Sam is more interesting in trolling and baiting us than in participating in a rational discussion.

"You cannot reason someone out of a position they did not reason themselves into."

I’m sorry to pile on, but is this just a joke? Sam, you admit that it might be purely coincidence, which is exactly what Doranchack and Glurk are saying. So why argue with them?

When attacked ad personam or more commonly swong with argumentum ad ignorantium, I simply respond. When I asked a few substantial questions, It was to no avail. I always thought that discussion is when two or more persons exchange their opinions. You find it different?

Can you tell us which officers at SFPD and Vallejo you have been in contact with and what they said to you? We’ve heard that dozens of times before.

I stood about passing this information along for about two weeks. Decided to do so and let the LE decide whether it is worth passing to the proper investigative unit. SFPD did respond, VPD did not. That is all I have to say in this matter.

I’m not trying to be mean, I’m just trying to tell you why you should try to go about this a different way because you’re only wasting your own time and it will leave you frustrated.

Thanks for the concern.

"You cannot reason someone out of a position they did not reason themselves into."

Truth does not belong to an individual. But there are individuals that will eventually see it, and there are some that will not

Truth does not belong to an individual. But there are individuals that will eventually see it, and there are some that will not

?????

Or you are just unable to admit your solution is invalid.

Sorry, ALA was not Zodiac.
http://zodiackillerfacts.com/zodiac-the … d-suspect/

This thread actually pisses me off. In a case so filled with nonsense and bullshit, Sam comes here, and in his VERY FIRST POST, decides to add even more bullshit to the pile. The whole damned thread should be deleted, IMO.

Sam’s whole argument boils down to him saying "Because I said so!"

Here’s a letter that says "Sorry, No Cipher." So there MUST BE a cipher. "Because I said so!"
Here’s four words that ARE the cipher! FIRE, GUN, KNIFE and ROPE. "Because I said so!"
Here’s a key for the cipher. It is the correct key! "Because I said so!"
There is only one correct anagram for HERL GUA TAEHL RINL. It is Arthur Leigh Allen. "Because I said so!"
None of those other thousands of anagrams matter, only mine. "Because I said so!"

Sam, you are nothing but a useless troll peddling bullshit and wasting EVERYONE’S time. It’s an insult to this board and everyone here who puts in serious work and does real research. You don’t get to make up your own truth and your own reality.

I’m going to call a spade a spade, and call bullshit as BULLSHIT. If I sound genuinely pissed off, it is because I am.

-glurk

Thread is now locked due to excessive bullshit.

Sam, to improve the quality of your ideas, please refer to Carl Sagan’s "Baloney detection kit":

1. Wherever possible there must be independent confirmation of the “facts.”

2. Encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of all points of view.

3. Arguments from authority carry little weight — “authorities” have made mistakes in the past. They will do so again in the future. Perhaps a better way to say it is that in science there are no authorities; at most, there are experts.

4. Spin more than one hypothesis. If there’s something to be explained, think of all the different ways in which it could be explained. Then think of tests by which you might systematically disprove each of the alternatives. What survives, the hypothesis that resists disproof in this Darwinian selection among “multiple working hypotheses,” has a much better chance of being the right answer than if you had simply run with the first idea that caught your fancy.

5. Try not to get overly attached to a hypothesis just because it’s yours. It’s only a way station in the pursuit of knowledge. Ask yourself why you like the idea. Compare it fairly with the alternatives. See if you can find reasons for rejecting it. If you don’t, others will.

6. Quantify. If whatever it is you’re explaining has some measure, some numerical quantity attached to it, you’ll be much better able to discriminate among competing hypotheses. What is vague and qualitative is open to many explanations. Of course there are truths to be sought in the many qualitative issues we are obliged to confront, but finding them is more challenging.

7. If there’s a chain of argument, every link in the chain must work (including the premise) — not just most of them.

8. Occam’s Razor. This convenient rule-of-thumb urges us when faced with two hypotheses that explain the data equally well to choose the simpler.

9. Always ask whether the hypothesis can be, at least in principle, falsified. Propositions that are untestable, unfalsifiable are not worth much. Consider the grand idea that our Universe and everything in it is just an elementary particle — an electron, say — in a much bigger Cosmos. But if we can never acquire information from outside our Universe, is not the idea incapable of disproof? You must be able to check assertions out. Inveterate skeptics must be given the chance to follow your reasoning, to duplicate your experiments and see if they get the same result.