Could this card be from a hoaxer? - 10/27/70 Halloween card sent to Paul Avery

Could this card be from a hoaxer? - 10/27/70 Halloween card sent to Paul Avery https://forum.zodiackillerciphers.com/community/10-27-70-halloween-card-sent-to-paul-avery/could-this-card-be-from-a-hoaxer/ Zodiac Killer Discussion Board en-US Fri, 06 Mar 2026 07:59:56 +0000 wpForo 60 Re: Could this card be from a hoaxer? https://forum.zodiackillerciphers.com/community/10-27-70-halloween-card-sent-to-paul-avery/could-this-card-be-from-a-hoaxer/paged/4/#post-78706 Thu, 15 Oct 2020 01:31:06 +0000 10/27/70 Halloween card sent to Paul Avery sushshaf https://forum.zodiackillerciphers.com/community/10-27-70-halloween-card-sent-to-paul-avery/could-this-card-be-from-a-hoaxer/paged/4/#post-78706 Re: Copycat toolkit sometimes gives and sometimes not? https://forum.zodiackillerciphers.com/community/10-27-70-halloween-card-sent-to-paul-avery/could-this-card-be-from-a-hoaxer/paged/4/#post-78705 Thu, 15 Oct 2020 01:20:12 +0000 I looked at year books for the bay area and was surprised how many Armenians lived in the area. Some nationalities really like their kids to keep their ancestry and insist on their kids not only speaking the language but also reading and writing. I have met both Armenians and Greeks that insist on Saturday school to learn the language. I put Avery into google translate and translated to Greek. Then translated it back to English and it translates as "average". I have wondered if the 340 cipher has not been broken is because it is in another language. This might identify the ethnicity of zodiac.]]> 10/27/70 Halloween card sent to Paul Avery sushshaf https://forum.zodiackillerciphers.com/community/10-27-70-halloween-card-sent-to-paul-avery/could-this-card-be-from-a-hoaxer/paged/4/#post-78705 Re: Could this card be from a hoaxer? https://forum.zodiackillerciphers.com/community/10-27-70-halloween-card-sent-to-paul-avery/could-this-card-be-from-a-hoaxer/paged/4/#post-78704 Thu, 15 Oct 2020 00:31:26 +0000 Right, firstly, this card did not come with a piece of shirt. Let's make that clear. Secondly where is the evidence for the 340 cipher containing paradise / slaves? It has never been decoded properly. Perhaps someone has forced that out of it but that does not mean it's correct! I wondered if his name was paradice. Also I looked at old year books from high schools in the east bay area and was surprised by how many Armenians there were. People from certain ethnic groups really encourage their kids to retain their heritage and not just speak their language but also read and write it. I wondered if the reason that it was not broken was because it was coded in another language. Armenian (and I am not assuming zodiac is armenian) has many more letters in their alphabet than English and those letters are for sounds such as zz of pizza which isn't a sound in English anyway. We know the cipher should contain the word "kill". The Armenian word for kill is "սպանել" which is pronounced spanel. So by using another language it can change those hints that were used by Donald and Bettye Harden.]]> 10/27/70 Halloween card sent to Paul Avery sushshaf https://forum.zodiackillerciphers.com/community/10-27-70-halloween-card-sent-to-paul-avery/could-this-card-be-from-a-hoaxer/paged/4/#post-78704 Re: Could this card be from a hoaxer? https://forum.zodiackillerciphers.com/community/10-27-70-halloween-card-sent-to-paul-avery/could-this-card-be-from-a-hoaxer/paged/4/#post-77154 Thu, 23 Jul 2020 14:13:43 +0000 I agree that he probably wasn't a cipher expert. There's just nothing to support it. The 408 was kids' stuff, the name cipher is a joke, the Bomb code is patently unsolvable, and it seems more likely with every passing year that the 340 is either broken or not a conventional code at all. The time element is a huge reason why I also agree its looking like a failed amateur which happens to go along with some of the other failed amateur stuff the Zodiac did. It's different from mathematical puzzles from the past because we usually know their origins and author. So we have a very good idea of what is going on and even the pathways that usually solve them. Fermat's last theorem is a good example of such a project which was solved by Andrew Wiles (despite some deep error he had to overcome) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermat%27s_Last_Theorem So there are good reasons to keep at unsolved maths puzzles like these. With serial killer's making puzzles and ciphers it is a very different world as we don't even know if they are even serious about it to begin with. Comparable things would be codes sent out in WWII that were meaningless or simply to obfuscate and get the enemy to waste time. The Z340 is probably the world's most well known unsolved cipher. So I can see why Bauer basically put a pause on looking at the Zodiac as anything more than an amateur hack making mistakes. Look at the time element and amount thrown at it. If it was a new case it would be different but 50 years later of the world going at it is a big factor why it's probably a dud. I also like how people seem to be breaking the start of the Z340 and then it goes to pieces after. After all this time that is indicating to me that the Zodiac went to pieces after that point also. Back in the 1960s a serial killer had no good explanation for themselves because the academic work on them wasn't much until the 1980s when they were properly studied. What we notice after the 1980s is that serial killers for the most part somewhat change from behaving like something out of Hollywood (dressing up in a costume and mask to kill for example; leaving messages at the crime scene) or copycatting other series killers of the past and describing themselves like characters from various entertainment throughout the ages. This is because they are also learning from the studies. Forensic awareness is also forensic psychology awareness. They realize they don't need all that old stuff to explain themselves. Therefore it is not surprising that the Zodiac case being so old would display more of that earlier serial killer lack of knowledge and grabbing at explanations from Hollywood and history. The Zodiac for all intents and purposes is just trying to emulate "The Riddler" from Batman but turned out to be really bad at ciphers despite thinking he was good at them. He obviously was trying them though. I mean it isn't exactly very smart to be a Riddler type nemesis who is actually bad at even constructing riddles let alone how the answer is functional. That's sort of embarrassing. Hence the Dr. Marsh challenge. In the end we get... Sorry no cipher

Read the front of the Halloween Card which seems to be addressing the challenge.

Look at the inside of the envelope flap. "Sorry no Cipher." Why not? The copycat has By Knife and other articles so why not just do one of those ciphers instead? Why all this new stuff? Why use a Celtic Cross as a Zodiac symbol for example?

I think the answer is simply that the Zodiac displays no knowledge of cryptography beyond what is found in a kid's book - Secret Codes and Ciphers by Bernice Kohn Hunt (1968). Z408 is a hack. So how do you become an expert cryptologist within the space of a year to answer the Marsh challenge with a really challenging cipher? The answer is you don't because that's not possible for most people who are that amateur. That is why I go with Prof. Bauer's view this amateur just can't really make advanced ciphers. The Z340 is a fail. It starts off okay and he gives in around 1/4 and then throws in something at the end. Later on he sends the Z13 which is ALFRED E. NEUMAN from MAD magazine. Why? Because the back pages of MAD magazine is a puzzle that you FOLD eliminating a huge section of the puzzle. Look here -> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mad_Fold-in There you go.

It was all filler Zodiac even talks about 'back pages'.

"They don't bury me on the back pages like some of the others."

So if you accept that premise then it basically means the Zodiac has quit doing anything remotely like valid ciphers. He is doing custom puzzles because that is all he can do. So you get this Halloween Card instead in answer to the Marsh challenge. By the way see the A to B arrows indicating where to fold? There are symbols almost like that in the Z340.

]]> 10/27/70 Halloween card sent to Paul Avery BDHolland https://forum.zodiackillerciphers.com/community/10-27-70-halloween-card-sent-to-paul-avery/could-this-card-be-from-a-hoaxer/paged/4/#post-77140 Re: Could this card be from a hoaxer? https://forum.zodiackillerciphers.com/community/10-27-70-halloween-card-sent-to-paul-avery/could-this-card-be-from-a-hoaxer/paged/4/#post-77137 Wed, 22 Jul 2020 22:28:10 +0000 10/27/70 Halloween card sent to Paul Avery Coffee Time https://forum.zodiackillerciphers.com/community/10-27-70-halloween-card-sent-to-paul-avery/could-this-card-be-from-a-hoaxer/paged/4/#post-77137 Copycat toolkit sometimes gives and sometimes not? https://forum.zodiackillerciphers.com/community/10-27-70-halloween-card-sent-to-paul-avery/could-this-card-be-from-a-hoaxer/paged/4/#post-77116 Tue, 21 Jul 2020 19:39:49 +0000 toolkit. Basically the copycat hypothesis presents us with a news-clipping folder of Zodiac articles and says "the hoaxer had this" and that way tries to explain how they hoaxed things. The hoaxer retained info in the press and used it. The toolkit. This is actually something measurable. It means the hoaxer can only hoax with what they have and can't what they don't have. So you have a timeline against what they can know and can't know. The copycat evolves with this timeline. So the copycat hypothesis has to compare and contrast. What you should notice in true cases of copycatting is that the copycat exploits everything they have and only needs to introduce new material where there is a void in their knowledge. So the copycat hypothesis is somewhat dependent on the hoaxer not knowing some things as well as knowing some things. Yet if it is shown that the toolkit had those things they could have known but replaced it with something new instead, they are not copying. That's the oddity that can emerge when you get deeper into the compare and contrast. That means when the hoax hypothesis brings up an article with stuff or appeals to a collection, that really means everything in that collection and not just the parts of the article we are focused on. If they have those articles describing other things why did they need to invent their own instead? It's not copycatting. The evolving into new directions is what is expected from this offender. The new stuff is that evolution. The direct opposite of hoaxing. The direct opposite of copycatting. BTW, the wrong spelling of Avery to Averly was done by the writer of both communications for a reason. That is not a mistake. It is deliberate. So basically the copycatting hypothesis should be something demonstrable with a timeline of compare and contrast against Zodiac articles.]]> 10/27/70 Halloween card sent to Paul Avery BDHolland https://forum.zodiackillerciphers.com/community/10-27-70-halloween-card-sent-to-paul-avery/could-this-card-be-from-a-hoaxer/paged/4/#post-77116 Re: Could this card be from a hoaxer? https://forum.zodiackillerciphers.com/community/10-27-70-halloween-card-sent-to-paul-avery/could-this-card-be-from-a-hoaxer/paged/3/#post-77105 Tue, 21 Jul 2020 02:26:35 +0000 I had never heard of or seen this article until I found it Saturday night/Sunday morning.) Also, "Bleeding Knife of Zodiac" was mailed TWO DAYS after aforementioned article. Possibly a coincidence...]]> 10/27/70 Halloween card sent to Paul Avery Coffee Time https://forum.zodiackillerciphers.com/community/10-27-70-halloween-card-sent-to-paul-avery/could-this-card-be-from-a-hoaxer/paged/3/#post-77105 Re: Could this card be from a hoaxer? https://forum.zodiackillerciphers.com/community/10-27-70-halloween-card-sent-to-paul-avery/could-this-card-be-from-a-hoaxer/paged/3/#post-76902 Sat, 11 Jul 2020 08:21:52 +0000

If we use the tree or grass analogy, there becomes a tipping point. We can say that paradice and slaves could be a random occurrence undesigned from Halloween card to 340, but when the parallels can be shown over five communications over nearly a year (all of which were codes or cryptic references), at what point do we switch from random chance to orchestrated design. If the scrabble tiles are discovered 5 times and keep producing results, at some point we have to contend they weren't thrown anymore.

That's where the testing becomes important. In the case of the scrabble tiles, we can run experiments to find out how often we can get meaningful results from throwing the tiles 5 times. If the experiments show it is rare, then maybe there really is some element of design or intent going on. We have to be careful when making conclusions based on perceived parallels with other Zodiac communications. When looking at one, you can produce a list of facts or observations. When looking at another, you can produce a second list of facts or observations. Then you can find connections between them. But there are numerous ways to produce these facts, so there may be a good chance to find parallels simply because of how many they are. One way I think about this is to imagine two people, selected completely at random. If you take some time, you could write down 10,000 facts about the first person's life and another 10,000 facts about the second person's life. Things like their birthday, where they lived, favorite color, family members, work history, hobbies, cars they owned, etc. It is generally rare that a specific fact for those two people will match. But because there are so many facts to compare, there's a good chance that SOME facts will match. Then you might reach some threshold where you think, hey, maybe these people really are connected in some way. If it happens a lot for any 2 people, then it's probably just coincidence and not really because they are actually connected (just think about how many suspects there are in the Zodiac case because of the many connections people find between them and the facts of the case). This is basically a variation of the idea of the "birthday paradox", where you only need to look at 23 people for there to be a 50% chance that 2 of them will share the same birthday. With the Zodiac's correspondences, we aren't just looking at one fact (the birthday), we are looking at all possible facts (i.e., the various observations that can be made about patterns and other items of interest). But I don't think this kind of analysis has been done; it would be interesting to run some experiments to figure out how to answer your good question about where to find the tipping point between "by coincidence" vs "by design".

We will accept the 340 cipher being solved using a cryptographic technique, if the steps on encryption can be demonstrated, but I equally feel that no amount of corrobarative evidence bereft of a cryptographic technique, will ever satisfy somebody looking for a cryptographic answer. The deck is stacked in favour of a solution that only relies on some form of cryptographic technique - anything that falls outside this remit, will just be passed off as chance, coincidence, or fluke. The golf ball landing on the same piece of grass 100 times in a row, just another stroke of luck and more coincidence. The only realistic conclusion being, anything outside the field of cryptography is doomed to failure.

If a non-cryptographic technique solves the cipher, then we still need to demonstrate that the solution is correct, which can be done methodically. It basically boils down to: Can the same method produce other equally plausible solutions? Of course, the more complex or subjective the non-cryptographic technique is, the harder it is to do this kind of analysis. If the analysis cannot be done then we're just stuck with "maybe it's right" until we can get better evidence, such as discovering the killer's worksheets that show he used such methods. For example, with Graysmith's solution, it's really simple to demonstrate that his method is flawed, because it produces numerous equally plausible solutions. But other solutions are difficult to test in that way, because they are very subjective or rely on many steps that are difficult to model and test. This is a hugely important element that many don't fully understand when discussing odds, and I appreciate your explanation and full comprehension of it. I'll take another stab (not By Knife) at explaining it: I's autumn, and leaves are falling off a maple tree. You walk around the yard looking at the leaves on the ground and begin saying: Look at this leaf! What are the odds it would've fallen, been blown by the wind, and landed exactly here, with it's stem pointing in exactly this direction!? The odds are way more than a million to one! You say this for every leaf in the yard, and conclude the odds against all those leaves falling where they did is astronomically high, and therefore absolutely impossible to have happened randomly. Now, same scenario, but a couple days earlier, before the leaves fall. If you identify each leaf on that maple tree, and predict the exact location and position each will land on the ground, and then, 2 days later, observe every one actually did, then THAT would be overwhelmingly impossible to have happened by chance. My point is, when you see something that has already happened, trying to work backwards to determine how likely it was that it was random can produce very misleading conclusions. I was looking at the By Knife, rope, gun, fire thing the other day, and posted on another thread. The letters (if we can count a backwards Y) to form By Rope, By Gun, and By Fire, can be found in 3 of the 340 quadrants. By Knife can be found in 2. To me, this is randomness - intentional would've been all 4 in all 4 quadrants (and with 2 symbols different on the 340 - an "E" in the upper right and an "N" in the lower right) It could have been achieved. If the 340 is not a cipher, this would have been simple to do. OR, only the appropriate word in the quadrant corresponding to the Halloween card. Again, if not a cipher, simple. Anyway, whenever someone says, "What are the odds of happening," I always smile when they are talking about something that has already happened, because at that point, it's often an impossible, maybe even nonsensical discussion.]]> 10/27/70 Halloween card sent to Paul Avery Marshall https://forum.zodiackillerciphers.com/community/10-27-70-halloween-card-sent-to-paul-avery/could-this-card-be-from-a-hoaxer/paged/3/#post-76902