more indicative of “openness” to blindly accept all proposals as “possible”, or should we conduct a thorough investigation weighing the evidence against Byron’s puzzle and logical communication standards?  Should “openness” not go in both directions, involving an openness to evidence that compromises personal proposals?  How can one person expect “openness” while rejecting openness to being wrong?  Why is openness seemingly in short supply when subjectively defining what a free-thinking individual can and can’t do in his own puzzle?  That seems like an uneven standard.

Focusing exclusively on the positive attributes of any particular idea is one of many significant factors contributing to a lack of definitive results.  While this certainly applies to full proposals, such as the Fairmont solution in San Francisco or Lake Park in Milwaukee, this also relates to other categories of belief such as image or verse assignments.  We apply verse 8 to Montreal because it “fits” better (which it doesn’t), while utilizing verse 5 for Milwaukee by default is incomprehensible.  We assign image 3 to Roanoke Island based on three strong clues yet neglect a litany of informative details.  We see the three things that make something “obvious”, then ignore the twenty things that call perceived clarity into question.  This same mentality leads to the omission of qualifying words and entire lines when interpreting the verse. 

How do we validate proposals when characteristics of the source material are selectively applied rather than comprehensively applied?  Should we expect to find real answers when expectation and preference motivate perception?  This is one of those habits exhibited by investigators of The Secret designed to unconditionally justify personal answers at the expense of real ones.

4. Blaming Byron

In light of the previous entry, it is quite ironic that we will skip words, lines, and entire sections of the verse, then blame Byron for making the puzzles too difficult or too vague.  Investigators will commonly apply the puzzles in ways that Byron never told them to, defying general logic and communication standards, yet place 43 years of accountability squarely on his shoulders.  For many, Byron was a clueless buffoon who haphazardly assembled an incoherent concoction of hopelessly ambiguous dribble.  And yet, personal decision making, perception, and philosophy directly shape our results.  Why is Byron responsible for the product of own free-will?  Is our failure Byron’s fault…or is it the product of user error? 

If our opinion of Byron is negative, does that change our investigative expectations and strategies?  Could our inadequate perception of Byron and his puzzle lead us to look in the wrong places?  If you don’t like how “vague” the puzzles are, have you tried to interpret them in a way that isn’t?  I find it fascinating that we trust Byron just enough to “lead” us to an answer, yet don’t trust Byron’s ability to construct a product of coherence and competency, subsequently incriminating faults and omissions. These bad habits exhibited by investigators of the Secret are the result of augmented perception.

3. Reliance on Outside Sources of Information

As frustration grows and avoidable failures mount, an underlying aversion to relying primarily on Byron’s communication intensifies.  We distance ourselves more and more from the very basis of our investigation, redirecting focus to indirect and less reliable sources of information.  Failure to successfully interpret these puzzles elicits a wide variety of effects, typically none of which are self-reflective.  When the application of a new perspective, investigative strategy or framework would be the most advisable, challenging preconceived conclusions repetitiously applied into oblivion, human nature often leads in less beneficial directions.

While Byron himself confidently declares that his puzzles provide everything we need, we often don’t agree.  In contrast, outside claims, even from arguably “reliable” sources like Byron’s collaborative cohorts, are religiously applied like supernatural doctrine, with little consideration for error, context, misunderstanding, incomplete information misconstrued as definitive truth, 40 something years of separation, and the source information these claims are based on.  We claim Byron’s puzzles are too “vague”, a problem that would cease to exist if we didn’t interpret his puzzles vaguely, then assert that vague claims employing “I think” and “they seem” statements from JJP qualify as unquestionable confirmations.  Hmmmmmmmmmmmm… This is one of the more damaging habits exhibited by investigators of The Secret.

“I’ve tried to figure some of them out and I can’t figure them out. You know, I’ve read through the verses…I do not know where these treasures are buried.”

-John Jude Palencar, Expedition: Unknown Season 5 Episode 4, 28 min mark

It’s fascinating to me what unnecessary lengths we are willing to go to for “new” information.  We are willing to pour over additional contextual clues in a Japanese translation of the book, building the basis for our proposal from an individual clue (which in some cases means we are contradicting the original verse), when the very same source warns us against this practice, potentially compromising our effort with misleading information.  We relentlessly needle Secret artist John Jude Palencar for exclusive guidance despite legal restrictions of non-disclosure, when he has stated repeatedly, amongst other things, that he just doesn’t know where the treasures are.  We micro analyze 161 additional pages of narrative in the book despite being told by Byron himself (through the Cleveland finders) there are no significant clues there, and despite not knowing what to do with many of the clues we already have in the actual puzzle.

Then, there is the “Gift Giver”, whom I will devote an entire post to at some point.  In short, GG is an alias, reportedly concealing the identity of two individuals involved in some manner with the original Secret publication released in 1982.  They appear each Christmas on George Ward’s Secret Facebook group page to dispense “insider” information that either reinforces conventional beliefs such as casque cities, or provides vague allusions to information or interpretive strategies of a predominantly inconsequential nature in their enigmatic form.  Some claims are useful if they are true, but we have no idea what these claims are based on.  It’s difficult to fathom, beyond JJP or maybe Sandy, who would possess the level of information GG claims to have and why given the highly “secretive” nature of Byron’s work, restricting information access from even his most instrumental collaborators.  However, many of GG’s claims just don’t add up, proving incompatible with other, arguably more reliable sources. 

GG has compromised their perceived credibility with several perplexing and dubious claims.  In one post, they claim that superimposing a geographic feature with a Secret image is invalid because the 1980’s lacked applicable resources and technology to accomplish such feats.  Why would Byron or JJP expect us to apply clues in ways not permissible based on technology?  Of course, comparing a characteristic, or a series of them, from the image to a map does not strictly require the ability to superimpose anything, in the same sense that JJP could eyeball and free hand any particular feature for inclusion in the painting.  Placing the images side by side and diligently comparing features would therefore be sufficient for determining a match.  Beyond theoretical speculation, we have numerous confirmed examples of carefully copied map features appearing in the images.  Online commentators have also noted that technology such as transparencies would have been available and easily accessible in the 1980’s, compromising GG’s apparent claim to the contrary. 

In the same post, GG implies that Byron would only send polaroid pictures of in person landmarks to JJP for copying and inclusion, which at best is misleading.  The book says quite specifically that cases may be solved in the privacy of your own home, meaning a heavy reliance in those cases on map features and/or book illustrations and photographs versus environmental elements only perceived on site.  This means that JJP had more to work with than just “grainy” polaroids.

These statements cast considerable doubt on GG’s hidden identity and their role, if any, in developing Byron’s project.  It’s clear that they are in possession of information, but it remains uncertain whether or not they are the direct source.  My suspicion is that GG received firsthand accounts from Secret collaborators regarding how the process worked, and has access to an incomplete set of notes from Byron’s work on the project. It should also be kept in mind that the mysterious informant knows the municipal resting place of the 13th “tribute” casque, implicating Kit Palencar, son of John, as a possible accomplice.

Allocating unconditional belief to unknown sources with vague statements separated by 43 years from the point of origin, is one of those bad habits exhibited by investigators of The Secret that is easily avoided when applying a higher degree of discretion. When it comes to believing these peripheral sources at face value, or applying subjective interpretations of their actual statements, a degree of social pressure to conform to popular conclusion is commonly applied.  However, this is yet another example of a contradictory standard.  Engaged in email correspondence with a Secret investigator prior to his death in 2005, Byron revealed that an investigator was “correct about St. Louid”.  This fact is typically ignored by the unofficial Secret gatekeepers.  If applying a standard comparable to other claims, I can easily say that Byron has “confirmed” St. Louis.  So why don’t we?  I certainly don’t trust the “Gift Giver” more than I trust Byron. Here is more information on the subject from Limey on PB Works:

2. Aimless Digging

Roughly a hundred holes are dug each year in San Francisco alone, many of which near commonly sized light posts and flag poles. The New Orleans parks department has recently released a public service announcement sarcastically rebuking any attempt of unauthorized digging or incessantly requesting permission for isolated excavation every time common shapes are matched or we can count 21 of something. Hundreds of requests are filed and hundreds of holes each year are dug across North America predicated upon commonly found things and random guesses in pursuit of Byron’s casques. Of all of the bad habits exhibited by investigators of The Secret, this one causes needless physical damage.

This reckless behavior has not only failed to produce more casques but prevents serious inquiries from being perceived or entertained by municipal authorities and representatives. This irrational activity actually sabotages theoretical successes, and makes acquiring additional casques nearly impossible, although many in the “community” are encouraging it.

I’ll put it this way: if you believe only a casque proves an answer…don’t bother digging. If you find it impossible to validate clue interpretations exclusively through in-puzzle information…don’t bother digging. If there is no way to differentiate your proposal from hundreds of others…don’t bother digging. If you use the words “my ideas”, “my beliefs”, “my opinions”, or “my dig spot”…don’t bother digging. An endless collection of unsubstantiated locations does not help produce a singular 6in box, the location of which is predicated upon clear and unquestionable communication. We need to improve intellectual investigations prior to prioritizing physical ones.

1. Making Things Personal

Even if your experience with my commentary is currently limited to this particular entry, it should hopefully be evident that personal inferences of a needlessly derogatory nature are intentionally excluded.  While there may be no shortage of blunt criticism, it is all intended in a constructive spirit of illuminating and prioritizing truth.  People won’t always take it that way…and that’s ok.  Sometimes caring for or loving people means initiating difficult conversations peppered with hard truths.  Love isn’t a feeling; it’s the result of an action.  Sometimes love means saying the one thing no one else is willing to, intended for benefit.  While a spoonful of sugar might help the medicine go down, a platoon sergeant instructs soldiers how not to die.  There is a season for both philosophical positions. What can we do about the bad habits exhibited by investigators of The Secret if we aren’t allowed to speak up about them?

The worst thing I have ever done is disagree and in some cases expose adverse behavior.  I tell people why “their” answers fail to conform with Byron’s puzzle and give a lot of specific evidence in support thereof, in the spirit of illuminating objective truth and real answers…which is what I thought we wanted.  In certain sectors of the Secret community, this is often an unforgivable sin.  I have been called an “arse”.  I have had my intellectual capacity literally compared to a pigeon.  I have been called literally insane.  I have been called intolerable.  I have been called “condescending”. I have been told I have a “poor attitude toward others”.  I have been accused of “intellectual superiority”, all because I believe in objective truths and display a willingness to promote and defend them.

 

Discussions typically faulter from an inability or unwillingness to think of the information and the individual reporting it as two separate entities. Conversations quickly deviate from objective validity to personal accountability. A greater focus is placed on how a claim is worded and how it makes us feel as opposed to applying intellectual arguments or objective evidence in support or opposition thereof.

The same individuals who are offended when claims of “solving” a Secret case are expressed have no problem expressing it themselves. The same individuals who are offended when claims are not qualified as “opinions” have no problem asserting opinions as fact. Inconsistent social standards are applied to subvert evidence in many cases because the evidence leads down an undesirable, less personally fulfilling path. Unfortunately, the application of personal attacks and inferences has become a debate strategy, interrupting and distracting from objective discussion to protect preferential conclusions.

Standards of conduct and accountability should be applied in both directions. Don’t be a jerk.  Don’t allow heated conversations to devolve into battles of middle school vernacular.  It really serves no purpose.  Don’t assert standards onto others unless you are willing to equally apply those same standards to yourself. On the other hand, passionately challenging proposed solutions is not offensive.  Challenging ideas promoted as Byron’s one and only answer is what we are supposed to be doing.  Kindness and stroking egos are not mutually exclusive conditions.  If you don’t want ideas challenged, then it would be advisable to not present them in a public forum.  But, if you don’t want “your ideas” challenged…then what is the goal and what are you afraid of?