Another possibility to consider is that it was neither Zodiac nor the SLA that nailed the letter, but a completely unrelated third party – a regular citizen simply trying to be helpful.

However, the date of Feb. 3 is compelling especially in relation to the kidnapping.

People are getting hung up on dates and places. Just look at all the envelopes I linked in my original post and tell me that the printing and formatting on the SLA envelope does not match that of previous Z envelopes right down to the absence of a Zip code. Here is something to think about. A lot of people are attaching such importance to the date of the letter being one day before before the kidnapping, thus "proving" it came from the SLA itself. But we just saw that a fake SLA letter was discussed in the L.A. Times on February 3, so a similar prankster could have written the Feb 3 SLA letter after reading the article. (I wanted to look for such an article myself earlier this week but I signed up with a newspaper archive service that conveniently does not have the Times or the Chronicle in it! What kind of "service" is that?) So there goes the argument of those who are so assuredly stating that the "timing" of the letter proves it had to be someone from the SLA. That is BS. So one of your arguments has already fallen.

The problem is that Mr. or Ms. Prankster would have had to exactly imitate Zodiac’s handwriting and formatting of the previous envelopes he sent. And this is a question I can’t currently answer off the top of my head, but did they routinely print the envelopes that came with the letters at the time they were sent? I don’t know the answer to that question but maybe someone does. The letters yes, the envelopes, I am not certain.

I’m not sure Jacob. I cannot see any link myself, but I’m sure they explored a lot of things we are not aware of.

The militant groups of the late 60s probably influenced him at least, he did mention the Black Panthers.

Hi guys,

I researched the fbi files and saw 3 references about the Sla letter. All three references tells the reader the letter was postmarked on the 14th of February, 1974. Yes, you read it right… POSTMARKED!!!

You can see those references below…

Greets,
Eduard Versluijs

WOW.

My hypothesis is that Tim Holt comic(s) (plural) are the keys to the answer to the Dr.DCB Marsh challenge. http://zodiachalloweencard.com/#c-jwvyya88fUZ3

That the symbol in the card was the link to Red Ryder. That from Red Ryder you connect to Tim Holt comics and then with #30 you find the death wheel. Tahoe27 skipped directly to issue #30.

14 in the skeletons hand is issue #14.

8 in the stamp is issue #8 (explains why he sought this stamp).

PARADICE is referencing the dots in the symbol, two dice, side by side. 22 which is issue #22.

Using all those you get a corroboration for a name.

I also noticed that the Zodiac’s CARD mailing dates are these very numbers. 8th, 14th, 22nd and 30th.

I was told this hypothesis is wrong because the mailing date for the SLA card was not the 14th and that the public got it wrong.

So I withdrew that last part as it was controversial. However if it turns out the 14th is correct then I am going with the full hypothesis again.

Zodiac plays games.

Here it is for those that are interested.

I generally didn’t want to put this up because code solves generate sooo much controversy. I mean if even Prof. Bauer’s solve isn’t acceptable to some of the popular names in the Zodiac community then what chance has anyone else? Personally I think what he did is near enough the mark.

Anyway there is my solve and if the 14th is back on the table again, then what I said about Zodiac card mailing dates may correspond to this.

BTW, the characters with the name in the series are not the same characters. Two different ones. So IMO someone had to have recognized their own surname in this series when they read them, remembered where they could find them and went back to locate them again. I couldn’t find other examples of the name. It’s a big series though. 41 issues.

We don’t have to be right about every single detail. We just have to be right about some of the right things. That’s all.

Hi guys,

I researched the fbi files and saw 3 references about the Sla letter. All three references tells the reader the letter was postmarked on the 14th of February, 1974. Yes, you read it right… POSTMARKED!!!

You can see those references below…

Greets,
Eduard Versluijs

Richard said this document was the original…
https://www.zodiacciphers.com/uploads/4 … 8_orig.gif

Hi guys,

I researched the fbi files and saw 3 references about the Sla letter. All three references tells the reader the letter was postmarked on the 14th of February, 1974. Yes, you read it right… POSTMARKED!!!

You can see those references below…

Greets,
Eduard Versluijs

Richard said this document was the original…
https://www.zodiacciphers.com/uploads/4 … 8_orig.gif

Yes, correct Druzer, Eduard is just posting subsequent lists compiled in error. Always look at the original documentation. The only people who keep insisting on a February 14th mailing, are people who have written books or people who have theories pertaining to the number 14 . Mike claims I have an agenda, but I haven’t got a suspect or book to sell. My only agenda is finding the truth. I don’t give a damn if the SLA were proven not to have written the letter – it makes no difference to my life. Mike Rodelli won’t answer the question of, Zodiac likely wrote 25+ communications from July 31st 1969 to January 29th 1974. Then he supposedly wrote the February 3rd 1974 SLA letter, totally and utterly about the Symbionese Liberation Army the day before the kidnapping of Patty Hearst. After nearly three years of virtual inactivity, Mike is claiming that is just sheer coincidence. He keeps beating on about handwriting (an inexact "science") despite the fact I or anybody could have constructed the SLA letter with very little effort whatsoever.. But when you have a book to sell and a theory to peddle, truth and common sense will never get in the way.

I have just requested a clearer image of the SLA letter through an FOIA request. I know, if successful, it will come back with a February 3rd postmark. I have absolutely no doubt about that whatsoever. But you can guarantee that for the next 50 years, we will still be hearing about an SLA letter mailed on February 14th. Some things will never change, regardless of the truth.

For myself, I would absolutely respect whatever the evidence is. However RG this idea you are on the outside looking in and free of bias just isn’t the case. Everyone has a dog in this race (or whatever idiom place here), books or no books. It has to do with thoughts primarily. It’s psychological for all humans. You run a very popular website which frankly upends some others that aren’t nearly as good. You have a position and you have backed up it up well with evidence. However to suggest you are somehow neutral and can see all these other people with a bias while you have none is something I do wish you would revise again. Everyone has a bias no matter how big or small, how many books or none, it’s still there. I have a bias for example. Pointing out other people’s bias has got to start with acknowledging your own to see the full picture of what bias is.

Double-blind experiments avoid this where even the researcher plays zero role in anything. Someone else goes off and does the experiment and even then there is bias testing on top of that because of confounding variables that can still cause bias.

Bias is a huge topic. It is beyond what we see in others. In has to be also with ourselves at all times. Observer + what is being observed. They form a whole system.

Bias definition: inclination or prejudice for or against one person or group, especially in a way considered to be unfair.
The action of supporting or opposing a particular person or thing in an unfair way, because of allowing personal opinions to influence your judgment.
A particular tendency, trend, inclination, feeling, or opinion, especially one that is preconceived or unreasoned

Please give me an example of a bias or agenda I have and I will honestly address it.

We shouldn’t confuse agenda with reasoned opinion, or an article designed for discussion.