Another good example of convergence is the discovery of the mathematics of Calculus.

Newton vs Leibniz.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leibniz%E … ontroversy

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.

You started such a thread already, which also means I am not the one looking like a fool about it

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.

In his defense, he never claimed to be a scientist, read his posts again, he never claimed that. Also, his twin brothers theory isn’t any wilder that Voigt’s one about Gaikowski, IMHO.

You started such a thread already, which also means I am not the one looking like a fool about it

Like I figured, you’ve got absolutely nothing. Big surprise.

In his defense, he never claimed to be a scientist, read his posts again, he never claimed that.

Just wow.

You started such a thread already, which also means I am not the one looking like a fool about it

Yes, I started such a thread at an entirely different website than this, and it’s been 10.5 years since and nobody named "Claypooles" has contributed to it. Which is further proof you have absolutely nothing to offer such a discussion. I’ve found that people who write off Gaikowski are bizarrely ignorant, having inhaled a ton of misinformation from Butterfield’s site as well as from reddit. It’s no wonder you won’t elaborate; nobody likes to be made a fool of in public.

No, nobody, which makes me wonder why you’re still here

I don’t use reddit and I don’t know what is Buttefiled’s site. All I know is that your theory of Gaikowski = Z is not better that any other Zodiac theory. But maybe you changed your POI again?

You started such a thread already, which also means I am not the one looking like a fool about it

Like I figured, you’ve got absolutely nothing. Big surprise.

What do YOU have? Oh yeah, you got Golddust, or whatever his name is

In his defense, he never claimed to be a scientist, read his posts again, he never claimed that.

Just wow.

Quote him saying that, please. You can’t, because he never did.

.

You started such a thread already, which also means I am not the one looking like a fool about it

Like I figured, you’ve got absolutely nothing. Big surprise.

What do YOU have? Oh yeah, you got Golddust, or whatever his name is

You’re ignorant.

In his defense, he never claimed to be a scientist, read his posts again, he never claimed that.

Just wow.

Quote him saying that, please. You can’t, because he never did.

viewtopic.php?f=38&t=4855&p=79919&hilit=Scientist#p79919

I am a biologist. A scientist. My background is in molecular and cell biology including phylogenics and evolutionary research which is what goes on with familial DNA analysis. It also involves statistics.

Not in this thread.

I made no appeal to me being a scientist here.

What you want to quote from here doesn’t exist. In fact everything you have said here can’t be sourced.

This is a repeat of last time I tried to get a reference from you and finally you gave a quote and wouldn’t even say TV was your source. viewtopic.php?f=25&t=4884&start=50

Everyone has to source their stuff correctly. No one gets a pass on this. There are no special privileges or special pleading around it. Some people don’t like that though. Not my problem.

I get it and do it like most people do on here. I don’t argue it. If I don’t have a source then I say I don’t have a source. Try it some time.

I wish there was a block function on this site.

There is. It’s called add foe. Click on my profile. Please do add me. Thanks.