The 2019 discovery of Secret casque number three at Langone Park along the Charles River has inspired artificially manufactured controversy and unfounded claims of organized impropriety. For some, unfulfilled expectation carries a nagging, overpowering impulse to reject rational deductions and confirmable facts. Investigative resources are subsequently allocated toward confirmation bias, replacing objective evidence with personal preferences. The reality of a subjectively crafted creation predictably failing to exclusively conform with conventional or personal preference is rendered unperceivable.
This dynamic has spawned alternative interpretations for the Boston case of The Secret that unapologetically reject the authenticity of the casque’s retrieval from Langone Park. In this alternative reality, a collection of entities and individuals, motivated by the isolated financial gains acquired from a single episodic television production, surrounding a subject of marginal social interest, staged a counterfeit discovery with a counterfeit casque at a counterfeit location with comprehensive cooperation. The sole basis for such incriminating claims is the perceived incompatibility of the apparent casque site with Byron’s puzzle. However, debunking the Boston Secret solution conspiracy is a simple activity when honesty and transparency are applied.
Ironically, the force of human nature miring more than four decades of collective investigation in stagnation and futility has not only inhibited theoretical successes not nearly as unobtainable as assumed, but is now denying the physical evidence of a legitimate discovery. Instead of applying Byron’s puzzle to the Langone site in an effort to better understand the totality of his creation, some would rather write their own story at the expense of someone else’s and the expense of their own understanding.
While the casque location is not objectively subject to debate, methods and interpretations applied for arriving there certainly are. Traversing two miles of urban landscape from Boston Central Library to Christopher Columbus Park is achieved without evidence of precise instruction. Connections are made to local landmarks without any indication of the intended purpose of their inclusion. A moderately sized ice-skating facility with metal siding is asserted as a “coliseum”. Green hued light-bulbs illuminating bridge supports asserted as “towers” are assumed unaltered 37 years later.
While these interpretations leave a lot to be desired, they fail to justify the denial of physical evidence. What is provided as a viable alternative, although offering isolated instances of mildly compelling evidence, suffers from a similar collection of inconsistencies, incompatibilities, and assumptions.
Arguably the most notable example of an alternative Boston casque site proposal comes from the proprietor of the PB Works Secret page, known online as Oregonian. Please click here to familiarize yourself with the full proposal as I will not explain it in full detail. Please also see the PB Works page for a comprehensive collection of applicable visual references.
All criticisms are intended constructively in kindness for the ultimate purpose of illuminating true answers while eliminating false narratives. We will unofficially dub this proposed solution as the Boston Charles Gate Solution.
Despite an iron-clad conviction in opposition to legitimizing the Langone find, the Charles Gate solution author is presenting two contradictory proposal variations, nullifying each other through indecisiveness. How can this alternative answer be reportedly so indisputable when even the author apparently isn’t firmly convinced? That’s kind of a problem. I will be addressing this issue at various points throughout the analysis, ultimately debunking the Boston Secret solution conspiracy.
If Thucydides is
North of Xenophon
Take five steps
In the area of his direction
Variation 1
Interpreting the subject of the pronoun “his” and the anonymous “direction” referenced, reportedly requires applying neither scholar mentioned in the verse nor an “area” of northernly connotation. Instead, we assert that Horace Walpole is the intended subject and that “west” is the direction in question. Proper analysis of this claim requires perceiving it from multiple angles.
If Walpole was writing from Europe as reported, then “his direction” relative to New York and Boston was east, not west. If west is the direction, then who does “his” refer to? Why would west be considered Walpole’s direction? If the inference is that Walpole is directing us west from Europe, does merely mentioning geographic locations automatically qualify as “directing”? That doesn’t add up.
If identifying direction of travel is the only objective of this instruction, then why include the word “area”? If we go west…we’ re just going west, rendering the word “area” an unused and arbitrary inclusion.
Alternatively, could this passage be telling us, if in Boston (north of NYC as identified by the Walpole letter), starting at a structure engraved with the names Thucydides and Xenophon, take five “steps” toward an area of the city that applies “north” to the name? This would eliminate otherwise inherent inconsistencies.
Under the false pretense of westbound travel, upon exiting the Boston University Central transit terminal, we perfectly reverse course 1000 ft then turn left down Grandby St. without any prompt or instruction to do so. After continuing north another 300 ft, we arrive at a historic Boston University structure referred to as “The Castle”, bearing a circumstantial resemblance to the castle appearing in image 11. While the visual match is mildly compelling, how are we intended to find it for the purposes of applying to our path when it is neither visible nor likely to appear on a paper map in 1982? Maybe we find it in a book, but this is highly suspicious at the least.
After deviating 300ft to the north for no other purpose beyond justifying a visual match, we return to east bound travel on Commonwealth Ave. Honestly, in many respects, the proposal is difficult to follow because there is no clearly defined path beyond forcing circumstantial matches from the image to fit our preconceived route. There seems to be no rhyme or reason when applying visual devices to a particular location that appear erratically throughout the image.
Based on Google Street view images as far back as 2007, we first see the oversized Citgo Sign with iconic red triangle from Siber Way. What this means is we have 2300 feet worth of travel based on two circumstantial image matches to a castle and a triangle respectively that can be effortlessly assigned to alternative devices at alternative locations without fatally compromising validity.
The faint appearance of a number 2 enclosed in a square from image 11 offers a circumstantial connection to Massachusetts Highway 2 which passes Kenmore Square. This is subsequently connected to the silhouette of a pig formed from the lower body and claw of the perched hawk against a backdrop of parallel lines asserted to represent a street. Collectively these details reportedly form a rebus for Beacon St. (bacon+street). Of course, while this is possible, a pig doesn’t need to mean “bacon” specifically, and a few parallel lines don’t have to be a street either. Interestingly, a beacon refers to a light, while image 11 shows a light emanating from the mysterious box imprinted with the image of a castle. So why is that not our “beacon”?
Alternatively, why does the pig silhouette not reference the pre-revolutionary state of major cities such as Boston when farm animals where commonly found in urban areas where such resources were in high demand prior to the industrial revolution and more commercialized food production. As it happens, The Boston Commons was at that time a cow pasture while pigs were also commonly seen in the vicinity. Beacon St. runs along the northern border of Boston Commons, while Highway 2 runs along the western border. So where exactly does this interpretation indicate exclusive application of Highway 2 and Beacon St. for the assigned purposes? Isn’t it interesting that image 11 shows the fairy flying away from the light emitting box toward the righthand edge, potentially mirroring an eastward direction.
As is shown on the Boston solution page, the bubble and its relationship to the falcon of image 11 can be associated with the Hatch Band Shell. In turn, the band shell is only a few blocks northwest of the Boston Commons. If applying the pig silhouette to represent Boston Commons and the bubble to the band shell, we discover approximate geographic mirroring
The OP attempts to connect triangular or “A” shaped street configurations at Kenmore Square to similar shapes found in image 11. Unfortunately, not only is the match not very accurate, but it doesn’t account for the additional presence of a bubble that is confirmed by artist John Jude Palencar to represent the Boston Pops Orchestra.
So far, the sum of this effort is four circumstantial image matches and no verse instruction. How is this indicative of image and verse working together? A comprehensive lack of compelling evidence makes debunking the Boston Secret solution conspiracy extremely straight forward.
Variation 2
We appear to be ignoring these lines altogether while beginning our route at Kenmore Square which is only three stops away from Copley. This decision appears to be based exclusively on the iconic oversized Citgo sign visible from this location and corresponding to a triangle in the image. This also means that The Boston College match is rendered unused and arbitrary.
A green tower of lights
In the middle section
Variation 1
For some, the word “green” nullifies any obligation to apply corresponding verse qualifiers accurately. Interpreted in this case as the “Green Monster” of Fenway Park, we find multiple light towers as opposed to one, while “middle section” appears to have no relevance. Because two light towers are present, neither one qualifies as having a “middle” location. This might be more interesting if the green monster were found in “center” field instead of left. The best we can do is make a loose argument for a “middle” location within the ballpark that fails to either validate our interpretation or serve instructional purpose.
An attempt is made to justify Fenway through a visual match in image 11 and assumed puzzle relevance. The same device found on the woman’s sleeve that is commonly associated with home plate on a baseball diamond is alternatively applied to the distinct asymmetrical plot where the legendary ballpark is located. However, this circumstantial device fails to offer any decisive match without a collection of firm supporting elements.
When presented with both theoretical options we are asked which “seems most likely”. Subsequently, evidence is exchanged for a perception that notoriety alone renders the conclusion foregone and inarguable. The unfounded claim that any baseball reference in Boston must lead to Fenway disregards both the nature of someone’s subjectively crafted puzzle and the inescapable possibility of misdirection, instead prioritizing perception and preference over evidence. This again makes debunking the Boston Secret solution conspiracy fairly straight forward.
Taken at face value, the image 11 shape is neither a perfect match for the prototypical home plate nor Fenway. Objectively, without more to go on, it can be either.
Near those
Who pass the coliseum
With metal walls
Variation 1
This instruction reportedly leads east on Lansdowne St. toward the northern edge of The Back Bay Fens and within a few hundred feet of Charles Gate Park. Unfortunately, this route would completely bypass a whole slew of visual matches, which may be why the solution summary illustrates a completely different route through the Back Bay Fens, deviating from our Lansdowne St. route past Fenway Park’s Green Monster altogether. Something of a conundrum results from this indecisiveness.
If we go toward Charles Gate, we don’t really need visual matches from the Back Bay Fens. If we go through The Back Bay Fens, we don’t need Charles Gate at all. What this signifies is our inability in this case to differentiate an area clue from a path clue with anything other than subjective determination and illustrates the inability of verse and image instruction to harmoniously intermingle, debunking the Boston Secret solution conspiracy. While visual devices should validate and compliment verse decisions, and in some cases compensate for insufficient verse instruction, superficial visual matches do not substitute for decisive instruction when traversing thousands of feet facing a plethora of alternative routes.
Variation 2
While the original interpretations of these three lines offered a degree of logical progression for confirming Fenway Park and the purpose it was serving, our alternative proposal offers no puzzle-based justification for south-southeast travel along Jersey street, casually passing Fenway but bypassing the Green Monster altogether. This alternative interpretation provides no puzzle-based justification for decision making, predicated upon a subjectively determined destination versus authentic communication.
Applying a similar brand of loose instructional dynamics predominantly predicated on a preferred destination, why can’t we start at Kenmore Square, travel east toward Charles Gate Park asserting a visual match with the image as justification, then head west on Ipswich toward Fenway? Where is the puzzle telling us that the matches at Charles Gate are anything more than generic path confirmations like most every other visual reference.
Face the water
Your back to the stairs
Variation 1
Upon reaching the intersection of Lansdowne and Ipswich, we have two directional options and yet another lapse in explicit instruction. A visual correlation is observed between a grid of squares appearing on the woman’s “stole” in image 11, and divided lite windows appearing on a building at this intersection. The problem is there are three buildings at this intersection with a similar window pattern, which is extremely common in general. Relying only on such a circumstantial match, our next move is a guess or a preference.
If Charles Gate is our intended destination, our current location does not lend itself to a clear path forward. While northbound travel across the Charles Gate overpass is the most logical choice for getting to the park, we are currently progressing eastbound beneath it instead. Additionally, based on how the verse is arranged, it seems we should be facing the water fairly immediately after our previous line as opposed to traveling thousands of feet and passing it multiple times before “facing” it.
Based on our previous location, we have one of two options. Either we take a left onto Ipswich, find one superficial image match, pass the “water” we are meant to immediately “face”, take a right onto Boylston, traverse the overpass, then make a U-turn toward the park all seemingly without any explicit instruction 3300 feet later OR we take a right onto Ipswich, make at least eight unaccounted for decisions over nearly 3000ft, encounter “all the letters are here to see” prematurely, and pass the water we are supposed to face multiple times. How is any of this indicative of clear puzzle instruction? Instead, it aids in debunking the Boston Secret solution conspiracy.
As it stands, the driving force behind asserting a Charles Gate casque location appears to be the general resemblance of an aerial view of paver lined circular platforms to a globe and globe stand appearing in image 11. While this could certainly represent a correct application, it is important to remember the era the puzzle was created in. For the purposes of this puzzle, 1981 was far removed from the instant access to limitless information we experience in the modern era. No google maps. Byron would have predominantly utilized paper maps, book illustrations, and in person photographs. Aerial photographs of random locations like Charles Gate Park would have existed, but how accessible were they? Did any available maps of the time have that level of detail? In my experience, visual devices of a purely visual nature are almost exclusively based on ground level observations and map work. This connection is questionable.
Variation 2
Neglecting the “Green Monster” altogether, unceremoniously passing Fenway on Jersey St. without clear instruction and aimlessly continuing for 1500ft, we arrive at The Back Bay Fens. We are engrossed in a picturesque almost otherworldly setting of ornamental streetlamps, and a neoclassical structure beaconing in the near distance, inhibited only by the majestically towering deciduous trees lining the winding edges of the Muddy River. This inviting locale offers a body of water which we are already “facing”, and a set of stairs on The Museum of Fine Arts within striking distance and easily accessed across the river. Alternatively, our prevailing model requires we ignore a readily accessible and historically significant institution that effortlessly fulfills our verse to the letter, to instead engage in an arduous 3200ft journey based on the subjective application of two image matches and a verse interpretation that isn’t yet applicable based upon pre-existing line order. Note: image below is from 1920s, not indicative of current tree and foliage coverage obstructing view of museum.
Placing ourselves in front of the Museum of Fine Arts would alternatively fulfill numerous puzzle devices with ease. Firstly, we are able to face a body of water with our back to the stairs, with a lot of prime, casque burying real-estate directly in front of us. Secondly, museums at both the beginning and the end of the interpretation creates compelling continuity. Thirdly, the museum displays a portrait of Paul Revere by William Singleton Copley, which not only justifies ending the verse by alluding to the midnight ride, but creates further continuity with our starting position at Copley Square. Fourthly, the Museum of Fine Arts was originally located at Copley Square, creating even more continuity. Fifthly, across the Muddy River are multiple image matches, including the Kelleher Rose Garden which shares a striking resemblance in shape to the circular window in image 11. Lastly, we are in the same park as The Fenway Garden Society that has pathways named for every letter of the alphabet. Based on this information, for what puzzle-based justification do we continue to Charles Gate? Does this alternative interpretation succeed in debunking the Boston Secret solution conspiracy?
Eighteenth day
Twelfth hour
In neither proposal variation are these lines applied to the route itself. Applying the same standard of ‘if its famous we use it’, these lines must refer to the Midnight Ride of Paul Revere applied specifically to our route to the casque. If these lines can serve the dual purpose of contextual area clues and misdirection as this proposal contends, we can apply the same attitude to Fenway Park.
In truth, be free
Assumed to be “too vague”, a common rally cry when proposed answers fail to offer clear and comprehensive interpretations, we are given no decisive application for this line. Again applying the obligatory standard of utilizing “famous” landmarks, why do we not apply the word “free” to the Freedom Trail, where we follow in the footsteps of Paul Revere’s Midnight Ride on the 18th day at the 12th hour, pass Old North Church where two “lamplights” were hung to alert of imminent British approach by water, and encounter a slew of clear puzzle elements? That’s a fairly extreme contradiction.
Charles Gate Solution Pros:
-A handful of compelling visual matches at face value
-Starts at library
-Interesting visual matches to Charles Gate Park once there
-Interesting visual matches at Back Bay Fens
-Uses Fenway Park as baseball reference
Charles Gate Solution Cons:
-Inconsistent methodology asserting obligatory application of notable landmarks only in certain circumstances
-Two alternative route proposals presented compromising the objective validity of either
-Decision making based on destination
-Most individual clue interpretations presented are equally as possible as many alternative proposed interpretations
-Traveling thousands of feet without explicit puzzle instruction multiple times throughout the interpretation
-Most image matches are highly circumstantial
-Accusations of organized impropriety required for this alternative solution to be true, considering casque retrieval, are entirely baseless and purely speculative
-Paul Revere references remain predominantly unfulfilled
-Officially confirmed puzzle inclusions such as Boston Pops or The USS Constitution remain unapplied
-No apparent or presented casque site immigration connection
-Multiple verse lines flippantly disregarded
-Fails to illustrate in vast majority of cases how clues lead or what purpose they serve beyond generic existence
-Lack of definitive interconnectedness between image and verse
-Ignores stairs and water in front of Museum of Fine Arts which serves as a superior alternative to traveling 3000ft toward Charles Gate Park
-Westward travel at beginning doesn’t rely on puzzle to discern answer
-Proposal 2 neglects a lot of puzzle devices
-The effort exerted to arrive at Charels Gate Park with puzzle instruction is extremely labored
Conclusion
The author touts a condition of interconnectedness and congruency between visual devices and verse instruction severely lacking from the presented content, instead promoting a series of circumstantial matches no more compelling than typical proposals. Characteristics common to false positives are on full display. Assumptions are applied based on subjective preferences and an intended destination versus clearly communicated, authenticated instruction. Superficial and circumstantial matches generically exist in the general vicinity of verse interpretations yet offer no authentication through a level of interconnectedness eliminating the faintest possibility of coincidental generation. The integration of multiple proposed routes perfectly illustrates why neither are objectively valid.
Whenever vetting solution proposals in general, considering possible alternatives is key. If hypothetical alternatives are completely neutralized because proposed clues are clear, the direction is competent and comprehensive, inclusions illustrate purpose versus generic existence, visual devices perfectly compliment verse instruction, and an overwhelming degree of interconnectedness is consistently observed, this condition almost guarantees the discovery of authentic communication over a coincidental manifestation. However, if an alternative explanation is equally valid, what conclusion should we draw? In this case, loosely justified decision making can be effortlessly applied to alternative routes without compromising interpretive validity or persuasiveness, in essence debunking the Boston Secret solution conspiracy.
One of the primary bases for this alternative theory is the inclusion of Fenway Park. Based on how the claim is presented, since baseball is being referenced, we are therefore exclusively obligated to incorporate the most famous example of baseball in Boston. Inexplicably, this same requirement does not apply to other incorporated clues, such as Paul Revere. A conclusion that famous landmarks pertaining to Paul Revere are unilaterally excluded from the proposal contradicts the foundational assumption of prerequisite inclusion based on notoriety. By the same standard, “eighteenth day, twelfth hour, lit by lamplight” can only correspond to the path of Paul Revere’s ride and Old North Church where the two lanterns were hung. Selective application of such a standard severely compromises this theoretical model.
The motivation behind this analysis is to illustrate the objective clarity of right and wrong answers despite mass confusion and provide an investigative model for discerning as such. Far too often, perception and preference fuel proposed solutions lacking a coherent, logical foundation. While I find zero pleasure in calling out incorrect answers, something can be learned and applied to future efforts if a willingness to comprehend, acknowledge, and investigate critically overrules an aversion to correction or an exclusive devotion to preferred answers.
To see an alternative methodology for applying image 11 verse 3 clues to a Langone Park solution…click here.
Leave a Reply