I am confident, Ross has Zero connection to military life.

The recent History series reported him wearing military boots every day, I realize you wrote the comment in 2014…but why were you so confident then?

We know from profiling Z has active fantasy life, no girlfriend etc. Looks like your boy Ross is same? Military ‘life’ can be ‘wanna-be’ military life, same with Jesus complex and special blue flare pens making little coded messages.

I have read over 150 erroneous posts on this site from people speculating each other down a rabbit hole on height and weight. I am 6 foot 2 and 226 and I look normal, at 300 I still get around but my knees and back hurt….the rabbit holes can also serve to swallow up real leads….that film troupe is what really came out of that show, trips to mount Diablo and Lake Tahoe are window dressing in hind sight….the film troupe also doesn’t exist without that letter and RCC peeps, and none if it without you and your researcher mates, Dave Peterson’s dogged work notwithstanding….now we need those Glendale movie peeps and Silliphant, SolvetheMystery is right on that.

I sometimes where combat boots and camo, but that doesn’t mean I’m in combat.

A profile is a best guess. Zodiac could have very well had a girlfriend or a wife. I bet the same was said about BTK.

So proving my point, you have a ‘connection’ to military through fashion.

Another interesting thing about the LA Times photo is that Ross is not wearing his glasses. Was his eyesight good enough that he didn’t always need to wear his glasses?

Not for nothing, but two years ago I put forth my idea that somebody was making a movie at Lake Berryassa. That’s what it sounded like to me. I’ve been all over this for quite some time. I’ll try to repost my old post in which I put forth the movie maker by theory.

This is the thing, I already knew after those librarians said Sullivan wore new clothes after that murder, that he did it. I already wrote about my theory that somebody was making a movie. These guys were dropping acid, which was perfectly legal in the 1960s. Then they killed for the thrill of it.

This movie was made in 1959, when Ross was in Highschool…not 1966 like they mentioned on the show.

Well I’m glad you all know what I have known all along. Anybody that couldn’t tell Sullivan was the culprit is very naive. People always get very animated over nothing and chase their tails. I do not. I knew positively that Sullivan was Zodiac. I’m on record here.

217 pages containing 2166 posts. And that’s just this one topic… out of 58 on Sullivan. I wonder if we’ve hit on everything yet?

The more I study Ross’ jacket, the more I think it looks like a Baracuta G4. The G4 model has a button sleeve (instead of elastic sleeve on the G9) and button collar, just like Ross’ jacket. Not sure if the G4 was even around in 1959, however. (The G9 certainly was though). The scan of the article photo is somewhat low resolution and hard to make a definitive conclusion about the brand/model of windbreaker.

Baracuta G4 pics

Note double buttons and upturned collar design is a match for Ross’ jacket.

It is amazing what small details different people will notice. Thanks.

Well I’m glad you all know what I have known all along. Anybody that couldn’t tell Sullivan was the culprit is very naive. People always get very animated over nothing and chase their tails. I do not. I knew positively that Sullivan was Zodiac. I’m on record here.

Duly noted.

217 pages containing 2166 posts. And that’s just this one topic… out of 58 on Sullivan. I wonder if we’ve hit on everything yet?

Not sure what more can be determined without information on his whereabouts during the time period and more personal info. Seems for some reason the family doesn’t want to provide that. That makes me suspicious. I suppose however they just weren’t very close to him and simply don’t know.

The photo in the LA Times story is credited to the newspaper. That means an in-house LA Times staffer may have taken multiple photos on perhaps a medium format camera (larger negative that 35mm), presumably had it developed in-house by the LA Times, and then selected the best photo for publication.

What we see below looks like a low resolution microfiche-sourced image scanned from a newspaper, hence the visual degradation. Has anyone checked with the LA Times to see if the original negatives or any proof prints survive from their photo shoot with the teen film makers in their archive? It’s probably a long shot, but you never know if newspaper-owned negatives or prints might get archived in a warehouse.

I’m curious as to what the movie props are on the table in front of Ross. If negatives (which may contain more photo outtakes) or prints survive from the LA Times photo shoot, they would be higher resolution than the microfiche scan below. A high resolution image could also confirm the make and model of Ross’ windbreaker. And having more images of Ross’s face and hair in high resolution is always a good thing.

Also – sometimes historical newspaper negatives or prints get donated by the newspaper to local libraries (instead of discarding them).

Check this out! If someone on this forum lives in Los Angeles, there are over 4 MILLION images (1918-1990) from the LA Times that have been donated to the UCLA Charles E. Young Research Library. The collection is called: Los Angeles Times Photographic Archive ca. 1918-1990 (Collection 1429)

That suggests to me that the LA Times had a policy of storing all negatives their in-house photographers and reporters had taken — and eventually donated them to UCLA.

The description of the collection says that safety negatives exist from 1935-present.

This means that the 1959 LA Times source negative of Ross might now exist at UCLA and also any other outtake photos on the negative strip! Typically, a photographer will take a few different photos for a story and select the best one — so there may be more pictures of Ross in the collection, including images taken from different angles.

In the 1950s, newspapers used medium format cameras with much larger negatives than 35mm film. In general, the larger the negative, the higher the resolving power and amount of visual information capable of being stored. That means if any medium format negatives of Ross have survived in the UCLA collection, these could be ultra-high resolution — giving us a much more crisp view of his facial details, hair and clothing than any of the 1959 yearbook scans. To extract the full detail from such a negative/s, you’d want UCLA to perform a digital drum scan at high resolution and provide an uncompressed TIFF file.

The negatives are not indexed online. You have to go there in person and search paper indexes to find the negatives. The collection is searchable through paper indexes housed at the reference desk on the A level of the Charles E. Young Research Library.

==============================================================

Links to UCLA collection description:

http://guides.library.ucla.edu/los-ange … c-archives

http://www.oac.cdlib.org/findaid/ark:/13030/kt7489n8x1/

The Los Angeles Times Photographic Archive contains an estimated 4 million images dating from approximately 1918 to 1990. The collection consists of photonegatives as well as photographic prints, and includes glass negatives (circa 1918-1932), nitrate negatives (circa 1925-45), and safety negatives (circa 1935-1990). Also included are a small number of prints and negatives from the Los Angeles Times Orange County and San Diego bureaus.

The scope of the collection is near-comprehensive as a document of events, personalities, movements, and institutions in the news. Unique among its content is the amount of photographic evidence concerning the Los Angeles region during this time. The range of documentary material reflecting L.A. politics, the built environment, arts and culture, race relations, industry, growth and development is perhaps unrivaled. The photographic records resulting from the Times’ diligent and constant coverage of the Hollywood entertainment industry are a particularly important cache.

Great info! Hopefully someone can go check this out.

If you have the proper access you can use this to search from the archived LA Times newspaper, not the high quality negative, but the actual newspaper page this story is on, might produce a better photo than the one we have.

https://search.proquest.com/hnplatimes/advanced/

ANOTHER…

THE HERALD STATESMAN, Yonkers, New York. Saturday October 9th, 1943.

"FATHER SULLIVAN TO BE CHAPLAIN AT VESPER RITE"

"The Rev. Harold Sullivan, assistant at the church of St. John The Baptist here will be a chaplain to Bishop Auxiliary J. Francis A. McIntyre, chancellor of the archdiocese, tomorrow, when the Bishop presides at the annual Pontifical vesper service of the New York archdiocesan union of sodalities of the blessed virgin Mary…

Father Sullivan is the sodalities’ divisional director of the west section of Westchester county."

There’s something very weird about this. St. John the Baptist Church is a Catholic Church in NYC. Harold Sullivan is an "assistant" at this church and is described as "Father Sullivan." The archdiocesan union of sodalities of the blessed virgin is also a Catholic organization and "Father Sullivan" is described as the Sodalities divisional director.

The weird part is this article is from 1943. Ross was born in 1941. Was Harold Sullivan a defrocked Catholic priest? Might that explain why there is this age difference between Ross and his two younger brothers? Was this why they switched over to the Episcopalian denomination?

Does anyone know when Harold and Harriet Sullivan married?

Jeff (and site leaders): I categorize this good stuff with ‘important’ sticker on it.

…and if it couldn’t get thicker — the word on the street in Greenwich Village –(and the only place I can find mention of it is on Trulio.com), is that Joan Baez was married by a "pacifist preacher" known to other ‘celebrity’ anti-war people of the era, in a ‘Quaker/Episcopalian’ ceremony of their own design, with peace signs etc, to protestor David Harris and that after the ceremony Judy Collins sang in the backyard garden at at 40 Bedford Street in New York. March 26 1968! Of course we know Ross father lived there and was a pastor of some note, with lifetime YMCA connections, then dying back in Binghamton where he had lived prior to the 1957 California move, in a hospital later that same year.

Harris was arrested and went to jail for evading the draft, three months after this intersected ceremony in New York. The couple lived in Santa Cruz before and after the New York Wedding, in a small compound called ‘Struggle Mountain.’

Trying to lock this preacher. Can not locate Harris Baez marriage record. The suarez at 40 Bedford is circumstantial at this point, but it does have crumbs on web.

There seems to be evidence cropping up of family drama with these folks and it involved other pastors and YMCA connections.