Could just be a creepy coincidence, but still interesting.

Could just be a creepy coincidence, but still interesting.

Yeah could be. Just we know the Zodiac likes to send cards and what are the chances he would for his survivor? So I am like – maybe there is a chance he did.

Why are you taking the finds of others and re-posting them without giving credit?
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/zodiack … t6452.html

I posted that 8.5 years ago.

Don’t be another Mark Hewitt.

In science we don’t jump at calling people dishonest when they independently discover the same things because it happens all the time.

Why? They are looking at the same sources or similar. In this case the uncut film interviews of Hartnell that we have seen many times over. All of us.

Look up Darwin AND Wallace. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Russel_Wallace

All I did is corroborate it is being noticed.

BTW – I don’t visit the site you linked anymore. Haven’t in months.

Well according to you, you’ve been at this Zodiac thing since 1998.

I don’t believe you, BD Hewitt.

In science we don’t …

There is literally nothing scientific about your approach to anything Zodiac related.

Here we go again! Tom, please explain the scientific side of you believing Richard Gaikowski was the Zodiac.

Tom’s never claimed to take a “scientific approach”. Toms not the one claiming to be a scientist.

Tom’s never claimed to take a “scientific approach”. Toms not the one claiming to be a scientist.

This.

Tom, please explain the scientific side of you believing Richard Gaikowski was the Zodiac.

If you’re feeling confident, please start a thread listing why Gaikowski is such a poor suspect. I’ll be happy to make you look like a fool.

And to preemptively avoid accusations of me being a Gyke/Voigt groupie…

I don’t think Richard Gaikowski was Zodiac, and I disagree with Tom on a few things.

But let’s be fair…BD Holland is the one claiming to be a scientist and taking a “scientific approach” while promulgating the most esoteric, wild, bewildering, unscientific theories. Worse, unlike any reputable scientist or researcher, he bristles at critiques and criticism and doubles down on his theories when faced with alternate evidence.

Anonymous people can claim all sorts of things about their position. Doesn’t mean we have to believe them. Hence why we are so careful. It’s the Internet.

I have never said my POI project was a scientific project. Hence why there is no quote of me saying that. Nobody has one because I have never said that.

The word "scientific approach" did not appear in this thread from me.

What I did was to give examples of how scientists who converge on the same thing, often far more complex that just spotting a card image that resembles a Zodiac communication, don’t jump at that meaning one scientist is dishonestly using the other scientists work. Like a complex formula, mathematical equation, chemical structure, physics law. Pages of stuff done by different researches independently at the same time.

That is because we understand convergence. We understand it happens quite a bit and we understand it because we expect it to happen when people are working on the same material.

Instead of seeing it as dishonesty, we see this as corroboration. Independent corroboration. Doesn’t mean it’s right, just corroborated.

What I do here is called criminology. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminology

It is no different than what many others are doing.

I would never claim I am the only one capable of seeing something and that other can’t and must only get it from me. That makes no sense at all. It’s like claiming special powers.

Anonymous people can claim all sorts of things about their position. Doesn’t mean we have to believe them. Hence why we are so careful. It’s the Internet.

You are the epitome of an anonymous Internet person.

In science we don’t jump at calling people dishonest when they independently discover the same things because it happens all the time.

But you sure jumped at blaming me because you got fooled by a fake Sal LaBarbara. What does science call that, exactly?