In recent years, the idea of a Fairmont solution has infiltrated the hearts and minds of Secret enthusiasts desperate for resolution, unsatisfied with Golden Gate Park interpretations that by some measures require too much “thinking” for a PUZZLE called THE SECRET. A projected sense of open-mindedness to an alternative possibility ironically paves the way for prioritizing single-minded perceptions and asserting relative “certainty” for confidently drawn conclusions despite a nagging yet seemingly unperceived presense of uncertainty. We might not know how several lines works, how the verse leads us logically to the intended destination, and have no puzzle based method to validate most interpretive assertions…but this Fairmont solution has to be right.
Collectively speaking, The Secret investigation, amongst many other things, is plagued by the tendency to deprioritize actual puzzle communication in exchange for less reliable outside information, occasionally from unknown sources with an unknown basis for their claims. We can’t trust a trained communicator to effectively communicate the answer to his own puzzle, while conversely allocating unconditional trust to outside sources four decades removed from the puzzle’s point of origin who regularly question the reliability and completeness of personally reported morsels themselves. We don’t trust Byron…but we trust people who got their information from Byron. Logical. Challenging the legitimacy thereof often inspires thoughts of the modern political landscape or a 1950’s conformity experiment. Don’t believe which line is the longest based on what your eyes dictate…we’ll tell you what the true answer is.
As an additional sidenote, according to John Jude Palencar, who is by some measures infallible and to be trusted unconditionally, creating The Secret: A Treasure Hunt was treated with a level of secrecy comparable to covert government programs. Since John and Byron worked on the treasure hunt portion of the project privately, the basis for anonymous project participants (Gift Giver) possessing crucial information in some cases exceeding what JJP has revealed publicly, is questionable.
While many variations have inevitably sprouted in its wake, I was first exposed to a Fairmont solution from the YouTube video produced by 12 Treasures founder George Ward. If following solution proposals endorsed by the 12 treasures team, a series of definitive patterns emerge highlighting preferential conditions and subjective qualifications at the expense of puzzle elements or unquestionable clue assignments, satisfying expectation over authentic interpretation. Strictly literal or “simple” interpretations…check. A verse path of limited physical distance…check. Identifying an isolated collection of compelling yet superficial matches while ignoring a significant portion of the puzzle…check. Justifying interpretive shortcomings through a range of excuses that indirectly implicate the incompetency of a Stanford graduate, professional communicator…check.
Secret Service
The primary basis for this proposed Fairmont solution has little to do with Byron’s puzzle, but instead hinges upon three outside statements that can easily be misconstrued, taken out of context, or prove unreliable considering 40 years of separation from the point of origin.
For clarification before moving on, I am likely qualifying an “outside source” differently from most investigators. By my definition, the word “outside” signifies any information communicated beyond the verse and the image, or any source other than Byron himself. While we can certainly characterize an individual like JJP as an “insider”, we must also recognize the inherent limitations of any input. He doesn’t know where the treasures are, cannot solve the puzzles himself, was wrong about Fenway being involved in Boston, has forgotten many of the clues revealed to him, and didn’t have all related information in the first place. Anyone other than JJP or an individual in possession of Byron’s written solutions will undoubtedly have less information than this since Byron and John worked independent of all other Secret book content creators.
The first extracurricular clue we have comes from Sandra Mendelson, Byron’s wife, placing him at the Tonga Room during a pre-marital date with something to “bury”. After a 15 minute intermission Byron returns. While many, including Fairmont solution investigator and apologist George Ward, take this telling purely at face value, a series of questionable details compromise an otherwise spellbinding premise. There exists an extremely strong possibility that the Tonga Room rendezvous and subsequent casque burying episode are two entirely separate accounts, inadvertently joined through miscommunication and wishful thinking. This memory mashup is seemingly confirmed in a video interview with Sandra, which appears to have been removed from applicable platforms.
Beyond this, the logistics and dynamics surrounding the timeframe, location, and potential risk of Byron alienating his female companion while MIA for an unspecified amount of time due to any number of theoretical hiccups, compromises the likelihood associated events are being accurately recounted. Would Byron risk soiling presumably nice attire playing in the dirt? If considering a temporary wardrobe swap, where would he have changed, and how long would that take? Since the theoretical burial site was behind the same building where his date occurred, at the mouth of a parking garage and surrounded by security cameras in present day, would Byron risk being spotted or recognized? Would there not be a considerable amount of traffic on city streets during Tonga Room operating hours, leaving him exposed? What if he got arrested? Could he really not bury the casque before or after the date?
Secondly, it is reported that Josh Gates received insider intel from an un-named individual assigning a high level of importance to the letter “F”. Well…lots of things start with the letter F including but not limited to: Fulton St. bordering Golden Gate Park, Filbert St. at Coit Tower, or a location bordered by Fell St. revealed in Byron’s true San Francisco solution.
Thirdly, when a San Francisco casque recovery was initially reported in 2019, later proven to be a hoax, Secret artist John Jude Palencar (not officially named but highly suspected to be the “insider” in question based in large part on text screen shots) excitedly confided in Shhh The Secret Podcast founder John Michaels, speculating that the “Fairmont clue” must have been discovered. This single statement has “tainted” the “imaginations” of many overeager enthusiasts, prematurely asserting an elevated degree of importance for a potentially complimentary inclusion. Perusing the totality of known puzzle inclusions, clues serve a wide range of purposes with varied levels of importance. Visual clues specifically can serve to identity a city, indicate a specific area or neighborhood, serve as a geographic marker on some level, reference applicable context often of historical implications, reinforce verse applications, or offer misdirection.
“He would ask me to do things without telling me where the, where the treasures were.”-John Jude Palencar, 14:43
In this regard, the so-called “Fairmont clue” factually exists on a theoretical scale of variable importance or implication, and could easily have nothing to do with a casque location or possibly even be unrelated to verse instruction altogether. By his own admission, JJP is often unaware what purpose visual inclusions even serve. For this same reason he believed wrongly that Fenway Park was involved in the Boston case prior to the 2019 find at Langone Park in Boston’s North End. Imagine for a moment receiving a pre-casque JJP special referencing the Chicago Water Tower in image 5, the The Soldier’s and Sailor’s Monument referenced in image 4, or Boston Pops in image 11. What would these hints have told us about the associated casque locations…nothing, it would have told us essentially nothing.
Are these things worth investigating…sure. Do they HAVE to mean what people want them to mean, even when highly respected community members or Secret book creators are involved and convey unwavering conviction…no, absolutely not. Let the evidence be your guide rather than anonymous sources, contextually questionable statements, or emotionally motivated belief.
Without these additional statements, how is the puzzle itself getting you to The Fairmont Hotel? Based on one insignia and a handful of common environmental elements?
The primary basis for our starting position is randomly choosing one door surrounded by stone from a selection of countless and equally unprovable alternatives. While the stylized letter “F” appearing in the image is a compelling match for the Fairmont Hotel’s past insignia, tying it specifically to our starting location as opposed to being led there later in the interpretation appears unwarranted, lacking a preponderance of puzzle-based evidence to justify such a conclusion.
Credit: The Secret: A Treasure Hunt, modified
At face value, isolating a specific door in a building featuring numerous doors all surrounded by “stone” fails to authenticate the verse, especially considering that doors at the Fairmont found along “Mason” St. are disregarded entirely. I anticipate that some will attempt to defend this interpretation on the basis that our door in question is specifically surrounded by stone pieces rather than concrete or another masonry material made from stone. However, the Chicago solve set the precedent that “stone” can absolutely mean concrete with the “Where M and B are set in stone” interpretation at the Theodore Thomas Orchestra Hall.
The air smells sweet
The door in question once led to a confectionary restaurant reportedly called Blum’s Sweet Corner. It is reported by hotel staff that a kitchen vent would emit the sweet aroma of chocolates, treats, and pastries in the immediate area. However, according to limited online sources, all San Francisco area Blum’s establishments shuttered their doors in the 1970’s, well before Byron began assembling his puzzle. Despite this, it is not outside the realm of possibility that an alternative sweet shop occupied the same space in the early 80’s or perhaps this information is simply inaccurate. If anyone has additional information in this regard, please see the contact page.
An additional point of contention arises when integrating the Japanese translation clue for verse 7 line 2, which implies that our mystery scent is not related to “taste”. If taking the JT at its word, this sweet shop possibility is eliminated. For the record, George Ward has openly criticized others for disregarding JT clues which seemingly compromise a preferred theory.
Within a few hundred feet from “stone wall’s door” are three wooden flag poles at the Stanford Court Hotel. While this interpretation generically satisfies both the verse and the JT clue confirming posts of wood material, the rather ordinary “height” from ground level leaves something to be desired. From pavement to finial the approximate maximum distance spans 30ft, well shy of many other post or pole heights in the area, making a definitive differentiation between these posts and other posts questionable at face value.
Thus far, this Fairmont Hotel solution leans heavily on superficial, inconclusive matches easily achieved at countless alternative locations.
Education and Justice
For all to see
The use of “Education and Justice” serves as one of the better clue interpretations in the entire proposal, applied once again to the Stanford Court Hotel. Stanford, as the name of a prestigious college, represents “education”, while the word “court” obviously alludes to the justice system. The appearance of a capitalized letter “J” in justice signifies the presence of a proper noun, authenticating the application of a hotel name. The American flag does make an appearance in the group of three, tied directly to the Pledge of Allegiance through “Justice/For all..” These connections provide compelling reinforcement for our “high posts” application.
The line 5 JT clue provides further support, confirming that “Education and Justice” should be associated with “Not far away” despite their separation in the verse by “High posts are three”. However, one could argue for an air of suspicion surrounding this inclusion. There is certainly nothing unprecedented about two lines back-to-back being related to one another. In this respect, what is the JT clue telling us that couldn’t be assumed naturally? Why would we be told that “Not far away” relates to “Education and Justice” if the “high posts” get us to the same place? While certainly not definitive, something seems off about that.
Sounds in the sky
Near ace is high
Roughly another 100 feet away across the street would have been the KSFO radio station, qualifying as “Sounds in the sky” and conforming accurately to the JT clue. Around the corner, north bound on Powell St. was the “Flying A” parking garage, complete with a winged letter A insignia. While having wings and being high are not mutually exclusive conditions, the indirectness could be excused depending on evidence that follows. It should also be noted that the tag line for KSFO was “The sound of San Francisco”.
Because “ace” takes us to the parking garage sign, we find ourselves at the casque location halfway through the verse. While a similar dynamic works perfectly fine in the Chicago case, the proceeding four lines of verse 7 are rendered entirely unfulfilled and arbitrary despite referencing extremely specific conditions and instruction.
Running north, but first across
As previously alluded to, based on our geographic position after ace is high, we have arrived at the assumed casque location four lines ahead of schedule. Instructing northernly travel at this juncture is both redundant and confusing as we could be easily led away from our intended destination. There is no apparent justification for crossing anything nor a relevant appearance of a “cross” before traveling north, which alternatively must serve a clear purpose.
A Cable Car in San Francisco, California, USA
In the case of our Fairmont solution, loose justifications are applied implicating either the cable car running north on Powell, or crossing the street on California St. from Stanford Court. These proposed applications present numerous interpretive shortcomings, failing to clearly and convincingly lead through indisputable human communication as opposed to leading ourselves to a pre-selected destination. From a directional standpoint, the KSFO application already has us on the north side of California, while the Flying A parking garage directs us around the corner and up to the assumed burial site. Why do we need directions telling us to do something we’ve already done? Does this reflect a highly educated level of communication from a Stanford University graduate?
While we could potentially argue that KSFO and Flying A are seen across the street from Stanford Court on the south side of California St., while subsequent instruction has us cross California going north on Powell toward Flying A, we could alternatively question being on the south side of the street if beginning at stone wall’s door. If we don’t proactively cross the street when identifying KSFO and Flying A from Stanford Court, then why cross the street when identifying Stanford Court in the first place. Are we being prompted by Byron or ourselves?
As it relates to the cable car system, many things generically run north, while “first across” has no logical or conclusive remedy. There is certainly nothing super extraordinary about finding cable car elements in San Francisco. This represents a classic case of leading ourselves while chasing subjective preferences as opposed to “solving” anything, and assuming Byron made half-hearted, intellectually incoherent puzzles.
In jewel’s direction
Is an object
Of Twain’s attention
“I don’t even think Twain matters.”-Brett, 1:00:27
All three of these lines are oddly assumed unimportant and left unconvincingly applied, despite containing specific qualifiers and a purposeful structure. The object of Twain’s attention…maybe it was a steamboat barely distinguishable to the naked eye a mile away. Its simply a guess without clear supportive evidence or a hypothetical purpose for its inclusion.
During the podcast episode entitled Six Years in San Francisco, Matthew Sparks speaks on hypothetical Mark Twain applications. While in one breath claiming there is an “obvious one” visible from the intersection of California and Powell, Sparks continues to say there is no “obvious” Twain association to the verse in general because Mark Twain references in San Francisco are everywhere. In addition to the blatant contradiction, this mentality represents a fundamental flaw of logic regarding interpretive efforts, needlessly perpetuating an air of ambiguity. In reality, an abundance of hypothetical options are effortlessly nullified through competent, professional communication. Byron’s puzzles are only as ambiguous as the user decides they are. When we decide to start looking for clear answers…we’ll find them.
Brett of the podcast team at one point suggests that the “jewel” referenced in verse 7 cannot allude to the casque because the associated gemstones are not physically within the casques. However, this assertion neglects language from verse 12 that refers to the casque as a “treasure holder” despite containing no treasure, while later alluding to the “jewel casque” despite the casque containing no jewel. This precedent leaves the door wide open for “jewel” to mean the casque which earns the finder a jewel.
“I think its telling you to go in a direction you’re already going…We just skip over it”-George Ward, 1:00:32
If “jewel” in this case refers to the Fairmont Hotel aka “The jewel of San Francisco” as suggested in the podcast, then Byron’s instruction is rendered incoherent with an unintelligible sequence of events. We are apparently being led to something we are already at, with the presumed presence of a steamboat one mile away representing the object of Twain’s attention…while standing beside the location we are supposedly being led to. Logically, if we are facing north, standing beside a building immediately to our left, that building’s “direction” would be west…not north. In this regard, “jewel’s direction” cannot be north.
Giant pole
Giant step
To the place
The casque is kept
Giant pole is said to be a commonly sized flagpole found at a higher elevation on top of the Fairmont building complex, while giant step is simply stepping onto a narrow planter (by unofficial estimate appears less than 2ft wide), difficult if not impossible to traverse if filled with plants, as appears to be the case for at least the majority of the last 18 years. While the book discourages physical investigation of dangerous locations, the planter in question increases in height as Powell St slops downward, reaching a maximum 20ft height at the Sacramento intersection. Beyond the questionable logistics of burying the casque at this location, balancing on a narrow, privately owned brick planter even 6ft off the ground sounds like a liability nightmare an educated individual of reasonable aptitude would likely avoid.
Based on this solution proposal, sixteen verse lines take us less than 400 feet. While this fact alone is certainly no deal breaker, it should be noted that both the Chicago and Cleveland cases have significantly longer verse pathways despite containing fewer lines, which is suspicious. Verse 3 for the Boston case, which has two additional lines compared to verse 7 for San Francisco, takes us roughly 2.5 miles, representing a considerable discrepancy between the two cases.
Credit: Google Maps, modified
In addition, if applying a standard of relative uniformity between known solutions and theoretical ones, none of the confirmed solves involve a verse interpretation encompassing less than a quarter mile, let alone less than a tenth of a mile. This qualifies as one of many characteristics of this Fairmont solution that deviate from trends amongst the three confirmed solutions, for those who follow such a standard. What is interesting to me is that generally speaking a mentality of inter-case uniformity is asserted for supporting verse pathways of limited distances, while simultaneously deviating from perceived “trends” amongst confirmed cases is inexplicably justified, representing a contradictory standard of investigation.
An attempt is made by the podcast team to excuse numerous puzzle omissions based on what they perceive as a similar condition in other cases, such as Chicago. Looking at Chicago specifically, the quality of that solve is entirely different from a Fairmont solution. Many image elements are indisputable and interconnected with verse concepts. The verse is decoded in a coherent, linear sequence. The primary line of verse 12 that was misinterpreted, “Where M and B are set in stone”, is retroactively confirmed through accurately identifying proper nouns set “in” stone rather than common nouns mounted on stone, coupled with proximity to the Great Lakes Fountain depicted in image 5. While it may be fair to note that isolated discrepancies are not necessarily grounds for immediate dismissal, we must also adhere to standards introduced by Byron for discerning right and wrong answers. It is important to distinguish how the puzzles are designed versus how they are applied by the user.
Image 1
Credit: The Secret: A Treasure Hunt
What is striking about this Fairmont solution proposal, not unlike many prominent Secret “solutions” in general, is a relative disregard for visual elements within the image beyond a handful of random, circumstantial matches assigned contestable values. There appears to be not a single visual element that directly validates a verse application, unless we count matching squares on the woman’s sleeves with square vent holes at the parking garage, appearing with a greater number of rows present than the image 1 representation.
Visual elements convincingly authenticated in alternative solution proposals, namely pertaining to Golden Gate Park, are inexplicably unaccounted for when isolating the Fairmont as our primary suspect. These omissions of convenience include but are not limited to the following:
-the woman and her crossed arms
-the GGP depiction on the woman’s gown and bordering roman numerals
-the dragon
-the dragon attacking or biting the roman numeral two
-barred window/door
-alarm clock
-strawberry depiction
-any number of more subtle details
The sparce collection of attempted image matches we do have are predominantly superficial and circumstantial in nature without any method for in puzzle validation beyond blind, dime a dozen associations.
To loosely justify the presence of Abraham Lincoln’s silhouette within the rock faces of image 1, it is pointed out that heading west on California from Powell St. “dead ends” into Lincoln Park. Although technically true, at more than four and a half miles away and serving no purpose beyond generic existence, the significance is questionable at best.
Conducting a casual scan of the San Francisco area on Google Maps, numerous locations brandishing the Lincoln namesake are found, including but not necessarily limited to Lincoln Park, The Lincoln Park Steps, The Lincoln Park Golf Course, Lincoln Blvd, and Lincoln Way. Because a circumstantial Lincoln inclusion can be effortlessly attached to countless theoretical locations, the mere existence of Lincoln Park intersecting the same street 4.5 miles away fails to signify compelling evidence.
Applying this Fairmont solution, the image 1 side table with rose and clock offers an extremely odd, eclectic assembly of devices seemingly without a clear, coherent relationship. The side table itself represents a street car and turn table respectively. The rose signifies Angel Island as a generic geographic match inline with Mason St. yet found 4.5 miles away, while the stem forms a stylized letter “F” for Fairmont, matching the hotel’s official insignia. Whereas the curious assembly of objects seemingly conveys a specific, cohesive narrative on some level, the Fairmont solution neglects this likelihood entirely.
Credit: The Secret: A Treasure Hunt
Visual connections beyond these are in sparse supply and equally as circumstantial, if not more so. The arched outline of image 1 overall is connected to arch windows at the Fairmont, the grille pattern of which vaguely resembles the woman. Mountainous background rock formations are oddly characterized as “knobby hills”. Beyond what the video proposal presents, vertical supports from the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge, seen clearly at a distance from the intersection of California and Powell, emulate the roman numeral ten with missing horizontal member seen in image 1.
Fairmont Solution Pros:
-A handful of flashy, accurate matches, most notably Stanford Court as “Education and Justice” and “Sounds in the sky” as the KSFO radio station
-Inclusion of the letter “F” at the casque site in concordance to insider intel
-Inclusion of the Fairmont Hotel in concordance with a JJP text message referencing a “Fairmont clue”
-A compelling match between the rose stem and the 1980’s Fairmont letter F insignia.
-Possible association between a Byron/Sandy Tonga Room rendezvous and a casque burial, although the details surrounding this account are regularly contested and highly suspect
Fairmont Solution Cons:
-Four entire verse lines left unconvincingly applied
-Failure to conform with the line 2 JT clue
-The strong possibility that Blum’s Sweet Corner was already gone in 1981 based on online sources
-One generic stone wall’s door amidst a sea teeming with comparable candidates
-No attempt at explaining a diverse collection of specific visual references to Golden Gate Park in image 1
-The significant collection of image devices rendered entirely unutilized
-Visual connections to verse concepts consistently absent
-General lack of interconnectedness amongst clues for in puzzle validation purposes
-A normal sized flag pole at a higher elevation does not qualify as “giant”
-A narrow planter on private property consistently teeming with vegetation while increasing in height with each step up to a maximum of 20ft is not only logistically unadvisable for burying a casque but potentially dangerous
-No explicit casque site immigration
-No apparent Litany of the Jewels application
-No indisputable Mark Twain inclusion
-Unimpressive visual matches to commonly found things such as arch windows and street cars
-A heavy reliance on outside sources of information while ignoring a significant portion of the actual puzzle
-Investing a considerable degree of trust in accounts roughly 40 years from the point of origin while neglecting to trust the puzzle itself to competently and coherently communicate an answer
-Lack of compelling “wed line”
-Instruction applied redundantly and out of order
-A 400ft verse path based on 16 lines, significantly disproportionate to known solves
Conclusion
Despite proponents intellectually elevating this Fairmont solution as a superior proposal, it remains riddled with flaws, inaccuracies, directional incoherencies, convenient omissions, inclusions without purpose beyond existing, assertive clue assignments or pure guesses without in puzzle validation, and subjective decision making predicated upon an artificially determined destination. For the record, George and the podcast team do acknowledge in one form or another many of the numerous shortcomings for the Fairmont solution, but in most instances nonchalantly excuse them away.
In many respects, attempting to prove the validity of asserted puzzle dynamics, namely an erroneous and subjective requirement for “simplicity” in someone else’s puzzle, takes precedent over accepting whatever Byron did or didn’t do while determining those choices decisively prior to casque retrieval.
To answer GW’s initial question of “why the **** aren’t you people looking closer to the Fairmont?”, its because Byron’s puzzle doesn’t tell us to. Why is it the one who created these puzzles receives the least amount of trust when it comes to solving them? That’s the more relevant question to ask. Worry less about what JJP or GG say, and instead worry about what Byron said. His puzzles…his clues…his answers. These puzzles are competently designed by a Stanford communications graduate to be solved without outside interference. Believing anything else renders these puzzles virtually unsolvable.
The irony of a subjective desire to unearth “simple” and “literal” clue interpretations is the subsequent series of complications it yields as a result. Without a definitive method for vetting right and wrong clue applications, anything and everything is on the table. Doors encased in stone material are found everywhere. Wooden posts are found everywhere. Institutions or references thereof related to education and justice are everywhere. Sources of invisible sound waves are everywhere. Cable cars or street cars in San Francisco are everywhere. Twain references in San Francisco either interpretive or overt are everywhere. Arch windows are everywhere. Rows of squares are everywhere. Average sized poles characterized as “giant” are found everywhere.
Taking elements at face value with no definitive in-puzzle validation makes these puzzles infinitely more difficult if not impossible, if that is how they are truly designed. Finding a six inch box in the ground is hard enough with a definitive ten square foot search grid let alone if the “possibilities” are “endless”. Why is it that “simplicity” requires treating the puzzle as if it were not a puzzle at all?
Arguably the most consequential, lingering question generated by this proposed Fairmont solution equally applies to virtually every unconfirmed proposal ever assembled: are the puzzles designed for discerning right and wrong answers? If they aren’t, then its no big deal to arbitrarily rearrange verse line order, blindly assign common environmental elements at face value to puzzle concepts, disregard the necessity of in-puzzle clue validations through interconnectivity, skip words, skip entire lines, or ignore and manipulate puzzle information to any individually determined level, applying any combination of these tactics to satisfy preferences and expectation subjectively leading to a contrived destination. Shouldn’t the inability to confidently and objectively apply FOUR LINES disqualify a proposal from contention? If the above strategies are valid, how are we supposed to know an answer is wrong? By digging thousands of holes? Why would we rather dig random holes then listen to explicit instruction?
Conversely, if the puzzles ARE designed for discerning right and wrong answers…then what in the WORLD are we doing?
Leave a Reply