Golden Owl Clues |
||
|---|---|---|
Super Solution |
Max claims to have been surprised that, less than a year after the start of the hunt, a group of researchers "not even very advanced" understood that beyond the 11 enigmas present in the book, there necessarily existed a 12th for precisely locate the Owl’s cache.
Personally, what surprises me is that it took us so long to achieve this! Indeed, if we put things into perspective, what do we see?
The result is that the 10 riddles appearing prima facie in the book (I exclude B which, as we know, only gives the order) can only provide one area, most certainly by cross-checking plots as explained in the Generalities , but probably also in another way...
The existence of an additional, non-apparent enigma is therefore necessarily necessary to enable the precise location of the cache.
The existence of a 12th enigma having been confirmed by Max, the latter indicated that it is made up of “remainders” from the previous enigmas. The nature of these remains has caused a lot of ink to flow because, on this subject as on others, Max tried to help hunters without giving too direct information.
The remainders are defined (so to speak!) as “elements which remain after decryption”. These elements can result from any part of a puzzle, visual included, but however the visuals are not used in the super-solution: “The visuals as such participate in the puzzles, but they are not “leftovers”. ” of the decryption. However, the super-solution is made up of leftovers from the decryption... QED » The nature of these elements, which is apparently always the same, can be understood, depending on the insight of the researcher "after five to six puzzles, playing it safe,” according to Max.
Some puzzles contain no remainder (this is the case for B ), others contain one, still others contain several.
We can therefore summarize the procedure to follow as follows:
The super-solution necessarily consists of words and/or abbreviations or symbols (m for meter or... measure, for example), all forming an intelligible whole allowing hunters to carry out a "course", a path inside the area. This route can be very brief or longer, but what is certain is that it has a starting point that is unequivocally identifiable on the second map, and which will be found more or less in the center of the area, if it was drawn correctly. It could be a calvary, a small monument, etc., subject to what will be said below .
We could have imagined that this starting point would also constitute the “perennial benchmark” (see below ) and that the super-solution would be very simple in form. To take an example from another of Max's hunts, the super-solution could have told us: "Architect's Cross, 15 measures to the North", or even "Archi's Cross 15 m N", which would have been very sufficient.
However, we know from the madits that the super-solution probably includes more than 10 words, which excludes this type of ultra-simple hypothesis. We also know that the researcher arriving in the area will access the cache by a different “route” from the one that Max himself took when he went there, since he then used his personal landmarks, undoubtedly less easy to understand. locate only those which will be proposed to the researcher, who will however have a little more distance to cover to reach the cache.
Max being a practical man, and the route to be carried out on the ground offering no physical or intellectual difficulty, we can deduce from the above that the super-solution will first designate a first unequivocal place (probably a place where the we can easily park a car), then will define the famous “route” using one or more other markers or indications of distance and direction, to lead the researcher, without possible error or hassle, to this which I call the “spot”, that is to say a “mini-zone” of a few tens of square meters in which the “perennial landmark” will be located.
From this final landmark, we will be given, at a minimum, a distance and a direction allowing, probably using the measurement of the hunt (see riddle 780 ), to precisely locate the cache. For example: “20 measures towards S”.
In addition to its obvious characteristics recalled in the book (public land, accessible all year round except in exceptional weather conditions), the land where the cache is located necessarily presents certain rather particular characteristics. These are the ones I will endeavor to describe here.
We know that the land is wooded. It is probably located in a national forest (that is to say belonging to the State) but not necessarily: the municipalities and, more rarely, the departments, are also owners of forest areas, or even simple woods which can be classified as public land. The only wooded lands to be excluded are undoubtedly those forming part of national natural parks since it is forbidden to take all types of samples there and, of course, to dig the soil there (let's also remember that Max had planted a shrub on the cache, a shrub that has since died, see the IS page ).
Here we arrive, precisely, at the characteristic which seems to me the most astonishing and which concerns the predictability of the evolution of the status of this land over time.
The Owl was buried in April 1993. The spot was certainly not chosen at the last minute, it has now been more than 10 years since Max made his decision. However, a forest massif, whether it belongs to the State, a department or a municipality, is alive and exploited. Plots are acquired, others are sold; still others are licensed to private foresters for reforestation purposes; finally others are exploited directly by the ONF, and during this process, the trees are cut down, shrubs are replanted and, to protect them, the plots concerned are fenced off for several years, therefore prohibited from public access. ...not to mention the periodic clearing carried out in all well-maintained forests.
So, when he made his choice, Max had to know, with complete certainty, that the land in which the Owl was going to be buried would not be sold, not exploited, not reforested, not even cleared of brush, in short that everything would remain exactly in place. the state... and this for an indefinite period, but which it is at least possible to describe as long, even very long!
This assurance regarding the future legal status of the land is very surprising. A single circumstance could, in my opinion, guarantee it unambiguously: the fact that the said land was transferred to the public community by way of donation under the condition of maintaining it in its state for 10 or 20 years. Otherwise, I don't see how, in 1993, Max could have been certain that, years later, nothing would have changed in the status of the land, that no exploitation would have entailed a risk of accidental discovery of the Owl , and that the places would still be accessible as they were at the time.
Could Max or one of his relatives have been the owner and donor of this plot?
This is more than a textbook hypothesis, judging by the courteous but firm resistance offered by Max to my questions on the subject, several years ago already, under the pseudonym of Lenormand. Max's words were: “It would surprise me a lot if [this land] was one day for sale...! ", "As for the fact that it cannot be sold, it's obvious because I know it! and "I said in 1993 that the place wouldn't be turned upside down at least until 1997, and probably well after that."
But that's not all... There's even stranger things. The spot is, as we know, innocuous and unremarkable in itself. It is, moreover, isolated enough so that one does not have to fear being disturbed there, even in broad daylight ("If you have any fears regarding frequentation of the site, go there at night. But this is not really necessary, I think..."). However, Max stated on several occasions (and often without being asked) that he would be informed very quickly of an exhumation of the Owl.
Read this: “I will be informed as soon as he [the inventor] has requested the exchange from the bailiff of course. But I have a way to know if the cache has been visited. So far, it has not been. » “I have a way of knowing very quickly if the cache has been hit. » “If anyone touches the cache, I will know within two hours, or the next morning if they go there at night. »
Admit that there is something to be perplexed about! And at the same time, Max affirms: “The site is not under “specific surveillance”. " SO ? What to think? Not under surveillance either, but the author will still be warned within two hours, or at worst the next day? And this, even if the inventor does nothing to manifest himself?
We can of course exclude any autonomous surveillance device such as an Argos beacon or video system (a bit conspicuous!!), whose batteries have been exhausted for a long time. But what then is this mysterious, punctual and seemingly infallible “other means”?
You have any ideas ? Write to me , I will publish your contributions!
--> See this page for PC Junior's contribution put online on February 22, 2004. <--
From a map of France, there are not 36 methods for delimiting an area "the size of a medium-sized town" and "irregular in shape" which we will then transfer to a detailed map to obtain " an enlargement ". The only method (or at least the main method) consists of a series of plots which will define an irregular polygon.
On this subject, Max of course always remained very evasive, but he still provided researchers with valuable information, provided that his statements were correctly interpreted. Thus, he always said that the cache is located “more or less in the center” of the final zone, which is itself “roughly in the middle” of the detailed map. But he also (and above all) spoke of this zone, his own, as an “ideal zone” whose contours could vary, thus making the zone “slide” or “float” in such a way that it could find itself partly on the neighboring detail map...
Now, to what does Max attribute these possible “fluctuations”? To “errors” or “inaccuracies” made by researchers during decryptions. In principle, the argument is admissible, but in practice it no longer holds up. Indeed, the “decryptions” in themselves cannot be “approximately good”; they are accurate, or they are false. Take for example the 420 : either we understand the enigma and we locate the correct landing point for Apollo's arrow (whatever this point may be), or no. But if we don't have the right result, we won't in any case have one that ends up a few millimeters from the good one on the map of France, we will have a completely different one.
The line that we draw on the map of France will then not have the consequence, compared to the scale of the detailed map, of making the area slightly "slide" on this map, or even a little outside, but downright to shift the area by several maps, or even by several dozen, as the field covered by the detailed maps is small compared to the whole of France... I remind you that more than 1600 IGN maps are needed on 1 :25,000 to cover the entire territory!
So, if it is through a sort of abuse of language (and also not to say too much) that Max speaks of errors "in the decryptions", it is indeed that these errors are, not in these decryptions , but in the materialization that we make of it, namely the lines on the Michelin 989. And there, in fact, it is clear that even with a fair solution, the line that we can draw between (to take this example) the starting point (exact) and the ending point (also exact) of Apollo's arrow could be more or less precise... If, moreover, from this line, we draw others, which will in turn serve as references for still others, even the most minimal errors accumulate and multiply with the distance, we can very well obtain, in the end, the kind of phenomenon of “sliding” of the zone that Max speaks of .
The cumulative process that I have just described is even the only one that I can imagine which results in this phenomenon: a good zone in its major contours, but slightly shifted.
What conclusion to draw ? Quite simply an objective confirmation that the area is obtained by intersection of previous lines made on the map of France, and often several hundred kilometers long. In a classic triangulation, three lines ideally determine a single point, but in fact a small “hat” (triangle of uncertainty); in the Owl, we will probably have a “poly-triangulation” which will give the area its appearance, not triangular, but “patatoid”, according to the author's words.
Transferring the area obtained from the Michelin 989 to the most precise map available commercially takes us suddenly from the scale of 1:1,000,000 to the scale of 1:25,000. The thickness of the thinnest line (0.1 mm) seamlessly becomes an enormous highway 100 meters wide! We knew that there could already be cumulative errors of a few millimeters at the 989, and now they suddenly become 40 times greater...! Furthermore, and as if that were not enough, the area demarcated on the map of France does not include localities that we would find on the detailed map, and that we could more or less use to position the area. ..
The 989, whose readability was praised, finds itself strangely devoid of any reference point that can be used to carry out a reliable transposition, on the detailed map, of our area whose contours are already, perhaps, marred by some tracing errors. . What to do ? Transport “at random” from the 989 on the IGN map? That would be very risky and not very elegant! Carry out at least two successive transpositions, using at least one approach map? This would be a source of new errors, and still not very elegant...
SO ? Well, I personally take the bet that there is “direct access” to the area by a sequence of correct solutions to puzzles 600 (which gives the Perched Black Ship), 560 (which confirms the NNP and gives it the name “ Encalminated Nave") and 650 (which gives the Sentinels).
I am indeed convinced that the Sentinels can only be on the second map, as I will try to show on my page 650 . So, the Sentinels being in (or in the immediate vicinity of) the zone, it is almost identified since we know that it is approximately in the middle of this same second map. Traces on one side, confirmation by “direct access” on the other, this in my opinion is how Max resolved the delicate question of the scale relationship.
| Top of page | Continued |
THE LONG-LASTING LANDMARK
This one also caused a lot of ink to flow! The owls gave it all possible and imaginable forms, which I will not recall here since everything (or almost) was considered. I will limit myself, on the contrary, to recalling what we know about it from the madits.
And first, why a benchmark? Well, because the cache itself does not present any remarkable particularity to the eye, it is impossible to describe it, and therefore to identify it in abstracto, but only in relation to something else: the perennial landmark , relative to which the cache can be defined in terms of distance and direction.
Then, why sustainable? Because the Owl had to be designed “to stand the test of time” (at least, within reasonable limits), and it was essential that the ultimate landmark also withstand it. Hasn't La Chouette survived the years, and in particular the terrible storm of December 31, 1999, without Max feeling the need to broadcast any modification or correction whatsoever concerning the final site? This clearly demonstrates that he took sustainability seriously and did not rely on an entity as “fragile” as, for example, a tree, even if it were several hundred years old...
The lasting benchmark is therefore something more durable. Knowing that there is no human construction within 50 meters of the cache but that Max does not want to specify anything regarding the possible entities “sculpted, cut, molded, engraved, worked, cut, chiseled, etc. ", we can conclude that it is an entity of this type which serves as the last benchmark. Max gave additional details: for example, there is no calvary nearby, and among the “human constructions” absent 50 meters around are “kilometer markers, geodesics, walls, signposts, etc. », as well as ruins and tarmac or paved roads.
Once we reach the last marker, how will we identify the cache? Firstly by a distance, and on this subject we know that there is nothing less than 2 meters from the cache, and that it is therefore not backed by anything. It will therefore be necessary to measure a distance greater than 2 meters. It is of course impossible to know this distance, but we can bet that it is less than ten meters. Indeed, Max has excluded the use of a surveyor's chain (which is not an object of common use) and seems, through different answers, to say that a simple string cut to the right length will do the job. case... The distance is therefore necessarily quite short... For my part, I would go for 4 meters, or 12 measurements of 33 centimeters: one per puzzle! :o)
The final deciding factor is, of course, direction. Max has said numerous times, right from the game's inception in 1995, that a compass was "not essential for the game." However, in the middle of the forest, how can we precisely determine the direction in which x meters should be measured from the perennial benchmark? This is impossible to achieve without reliable reference elements, and the only ones the researcher will then have will be those provided by... the reference itself!
We must therefore either admit the existence of a second marker, visible without error (even at night) from the first - and this is a lot for a spot deemed unremarkable in all respects - or conclude that, due to its shape even, the lasting reference will be enough to “point” the researcher in the right direction without any ambiguity. Personally, I lean towards this second hypothesis.
In any case, there will be no need to weigh yourself down with unnecessary equipment: “If you have the super-solution,” said Max, “you know, without a shadow of a doubt, what is necessary to take on site. »
