What, lol.

They are his words not mine. You quoted them in the OP, remember?

I never said "This makes Gaikowski the Zodiac!"

Honestly if I wrote a review of A Clockwork Orange right after seeing the movie, I would say things very similar to what Gaik wrote. Certain things stir up certain emotions in people. Society is dumb and probably should be destroyed. But even though I have all sorts of negative and hateful thoughts, I’m not going to kill anyone. Probably.

I can see the point people are making. even the librarian in the bates thread in her letter mentioned the anti police feeling at the time. long way from rape and murder I know but still-lot of anti establishment/society feeling going on.

That being said, I’m surprised nobody has brought up the fact that Gaik used the phrase "get your rocks off" in the review. probably a common phrase at the time, but still….

I’m surprised nobody has brought up the fact that Gaik used the phrase "get your rocks off" in the review. probably a common phrase at the time, but still….

It has been brought up, in fact I’d offer a link but I know you hate those things.

I challenge anyone to name someone besides Zodiac who chose a newspaper to reveal such thoughts about murder. In San Francisco no less.

SMH…Manalli writes a poem about tater tots and everyone goes wild.

Stretching. Kubrick’s A Clockwork Orange is a deeply nihilistic film. The first quote you have there is describing the actions of Alex. The latter is an acute observation about the themes of Kubrick’s film which is that the only way for an oppressive, capitalistic society to be fixed is to tear it down. He prefaces his thoughts by saying "from this viewpoint" as in that of the film. Yes, Alex and Kubrick flirt with the notion of anarchy and violence as a solution to civilizations woes. Maybe Kubrick is the Zodiac?

Stretching. Kubrick’s A Clockwork Orange is a deeply nihilistic film. The first quote you have there is describing the actions of Alex. The latter is an acute observation about the themes of Kubrick’s film which is that the only way for an oppressive, capitalistic society to be fixed is to tear it down. He prefaces his thoughts by saying "from this viewpoint" as in that of the film. Yes, Alex and Kubrick flirt with the notion of anarchy and violence as a solution to civilizations woes. Maybe Kubrick is the Zodiac?

Clockwork Orange is not a nihilistic book, and if the film had included the last chapter this would have been incredibly clear.

The story has heavy religious and moral implications woven throughout, making it the opposite of a nihilistic tale.

Its a story about faith in the essential decency of the human soul. It also heavily implicates the idea that "God gives us a choice" and to take away that choice is an act against God.

I have not read the book, or watched the film since I was around 14 years old, but I remember the implications of the book being very clear to me, while others were so caught up in the controversial content or bizarre manner of speech that they seem to completely miss this.

Any way, I still stand by my first post:

When it comes to "a clockwork orange" I think leaving the last chapter out of the film ruined the point of the book.

Don’t get me wrong, I love the film as well as the book, but when you remove that last chapter it completely changes the message and meaning of the tale.

In the last chapter of the book "Alex" is cured from the damage done by his government treatment and is released. He runs into one of his "droogs", this droog is with a woman and has obviously grown up, he mocks Alex’s childish slang and dress, and conveys to Alex that he has obviously changed for the better, This leads Alex to question his lifestyle, it allows him to grow, and to truly change, on his own.

While the film, which leaves this out, would lead you to believe that Alex was just as evil as before. The film gives the impression that people can not change, while the book gives the message that even the worst of us can become good people

The book is a linguistic work of art, blending Russian, cockeney, and fabricated language into a James Joyce styled read that is as rich in language as it is in novelty.

I remember writing a paper on this book in 8th grade, and I remember I got an "a" on the paper, I detailed all of the philosophical, religious, and moral themes of the book, but that was a long time ago, and my memory has faded on topic since then.

Stretching.

Not in the least. His words, his writing in a SF newspaper. Then there’s the "rocks off" quote.

Just imagine if it were Sullivan or another suspect besides Gaikowski.

How many people said "get your rocks off" within say a 25 mile radius of San Francisco circa 1970. Probably in the 1000’s at least I would guess.

Until you have determined that for statistical comparison, you can’t possibly know what the real relevance is.

Stretching. Kubrick’s A Clockwork Orange is a deeply nihilistic film. The first quote you have there is describing the actions of Alex. The latter is an acute observation about the themes of Kubrick’s film which is that the only way for an oppressive, capitalistic society to be fixed is to tear it down. He prefaces his thoughts by saying "from this viewpoint" as in that of the film. Yes, Alex and Kubrick flirt with the notion of anarchy and violence as a solution to civilizations woes. Maybe Kubrick is the Zodiac?

Clockwork Orange is not a nihilistic book, and if the film had included the last chapter this would have been incredibly clear.

The story has heavy religious and moral implications woven throughout, making it the opposite of a nihilistic tale.

Its a story about faith in the essential decency of the human soul. It also heavily implicates the idea that "God gives us a choice" and to take away that choice is an act against God.

I have not read the book, or watched the film since I was around 14 years old, but I remember the implications of the book being very clear to me, while others were so caught up in the controversial content or bizarre manner of speech that they seem to completely miss this.

Any way, I still stand by my first post:

When it comes to "a clockwork orange" I think leaving the last chapter out of the film ruined the point of the book.

Don’t get me wrong, I love the film as well as the book, but when you remove that last chapter it completely changes the message and meaning of the tale.

In the last chapter of the book "Alex" is cured from the damage done by his government treatment and is released. He runs into one of his "droogs", this droog is with a woman and has obviously grown up, he mocks Alex’s childish slang and dress, and conveys to Alex that he has obviously changed for the better, This leads Alex to question his lifestyle, it allows him to grow, and to truly change, on his own.

While the film, which leaves this out, would lead you to believe that Alex was just as evil as before. The film gives the impression that people can not change, while the book gives the message that even the worst of us can become good people

The book is a linguistic work of art, blending Russian, cockeney, and fabricated language into a James Joyce styled read that is as rich in language as it is in novelty.

I remember writing a paper on this book in 8th grade, and I remember I got an "a" on the paper, I detailed all of the philosophical, religious, and moral themes of the book, but that was a long time ago, and my memory has faded on topic since then.

Yes I’ve read the book and seen the film. I didn’t mention the book because of course like all of Kubrick’s adaptations he changed the source material. I think his version is extremely nihilistic.

Until you have determined that for statistical comparison, you can’t possibly know what the real relevance is.

We aren’t talking about saying it in the street. Both Zodiac and Gaikowski got that phrase printed in newspapers in San Francisco. That is quite the exclusive club.

Are you for real?

Sure I am. Richard was a journalist, of course his words were printed in the papers.

What you need to know is how common that type of lingo was in the surrounding area. If the phrase was indeed common it can easily just be a coincidence. Like the birthday paradox. It sounds highly unlikely but in reality, seemingly weird coincidences can easily happen. Again, small world and all that.

If there were some other good evidence for RG being a Zodiac suspect then obviously it would hold more weight. But there isn’t really as far as I know. In fact it’s quite possible Gaik wasn’t even in the country at the time. My first port of call would be to prove that wrong.

What you need to know is how common that type of lingo was in the surrounding area. If there were some other good evidence for RG being a Zodiac suspect then obviously it would hold more weight. But there isn’t really as far as I know. In fact it’s quite possible Gaik wasn’t even in the country at the time. My first port of call would be to prove that wrong.

Sorry, it was not common in newspapers. FACT.

Gaikowski’s Good Times published a cover that read "NIXON GETS HIS ROCKS OFF" on July 24, 1969, exactly one week prior to Zodiac mailing his first three letters, of which contained the cipher that contained that same phrase.

"In fact it’s quite possible Gaik wasn’t even in the country at the time."

FACT: There is no evidence to support that, but I’m sure that doesn’t matter to you.

Prove Ross Sullivan was not in Poland on relevant dates.

Why does it matter if it was common or not in newspapers. Zodiac was just some dude who sent letters to the cops / papers. The fact that some hippie journalist used some of the same phrasing means nothing on it’s own.

As far as I am aware it is Richards own testimony which states he was not in the country at the time, although he could not prove it. But there is some evidence he was in Ireland around the relevant time.

As for Ross Sullivan, he has nothing to do with this topic so I don’t know why you bring him up. For the record I highly doubt he was the Zodiac either.

You seem to get very defensive when your ideas are challenged, when you should be looking at suspects and evidence more objectively. Who knows, maybe Gaik was Zodiac. But your current actual evidence for that is at precisely zero. Just the ramblings of a man with questionable sanity (goldcatcher), and a few coincidences. There’s no actual tangible evidence for anyone, unfortunately. Just a few maybe’s.

But there is some evidence he was in Ireland around the relevant time. You seem to get very defensive when your ideas are challenged. But your current actual evidence for that is at precisely zero. Just the ramblings of a man with questionable sanity (goldcatcher), and a few coincidences.

There is no evidence he was out of the country until weeks after Lake Herman.

I’m not defensive. I’m simply amazed that someone who admittedly has zero knowledge about the subject matter is presenting incorrect information as if it is factual.

How would you know what my evidence is? You already showed you are ignorant on this subject.

As stated a million times already, I don’t use Blaine’s claims as evidence.

You have to be a troll.

If you are have some real evidence that Gaik is Zodiac, then cool. Let’s take a look. It certainly isn’t on your website.

Don’t call me a troll because I don’t buy into meaningless ideas. Same as I don’t buy into Ross because "OMG he is from Riverside and wore teh same brown glasses, it simply must be him!".