image 12

[Kang]

XeroDM makes some excellent points. I did not zoom in on the colored square in order to examine microscopic details or find writing.
I was only trying to isolate the colored square - so the the neighboring colors did not distract from the question at hand.

Purple is purple.

Exactly. Purple is purple. But that's the problem.
Purple isn't purple when other people say it's red or maroon.

...And why would a possible solve rely so heavily on the exact colour of an area of an image?...

Because it's part of a larger point I'm working my way towards. This particular 'clue' if we can call it that is not the be all, end all of solving the puzzle. But it's illustrative. That this puzzle appears not to work like the solved ones and how this one may be different.

There's plenty of unexplained images that are easy to see which are more likely to yield results...

Yes they're easy to see but LESS likely to yield results. Because they are difficult to understand. And the 'why' questions may be most important in doing that. It's not that there are no image matches to the tall rectangle. Or a stained glass window. Or a purple square. There are too many. It's like if there were 1000 Bowman statues in Chicago or 1000 Greek Walls in Cleveland. How would any of them with just an image match provide proof you were in the right place? I believe understanding why JJP put these things in the painting is more important than finding a physical object that is a yellow square or a tall rectangle.

The photo process changed the colours (due to lighting, film type, etc.)
The printing process changed the colours (due to the printing process being made of dots, not the actual colour. Also, it's made of only 3 (RGB) or more likely 4 (CMYK) colours, which cannot accurately reproduce the pigment-in-medium that is paint)
The scanning process changed the colours (due to technical limitations of the scanner, the pixel-to-dot offset which causes the moire pattern)
The photoshopping changes the colours (by averaging neighbouring pixels, etc)
Even the saving process changes the colours

You are of course right about all the above things. And there's nothing we can do about any of those. But if we can agree to set aside the question of why would it be important for a moment, since you seem very knowledgeable about these things - do you have any recommendations for how we can discuss the topic of whether the color is purple or maroon? Or are you saying that it's 100% not possible because it's unknowable and therefore moot?

Thank you for your help.

[MERLIN]

Queens NY flag - note the Blue color... https://www.crwflags.com/fotw/images/u/us-ny-q-l.gif

[XeroDM]

XeroDM makes some excellent points. I did not zoom in on the colored square in order to examine microscopic details or find writing.
I was only trying to isolate the colored square - so the the neighboring colors did not distract from the question at hand.

Purple is purple.

Exactly. Purple is purple. But that's the problem.
Purple isn't purple when other people say it's red or maroon.

...And why would a possible solve rely so heavily on the exact colour of an area of an image?...

Because it's part of a larger point I'm working my way towards. This particular 'clue' if we can call it that is not the be all, end all of solving the puzzle. But it's illustrative. That this puzzle appears not to work like the solved ones and how this one may be different.

There's plenty of unexplained images that are easy to see which are more likely to yield results...

Yes they're easy to see but LESS likely to yield results. Because they are difficult to understand. And the 'why' questions may be most important in doing that. It's not that there are no image matches to the tall rectangle. Or a stained glass window. Or a purple square. There are too many. It's like if there were 1000 Bowman statues in Chicago or 1000 Greek Walls in Cleveland. How would any of them with just an image match provide proof you were in the right place? I believe understanding why JJP put these things in the painting is more important than finding a physical object that is a yellow square or a tall rectangle.

The photo process changed the colours (due to lighting, film type, etc.)
The printing process changed the colours (due to the printing process being made of dots, not the actual colour. Also, it's made of only 3 (RGB) or more likely 4 (CMYK) colours, which cannot accurately reproduce the pigment-in-medium that is paint)
The scanning process changed the colours (due to technical limitations of the scanner, the pixel-to-dot offset which causes the moire pattern)
The photoshopping changes the colours (by averaging neighbouring pixels, etc)
Even the saving process changes the colours

You are of course right about all the above things. And there's nothing we can do about any of those. But if we can agree to set aside the question of why would it be important for a moment, since you seem very knowledgeable about these things - do you have any recommendations for how we can discuss the topic of whether the color is purple or maroon? Or are you saying that it's 100% not possible because it's unknowable and therefore moot?

Thank you for your help.

Understandable points all around.
To discus the last point of is it purple or maroon. My point is twofold. 1. We're just not going to decide whether it's lavender purple or off-lavender purple. I am sure we all agree on that, and trying to get that one shade is just impossible due to the process of reproductions. 2. Is it maroon, or purple? Due to the process, your best bet is to not stand too close. The process of printing relies on a thing called optical mixing. You will see it in stippled, impressionist paintings. Lots of little dots laid right next to each other. Stand across the room, and you get a great vibrant colour. Single colour. Stand too close, and you get an array of different colours next to each other. The only way to tell what colour a section of the painting is, is to stand back and look at it. Otherwise, all you see is lots of colours, and you can't tell what singular colour it is. Painters do this, because if you put two contrasting colours next to each other, due to the nature of the colour receptors in the eye (and I won't go into that) the colours seem more vibrant and alive. If you take those two colours and mix the on the palate, you get a muddy brown. The same process occurs with offset printing where you get all these dots that you see when you zoom in.
So, if you ask me... put the book or image at arms length and see what your mind tells you what colour it is. That's what is intended by the printers. Digital images are of course, a different kettles of fish.
As for the image matches, I think it's more important to have a multiplicity of image and verse matches. Yes, there could be 1000 bowman statues, but if 500 of them had an "L" near them, you could rule out 500 statues, and if 250 had 10x13 near them, you can rule out more, and so on and so forth until you know which bowman statue you're looking for. That's what I have been doing. Finding as many matches as possible, then look for supporting other matches, and decrease the importance of anything that isn't supported by other things. I am also shotgunning interpretations, and not trying to rely on one interpretation. Is it a stained-glass window, or is it a colour-blindness test? Or maybe the different shades mean something, or... or... or maybe the colour is important. Who knows? I just want to make sure that we're not running down a line that isn't backed up by a reasonable grounding...
Happy hunting!
X

[renovator]

I just want to make sure that we're not running down a line that isn't backed up by a reasonable grounding...

I agree completely. And the most reasonable starting point that I can imagine is that while some of the puzzles are hard, and some are easy, all can be solved using just the Images and the Verses. As they appeared in the original book (although I'm inclined to think that a resonable reproduction works just fine for those of us who don't own a copy). That's not just my opinion. It's BP's contract with anyone who purchased the book.

[erexere]

I think there is room for consideration that some minor clues may have been lost in the process and a pass was given to the print versions for having good clarity on all major hints and most minor hints. That's just saying the significant clues are all there.

As for the visual synonym content of window sash and robe sash, I think its foolish to ignore whatever reason it has for being there. It surely wasn't an accident. I posed just one idea that the name Sasha could be relevant. It's a popular Russian name. A non name based idea is it functions as a boundary, a frame border for each pane of glass, or it's a loop that makes a good separation of the lower end upper half of the robe. Could be a reasonable case for focusing on a place where a state line, or property line exists, even the fence line of a park, etc. Sashes are used in military or official uniforms too. I think theres some potential to look deeper into this.

[renovator]

I think there is room for consideration that some minor clues may have been lost in the process

Once again, you are making the assumption that BP didn't know what he was doing. Which I reject categorically. There are no minor clues. Only clues. Find them all, and you may be able to find a casque.

[erexere]

It isnt perfect. Milage may vary. We dont know whether it was a degree of acceptability or not involved in moving the project forward. I'm trying to make it clear that we should not assume too much and we might consider some variability in terms of visual detail, or anything that's hard to make out. Subjectivity also varies. If it's good enough detail for just one person to make out, then we are all good, and BP and JJP did know what they were doing. The question is, who is that person?

[Kang]

Thank you XeroDM!

We're just not going to decide whether it's lavender purple or off-lavender purple. I am sure we all agree on that …

Totally agree here.

Given the flaws that we can’t control, here is an attempt to pose my question in a way that attempts to allow for XeroDM’s optical mixing. Without zooming in, is the color represented here (flawed though it is) closer to Purple or Maroon? My proposal is that it’s clearly closer to Purple. Others are welcome to judge and come to their own conclusion.

As for the image matches, I think it's more important to have a multiplicity of image and verse matches. Yes, there could be 1000 bowman statues, but if 500 of them had an "L" near them, you could rule out 500 statues, and if 250 had 10x13 near them, you can rule out more, and so on and so forth until you know which bowman statue you're looking for.. look for supporting other matches, and decrease the importance of anything that isn't supported by other things.

That is a common sense approach. And will work if this puzzle works like the solved ones did. However I propose that approach becomes exponentially more difficult given two apparent things:
1. Nothing in Image 12 that are thought to be tangible objects look exactly like anything in NYC. Examples include The woman in dress, dress lion, stained glass window a fairly generic clock, etc. The firmest one is SOL face and even that one triggers debate.
2. OR – the other items thought to be tangible objects are so generic their matches are too numerous to count. Tall arch, Tall rectangle, Scottish Lion, purple square, yellow square, arch shaped things, 3 water droplets and colored dots.
Given the vagueness of the verses, it’s the same situation. Endless possibilities for ‘matches.’ Slender paths, arms, hard words, whirring, v’s. No Congress. No L sits. No Socrates, Pindar Apelles.

So any theory location using this approach ends up being something along the lines of: spot or path to spot includes a statue that sorta looks like the woman with arms, droning sounds, a tall arch, a tall rectangle near a stained glass window and a clock that contains roman numerals near a v. Which is fine but ends up being a theory that given those things is more or less no more persuasive than 10 other theories doing the same thing with different objects in 10 other spots.

There’s nothing wrong with trying to work the puzzle that way.

All I’m saying is – is anyone willing to consider that the puzzle may just work differently from that? That there may be meaning in the items JJP put into image 12 beyond just what they look like??

Thank you X for your insights and for constructively improving this conversation.

[Kang]

... the most reasonable starting point that I can imagine is that while some of the puzzles are hard, and some are easy, all can be solved using just the Images and the Verses. As they appeared in the original book (although I'm inclined to think that a resonable reproduction works just fine for those of us who don't own a copy). That's not just my opinion. It's BP's contract with anyone who purchased the book.

Agree with you Renovator that it was up to BP to ensure that anyone who bought the book had the information (including information contained in the images as printed) that one would need in order to solve the puzzles. And I for one have confidence that he delivered on that.

However, I disagree that all one needs is image and verse. Can it be done only with those? Certainly. At least for two puzzles for sure. Is it the same for others? As yet to be determined. Is there a difference between what you really "need" vs. information elsewhere that might be "very helpful?" Possibly. I wouldn't argue that. Just my opinion.

[davinci4]

Hi Kang. I would agree that this puzzle could work differently than the others and ‘line by line’ the verses can have a significant amount of interpretations. However, I would argue that the verses do convergence to a single spot when viewed collectively. While I have heard many ideas of the verses discussed here and on the podcast, very few have narrowed it down to a single spot (or perhaps more have and just don’t wish to share it). Regardless, I wouldn’t classify the verses here as “vague” when the ‘whole is greater than the sum of the parts.’ I have looked at theories of Central Park, battery park, Staten Island etc. while they make interesting connections, they fail to connect the entirety of the verse with each individual line.

On a side note, I still can’t believe more people are not looking at south Brooklyn when south of Bedloes Island, Alexander Hamilton and Gershwin are staring you right in the face.

[renovator]

Is there a difference between what you really "need" vs. information elsewhere that might be "very helpful?

Fine. Just keep in mind that you are not arguing with me, or anyone who necessarily agrees with me. You are really arguing with BP, and what he said. And while there is ample evidence to suggest that BP was trying to trick us with his choice of words, there is very little evidence that he ever lied outright. And none, to date, to suggest that this "very helpful" information is actually helpful at all.

[Kang]

You are really arguing with BP, and what he said.

Hi Ren. You're not entirely clear in your messages above but you seem to be saying that BP has said that "All you need is the image and the verse." If I have that right, I'm unfamiliar with this statement from BP or the source of it. Is it from an article/interview or can you point me in the right direction as to the source of this statement from BP?
Thank you!

[BINGO]

Page 34 covers it pretty well.
“Read the book”...

No venom intended. Just having fun.

[NYCNative]

Page 34 covers it pretty well.
“Read the book”...

No venom intended. Just having fun.

Right. Where it says the pairing of the verse and the image will lead you to a casque (*not all you need is those two things). That is not the question. The question is, are there any other clues in the book, other then verse and image, that would help?
Or are we to assume BP created a published a well written and researched allegory, paid the cost to publish it, with the only intention of distracting us from the puzzle and verse?

[BINGO]

”All you need is the image and the verse." If I have that right, I'm unfamiliar with this statement from BP or the source of it. Is it from an article/interview or can you point me in the right direction as to the source of this statement from BP?

My response was directed at that statement only.
I wasn’t answering for Renovator nor was I attempting to address any other topic. I simply answered a question that seemed to contain a bit of irony when asked by Kang.