Also, "…she let me off in front of the police station" might have ended with "and walked me to the door" but the end was either not included, or included and later edited out. Not that it has any importance whatsoever.
Rank speculation leads you to this conclusion: "Not that it has any importance whatsoever."
I appreciate your passion but your ability draw logical and credible conclusions needs some study. Your personal bias tends to lead your posts more than logic.
That was too much!
Lol, ok then buddy, please explain how the field/vineyard/police station issues are important. And try to do it in one post and stop spamming this thread. Obviously you’re triggered for some reason. That’s your problem, not morf’s.
Podcasters: A point is made about the average speeds Kathleen Johns would have maintained in her car including presumed abduction time and then presuming no abduction occurred time. The first is over 80 MPH, the second around 56 MPH.
Q? Can you further elaborate on how these were calculated, as I feel I lost you on the timetable here (and so probably others did too).
Q? Can you elaborate on what you feel the potential significance of these differences in rates may be?
Again, very enjoyable podcast!
That was too much!
If Kathleen Johns left her San Bernardino home at 7pm as stated in the Graysmith book and was supposedly rescued at 2:00pm (in other words no abduction), then her average speed was 52mph to travel 368 miles in 7 hours. Had she left home at 7pm and got abducted at 11:15pm, then you can see her journey speed is virtually impossible (86mph average). However, if she left home at 4pm and entered the man’s car at 11:15pm, then no problem https://www.calculatorsoup.com/calculat … ulator.php
https://www.zodiacciphers.com/
“I simply cannot accept that there are, on every story, two equal and logical sides to an argument.” Edward R. Murrow.
While being interviewed in 1985 or 1986, why would Kathleen accurately remember what time she departed on a trip back in 1970?
Do you remember what time you departed on a road trip 15 years ago? Even a memorable trip? I sure wouldn’t.
What if she was off by an hour in her recollection? Or two hours? After 15 years, that seems reasonable to me.
Thanks, so it was a field originally and then a vineyard 15 years later. Or something like that. I’ve dealt with stuff like this before, where we have a meaningless detail that nobody would remember, then years later when someone says "it was a vineyard" the person says "oh yes, a vineyard." So, the take away is, maybe it was a vineyard. Or not. The truth is…IT DOESN’T MATTER. Same with the Missouri stuff.
It may be meaningless to you, but for some people it may not be. Remember the postcard that was no more interesting than a gravy packet, that you failed to remember what was written on the card, but you decided to dismiss it as an obvious hoax anyway. Amazing that you reject connunications you can’t even remember, despite the fact it managed to find its way into suspected Zodiac correspondence under July 13th 1971, when three of the 1974 communications didn’t. You still don’t accept the February 14th communication was actually mailed on February 3rd 1974. Why don’t you spend some of your time examining some of these communications, rather than just accepting what law enforcement declared as genuine or not, despite handwriting analysis not being accepted as a definitive proof of anything. Clearly it doesn’t matter to you when presented with facts, so why should we care about the meaningless detail you care to ignore.
https://www.zodiacciphers.com/
“I simply cannot accept that there are, on every story, two equal and logical sides to an argument.” Edward R. Murrow.
Remember the postcard that was no more interesting than a gravy packet, that you failed to remember what was written on the card, but you decided to dismiss it as an obvious hoax anyway.
The Monticello card was not the least bit interesting. I’m pretty sure I have a photocopy in storage, the Lt made me copies of pretty much everything including rubbish. It’s as fascinating as a gravy packet, however.
Let me put it this way using just one example. If Kathy Johns was not a Zodiac victim, then her story is not relevant to Zodiac discussion. Right? So in attempting to make determinations about her account, shouldn’t the focus be on data that is possibly relevant to whether she was a Zodiac victim or not? I would think so. And I fail to see how her arrival at the police department has anything to do with whether she could be a Zodiac victim. Clearly I must be missing something, however. Care to enlighten me?
you failed to remember what was written on the card
Nothing was written on it. And it wasn’t a card.
To determine whether Kathleen Johns was a Zodiac victim all we can do is examine the recollections presented to us. Clearly, if those recollections, as you suggested, are an hour or two off after 15 years, then I hope we apply the same to The Zodiac Speaking documentary in 2007 across the board. You are probably right – Kathleen Johns may have recalled things incorrectly after 15 years, just like Nancy Slover probably did after several decades regarding that phone call. Objectivity is a rare commodity.
https://www.zodiacciphers.com/
“I simply cannot accept that there are, on every story, two equal and logical sides to an argument.” Edward R. Murrow.
To determine whether Kathleen Johns was a Zodiac victim all we can do is examine the recollections presented to us. Clearly, if those recollections, as you suggested, are an hour or two off after 15 years, then I hope we apply the same to The Zodiac Speaking documentary in 2007 across the board. You are probably right – Kathleen Johns may have recalled things incorrectly after 15 years, just like Nancy Slover probably did after several decades regarding that phone call. Objectivity is a rare commodity.
I have always been an advocate of going by what was originally said and not decades-later versions.
Remember the postcard that was no more interesting than a gravy packet, that you failed to remember what was written on the card, but you decided to dismiss it as an obvious hoax anyway.
The Monticello card was not the least bit interesting. I’m pretty sure I have a photocopy in storage, the Lt made me copies of pretty much everything including rubbish. It’s as fascinating as a gravy packet, however.
That is your opinion. If you have photocopies in storage, then why not release the rubbish ? What have you got to lose. But my guess is you never will. And besides, law enforcement told you it wasn’t genuine, so you just accepted it without any critical thinking.
https://www.zodiacciphers.com/
“I simply cannot accept that there are, on every story, two equal and logical sides to an argument.” Edward R. Murrow.
If Kathy Johns was not a Zodiac victim, then her story is not relevant to Zodiac discussion. Right?
If Kathy Johns was not a Zodiac victim then that would mean that Don Cheney lied about Arthur Leigh Allen. That would be a big thing.
If Kathy Johns was not a Zodiac victim then that would mean that Don Cheney lied about Arthur Leigh Allen.
How would it mean he lied?
law enforcement told you it wasn’t genuine, so you just accepted it without any critical thinking.
No, I used critical thinking to make up my own mind. That law enforcement determined the same is unrelated, although it’s relevant as the authenticated letters would potentially see the inside of a courtroom and the others, not. For good reason.
