Twist and turn it anyway you like! Ross don’t fit the age.

You are trying to make the claim that there are no witness descriptions that place Z around 30?

I think I see some the problem some members have with witness descriptions. There is the urge to try and pick through the evidence and find the "exact" measurement.
Some members will tell you based on x,y and z, he must have been 5’9 and 3/4" tall exactly. This kind of analysis is a mistake.

If you ask me how old Z was, the answer is simple: No one knows for sure. But there are witness reports from 25 to 45. Attempting to eliminate a suspect on age alone, when he falls in that range, is flat out hubris.

When I look at all 3 sketches I don’t see a "widow’s peak". I see a receding hairline. A true widow’s peak is low on the forehead and all of the drawings show the distinct beginning of the rounding of the scalp. I have always thought this. In the photo of Ross I do see a widow’s peak, but I also see the beginning of a receding hairline. By 1969 Ross’ hair could have receded as I am describing. Receding hairlines tend to add years to one’s appearance. A 25-35 year old with a premature receding hairline could easily be mistaken for 35-45 years old. Especially at night from a distance. I have always thought this might account for the wide variance in age projections by witnesses.

Twist and turn it anyway you like! Ross don’t fit the age.

Same could be said about your POI RH not meeting the barrel chested and stocky profile

Agreed but do have one pic where he looks pretty stocky but that was years later after the Stine sketch. Anyhow I’m serious about the make up angle and would not put it pass Zodiac to have worn make up to make himself look older.

Decided to use one of those "photo to sketch" generators on the Internet to turn Ross’s 1959 picture to a sketch. Here is the result:

Thanks for posting

Thanks for posting that info. Either way, both sketches look pretty much like each other, and both look a lot like Ross

I don’t get this. The question about the origin of this sketch has been brought up and as far as I can see not sufficiently settled.

That’s a major concern for me. This sketch is essentially being promoted as a valid Zodiac eye witness description and an investigation tool used by LE. If that is not the case, then doesn’t that call it’s credibility and usefulness into question?

It seems like you are here dismissing that with the idea that the credibility of the sketch doesn’t matter simply because it "looks pretty much like" the other one? Is that a misinterpretation of your words?

So why compare Ross to this sketch at all, if he supposedly resembles the known to be authenticated sketch? My only conclusion is that you think he looks more like this other sketch, and so it’s more useful.

Why not compare the other questionable Zodiac sketches that there are?

Thanks for posting that info. Either way, both sketches look pretty much like each other, and both look a lot like Ross

I don’t get this. The question about the origin of this sketch has been brought up and as far as I can see not sufficiently settled.

That’s a major concern for me. This sketch is essentially being promoted as a valid Zodiac eye witness description and an investigation tool used by LE. If that is not the case, then doesn’t that call it’s credibility and usefulness into question?

It seems like you are here dismissing that with the idea that the credibility of the sketch doesn’t matter simply because it "looks pretty much like" the other one? Is that a misinterpretation of your words?

So why compare Ross to this sketch at all, if he supposedly resembles the known to be authenticated sketch? My only conclusion is that you think he looks more like this other sketch, and so it’s more useful.

Why not compare the other questionable Zodiac sketches that there are?

Both of these sketches look like Ross. PERIOD. In the zodiac side by side sketch, there is an original and an amended one. They amended it to look more accurate as per the witnesses. The amended one certainly looks more like Ross, but as per witnesses, looks more like Zodiac too. Bottom line, both the famous well known side by side sketches, and this lesser seen one look like Ross. I can’t change that. He is the closest match to either of those sketches ever seen. Whether or not Ross was Zodiac, that can’t be disputed, it is what it is. He is the closest likeness ever of any suspect to those sketches

He is the closest match to either of those sketches ever seen. Whether or not Ross was Zodiac, that can’t be disputed, it is what it is. He is the closest likeness ever of any suspect to those sketches

Yes. There is no doubt that old photo of Ross put in between the two Zodiac sketches, in my opinion, is damn close.

The only way to truly judge is to have someone who actually saw Zodiac (of course) look at the 1969 Ross.

He is the closest match to either of those sketches ever seen. Whether or not Ross was Zodiac, that can’t be disputed, it is what it is. He is the closest likeness ever of any suspect to those sketches

Yes. There is no doubt that old photo of Ross put in between the two Zodiac sketches, in my opinion, is damn close.

The only way to truly judge is to have someone who actually saw Zodiac (of course) look at the 1969 Ross.

Hoping that happens soon

He is the closest match to either of those sketches ever seen. Whether or not Ross was Zodiac, that can’t be disputed, it is what it is. He is the closest likeness ever of any suspect to those sketches

Yes. There is no doubt that old photo of Ross put in between the two Zodiac sketches, in my opinion, is damn close.

The only way to truly judge is to have someone who actually saw Zodiac (of course) look at the 1969 Ross.

Hoping that happens soon

Is Donald Fouke still alive?

^^He is, but what throws me about him is his description…then later saying Zodiac resembled Larry Kane.

^^He is, but what throws me about him is his description…then later saying Zodiac resembled Larry Kane.

Larry Kane looked nothing like Zodiac at Pacific Heights. I am also troubled by Fouke saying that Zodiac walked to a certain address in later years, but never mentioning that before. I go back to what he put in his memo early on and ignore his recent statements. Sort of the same with Mike Mageau, his latest claims don’t match his original statements, so I discount his most recent claims and refer to his original statements

He is the closest match to either of those sketches ever seen. Whether or not Ross was Zodiac, that can’t be disputed, it is what it is. He is the closest likeness ever of any suspect to those sketches

Who says it can’t be disputed? I dispute it, I don’t think that sketch looks like him. Actually, that’s not true. I do think it looks like Ross.

The problem is that "looks like" is a subjective claim that doesn’t offer any criteria or value scale. I think I could be said to look as much like that sketch as Ross does.

If you hold up this sketch and a picture of Ross and ask someone "do these two pictures looks alike?" you have the problem I already stated, but also creating a potential bias in that there is no other basis for comparison. The amount that these two "look alike" is relative to how much they do or don’t look like other people as well.

Has everyone who has seen all the other Zodiac suspects come to the conclusion that Ross looks the most like the sketch out of all of them? One person has claimed that. I don’t know that to be a fact.

There are lots of "POI"s, I’m sure that many people consider theirs in relation to this sketch. That alone should attest to the probability that there are many people who aren’t suspects that resemble the sketch. It seems likely to me that some of these people could look equal to better to Ross.

Finally, how many people who knew Ross have seen the sketch and came to their own unprompted conclusion that it looks like him? I’m always pointing it out that is the purpose and the best possible use of a composite sketch.

Now I do think it’s valuable to compare Ross to the sketch, don’t get me wrong. My initial question was why he is now being compared to this "later" sketch, instead of the other one that I think is much more valuable. If he had not previously been compared to either one, then by all means that makes sense to do so. I guess my thinking is that if he looks like the original sketch, that’s a positive value, but him looking like the other sketch doesn’t increase that value because it’s the same valuation, and the second sketch itself is less valuable.

You might think that I’m a naysayer that is always trying to shoot down other people’s ideas. That’s not what I want to do. My goal is to try to evaluate the information we have using the best and most useful criteria. I don’t make any claim to having that method, but what I do is question ideas to try to establish what their method is and using that as a common valuation. It’s rarely a matter of right or wrong, but is often a case where different people have different interpretations of ideas without knowing what the other persons basis is, and assuming that they both think the same thing.

There are a few reasons to not get terribly excited about this.

1) The photo of Ross is not contemporaneous with the sketches. Anyone comparing them and saying they’re a match is missing, what, five years or so?

2) The nose is wrong. Ross’ nose looks nothing like either sketch; his nose is thicker and the nostrils more pronounced.

3) His mouth is not as small as the sketches.

4) Google ‘1969 yearbook.’ I found Ruel Parker, coach for the Malta, Idaho Trojans. Looks like the sketch!

http://maltaidaho.org/1969-yearbook/

…But it doesn’t mean anything because the sketch is not a particularly unique look for white men in their 30s or 40s in the late 1960s.

What about Vietnam photographer Charlie Haughey? Oh sure, he was in country until May ’69, but what a resemblance: http://inapcache.boston.com/universal/s … 3/bp42.jpg

Point is, you have a long way to go to prove someone who worked in a library where a possible non-Zodiac victim was last seen alive is the actual killer. And just saying he looks like a very common archetype doesn’t get you very far.

There are a few reasons to not get terribly excited about this.

1) The photo of Ross is not contemporaneous with the sketches. Anyone comparing them and saying they’re a match is missing, what, five years or so?

2) The nose is wrong. Ross’ nose looks nothing like either sketch; his nose is thicker and the nostrils more pronounced.

3) His mouth is not as small as the sketches.

4) Google ‘1969 yearbook.’ I found Ruel Parker, coach for the Malta, Idaho Trojans. Looks like the sketch!

http://maltaidaho.org/1969-yearbook/

…But it doesn’t mean anything because the sketch is not a particularly unique look for white men in their 30s or 40s in the late 1960s.

What about Vietnam photographer Charlie Haughey? Oh sure, he was in country until May ’69, but what a resemblance: http://inapcache.boston.com/universal/s … 3/bp42.jpg

Point is, you have a long way to go to prove someone who worked in a library where a possible non-Zodiac victim was last seen alive is the actual killer. And just saying he looks like a very common archetype doesn’t get you very far.

You are nitpicking at the nose, and little details. Seems like you were just discussing this on Facebook as well.

You are picking at little details from a sketch made of a guy seen at night. Your mistake is that you think that Zodiac sat down and posed for a photo, come on now be serious and be realistic. He looks pretty damn close, closer than any other Zodiac suspect. IT IS WHAT IT IS.

As you did on Facebook, you want to mention a possible NON-ZODIAC victim. And saying that the desktop is related to her case and not Zodiac. Please for the tenth time, it does not matter if Zodiac killed Cheri Jo Bates- He probably didn’t! But according to documents examiners(not just Morrill but the FBI too) Zodiac wrote on a desk in the RCC library and sent letters in the Bates case, so to that end, investigation of people in the RCC library is warranted. As I told you on Facebook, the Bates case writing is OFFICIALLY CONSIDERED AS ZODIAC WRITING BY THE CA DOJ! Ross looks pretty much damn close to that Zodiac sketch, deny all you want. Since he was in the RCC library, he should be looked at.

I don’t have the patience, so this will be the ONLY warning, if you are here to solely shoot down suspects, or Ross in particular, you don’t bring anything of value to this forum. So, you won’t be here long. If you want to be an ‘anti- Ross’ troll, do it here, and here alone-

viewtopic.php?f=106&t=3138

You’ve been warned!

Morf, I am not nitpicking when I say that the photos of Ross are not contemporaneous with the sketches. That’s as much a fact as anything else here, is it not? And a man who was known to be much heavier later in life may not be a dead ringer for a sketch of someone who, as you said, didn’t pose for it and was only seen briefly at night, especially given that the photo the sketch is being compared to is years older than the source material.

I’m not denying that Ross resembles the sketch; I’m just saying you wouldn’t have to look very hard to find someone of that era — particularly in their 30s — who did, and that just because an older photo of him looks like a sketch, which was quite literally a stab in the dark in the first place, it doesn’t prove anything. Not sure how that’s trolling. It’s realism, perhaps, but nobody ever solved anything by believing everything.

Finally, I haven’t been on Facebook since May 2011. So, whoever you’re talking to there, it isn’t me. I just refuse to be convinced by a string of tenuous and forced connections that someone with serious mental problems and an eventual ward of the state murdered five people, taunted the authorities about it, and got away with it.