Why Verse 8 Montreal is not a Compelling Secret Solution

Verse 8 Montreal has emerged as a popular alternative to Lake Park and it’s various iterations despite harboring hauntingly simular inadequacies.  It seems as though, instead of learning from our mistakes, we apply the same ill-fate philosophies and frameworks to a new set of claims.  This is not intended as an insult toward those who have invested considerable effort and emotion into this belief, but rather a stern challenge in the spirit of determining true answers and improving intended successes.

This interpretation perfectly encapsulates the conventional investigative frameworks compromising favorable conclusions.  Superficial and circumstantial matches are applied for the sole purpose of existing.  Generic matches are prioritized while the importance of instruction and communication is unilaterally disregarded.  Exclusive reliance on puzzle communication is frequently exchanged for personal determination.  Discrepancies and flaws are occasionally credited to the perceived buffoonery of an “inexperienced” puzzle maker rather than applied for discrediting an insufficient answer.  The second hand reporting of additional clues, translated from Japanese into English, are allocated priority over the accurate and comprehensive application of actual puzzle elements, despite the authors of that supplemental information cautioning against such action.

As it relates to image 9, prominent visual devices are rendered inconsequential in the majority of cases, remaining either unapplied altogether or unrelated to the specified path.  Image 9 and verse 8 fail to share any unifying elements which “wed” them together, a concept introduced by the book itself. Compelling context clues for a traditional Milwaukee application of verse 8 are ignored, exchanged for radio silence. The primary justification for applying verse 8 to Montreal to begin with is the result of the Japanese translation clues rather than language and instruction from the actual puzzle. 

A considerable degree of effort has been allocated to confirm historical environmental details, while far more accessible points of contention related to reasonable instructive expectations and communication standards remain unaccounted for.  It’s interesting to me; we can gain access to elusive schematics for a random urban staircase for determining the stair count from more than four decades ago, but we don’t attempt to explain why the words at and from appearing in succession fail to accomplish anything beyond basic linear travel or the superficial existence of associated devices.  We can justify the “grand 200” through the one time use of a topographic map indicating the elevation of a winding mountain pathway intersecting with a staircase, but we fail to explain which “3 who lived there” are being indicated by the puzzle.

For those unfamiliar with the verse 8 Montreal proposal, please see this unrivaled document from Matthew Wood accessible from the 12 Treasures Facebook Group Page.  Mr. Wood is a brilliant individual who did everything possible to present this material in a positive and persuasive light, conducting an intensive investigation to that end.  My only wish is that intellect of this magnitude would be alternatively applied for uncovering clearly communicated, undeniable pre-casque answers as opposed to exclusively perceiving positive attributes at the expense of objective analysis, then blaming Byron when interpretive inadequacies are exposed. In so many instances we can’t solve The Secret because intellectual resources are exclusively applied toward justifying preferences.

How we view this proposed solution, or any other for that matter, is all dependent upon what theoretical framework is applied. If applying the philosophy that a true solution should distinguish itself without a casque, that it should be comprehensively indicative of trained communication, that it should behave in a manner consistent with a “puzzle”, verse 8 Montreal fails to live up to reasonable expectations or distinguish itself from Lake Park. Does V8M merely represent one more “possible” answer, or should we rethink what “possible” even means? If there is only one true answer for each case, what do we do with all of the other “possibilities”?  The point is, most “possibilities” are far less possible when the analysis is comprehensive and the investigator is honest regarding faults and omissions failing to exist harmoniously with the qualifiers and requirements of Byron’s puzzle. Hundreds of ideas are not equally “possible”.  Either the puzzles are designed for differentiating right and wrong answers…or there is no discernable answer and we are all just guessing.

View the three stories of Mitchell

It has been recently suggested that the three story building on Drummond Street one block from the George Stephen House once displaying the names “Mitchell-Holland” is an unsuitable interpretation because these names were indicative of a temporary tenant of partial occupancy rather than a permanent identity for the structure. Within this context, it is argued that the three stories do not exclusively belong to “Mitchell” making the word “of” unsuitable for situational dynamics. While I initially found this argument to be an over scrutinization of an otherwise compelling application, I now understand and agree with the logic behind the argument. That being said, the presence of two adequate verse interpretations and an unquestionable image match all within the same vicinity could over-rule an otherwise minor contention depending on the quality of evidence found later in the proposal.

The other question would be why must we “view” Mitchell? This could either amount to generic word choice or purposeful language.

As you walk the beating of the world

This line is interpreted primarily as a result of the Japanese translation clue.  For a proper and thorough analysis of this and other JT clues, please click here. The interpretation is Drummond St. meaning “drum” = “beat” and “mond” being French for “world”. There is however no explanation for why we are viewing Mitchell “as” we walk Drummond. Why must both actions be performed simultaneously according to the verse?

More importantly, why are we taking a Scottish name which means “dweller by the ridge” (or similar meanings, there are several accepted ones), then deriving the English word drum in the wrong verb tense in combination with the French word “monde” missing the letter “e”, to arrive at “drumming of the world”? I have seen investigators go as far as to say that this is a “context clue” for Montreal in verse 8, which is factually unsupportable.

At a distance in time

From three who lived there

For one school of thought, these lines manifest in an eerily similar fashion to the proto-typical Lake Park interpretation, applying three street signs emblazoned with the namesakes of historical Canadian residents and dignitaries: Drummond St., Sherbrooke Ave, and Dr. Penfield Ave.  Like Lake Park, this proposed interpretation suffers similar issues. 

First, we are already traveling on and have previously applied Drummond St. to “beating of the world” two lines earlier.  A secondary, repetitious inclusion in the verse this quickly raises suspicions but is not a deal breaker. 

Secondly, concluding the interpretation at Dr. Penfield Ave causes us to pass five would-be line interpretations.  The question is, why would we interpret lines five through nine before completing line four?  If each line is designed for the purpose of confirming our path, how does this interpretation of “from three who lived there” accomplish that end?  Why would we even think of looking for an interpretation of line five before completing line four?  Does this make for a “good” puzzle, or poor communication, supposedly from a master’s degree recipient and professional literary publisher?

Thirdly, we can find three applicable cross streets traveling in the opposite direction, with no confirmation from the image which set of names are correct.  Instead of utilizing the “legeater” as our starting point moving northwest to the “Mitchell” building, we can just as easily start with Mitchell, applying the “legeater” as directional validation to the southeast, then utilize Blvd. De Maisonneuve Ouest, St. Katherine St., and Dorchester Ave (currently Rene Levesque Blvd) as our “from three”.  It appears that the only reason we apply three streets traveling in the other direction is the result of where it takes us, rather than verse or image communication.

Investigating more thoroughly would likely result in even more hypothetical applications of our three mysterious residents.  Are we meant to believe that neither the verse nor the painting would clarify which set of names to apply when historical names are commonly assigned to buildings and streets?

In an alternative verse 8 Montreal interpretation, this clue is applied to three historical houses of past residents, where we encounter identical interpretive concerns.  One of the three buildings applied was used previously as our starting position and is already behind us, while the other two are roughly 1500 feet away, further down Drummond St.  As a result of this distance, we once again complete five additional verse lines before resolving “from three who lived there”.

Let’s also consider for a moment whether this passage is meant to illuminate a map clue or an in-person clue.  Finding street names on a paper map in 1982 is not a problem, but three specific buildings in a city full of more prominent structures is highly questionable at best.  So, if we can’t see the product of this interpretation in person, and we can’t see it on a map, how are we expected to move forward? 

Just like Lake Park, we have no reasonable explanation for “at a distance in time”.  If these lines are only identifying past residents of Montreal/Quebec/Canada, the word “lived” conveys the same information more concisely.  Why bother including this line at all? 

At a distance in space

From woman, with harpsichord

Silently playing

Most proposed solutions unilaterally neglect sentence structure and literary devices in leu of making generic face value matches equally applicable at countless alternative locations.  In this regard, we have two sets of the words “at” and “from”, with no explanation for their inclusion.  Their usage implies a uniform dynamic, differentiating a general location we are already “at”, and a subsequent point of reference to leave “from”.  Rather than conforming with this linguistic system, we instead generically make superficial matches while continuing straight along Drummond.

What these three lines supposedly represent is an art museum, found two blocks away, with a painting inside, collectively serving no purpose beyond existing.  In theory, we travel to the museum for the sole purpose of finding an obscure painting within its walls, returning to our point of origin and continuing in the direction we were already traveling. While the associated artwork is Dutch in origin, it does not relate to immigration specifically.

There are essentially two possible methods for applying these lines within the specified interpretation.  In one method, the lines simply acknowledge the physical distance from the “woman” at your current position.  However, this interpretation fails to establish a definitive direction of travel exclusively through puzzle communication rather than personal assumption and an intended destination.  While one of the bronze leaf sidewalk markers used for “step on nature” could theoretically provide a directional cue from your current location, you would in theory need to see it from where you are.  The second method would require us to apply the art museum as a point of reference to leave from in order to “step on nature”.  This action would however compromise our intended destination.

We must next negotiate the enigmatic literary structure of a seemingly meaningless device.  Why is “from woman” separated from “with harpsichord” by a comma, suggesting related but separate things?  Why is “silently playing” separated all together?

Step on nature

Cast in copper

These lines represent yet another clue needlessly separated into multiple lines, conversely suggesting separate yet interactive elements.  Supported by the Japanese translation clue suggesting that “nature” should inspire thoughts of a “leaf”, we find “copper” leaves embedded in the sidewalk.  Only copper is a soft material not conducive to active foot traffic, which is why these leaves are made of bronze instead.  While bronze is made up primarily of copper, it is a metal alloy differentiated from copper by physical and chemical properties.

Furthermore, while these bronze markers still exist around Montreal, attributing the associated work to the Charles Duranceau Ltee construction company, they are not currently found on the applicable stretch of sidewalk.  While official documentation proves sidewalk work between Sherbrook St. and Dr. Penfield Ave. on Drummond St. was transferred to Charles Duranceau in 1968, there is no indication specifically where, if at all, a bronze leaf would have been installed.  Please note this documentation indicates transfer of contracted work, not the completion thereof.

Ascend the 92 steps

After following nine lines of the verse roughly 1500 feet in a straight line, we arrive at a staircase.  A profile view of the first several steps and initial landing is reminiscent of the stair-step pattern found in image 9.  However, not only does this staircase currently consist of more than 92 stairs, but official records indicate either 91 or 93 stairs existed in previous configurations. A thorough argument is made for the historical presence of 92 stairs within Matthew Wood’s document, although the point is arguable.

After climbing the grand 200

This clue alone offers a considerable number of red flags.  After ascending the aforementioned staircase, we are subsequently greeted with a lack of navigational clarity inconsistent with our experience thus far.  We are expected to find a second staircase 500ft away not currently in view and unlikely to be represented on a paper map, with no puzzle communication indicating our intended direction of travel.  From our current position, we can travel either right or left down Pine Ave W., take Redpath Crescent, or take Le Serpentine, representing at least four potential options without any instruction or known map marker. 

Traveling NE along Pine Ave. W. eventually leads to the Rue Peel Steps.  It’s not until we climb several hundred stairs that we encounter what is considered the “grand staircase”.  But what motivates our decision to “climb” a random staircase without any in person or map-based prompt alluding to contextual verse or image inclusions?  With much of this proposed solution, action appears motivated based on the destination rather than puzzle instruction exceeding superficial and circumstantial interpretation.

The current set of stairs referred to as “The Grand Staircase of Mount Royal” on Google Maps was installed in 2010.  I can find no conclusive evidence indicating whether a comparable staircase existed in 1981, or when the current name was established.  I see no indication that this feature would be found on a paper map in the 80’s, and no indication of even a current in person marker, although this alone is not proof that this information never existed.

Subsequently, “200” alludes to a 200-meter height achieved at the top of the staircase, that can only be identified through the one-time use of a topographic map.  Based on a thorough examination of applicable Mount Royal locations from Google Street View, there appear to be no elevation markers currently installed.

The question is quite simple: why would a trained communicator expect us to find unmarked landmarks without explicit direction, motivated neither by in person observations nor map-based navigational prompts?  This does not appear indicative of trained communication.

Pass the compass and reach

The foot of the culvert

There is little use debating that unnaturally separating the word “reach” from “foot of the culvert” is anything other than a purposeful choice with a specific payoff.  So what is it?  Verse 8 Montreal fails to offer a meaningful explanation.

And given that we interpret the “culvert” as a culvert bridge, which is an accurate application of the term, what purpose does it serve to identify its “foot”?  How does a roughly twenty-foot, open-ended drainage structure on even ground have a “foot”?

Below the bridge

Walk 100 paces

Southeast over rock and soil

To the first young birch

Combining these four passages into a single set of instructions, we begin our 100 paces below a bridge, traversing a cobblestone pathway quickly transitioning into bare dusty ground leading to a single birch tree within a forest of trees.  This is quite easily the most problematic sequence of interpretations in the entire proposal.  For the record, it is incredibly difficult to objectively critique certain aspects of these instructions without onsite analysis, so take that into consideration.

For starters, an extremely imprecise and informal system of measurement is applied to arrive at a specific tree in a forest filled with trees, without the explicit identification of our starting position.   It may be easy to assume our 100 paces begin the moment we are beneath the bridge, but that isn’t what the verse says.  Why can’t we walk below the bridge then travel 100 paces, especially given the separation of those two lines?  This lack of clarity compromises the likelihood of trained communication.

While the verse identifies a southeast direction of travel, the utilized trail takes us north-northeast for about fifty feet, then northeast for the duration.  This discrepancy is justified with the application of “Montreal directions”, a local directional system resulting from the unconventional city grid alignment that deviates from a perfect north and south, east and west orientation.  The St. Laurence River is used as an initial point of reference signaling east and west, resulting in a roughly 45-degree adjustment.  When practiced, this would mean a thoroughfare like Peel St is considered running north and south, while in reality it runs northwest and southeast.

When applied to our verse 8 Montreal proposal, this would mean our path behind the Mount Royal Chalet beginning at the “culvert bridge” runs due east for about 50 ft, then southeast for the remainder.  Even when applying “Montreal directions”, this interpretation fails to explicitly comply with verse instruction.  Furthermore, why would we apply a customized directional system intended to simplify urban navigation…in the middle of the woods?  If we can’t see city streets or the St. Lawerence River, we have no point of reference.  Justifying the use of a map is a stretch considering the otherwise exclusive use of in person features during this sequence of interpretations.  A paper map in 1981 may or may not even include a minor pathway, and there’s no guarantee it is represented in a perfectly accurate manner.  The far more logical and reliable determinant of direction would be a compass.

If reading the verse “Below the bridge, Walk 100 paces, Southeast over rock and soil”, should we not expect that all 100 paces are southeast and they all occur over rock AND soil?  And yet, neither one is true of this interpretation.  At best, we spend 25 paces or so traveling due east by “Montreal directions”, with the cobblestone paving interpreted as “rock” terminating at a comparable interval.

“First young birch” is offered as the first in a series of birches, continuing with “pass three, staying west”.   This is immediately a concern considering the imprecise nature of a pace. Are we really meant to believe that a pace is applied to arrive at one specific tree in a forest of trees? For instance, if we take 100 paces, and on average our pace deviates by even a single inch from Byron’s measurement, that amounts to more than eight feet of error…in a forest of trees…looking for a tree!!! Of further concern is the unclear starting position from one side of the bridge or the other, further confounding theoretical instruction.

We are reportedly meant to pass three additional birches continuing in our southeast (but not really southeast) orientation, then cut “west” thereafter to yet another birch tree.  But we are once again relying on an informal, urban directional system in the middle of the woods without point of reference when a compass would be more logical and reliable.  Emerging from a forest full of mature birch trees into a clearing, we are flanked by two established birches, confusing which trees to apply in an already convoluted application of the verse. 

Even if our three birches were clearly delineated, how far do we pass the third one before nearly reversing course, and in what direction?  If continuing “southeast”, anything we find to our “west” will be entirely dependent upon the duration of our action.  As revisited ad nauseam, a consistent and unfortunate theme with this proposal is resolving decision-making predicated upon the intended destination, versus strict logical adherence to puzzle language leading wherever Byron decided it would.

In regard to “Montreal directions”, beyond a lack of pointed accuracy and the presence of logistical chaos, are we really just meant to assume Byron employed an informal directional system known primarily by locals in the applicable era?  If this was Byron’s true intent, would he not have determined a way to tell us through his puzzle?  Would Byron not have constructed his puzzle with a greater degree of accessibility in mind versus so specifically accommodating local knowledge?  Can we even be confident he had this local knowledge not being a local himself in a pre-internet era? Is this interpretation…or justification?  

You will see a letter from the country

Of wonderstone’s hearth

On a proud, tall fifth

At its southern foot

We are offered no satisfying explanation for the “letter from the country”.  A series of deep, deliberate cuts are found in the trunk of a tree, theorized as a possible letter “H” for Holland despite looking more like a disproportionate addition sign.

If the proud tall fifth is just another tree, then the words “proud” and “tall” are essentially meaningless.  We are directed to dig at its “southern foot”, once again adjusting for “Montreal directions” without an adequate point of reference, and without indication of precise distance.  Digging anywhere remotely close to the base of a tree is problematic as a result of the roots.

The Image

Like many proposed solutions before it including notable examples such as Lake Park, verse 8 Montreal fails to apply visual devices from image 9 in a compelling, comprehensive, and indispensable format.  In regard to the active solution, we have one strong element at the beginning (legeater), and circumstantial elements in the middle (stairstep pattern) and at the end (exposed truss end on Mt. Royal Chalet).  You can also connect the “golden squares” to Golden Square Mile; the neighborhood much of this interpretation takes place in (although there is another image with a “golden square”).  While there are other characteristics attributed to Montreal in general, there remains an uncharacteristic lack of visual devices applied to the active solution.  This leaves a variety of pronounced devices and more subtle details rendered entirely arbitrary as a result of this proposal.

Context Clues

What context clues from verse 8 facilitate a relevant association to Montreal given no verse is explicitly paired with a municipality?  Alternatively, in support of the conventional verse 8 assignment, the Mitchell family’s historical imprint in Milwaukee is evident to this day.  It should be additionally noted that the words walk, step, and foot, all terms indicative of “walking” as it relates to the Mill-WALK-Key rebus in image 10, each appear twice in verse 8.  In fact, verse 8 is the ONLY verse to contain the word “walk” at all. Is that really just a coincidence?

With the rebus observation in mind, there are several interactive qualities between the painting and the verse which are nullified if verse 8 belongs to Montreal.  The verse says “From woman…” while the painting features a woman.  The verse alludes to a “birch” while the image shows what appear to be four birches depicted in the woman’s cloak, with a suspicious looking sliver theorized to be the “proud 5^th”.  And as alluded to, the image contains a walking stick and the Mill-WALK-key rebus while the verse contains the word “walk” twice as well as two other sets of walking terms. In contrast, can we accomplish anything comparable between image 9 and verse 8?

There is one possible counter argument that comes to mind. Initiating a deductive process, if we connect image 9 to Montreal and happen to find the “legeater”, we subsequently find ourselves one block away from the three story Mitchell building which references the verse. This observation however does not nullify the otherwise vast collection of oppositional evidence.

Immigration

From a quantitative standpoint, Dutch immigration has zero relevance to Montreal.  The one online article I found expressed an extreme lack of Dutch immigration to Montreal or Quebec historically, in stark contrast to other regions of Canada.  From a qualitative perspective, the obscure “three stories of Mitchell” building was previously engraved with the word “Holland”, and the art museum does hold works of Rembrandt and “Interior with a Woman Playing a Virginal” by Dutch artist Emanuel de Witte connected to line 6 of verse 8, although these instances are unrelated to immigration.  The proposed casque location fails to offer any applicable immigration, a reportedly essential characteristic found in all three confirmed solutions.

Verse 8 Montreal Pros:

Verse 8 Montreal Cons:

-Non-existent Dutch immigration in Montreal historically

-No immigrant reference at proposed casque site

-Sparce Dutch references are not immigration related

-No compelling explanation for litany of the jewel clue

-Extreme lack of visual clues along path

-No indisputable method for wedding image to verse

-No meaningful context clues for associating verse with city

-No precise location identified for 6in box in the ground

-Major gaps in direction

-Moving on to verse line 5 before completing verse line 4

-Unconfirmable clue interpretations

-Clues existing without clear purpose

-Decision making based on intended destination versus puzzle communication

-“Montreal directions” applied to unapplicable forest location outside of city grid and not within view of Lawerence River

-No indisputable explanation for “At a distance in time” or “You will see a letter from the country, Of wonderstone’s hearth”

-No explanation for sentence structure or language nuances

-Verse 8 is applied to Montreal because it supposedly “fits better”, while verse 5 is a terrible substitute for Milwaukee

Conclusion

Just like Lake Park proposals, verse 8 Montreal presents a conundrum.  While the prevailing interpretation fails to convincingly establish an authenticated, indisputable answer, an isolated collection of compelling elements seemingly eliminates the probability of a garden variety coincidence.  In other words, verse 8 Montreal is too wrong to be right but too right to be nothing. Why do we have a solution that appears to fit somewhere in the middle?  Could this be a red herring solution?  At first glance, this suggestion may seem completely far-fetched…but is it? Whose puzzle is it?  The “legeater” in image 9 is unmistakable, and we just happen to have a three-story Mitchell building 200 ft away.  At the very least, we know with a high degree of certainty that Byron was at Le Mount Stephan Hotel, regardless of whether we can make a solution work from this location or not.  The chances he knew about the Mitchell building on Rue Drummond are strong.  So, what exactly is going on?  To explore these ideas further, click here.