Basically Tahoe, what I am getting at is this:

Carol Stine reports an encounter on a lonely stretch of Highway 132 with a vehicle, whose lone male occupant flashes, points and tries to get Carol to pull over, & fails.
Carol Stine is the sister of Zodiac victim Paul Stine.
On the same highway, 132, another woman reports almost the exact same details of an encounter with a man who did the same gesturing, but this time, got the desired result. The male abducts Kathy and taunts, threatens and terrifies her for miles upon mile of secluded back roads before she escapes.
Kathy insists, after seeing a wanted poster of Zodiac, that he and her abductor are one and the same person.
Zodiac himself writes a letter and admits that he gave a woman and her baby a ‘rather interesting ride’ for a couple of hours one night.

So, you have the sister of the most recent Zodiac victim being hounded by a vehicle on a quiet road. Then a second woman reports the same MO used to get her to stop, before she’s abducted. The description she gives fits with the description of Zodiac. The Zodiac himself acknowledges that it was him (with only one small article featured on the incident buried in the middle of the paper). You have the same MO use in both Carol’s encounter and Kathy’s. And you would still suggest that the two incidents were committed by two different individuals, neither of whom were Zodiac? Again, I am well aware that the statements I list above can be, by no means, determined as proof positive, that’s why I am asking for an opinion. The above list of ‘coincidence’ are circumstantial, I know, but there’s a saying that…. I cannot remember for the life oof me how it goes now lol. I’ll consult google see if he knows lol.
But no disrespect intended Tahoe, I always respect your opinions and arguments that differ from my own. You know there’s always mutual respect between us even though it’s almost as if we have an unspoken contract to disagree with each other on everything most of the time lol. I think we may have to do what we usually do, and agree to disagree lol.

The original, and earliest definition of Circumstantial Evidence is:

"A fact is relevant to another fact when the existence of the one can be shown to be the cause or one of the causes, or the effect or one of the effects, of the existence of the other, or when the existence of the one, either alone or together with other facts, renders the existence of the other highly probable, or improbable, according to the common course of events."

Anyway, I know that I am not going to change your opinion on this Tahoe, as it’s set in stone lol. That wasn’t my intent though in all seriousness. As you know Tahoe, my respect for your opinions and views are without question, but I have to say that in this case, I really do think your wrong.