Doranchak Hello, yes you’re right, there are countless combinations! But my theory is that as in summary below, in theory leads to driver’s license ALA
look at the summary in the link:
http://zodiacode1933.blogspot.com.br/20 … heory.html
but certainly agree with you

Here is your theory:

1) Use numerology to produce a number.
2) Use numerology to produce another number.
3) Multiply the two numbers together, which produces the number 8672352.
4) Discard the "8", and you have the driver’s license number: 672352

In your example, you multiply 166776 and 52 to produce 8672352. But there are many other ways to produce the same result:

2 * 4336176 = 8672352
3 * 2890784 = 8672352
4 * 2168088 = 8672352
6 * 1445392 = 8672352
8 * 1084044 = 8672352
12 * 722696 = 8672352
13 * 667104 = 8672352
16 * 542022 = 8672352
24 * 361348 = 8672352
26 * 333552 = 8672352
32 * 271011 = 8672352
39 * 222368 = 8672352
48 * 180674 = 8672352
52 * 166776 = 8672352
78 * 111184 = 8672352
96 * 90337 = 8672352
104 * 83388 = 8672352
156 * 55592 = 8672352
208 * 41694 = 8672352
312 * 27796 = 8672352
416 * 20847 = 8672352
624 * 13898 = 8672352
1248 * 6949 = 8672352

If you try hard enough, you can select any of those pairs of numbers at random, and look for numerological manipulations that give them to you. Similarly, you could do it for other numbers besides 8672352, and find pairs of factors that produce the numbers.

Or you could even do something like this:

32 * 271 = 8672
16 * 22 = 352
Put the two numbers together: 8672 352

The possibilities are endless. Numerology is not a valid method for discovering real connections in data, because there are so many ways to produce the connections by chance alone.

Ok, got it. But producing such multiplications from EBEORIETEMETHHPITI or 5 +1 +1 +1 +3 +5 +5 +5 +1 +5 +3 +3 +1 +2 +2 +3 +3 +3 with consonants and vowels above and below that produce the same result .. what you showed are just random combinations of multiplication without implying the beginning of the method. Numerology?!! …..

There is a standard method, is that whoever created the repetition of letters in a certain sequence, is not numerology.
Again, I want you to show the same result starting from the same premise. And not only getting a part of it.
Hallowen below. (The default method is the same)

No, this is just numerology, which means it tries to make pure coincidences seem significant.

To demonstrate this, let’s keep picking three random words from a dictionary, and see how many of them match the date 10/13/67 using your rules.

Here are the results, showing over 36,000 selections of words that produce 10/13/67:

http://zodiackillerciphers.com/dob-numerology-results.txt

How to read the results:

THEIR (2 1 3 2 2) LADDERS (1 2 2 2 3 2 1) EGYPTIAN (3 1 1 1 / 2 2 2 1)

"THEIR LADDERS EGYPTIAN" has 2 T’s, 1 H, 3 E’s, 2 I’s, and 2 R’s, so we write "2 1 3 2 2" next to THEIR.
We do the same thing with the remaining words. Then, we add the numbers to produce the parts of the date.
2+1+3+2+2 = 10
1+2+2+2+3+2+1 = 13
3+1+1+1 = 6, 2+2+2+1 = 7

So, you can see that it is extremely easy to find three words that produce your date. In fact, I had to stop the random selection because it did not stop finding words that produced the date. Therefore, there is no reason to believe the method is significant.

In fact, the date can be found in your own words. Does that mean you intentionally hid the date there?

There is a standard method, is that whoever created the repetition of letters in a certain sequence, is not numerology.
Again, I want you to show the same result starting from the same premise. And not only getting a part of it.
Hallowen below. (The default method is the same)

THAT (3 2 2 3) WHOEVER (1 2 1 3 1 3 2) CERTAIN (1 3 2 / 3 2 1 1)
10/13/67

There is a standard method, is that whoever created the repetition of letters in a certain sequence, is not numerology.
Again, I want you to show the same result starting from the same premise. And not only getting a part of it.
Halloween below. (The default method is the same)

Marclean-

For the record, I do not believe that ALA was the Zodiac. But with that said, just for the sake of argument, let’s say that he was.

So for your theory to be correct, we must make a few assumptions. First, we must assume that ALA meant to leave a clue to his identity.
Instead of leaving an obvious clue, such as his date of birth, 12-18-33 (December 18, 1933) [which makes him a Sagittarius] he instead chose
to reveal the date that he renewed his California driver license in 1967, which was 10-13-67 (October 13, 1967)

As a second assumption, in order to view your theory as valid, ALA must have wanted to encode that date in some way. So, for no obvious
reason, he chose to break down the numbers using simple addition. So he somehow found that the sequence of six numbers in the zodiac sign
"TAURUS" were equal to 1+3+2+1+2+1. Except, of course, they are not. Using your own method, TAURUS would be 1+1+2+1+2+1

(And as I said, ALA, by his own birth date, was a Sagittarius)

But let’s go ahead and make more assumptions, why not. If we take the letter Z and assume it means ZODIAC and also take the well known
crosshair symbol and assume it means ZODIAC also, we can put together this, as you did:

T A U R U S + Z O D I A C + Z O D I A C
1 3 2 1 2 1   2 2 2 2 3 2   2 2 2 2 3 2

So, later on 9-27-70 in the Halloween card, ALA sent a clue to his identity using an odd symbol which looks NOTHING AT ALL like a Taurus symbol, which actually looks more like this:

I don’t believe that you have found anything here. Let me ask you something.

Be honest.

Did you figure out this ‘taurus . zodiac . zodiac’ scheme and THEN find that it matched ALA’s driver license renewal date, or did you START with that date, and then try to work backwards to find it?

I already know the answer.

-glurk

I don’t believe that you have found anything here. Let me ask you something.

Be honest.

Did you figure out this ‘taurus . zodiac . zodiac’ scheme and THEN find that it matched ALA’s driver license renewal date, or did you START with that date, and then try to work backwards to find it?

I already know the answer.

-glurk

Was wondering the same.

There is a standard method, is that whoever created the repetition of letters in a certain sequence, is not numerology.
Again, I want you to show the same result starting from the same premise. And not only getting a part of it.
Hallowen below. (The default method is the same)

I found ALA’s birth date in your words, too:

AGAIN (2 3 2 3 2) GETTING (3 1 3 3 3 2 3) IT (3 / 3)
2+3+2+3+2 = 12
3+1+3+3+3+2+3 = 18
3, 3 = 33
12/18/33

Even that tiny sample of words produces two important dates, purely by chance!

okay
doranchak sorry, but keeps trying demonstras things from elements that are not the case of the zodiac.
This method using random and not with evidence presented during the case of the zodiac.
Still waiting for an example that gets the information that departs from the PREMISE (that’s logical).
I ask:
a) There is an international association of serial killers that create codes, however, they can not use methods such repetition because there is an established rule?!
(please show us the rule book)

b) You will present or not, based on the same method I use, but elements of the context of the case zodiac, similar work. from EBEORIETEMETHHPITI?

c) Force which point another suspect my method, and please, from elements in the case zodiac, and not by chance.?
 
Do not forget, that if they were made were within a surrounding context (by a madman.)

Enjoy and use your math to calculate such coincidences probablilidades this time.

Sorry, so far only seen poor arguments, sorry.

I ask you to use the same elements, the same methods and reach results that lead to other suspects and not random information.
Do not forget the context.

The point is that the coincidences are so numerous, that you cannot separate intentional messages from unintentional ones.

So, it is up to you to prove that that the coincidences are special.

For example, the way you generate dates from words allows 17,166 different valid dates to be created just using words from your own paragraph. Look for yourself:

http://zodiackillerciphers.com/numerology-all-dates.txt

It is very easy to take a small collection of words and find any special date in it, no matter what the source.

You are picking elements from the Zodiac case, and ignoring the other possibilities. This is called confirmation bias. You disguise this by referring to it as "context". Sorry, but this is not a valid approach.

The other participants in the debate, here is the method of extracting numbers:

Coincidence??

The context is not valid?!

Sorry this is not logical …