(Q - nlc: it's fascinating when we hear you speak, we have the impression that in the evening we're going to pick up the book again and everything will unfold easily, logically, in a simple, calm manner, but
actually...)
MB : what is certain is that through the words you are making at this very minute, you are putting things into perspective, and that is my objective, to help you put things into perspective, to say that indeed can -maybe I'm going too far, that's what you're doing by saying that.
(Q - nlc: so this is what I've been doing for a long time, since I told you earlier that I've been stuck in 470 for years, precisely to avoid going too far in delirium, I'm just looking for a simple and effective solution that suits me)
MB : for me my role is complicated, you understand that I am speaking to people I don't know, a lot of people who don't speak, who don't want to talk, they are just listening, I know that very well, and consequently, my words have a scope that I absolutely cannot control, are intended for people I do not know, and I try to help a little everyone, but I cannot do more, it is impossible.
(Q - nlc: but you've already done a lot, it's a fabulous help...)
(Q - ??: we understand what you mean Michel, that is to say sometimes you shouldn't look for noon to two p.m. in the riddles, but the problem for us is when we have to search at noon at two o'clock and take things simply, that's the problem because I think that there are moments in the hunt where we have to use technique, shall we? tell tips...)
MB : tricks for sure, tricks are needed but the more you advance in the game, the more tricks are needed. I think that the initial path is relatively accessible, afterward it's true that the more we advance, the more it takes, it takes cleverness, cleverness and imagination, they're 2 different things.< br /> Intelligence and creativity are 2 different things, you have to balance all that, you have to not get carried away like a supersonic rocket and take off in theories on multiple levels,...
(Q - ??: you confirmed that in 25 years of hunting, all the solutions had, at one point, been suspected, so on pages we could cross-reference the solutions, we are agree with that?)
MB : yes solutions or good elements of solutions in any case.
(Q - ??: things that allow access to the real solutions of the puzzles?)
MB : yes I think so.
(Q - ??: so all the tips have been covered, there are no traps, no blockages, where a little tip is missing somewhere, which would somehow, which would unlock everything ?)
MB : which is funny, in what you tell me, no there is no specific blocking, so I read on other forums that I am completely naive and that I cannot understand because I do not I haven't done the researchers' route, so I can't figure out where the blockages are, but I like being taken for an imbecile, that ultimately gives me an advantage.
But that being said, there is no specific blockage, there is the fact that, for many years, theories have been established and have flourished, which was not the case at the start of the hunt, we must never forget it, but then we had the Internet, at the beginning it wasn't much, but now we have blogs and social networks and therefore theories can be published, argued, shared, and we have the famous "likes" who come to say "I agree with you", so each time we support a theory, and there is not one that is correct, there is no isn't one correct from A to Z, otherwise the Owl would have been found.
(Q - ??: when you talk about theories it's enigmas, really a sequence of enigmas, is that a theory for you?)
MB : yes and the more assertive and self-confident people are and I can tell you that the more they screw up, it's impressive to see. So there are good pieces, bad pieces, completely vague theories, completely hallucinatory interpretations and there is not one who has put it all together.
Except that these theories are, how am I going to say this, it's for example the problem with Wikipedia. It's a double-edged tool.
If you look at the Wikipedia for the Golden Owl, Michel Becker doesn't exist on it, because the few times someone tried to place Michel Becker, someone else arrived within the next minute to place him. 'to remove. So the Wikipedia Golden Owl is Max Valentin, period. So that means that the information we find on the Internet is all biased, and the theories I talk about, for once I'm not going to quote anyone, I've already made enough enemies, but the theories I talk about , which are clearly visible on the Internet are consulted by everyone and influence everyone.
That’s what’s evil.
(Q - nlc: when the Golden Owl is found there are some who will get slapped!)
MB : they're going to fall on their ass but from a very high altitude, they're going to hurt their butts, I tell you. They're definitely going to fall from a height.
(Q - ??: if we listen to what you tell us, it's ultimately...the Sentinels don't have that important a role and we may have found the Sentinels by having 'other stuff found before?)
MB : you are going to get removed from discord [laughs], you shouldn't say things like that, they're completely hasty conclusions, I never said that! I'm absolutely not saying that! I'm not saying it's simple, that the sentinels this, the Sentinels that. I'm not saying any of that.
I'm just saying that there are established theories that distort players' reasoning, I put myself in the place of someone who starts the game today, who started 2, 3 months ago, I say to myself that it’s still crap. How to get a logical, real, objective idea of ??the game, ultimately it's not even possible.
There are so many litigants, the problem with the game is the litigants, the people who plead their theory, who defend their theory tooth and nail and who publish them, a fortiori, who make it a necessary point of passage somewhere. Everyone has to eat these theories at one point or another.
(Q - nlc: I tell them above all, don't look at other people's tracks, it's the best way to lose your own vision of the game and to be lost afterwards, straight away.)
MB : ah well me, from what I understood, I was able...so it's true that I can't appreciate it because, on the one hand, I'm not a fan of treasure hunts , I don't necessarily have the passion for deciphering puzzles, and what's more, I have the solutions, I had them before I became more interested in puzzles.
But nevertheless, from the understanding that I have of it and for someone who really wants to put his head to the puzzles today, who starts today from zero today, if he is able alone to go on the first 2 or 3 puzzles, he can go much further and I think that he is practically at an advantage compared to people who are... no, not the elders, because they are penalized for life, the intermediaries who are a little bit influenced but not too much, they will have more difficulty than a new person who will actually stay away from all that.
At the limit of quickly examining what was said about the decryptions of the texts themselves, well why not, but then on the way of navigating inside the enigmas and the deductions that are made, there you have to be very, very, very, very vigilant and not allowed to be influenced too much.
Anyway, it's the Rosetta Stone, it's going to happen like that, owl. There is one or one who one day will say, well I think like that, who will get to the end of the thing and say well here I am. and I'm sure that it went under the noses of lots of people who didn't see or didn't want to see, because there are some who don't want to see, moreover ""it's not there are no worse blind people than those who do not want to see"" and it is entirely possible that the person who will find the solution is someone new to the game, it is entirely possible.
The idea which consists of saying, I see it on other forums once again, "yeah they have been looking for 6 months what do you want them to come and explain things to us" and well I laugh.
(Q - ??: that's what you say, it's the principle of false leads, namely that there are things which are admitted to be false leads and which it's not nice to talk about without seeming like...although that's not always the case.)
MB : of course this is not always the case. There are commonly accepted things that are false and supposedly false things that are not necessarily false. And all of that is this kind of ritual that was created and then we have to go through it.
MB : what is certain is that through the words you are making at this very minute, you are putting things into perspective, and that is my objective, to help you put things into perspective, to say that indeed can -maybe I'm going too far, that's what you're doing by saying that.
(Q - nlc: so this is what I've been doing for a long time, since I told you earlier that I've been stuck in 470 for years, precisely to avoid going too far in delirium, I'm just looking for a simple and effective solution that suits me)
MB : for me my role is complicated, you understand that I am speaking to people I don't know, a lot of people who don't speak, who don't want to talk, they are just listening, I know that very well, and consequently, my words have a scope that I absolutely cannot control, are intended for people I do not know, and I try to help a little everyone, but I cannot do more, it is impossible.
(Q - nlc: but you've already done a lot, it's a fabulous help...)
(Q - ??: we understand what you mean Michel, that is to say sometimes you shouldn't look for noon to two p.m. in the riddles, but the problem for us is when we have to search at noon at two o'clock and take things simply, that's the problem because I think that there are moments in the hunt where we have to use technique, shall we? tell tips...)
MB : tricks for sure, tricks are needed but the more you advance in the game, the more tricks are needed. I think that the initial path is relatively accessible, afterward it's true that the more we advance, the more it takes, it takes cleverness, cleverness and imagination, they're 2 different things.< br /> Intelligence and creativity are 2 different things, you have to balance all that, you have to not get carried away like a supersonic rocket and take off in theories on multiple levels,...
(Q - ??: you confirmed that in 25 years of hunting, all the solutions had, at one point, been suspected, so on pages we could cross-reference the solutions, we are agree with that?)
MB : yes solutions or good elements of solutions in any case.
(Q - ??: things that allow access to the real solutions of the puzzles?)
MB : yes I think so.
(Q - ??: so all the tips have been covered, there are no traps, no blockages, where a little tip is missing somewhere, which would somehow, which would unlock everything ?)
MB : which is funny, in what you tell me, no there is no specific blocking, so I read on other forums that I am completely naive and that I cannot understand because I do not I haven't done the researchers' route, so I can't figure out where the blockages are, but I like being taken for an imbecile, that ultimately gives me an advantage.
But that being said, there is no specific blockage, there is the fact that, for many years, theories have been established and have flourished, which was not the case at the start of the hunt, we must never forget it, but then we had the Internet, at the beginning it wasn't much, but now we have blogs and social networks and therefore theories can be published, argued, shared, and we have the famous "likes" who come to say "I agree with you", so each time we support a theory, and there is not one that is correct, there is no isn't one correct from A to Z, otherwise the Owl would have been found.
(Q - ??: when you talk about theories it's enigmas, really a sequence of enigmas, is that a theory for you?)
MB : yes and the more assertive and self-confident people are and I can tell you that the more they screw up, it's impressive to see. So there are good pieces, bad pieces, completely vague theories, completely hallucinatory interpretations and there is not one who has put it all together.
Except that these theories are, how am I going to say this, it's for example the problem with Wikipedia. It's a double-edged tool.
If you look at the Wikipedia for the Golden Owl, Michel Becker doesn't exist on it, because the few times someone tried to place Michel Becker, someone else arrived within the next minute to place him. 'to remove. So the Wikipedia Golden Owl is Max Valentin, period. So that means that the information we find on the Internet is all biased, and the theories I talk about, for once I'm not going to quote anyone, I've already made enough enemies, but the theories I talk about , which are clearly visible on the Internet are consulted by everyone and influence everyone.
That’s what’s evil.
(Q - nlc: when the Golden Owl is found there are some who will get slapped!)
MB : they're going to fall on their ass but from a very high altitude, they're going to hurt their butts, I tell you. They're definitely going to fall from a height.
(Q - ??: if we listen to what you tell us, it's ultimately...the Sentinels don't have that important a role and we may have found the Sentinels by having 'other stuff found before?)
MB : you are going to get removed from discord [laughs], you shouldn't say things like that, they're completely hasty conclusions, I never said that! I'm absolutely not saying that! I'm not saying it's simple, that the sentinels this, the Sentinels that. I'm not saying any of that.
I'm just saying that there are established theories that distort players' reasoning, I put myself in the place of someone who starts the game today, who started 2, 3 months ago, I say to myself that it’s still crap. How to get a logical, real, objective idea of ??the game, ultimately it's not even possible.
There are so many litigants, the problem with the game is the litigants, the people who plead their theory, who defend their theory tooth and nail and who publish them, a fortiori, who make it a necessary point of passage somewhere. Everyone has to eat these theories at one point or another.
(Q - nlc: I tell them above all, don't look at other people's tracks, it's the best way to lose your own vision of the game and to be lost afterwards, straight away.)
MB : ah well me, from what I understood, I was able...so it's true that I can't appreciate it because, on the one hand, I'm not a fan of treasure hunts , I don't necessarily have the passion for deciphering puzzles, and what's more, I have the solutions, I had them before I became more interested in puzzles.
But nevertheless, from the understanding that I have of it and for someone who really wants to put his head to the puzzles today, who starts today from zero today, if he is able alone to go on the first 2 or 3 puzzles, he can go much further and I think that he is practically at an advantage compared to people who are... no, not the elders, because they are penalized for life, the intermediaries who are a little bit influenced but not too much, they will have more difficulty than a new person who will actually stay away from all that.
At the limit of quickly examining what was said about the decryptions of the texts themselves, well why not, but then on the way of navigating inside the enigmas and the deductions that are made, there you have to be very, very, very, very vigilant and not allowed to be influenced too much.
Anyway, it's the Rosetta Stone, it's going to happen like that, owl. There is one or one who one day will say, well I think like that, who will get to the end of the thing and say well here I am. and I'm sure that it went under the noses of lots of people who didn't see or didn't want to see, because there are some who don't want to see, moreover ""it's not there are no worse blind people than those who do not want to see"" and it is entirely possible that the person who will find the solution is someone new to the game, it is entirely possible.
The idea which consists of saying, I see it on other forums once again, "yeah they have been looking for 6 months what do you want them to come and explain things to us" and well I laugh.
(Q - ??: that's what you say, it's the principle of false leads, namely that there are things which are admitted to be false leads and which it's not nice to talk about without seeming like...although that's not always the case.)
MB : of course this is not always the case. There are commonly accepted things that are false and supposedly false things that are not necessarily false. And all of that is this kind of ritual that was created and then we have to go through it.