image 12

[Kang]

Page 34 covers it pretty well.
“Read the book”...
No venom intended. Just having fun.

Touche, BINGO. That was funny. No venom taken. Honest and serious discussion. And an important one I think.

Below is the text from page 34.
It certainly gives the instruction that we are to match an image to a verse.
Can we agree that it does not anywhere say "All you need is an image and an verse?"

It certainly also does not anywhere indicate that image and verse is the only information in the book that is either needed or helpful to solving the puzzle.

So any opinion as to what information is helpful/needed or not needed based solely on this page would depend that person's reading of unstated intentions here. Agreed?

Bottom line for me is - this page does not serve as any evidence that "BP said - All you need is the image and the verse."
So, if BP actually said that - I'd still like to pose the question as to what the source of this quote is." In all seriousness. And without malice. Thank you.

[BINGO]

Again, I have no intention to speak for Renovator, but his comment also makes me think of the quote from Priess that explained that the rest of the book was unnecessary to solve the puzzles. I believe it was reported by the Cleveland guys after their meeting with Preiss.
I may have it wrong, but I do believe there was much debate over the value of that statement and whether it was purposely misleading or fact.

[NYCNative]

Again, I have no intention to speak for Renovator, but his comment also makes me think of the quote from Priess that explained that the rest of the book was unnecessary to solve the puzzles. I believe it was reported by the Cleveland guys after their meeting with Preiss.
I may have it wrong, but I do believe there was much debate over the value of that statement and whether it was purposely misleading or fact.

I kind of remember something about that but if memory serves me correctly, the text that was said to be nonsense was the guide to the fair people. I am not 100% sure though.
Wasn't there an interview or article that spoke to how important the immigration story was to BP? Maybe from the podcast?

[BINGO]

Page 18 of threads.
Thread name: Cleveland
Page 4 in that thread.

5.  B.Preiss was a very good poker player, and was not giving out any hints about any of the other locations.  However, he did confirm my theory that the countries of origin of the faeries do connect with the sites.  He also said that the pages following the verses (which make up the bulk of the book) have NO connection with the puzzles, and contain no additional clues.

[NYCNative]

Page 18 of threads.
Thread name: Cleveland
Page 4 in that thread.

5.  B.Preiss was a very good poker player, and was not giving out any hints about any of the other locations.  However, he did confirm my theory that the countries of origin of the faeries do connect with the sites.  He also said that the pages following the verses (which make up the bulk of the book) have NO connection with the puzzles, and contain no additional clues.

That clears it up nicely, I think.
Gracias BINGO!

[XeroDM]

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.

Purple, and a slightly deeper shade is shown than the one you picked. That's what I see.
Having looked into all of the puzzles (some more deeply than others, I would suggest that you are 100% right in saying that they don't all work the same. There's no way SF and Charleston work the same way. SF has different parks with loads of statues, markers, etc. Charleston has very few parks with these things. SF verse has what can easily be fitted into a single path, point-to-point. Charleston verse has the word "or" used more than once. How can a single path have a "this way" or "that way" in it? Not likely. The pictures have different stylistic natures. SF can be construed as a map, Milwaukee would be almost impossible to find a map in. Boston and SF have a lot of picture similarities, etc.
Each location has a different set of variables in the environment, so the puzzles need to adapt to that. The materials that BP gave to JJP for each picture would undoubtedly have been different because he could or couldn't find maps of locations/ parks, some would not have distinctive buildings nearby, etc.
I have been playing around with making my own puzzles to see how they could have made the Secret, and that's what I have learnt. You can't attack every location the same way, it just doesn't always work with the variables at hand.
Plus... if they were all the same style of puzzle, once you found the formula for one, you have cracked the rest. And the formula has been cracked: Faerie, Gem, flower, clock. These are the constants, but none of these have anything to do with the city. They are laid on top as part of the story. The rest of the "clues" become very inconsistent quickly- Milwaukee rebus stands out as unique...
If the encoding of clues if different, we certainly should be looking at what possibilities were available to BP & JJP and start exploring them. They're all valid as you said!

[NYCNative]

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.

Purple, and a slightly deeper shade is shown than the one you picked. That's what I see.
Having looked into all of the puzzles (some more deeply than others, I would suggest that you are 100% right in saying that they don't all work the same. There's no way SF and Charleston work the same way. SF has different parks with loads of statues, markers, etc. Charleston has very few parks with these things. SF verse has what can easily be fitted into a single path, point-to-point. Charleston verse has the word "or" used more than once. How can a single path have a "this way" or "that way" in it? Not likely. The pictures have different stylistic natures. SF can be construed as a map, Milwaukee would be almost impossible to find a map in. Boston and SF have a lot of picture similarities, etc.
Each location has a different set of variables in the environment, so the puzzles need to adapt to that. The materials that BP gave to JJP for each picture would undoubtedly have been different because he could or couldn't find maps of locations/ parks, some would not have distinctive buildings nearby, etc.
I have been playing around with making my own puzzles to see how they could have made the Secret, and that's what I have learnt. You can't attack every location the same way, it just doesn't always work with the variables at hand.
Plus... if they were all the same style of puzzle, once you found the formula for one, you have cracked the rest. And the formula has been cracked: Faerie, Gem, flower, clock. These are the constants, but none of these have anything to do with the city. They are laid on top as part of the story. The rest of the "clues" become very inconsistent quickly- Milwaukee rebus stands out as unique...
If the encoding of clues if different, we certainly should be looking at what possibilities were available to BP & JJP and start exploring them. They're all valid as you said!

This is well said and I agree with most of it. I think the puzzles are different not only because each location has different properties but also because of the raised level of difficulty (which I am sure has been stated a thousand times). I don't think the verse are more cryptic or have hidden meanings to it. Seems like an over kill to hide a riddle within a riddle. The obvious difficulty comes from the image and how well hidden the clues are. BP's writing is no where as strong as JJP's art.

The games theme is still the same. The tools and methods may very well be the same as well, just in a much different order. I have a suspicion that the day the next casque is found, we will realize we had all the right ideas, all the right clues, and just not in the right order or perspective. I also think time has played a big factor. HOw many of these burial spots are going to look the same 40 years later?

With that being said, I think it is worth exploring the idea that SF and NYC puzzles have some things in common. More specifically, BP put so much emphasis on immigration from the old world to the new. NYC and SF fits his theme better then any other location because of being the two major ports of immigration to America. As many of us have speculate, Image 12 seems to have multiple image clues to Ellis Island and I wonder if that was the same case with Angel Island?

[gManTexas]

The games theme is still the same. The tools and methods may very well be the same as well, just in a much different order. I have a suspicion that the day the next casque is found, we will realize we had all the right ideas, all the right clues, and just not in the right order or perspective. I also think time has played a big factor. HOw many of these burial spots are going to look the same 40 years later?

Having been to many of the sites, it is amazing to me how little has changed in the suspected and actual (Cle-Chi) sites. My take is that either BP chose his locations very wisely, or it is sheer luck that to this day you can still see many of the clues in each location. The issue that I see is that some of the finer details may have changed or have been removed, and this may be the the final casque location clues.

Having said this, NYC is an ever changing, dynamic place. If the casque was buried in a major park that has not undergone significant renovations, then it is probably still obtainable.

[renovator]

My take is that either BP chose his locations very wisely, or it is sheer luck that to this day you can still see many of the clues in each location.

My money is on the former. People like to say that BP figured the puzzles would be solved relatively quickly (a few years at most), so he didn't pay much attention to where he buried them. IMO, this is yet another thing that people get wrong. Have some of the sites changed? Absolutely. Is it still possbile to recover some or all of the remaining casques despite those changes? Again, I'm on the record as saying that all the puzzles are solveable, and that at least 6 of the remaining 10 casques are recoverable.

[NYCNative]

The games theme is still the same. The tools and methods may very well be the same as well, just in a much different order. I have a suspicion that the day the next casque is found, we will realize we had all the right ideas, all the right clues, and just not in the right order or perspective. I also think time has played a big factor. HOw many of these burial spots are going to look the same 40 years later?

Having been to many of the sites, it is amazing to me how little has changed in the suspected and actual (Cle-Chi) sites. My take is that either BP chose his locations very wisely, or it is sheer luck that to this day you can still see many of the clues in each location. The issue that I see is that some of the finer details may have changed or have been removed, and this may be the the final casque location clues.

Having said this, NYC is an ever changing, dynamic place. If the casque was buried in a major park that has not undergone significant renovations, then it is probably still obtainable.

Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't the Chicago puzzle the one that had to do with a row of trees that had no longer been there when the casque was dug?
Yes, a majority of these sites should be fine. Historical parks and sites rarely get demolished, replaced or move. But these little details, like trees, do change. So if all we had to go by was a clue about a row a trees that is no longer there, then it would be easy to say the location is wrong and move on. The casque would still be there, but one or more of the clues might be irrelevant at this point.

[gManTexas]

The games theme is still the same. The tools and methods may very well be the same as well, just in a much different order. I have a suspicion that the day the next casque is found, we will realize we had all the right ideas, all the right clues, and just not in the right order or perspective. I also think time has played a big factor. HOw many of these burial spots are going to look the same 40 years later?

Having been to many of the sites, it is amazing to me how little has changed in the suspected and actual (Cle-Chi) sites. My take is that either BP chose his locations very wisely, or it is sheer luck that to this day you can still see many of the clues in each location. The issue that I see is that some of the finer details may have changed or have been removed, and this may be the the final casque location clues.

Having said this, NYC is an ever changing, dynamic place. If the casque was buried in a major park that has not undergone significant renovations, then it is probably still obtainable.

Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't the Chicago puzzle the one that had to do with a row of trees that had no longer been there when the casque was dug?
Yes, a majority of these sites should be fine. Historical parks and sites rarely get demolished, replaced or move. But these little details, like trees, do change. So if all we had to go by was a clue about a row a trees that is no longer there, then it would be easy to say the location is wrong and move on. The casque would still be there, but one or more of the clues might be irrelevant at this point.

Yes, that is correct, but the Chicago guys had put it together nonetheless. They did get some assistance from BP, but if you look at the map they drew, they were nearly spot on.

Here we are almost 40 years later and we are working with the assumption that some of the clues may be gone, so we can dig in and try to find old photos, etc. that shows areas as they were, to help fill in the blanks.

What is more difficult is finding the little things that may be actual casque location clues. Maybe a light pole, or planter, or wrought iron fence. These things may not have been documented as well.

[NYCNative]

I am just point out the fact that a clue of the Chicago verse was based on something that would not, and did not, stand the test of time. Which just means that is a possibility in others. That is all. So it is possible. Meaning, even if you find a spot and everything fits perfectly but you can not find a v shaped path ( lets just assume for this example) that shouldn't exclude said spot. Make sense?

[BINGO]

To me, that is just a popular excuse.
The sign is gone, the tree was cut down, the statue was moved.
It leaves the possibility of your “solve” to still be correct while having nothing to show for it.
I’m not preaching here, I am speaking from experience. I am just as guilty as anyone who has used this excuse.

It’s usually accompanied by the old “missed it by a few inches” routine. The sooner we can admit it, the sooner the analysis paralysis will subside.

Edit:
Gman’s earlier point is solid. If it was there at one point, there is likely some record of it. Aerial photos, historic park photos, old city plans, family picnic photos, etc.
Don’t use the excuse just because it’s readily available.

[NYCNative]

To me, that is just a popular excuse.
The sign is gone, the tree was cut down, the statue was moved.
It leaves the possibility of your “solve” to still be correct while having nothing to show for it.
I’m not preaching here, I am speaking from experience. I am just as guilty as anyone who has used this excuse.

It’s usually accompanied by the old “missed it by a few inches” routine. The sooner we can admit it, the sooner the analysis paralysis will subside.

For sure I can see how people can use it for an excuse.
What I am trying to get at, and Gman made this point as well, is one missing element of the clues we have been given does not mean that you need to throw in the towel. The reason I am mentioning it is because people seem to look for clues separately to confirm a location, to then do more research on it, which would be tragic if you have the right spot but gave up because one thing did not fit.

[renovator]

which would be tragic if you have the right spot but gave up because one thing did not fit.

Based on my experience here, it's rarely just one thing. If anything, its usually the other way around. People find one or two things that they really like, then build the rest of the solve around that. I'm not saying that's wrong necessarily, but the more that's left open to interpretation, the more likely the chances that the solve is not the solution.