ggluckman, Subject: Meta-Zodiac: Endgame Analysis Sun Mar 24, 2013 12:31 am

Preamble:

The discussions that follow are part of an experimental offering. I am wondering if others might be interested in such themes.

The nominal topic is "Endgame Studies", but the larger unspoken topic is metatheory, or "Ideas that might lead to better quality analysis and theory building".

The value of endgame study
Some time ago, after reading an article on Michael Cole’s website [ http://ZodiacRevisited.com/the-zodiac-killers-eventual-apprehension/ ], my mind went off on a tangent, as it so often does, and I got thinking about the potential value of endgame analysis to Z-researchers. That led me to start writing some articles that I never finished (a common behavior of mine).

Serious chessplayers know the value of endgame study. Endgame study can help players sharpen their mental tools in a number of very useful ways. Most importantly, they become aware of their best options in different types of endgame scenarios; it helps them know what endgames may be winnable, and which may not; it makes them sensitive to possibilities and threats that may be available on the chess board in real time; it provides a focus for strategic planning.

[ http://voices.yahoo.com/how-study-chess-endgame-330574.html ]

The following brief posts are just thoughts related to applying endgame analysis to the Zodiac Killer case. As far as I am aware, this is a new idea. My hope is that we might see how endgame analysis can be valuable for creating theories about the Zodiac Killer. Probably the ideas themselves won’t be new–it is the framework that I believe is new.

I will present a few attempts at analysis in posts below. Each one will take the form of a mini-essay. Since I am not a Zodiac expert, and since your reasoning skills may be better than mine, you may be able to do a much better job than I. Good, please do. You are invited to jump in and post your own mini-essays and your own analysis. I will go first with two or three posts to show what I mean.

As I said, I am no expert. My main contribution (I hope) is the simple objective of introducing the value of endgame analysis, and perhaps getting others thinking about the potential value of metatheory to Z-research.

Here goes.

ggluckman, Subject: Endgame: Under what conditions might the Zodiac Killer mystery be solved? Sun Mar 24, 2013 12:38 am

Endgame: Under what conditions might the Zodiac Killer mystery be solved?

Just for the fun of it, I compiled a list of some possible endgame scenarios (see below) that might lead to a solution to the Zodiac Killer mystery.

Possible endgame scenarios leading to Z’s identification and possible conviction:
[list=1]

Notes:

• The above list is by no means exhaustive.[/*:m:24vjg6re]
• I make no claim that any of these scenarios are especially probable, although some may be more likely than others.[/*:m:24vjg6re]
• Within any given possibility listed above, there could be many possible variations.[/*:m:24vjg6re]
• This list is only presented as something to think about.[/*:m:24vjg6re]
• The above list does not account for negative endgame scenarios in which Z is never caught [/*:m:24vjg6re][/list:u:24vjg6re]

I am sure you could improve on this list. Please feel free to try, or to use this list for your own purposes. I will refer to this in my posts below.



ggluckman, Subject: Endgame: Thoughts on cipher solution scenarios (1) Sun Mar 24, 2013 12:48 am

Endgame: Thoughts on cipher solution scenarios (1):

Personally, I hope a cipher solution can lead to a viable endgame, but it doesn’t seem like a slam-dunk. Here is how some of the analysis looks to me:

If we spend any effort trying to solve the remaining ciphers, then we are presumably taking it as our working hypothesis that the ciphers are solvable.

Bear in mind that a working hypothesis is a special kind of theory where our operational assumptions may differ from our inner convictions. For example, even though we may be cognizant that a solution could potentially be impossible, our actions are nonetheless guided by the premiss that ciphers are solvable and provide worthwhile results.

Whenever we theorize that the ciphers will help lead to a solution to the Zodiac Killer mystery, we make some implicit assumptions about several conditions that must be met in order for the cipher solution to bring us to a viable endgame:
[list=1]

• Zodiac had to be mentally capable of having created a valid and solvable cipher.[/*:m:24vjg6re]
• Zodiac had to have been motivated to create a solvable cipher.[/*:m:24vjg6re]
• Zodiac had to have been motivated to create a cipher that is not only solvable, but has a reasonable chance of being solved (i.e.: that wouldn’t have been virtually impossible)[/*:m:24vjg6re]
• Zodiac had to have been motivated to have included worthwhile information in the solution. (i.e.: info that would, or at least could, reveal his identity)[/*:m:24vjg6re]
• Zodiac was not motivated to provide an unduly deceptive solution: otherwise a Z-researcher might not be able to distinguish between, say, a genuine identity clue providing Z’s name, from a deceptive message framing a contemporary.[/*:m:24vjg6re]
• The conditions for a solution must not have deteriorated with the passing of decades. [/*:m:24vjg6re][/list:o:24vjg6re]

The important thing to see is that from the initial hypothesis flows a number of implied assumptions. In other words, from one prior assumption flows many subsequent assumptions.

It is alright to make assumptions–in fact it is impossible not to, if we wish to move forward–but it is important to account for our assumptions, even if only by listing them out to make them explicit. It is also important to recognize that our assumptions can affect our perception of probabilities, particularly if unchallenged.

Most of the above assumptions above take the form of statements about the Zodiac Killer that we really don’t know for certain. When we theorize that the ciphers will lead to a solution–even on the working hypothesis level only–we are not just making any old assumptions, we are making assumptions about who the Zodiac is, in terms of his character. We are implicitly narrowing his profile.

Another way to look at this, however, is that from the prior assumption–from our working hypothesis that Zodiac’s ciphers hold the key to a positive endgame flow several ‘a priori’ conclusions about Zodiac as an individual. The question becomes whether or not these conclusions are justifiable.

Let’s take the following implicit assumption (selected from the above list):

• "Zodiac had to have been motivated to include worthwhile information in the solution. (i.e.: info that would, or at least could, reveal his identity)" [/*:m:24vjg6re][/list:u:24vjg6re]

How unusual would it be for a killer to deliberately provide information that would potentially result in his capture, conviction and possible execution? Acknowledged that some criminals probably do have deep-seated reasons for wanting to get caught, but most seem to be sincere in their efforts to avoid capture. Pop psychology aside, we need to ask ourselves how we would justify, and quantify, the likelihood that Z actually was motivated to put his freedom and life at risk? There may be a justification, but it should not be assumed without being accounted for. It is not a gimme.

Let’s suppose Z did provide information that could realistically be used to identify him. What might that tell us about the Zodiac Killer?’

[list=1]

• It might tell us that he was motivated to take real risks through gamemanship. (Note that this is very different from somebody who simply wanted to garner attention through games that he could easily have cheated at by not providing real solutions to.) For some reason, he presumably felt he needed to be a good sportsman in some degree to feel fulfilled in his game, even though being a good sportsman could be seriously dangerous. This may be likened to that spot of integrity some people have that only lets them enjoy a victory if they feel they won a competition fair and square.[/*:m:24vjg6re]
• It might tell us that he felt safe for some other reason–presumably because he had taken precautions against at least those contingencies that would have the worst payoffs for Z.[/*:m:24vjg6re]
• It might tell us that he had a desire to be caught. [/*:m:24vjg6re][/list:o:24vjg6re]

The first and the third possibilities would seem to eliminate the profile of a Zodiac who is only using the ciphers to garner attention, presumably as part of a campaign to generate fear.

Thinking in terms of Occam’s Razor, such a Zodiac would presumably not need to add the risk to his own safety that comes with including meaningful information about himself in a solveable cipher. Such a Zodiac would seem more likely to simply be making a false claim, which violates our original hypothesis.

And if making a false claim made such good sense, then the Zodiac who was simply trying to garner attention or generate fear with his claims should have no need to provide real info even if he thought he could work out a plan to keep himself safe in all contingencies. So, Occam’s Razor suggests that the Zodiac who is only seeking attention and the Zodiac who provides ciphers with real worthwhile solutions are mutually exclusive.

If we are to move forward with the premiss that the ciphers are worth solving, then it appears (to me, anyway) that our most logical next assumption is that Z was operating from a sense of safety. In other words, that he still felt immune in some way from the consequences of somebody solving the remaining ciphers.

My reasoning is once again Occam’s Razor: unless we have evidence to the contrary, Zodiac should be assumed to have the same self preservation instincts as most humans, and so would not provide solvable clues to his identity unless he believed himself to be safe from the consequences.

This does not mean that we can eliminate the Zodiac who wishes to get caught. It only means that we are arguing that Occam’s Razor allows us to argue that the Zodiac who works from a sense of security has some degree of ascendency over the Zodiac who wishes to get caught.

To restate the above in hierarchical form, Occam suggests:
[list=1]

• It is simplest to suppose that Z was only interested in garnering attention and generating fear, and therefore did not provide useful information in the solution sets (supposing there are solutions) to the remaining ciphers. (BTW, the same could be said of any of his other puzzle-like writings.) [/*:m:24vjg6re]
• The next simplest supposition is that Zodiac did provide real information that could help identify him, but had some reason for feeling confident that he was safe from the worst consequences of the ciphers being solved. (This could have been because he considered it highly improbable that the puzzles could be solved, but that would be tantamount to saying case 2 is indistinguishable from case 1 above.) This suggests that Z felt he had a safety plan for at least the worst contingencies.[/*:m:24vjg6re]
• The next simplest might be that he put valuable information in the ciphers because his sense of competitive sportsmanship and willingness to take risks outweighed his instinct for self preservation.[/*:m:24vjg6re]
• The least simple, and therefore most burdensome, assumption is that he provided real information because he actually had a desire to be caught.[/*:m:24vjg6re][/list:o:24vjg6re]

The above hierarchy suggests a kind of "probability wave", but one that only operates in the absence of other information. In essence, is just a hierarchy for determining the relative onus of proof in making assumptions. As you can see, there is a greater burden of proof as we move to the higher number cases.

But please also notice that some of the possibilities in the probability wave are in direct contradiction to our original hypothesis. The first case above is in direct contradiction to our working hypothesis that a solution to the Zodiac ciphers would lead to a positive endgame. The third case, by contrast matches well with the cipher endgame hypothesis.

Furthermore, this probability wave may collapse, or be transformed into a new one, as new information or arguments are considered. For example, if we come up with the right examples, we might be able to argue that case 3 is more probable than case 1. We might make such a case by bringing up arguments like the Paul Stine murder, where he apparently opened himself to significant risk. Observations like this might provide evidence for such an argument.



ggluckman, Subject: Endgame: Thoughts on cipher solution scenarios (2) Sun Mar 24, 2013 12:54 am

Endgame: Thoughts on cipher solution scenarios (2):

Another thing we can consider, without being cipher experts, is some of the possible results of the (hypothetically) decrypted ciphers. While I am saying ciphers–plural–I am thinking primarily about the 340 cipher, which has not yet been broken. At least not to my satisfaction. Nor that of many others, from what I see.

My list of possible outcomes for cipher solutions is as follows:
[list=1]

• Never solved conclusively.[/*:m:24vjg6re]
• Conclusively determined to render incoherent solution.[/*:m:24vjg6re]
• Conclusively determined to be capable of rendering multiple solutions, but not possible to choose.[/*:m:24vjg6re]
• Conclusively determined to render coherent solution, but does not provide useful information.[/*:m:24vjg6re]
• Conclusively determined to render coherent solution that may suggest further leads.[/*:m:24vjg6re]
• Conclusively determined to render coherent solution that clearly provides further leads.[/*:m:24vjg6re]
• Conclusively determined to render coherent solution that provides direct, but limited, information about Zodiac’s identity.[/*:m:24vjg6re]
• Conclusively determined to render coherent solution that provides direct, high quality information about Zodiac’s identity.[/*:m:24vjg6re]
• Conclusively determined to render coherent solution that provides information (of any quality), but that is deliberately misleading and deceptive about Zodiac’s identity. (And hence tends to lead researchers further from the truth.) [/*:m:24vjg6re][/list:o:24vjg6re]

Note that case 9 leads to a problem for researchers, assuming it occurs to them, because it actually intereferes with the interpretation of results of any of the other cases.

For example, let’s say the decrypted text includes the message: "This is the Zodiac Speaking and my name is Arnold Bartholomew Schwarzeneggar." Now, presumably, the suspicion of the world will fall on the infamous ABS. But how do we know if this is the truth, or if Z planted the name there to throw the fuzz off his trail one more time? So, even though the word "conclusive" was included, there may be nothing conclusive about the conclusion.

Another problem that should be discussed is the problem of criteria. By what criteria do we say that a cipher is truly solved? In some cases, we seem to be able to come to agreement. The 408 cipher was solved and there was almost total agreement. Still, I should note that a few believe it was not "really" solved.

One argument suggests that a seemingly extra random string of characters at the end of the cipher actually contain a deeper meaning. I believe others have suggested other ways in which the 408 cipher would render a different solution.

Whether or not you agree with these assessments is beside the point. The point is that the solutions themselves depend on subjective interpretation in some degree. Even if you and all your buddies feel extremely strongly that your favorite solution is the correct one, it is almost certain that the result depended on some degree of interpretation.

With the Hardens’ results, we are able to work backwards to understand the rules of inference and methods that Don and Bettye applied when resolving the 408 cipher. We can see that their reasoning was simple enough and elegant enough, and the resulting output coherent enough, as well as fitting the context that most people are inclined to see it as the being the correct result.

Let’s expand on that that in in list form. Criteria for evaluating cipher results:
[list=1]

• Assessment of rules of inference: simplicity, elegance, avoidance of abitrary adjustments[/*:m:24vjg6re]
• Assessment of rules of inference: conformance to accepted strategies, principles for decipherment[/*:m:24vjg6re]
• Assessment of rules of inference: applying same rules of inference could not lead to other equally reasonable solutions. [/*:m:24vjg6re]
• Assessment of decrypted output: coherence, fluidity of thought, sentence structure, etc[/*:m:24vjg6re]
• Assessment of decrypted output: contextual fit[/*:m:24vjg6re]
• Assessment of decrypted output: general believability[/*:m:24vjg6re][/list:o:24vjg6re]

As you can see, some of the above criteria are rather subjective and even based on esthetics. In math and logic a solution is often considered to be more likely to be true if it is elegant. We often like to believe that the same will be true in the best solution to the Zodiac ciphers. While it may work out that way, that entails an assumption that must be accounted for, not smuggled in.

If the Zodiac Killer was given to creating elegant ciphers, then the solution will most likely be elegant. But if he wasn’t, it won’t. We have the results of the 408 cipher to give us a baseline for his capabilities, but that only tells us what he did the first time. It doesn’t tell us what is different in the 340.

Since we have not yet arrived at a widely accepted solution to the 340 cipher, we are not sure if the 340 solution, assuming there is one, would have all the same qualities. In fact, it appears that it must be more complicated, so the rules of inference will presumably be trickier.

Many solutions have been advanced: some have not seemed to pass the coherence test; others, like the Starliper solution has been roundly criticized for poor methodology–the rules of inference that were applied are considered to be highly suspect. At least that seems to be the consensus at my favorite Z-sites. Still these types of would-be solutions persist precisely because nobody can be sure that the criteria that led to the acceptance of the 408 will be so easy to apply to the 340.



ggluckman, Subject: Re: Meta-Zodiac: Endgame Analysis Sun Mar 24, 2013 1:00 am

So, that is my starting contribution. I am hoping others may be inclined to contribute their own endgame analysis on any part of the endgames that interest them. If you prefer, you can criticize or improve on my comments.

Many thanks,

G



entropy, Subject: Re: Meta-Zodiac: Endgame Analysis Mon Mar 25, 2013 1:30 am

Interesting thoughts, GG. In regards to the endgame scenario (the term kind of pisses me off actually because of the way it was presented by Mike K. but I know it is just being borrowed):

Possible endgame scenarios leading to Z’s identification and possible conviction:
1.Forensic breakthrough: e.g.: DNA, fingerprint or other forensic proof found

2.Ciphers solved, revealing Z’s identity

3.Other of Z’s puzzles solved, leading to concrete evidence, thence to Z’s identity

4.Previously unknown (eye)witness found, leading to profound revelations

5.Link to some other murder discovered, rendering new info.

6.Friend or family member suspects Z based on writings, behaviors, provides LE with new leads

7.Death bed confession

8.Blunder on Z’s part

9.Other

I would say #1 is by far the most likely "end game". Either new DNA technology allows LE to get a full profile and/or the right person just happens to be subjected to DNA comparison. I think that links with #5, 6 or 7 in that presumably somebody new would have to draw the attention of LE in order to be considered for DNA comparison. I think the most hopeful DNA technology would be the ability to compare a family member’s DNA, which could potentially link a suspect dead or alive to the crimes with an adequate DNA profile. A death bed confession is possible but I would have hoped it would have happened by now. All in all, I’m not optimistic that we will ever see an end game scenario played out.

As for the ciphers, no offense to our hard-working cipher gurus but I’m not optimistic those would be particularly helpful or identifying. Z’s first effort revealed that he "liked killing because it was so much fun" and that he had no intention (at least at that time) to reveal his identity. I don’t see that changing despite the apparent increased complexity of the ciphers. Then again, look at that BTK puzzle in the "BTK as Zodiaphile" thread. BTK may not have specifically wanted to be caught but he did seem to provide some hidden meaningful information in the BTK puzzle, which was part of his BTK Story. I somehow view Z as far less interested in sharing his autobiography with us but ya never know.



Drew, Subject: Re: Meta-Zodiac: Endgame Analysis Mon Mar 25, 2013 8:01 pm

Really good thread, G. I think there is an actual solution to the 340, but decoding it might require dates, keywords, and numbers associated with Zodiac himself. This would enable Z to "have it both ways" — he gets to present a cipher to the public that is technically solvable while knowing that realistically, no one would ever do so.



entropy, Subject: Re: Meta-Zodiac: Endgame Analysis Tue Mar 26, 2013 12:45 am

Really good thread, G. I think there is an actual solution to the 340, but decoding it might require dates, keywords, and numbers associated with Zodiac himself. This would enable Z to "have it both ways" — he gets to present a cipher to the public that is technically solvable while knowing that realistically, no one would ever do so.

I think that’s very possible, Drew, and that’s exactly the way Dennis Rader (BTK) designed a code sent with one of his communications. It was a fairly simple type of code but required a keyword, which was a "project name" for one of his victims that, of course, only he knew prior to his arrest. A good example of a not-so-bright guy creating a personalized cipher which would have been unsolveable only because he purposely withheld the key to the solution. Not suggesting that Rader purposely emulated anything from Zodiac here but there are huge psychological similarities and I could certainly see Z creating a cipher with some sort of key, then swallowing that key.



Drew, Subject: Re: Meta-Zodiac: Endgame Analysis Tue Mar 26, 2013 12:50 pm

That’s very interesting about Rader, entropy. Agree that both Z and BTK could have a similar rationale in mind for "swallowing the key," as you put it. On the archived forum at zkiller.com, a forum member created a cipher and then later explained (after no one could solve it) that he encoded it using items like the suspect’s social-security number, date of birth, etc. My first reaction was that it was unfair to do so, but I think the real lesson is there was nothing to prevent Z from basically doing the same thing.



onewhoknows, Subject: Re: Meta-Zodiac: Endgame Analysis Tue Mar 26, 2013 5:01 pm

Did Zodiac begin calling himself Zodiac after the first cypher but before the 340?
Could the code word be Zodiac? I’m sure someone has tried that…



Nachtsider, Subject: Re: Meta-Zodiac: Endgame Analysis Thu Mar 28, 2013 5:11 am

Just for the fun of it, I compiled a list of some possible endgame scenarios (see below) that might lead to a solution to the Zodiac Killer mystery.

Possible endgame scenarios leading to Z’s identification and possible conviction:
[list=1]

Forensic breakthrough: e.g.: DNA, fingerprint or other forensic proof found[/*:m:24vjg6re]

Ciphers solved, revealing Z’s identity[/*:m:24vjg6re]

Other of Z’s puzzles solved, leading to concrete evidence, thence to Z’s identity[/*:m:24vjg6re]

Previously unknown (eye)witness found, leading to profound revelations[/*:m:24vjg6re]

Link to some other murder discovered, rendering new info.[/*:m:24vjg6re]

Friend or family member suspects Z based on writings, behaviors, provides LE with new leads[/*:m:24vjg6re]

Death bed confession[/*:m:24vjg6re]

Blunder on Z’s part[/*:m:24vjg6re]

Other [/*:m:24vjg6re][/list:o:24vjg6re]

At the rate things are going, the only way this case is going to be solved is if (1) a friend or family member provides the police with a new lead, or (2) a link to some other crime is discovered, with either of the preceding resulting in a forensic breakthrough.



duckking2001, Subject: Re: Meta-Zodiac: Endgame Analysis Thu Mar 28, 2013 7:50 am

Someone correct me if I’m wrong here, but my understanding of ciphers:

A cipher key would be a sequence of individual letter substitutions which would only work if the key was the same length as the cipher text, or would require some other transposition to rearrange the cipher text, otherwise it would create a pattern of repeated sequences that should be detected by decryption software.



glurk, Subject: Re: Meta-Zodiac: Endgame Analysis Thu Mar 28, 2013 8:20 am

duckking2001-

Can you read this message? You just wrote it yourself.

B djqifs lfz xpvme cf b tfrvfodf pg joejwjevbm mfuufs tvctujuvujpot xijdi xpvme pomz xpsl jg uif lfz xbt uif tbnf mfohui bt uif djqifs ufyu, ps xpvme sfrvjsf tpnf puifs usbotqptjujpo up sfbssbohf uif djqifs ufyu, puifsxjtf ju xpvme dsfbuf b qbuufso pg sfqfbufe tfrvfodft uibu tipvme cf efufdufe cz efdszqujpo tpguxbsf.

The key is:

ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ
BCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZA

But see, though, that is SIMPLE. It is just shifting the alphabet by one letter. A becomes B, B becomes C, C becomes D, and etc.

But what if the key were a RANDOM alphabet:

ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ
HNUREWMPGQYJFDZAVXSTKCOBLI

That makes it more complex.

Instead of A becomes B, you have A becomes H, B becomes N, C becomes U, D becomes R and etc. But let’s make it even MORE complex:

ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ
HNUREWMPGQYJFDZAVXSTKCOBLI
#
@
&

Now, the plaintext letter "A" might be in the cipher as "H" "#" "@" or "&"

Simply by adding more substitutes for the plaintext letter "A" I have turned a simple substitution cipher into a homophonic cipher, like the 408.

Hopefully this makes sense. But that is what a "key" is.

-glurk

(I’m terrible at explaining this stuff, LOL. But I try.)



mike_r, Subject: Re: Meta-Zodiac: Endgame Analysis Thu Mar 28, 2013 9:45 am

Hi-

A friend of mine said that it is possible that the 340 is a book cipher. I am no code expert but I thought a book cipher would have to have something like 12.3.18, or page 12, line 3 word 18, etc. Could a book cipher be translated logically into the symbols we see? And if so, could it be decoded to any degree of certainty?

Mike



glurk, Subject: Re: Meta-Zodiac: Endgame Analysis Thu Mar 28, 2013 10:32 am

mike-

I see no possible way that the 340 could be a book cipher. As you noted, a book cipher is normally made up of numbers indicating page, chapter, word, etc. Look at the Beale ciphers for an example.

But the 340, just like the 408, is made up of a bunch of (drawn) symbols that are not part of any alphabet and cannot be enumerated in any known order. So it seems (to me at least) that some sort
of substitution must first be in play. If the symbols can’t first be put into some form of numbered order, which they can’t, it is rather impossible for them to be indicators to any book.

-glurk



onewhoknows, Subject: Re: Meta-Zodiac: Endgame Analysis Thu Mar 28, 2013 12:00 pm

I was just posting, as has happened before and everything just goes poof! I recognize it
as the evil powers that be, trying to stop me again. But patience always prevails.
For my own personal reasons, I have an issue with those who refuse to consider
anagramming as part of the cipher solution. Especially with the "My Name Is.."
cipher. Wouldn’t Zodiac want you to solve one more little puzzel before spelling
out his name? In fact, in a court of law, his own Liar/Lawyer could say that many
different names might be derived from these letters. In the San Francisco Chronicle
on the same page each day, I believe, as the Herb Caen column, was a word game
called Jumble. The point of the game was to re-arrange letters to get the answer.
When I solved the "My Name Is" to my suspect’s name, based on the 340 solution
by Obiwan, I came up with each letter of my suspect’s name with the letter A added.
How many different names can you get with these letters? APETERSPLANTE.



doranchak, Subject: Re: Meta-Zodiac: Endgame Analysis Thu Mar 28, 2013 4:28 pm

How many different names can you get with these letters? APETERSPLANTE.

Over 22,000 of them:

http://zodiackillerciphers.com/peter-plante-anagrams.txt

It is wise to consider anagrams. It is folly to assume one answer is more special than the others, without stronger evidence.



mike_r, Subject: Re: Meta-Zodiac: Endgame Analysis Thu Mar 28, 2013 4:35 pm

Hi-

I don’t think it is necessarily because people don’t want to consider anagramming but…the problem with that (or at least it seems to me) is that it immediately implies a solution that is subjective, unless you find some magic clue in a Z letter that gives you an objective pattern to the anagramming that the author desired. How can anyone ever prove that an anagrammed solution is the sole correct one, a la the Hardens?

Disclamer: I am not a cipher person and claim almost complete ignorance of same!

And as for a book cipher, I didn’t think it was one but someone told me it could be. Thanks for the clarification.

Mike



StitchMallone, Subject: Re: Meta-Zodiac: Endgame Analysis Thu Mar 28, 2013 4:53 pm

How many different names can you get with these letters? APETERSPLANTE.

Over 22,000 of them:

http://zodiackillerciphers.com/peter-plante-anagrams.txt

It is wise to consider anagrams. It is folly to assume one answer is more special than the others, without stronger evidence.

Thing is Zodiac is being a smart ass then cause he knows the my name cipher can’t be solved since it is so small and frequency won’t work. Which leaves me to believe he very well may have put his real name in there knowing its crack proof.



StitchMallone, Subject: Re: Meta-Zodiac: Endgame Analysis Thu Mar 28, 2013 5:09 pm

As for anagrams here is a cool site to mess with.
http://anagram-solver.net/



doranchak, Subject: Re: Meta-Zodiac: Endgame Analysis Thu Mar 28, 2013 5:12 pm

Cool!

I’m a fan of:

http://wordsmith.org/anagram

It tells me that "Stitch Malone" anagrams into "Stomach Inlet."



StitchMallone, Subject: Re: Meta-Zodiac: Endgame Analysis Thu Mar 28, 2013 5:17 pm

Cool!

I’m a fan of:

http://wordsmith.org/anagram

It tells me that "Stitch Malone" anagrams into "Stomach Inlet."

Lol and thanks for your link. Put the known letters from the my name cipher on the site you linked and got this. Am Man Ken. Now we know Zodiac was a man named Ken lol. Pretty cool site thanks again.



StitchMallone, Subject: Re: Meta-Zodiac: Endgame Analysis Thu Mar 28, 2013 5:31 pm

Or maybe Zodiac is saying he is a Mannequin. I hope that is the case because I got to go shoot pool in about a hour with a man named Ken that is in my pool league. Hope he isn’t Z.



Daniel Gillotti, Subject: Re: Meta-Zodiac: Endgame Analysis Thu Mar 28, 2013 5:51 pm

A DARKEN HAVOC :cheers:

HEY POE

:sunny: 9



StitchMallone, Subject: Re: Meta-Zodiac: Endgame Analysis Thu Mar 28, 2013 11:33 pm

Just got back from pool league and Ken didn’t try to kill me. Ps we did pretty good tonight and won 3 out of 4.



duckking2001, Subject: Re: Meta-Zodiac: Endgame Analysis Fri Mar 29, 2013 1:15 am

Simply by adding more substitutes for the plaintext letter "A" I have turned a simple substitution cipher into a homophonic cipher, like the 408.

Hopefully this makes sense. But that is what a "key" is.

-glurk

(I’m terrible at explaining this stuff, LOL. But I try.)

Right, that was a good explanation, but I was referring to the keyword being something specifically given in the Zodiac letters, such as the word "Zodiac."



StitchMallone, Subject: Re: Meta-Zodiac: Endgame Analysis Fri Mar 29, 2013 2:14 am

Simply by adding more substitutes for the plaintext letter "A" I have turned a simple substitution cipher into a homophonic cipher, like the 408.

Hopefully this makes sense. But that is what a "key" is.

-glurk

(I’m terrible at explaining this stuff, LOL. But I try.)

Right, that was a good explanation, but I was referring to the keyword being something specifically given in the Zodiac letters, such as the word "Zodiac."

How about the word Thing ?



StitchMallone, Subject: Re: Meta-Zodiac: Endgame Analysis Fri Mar 29, 2013 2:18 am

If Zodiac left a clue to solve the 340 and etc. I really believe that’s his clue. The word Thing and why he underlined it and etc.



Jem, Subject: Re: Meta-Zodiac: Endgame Analysis Fri Mar 29, 2013 10:53 am

Could you make a cipher out of 10-digit ISBN numbers? Say, if you used the first word from each book title. Or the most meaningful word. Something like that?



onewhoknows, Subject: Re: Meta-Zodiac: Endgame Analysis Fri Mar 29, 2013 11:24 am

How many different names can you get with these letters? APETERSPLANTE.

Over 22,000 of them:

http://zodiackillerciphers.com/peter-plante-anagrams.txt

It is wise to consider anagrams. It is folly to assume one answer is more special than the others, without stronger evidence.

I knew you would jump right on this now give the number of names that use EXACTLY the number of and letters APETERSPLANTE



doranchak, Subject: Re: Meta-Zodiac: Endgame Analysis Fri Mar 29, 2013 11:39 am

Six exact matches:

APPELT, EARNEST; PATTS, PEARLENE; PLEASANT, PETER; PLEASENT, PETRA; SAPPER, LANETTE; SEPPELT, RENATA

170 if you allow one letter to be missing:

ALPERS, ANETTE; APPEL, ARNETTE; APPEL, EARNEST; APPEL, RENETTA; APPELT, EASTER; APPELT, ERNEST; APPELT, RENATE; APPELT, SERENA; APPELT, TERESA; APPELT, TREENA; APPERT, ESTELA; APPERT, SELENA; APPLE, ARNETTE; APPLE, EARNEST; APPLE, RENETTA; APPLEN, EASTER; APPLEN, TERESA; ASPEN, ARLETTE; ASPER, LANETTE; EARPS, LANETTE; EPPERT, SALENA; EPPES, ARLETTA; EPPES, ARNETTA; EPPLE, ARNETTA; ESTEPP, ARLEAN; ESTEPP, ARLENA; ESTEPP, RENATA; LAPENTA, ESTER; LAPENTA, PETER; LAPPE, ARNETTE; LAPPE, EARNEST; LAPPE, RENETTA; LASTRAPE, PETE; LEPPERT, SANTA; NAPPER, ESTELA; NAPPS, ARLETTE; PANTER, ESTELA; PANTLE, EASTER; PANTLE, TERESA; PAPALE, ERNEST; PAPEN, ARLETTE; PARENT, ESTELA; PARES, LANETTE; PARTEN, ESTELA; PASTEL, RENATE; PASTEL, TREENA; PATANE, LESTER; PATEL, EARNEST; PATLAN, TERESE; PATT, PEARLENE; PATTEN, PEARLE; PATTER, SELENA; PATTS, EARLEEN; PATTS, EARLENE; PATTS, RAELENE; PEALS, ARNETTE; PEALS, RENETTA; PEARS, LANETTE; PEASANT, PETER; PEELS, ARNETTA; PELES, ARNETTA; PENAS, ARLETTE; PENSA, ARLETTE; PENSE, ARLETTA; PERLAS, ANETTE; PERSTEN, ALETA; PESANTE, PEARL; PESANTE, PERLA; PESANTE, PETRA; PESTANA, PETER; PETERSEN, ALTA; PETTAS, ARLEEN; PETTAS, ARLENE; PETTAS, PEARLE; PETTER, SALENA; PETTERS, ALANE; PETTERS, ALENA; PETTERS, ELANA; PETTERS, LEANA; PETTES, ARLEAN; PETTES, ARLENA; PETTS, EARLEAN; PLANTE, EASTER; PLANTE, TERESA; PLASTER, TEENA; PLATE, EARNEST; PLATTE, SERENA; PLEAS, ARNETTE; PLEAS, RENETTA; PLEASANT, PETE; PLEASENT, RETA; PLEASENT, TERA; PLESANT, PETER; PLESANT, PETRA; PLESE, ARNETTA; PRANTE, ESTELA; PRATTE, SELENA; PRATTEN, LEESA; PREAS, LANETTE; PRENATT, LEESA; PRESA, LANETTE; RAPPE, LANETTE; SAPPER, ANETTE; SEPPA, ARLETTE; SEPPA, ARNETTE; SEPPA, LANETTE; SEPPA, RENETTA; SEPPALA, TRENT; SEPPELT, RANAE; SEPPELT, TAREN; SEPPELT, TRENA; SERPA, LANETTE; SLAPE, ARNETTE; SLAPE, RENETTA; SNAPE, ARLETTE; SNAPP, ARLETTE; SPALTER, TEENA; SPANE, ARLETTE; SPARE, LANETTE; SPEAR, LANETTE; SPENA, ARLETTE; SPENE, ARLETTA; SPERA, LANETTE; SPETTEL, RANAE; SPETTER, ALANE; SPETTER, ALENA; SPETTER, ELANA; SPETTER, LEANA; SPRATLEN, PETE; SPRATTE, ALEEN; SPRATTE, ALENE; SPRATTE, ELANE; SPRATTE, ELENA; SPRATTE, LEENA; STAPEL, RENATE; STAPEL, TREENA; STAPLE, RENATE; STAPLE, TREENA; STAPLER, TEENA; STAPP, EARLEEN; STAPP, EARLENE; STAPP, RAELENE; STATEN, PEARLE; STEPAN, PEARLE; STEPP, EARLEAN; STEPPE, ARLEAN; STEPPE, ARLENA; STEPPE, RENATA; STEPTER, ALANE; STEPTER, ALENA; STEPTER, ELANA; STEPTER, LEANA; STPETER, ALANE; STPETER, ALENA; STPETER, ELANA; STPETER, LEANA; TAPALES, PETER; TAPANES, PETER; TAPPAN, LESTER; TAPPAN, TERESE; TAPPE, EARNEST; TAPPEN, EASTER; TAPPEN, ESTELA; TAPPEN, LESTER; TAPPEN, TERESA; TAPPER, ESTELA; TAPPER, SELENA; TAPS, PEARLENE; TENPAS, PEARLE; TEPPER, SALENA

Over 30,000 exact anagrams if you allow non-names:

http://wordsmith.org/anagram/anagram.cgi?anagram=APETERSPLANTE&t=1000&a=n



onewhoknows, Subject: Re: Meta-Zodiac: Endgame Analysis Fri Mar 29, 2013 12:24 pm

Peter Pleasant, isn’t that nice. Six names only, most of them female
now here is another end game for you…
I noticed alot of the traditonal suspects have enough letters in their
names to fit the "My Name Is.." cipher. Peter signed all his checks
as Peter S Plante, (see all the PS in the Zodiac Letters) but each man
may call himself something else. ARTHUR L ALLEN would fit for example.
What are the odds of any solution bringing up the exact letters of a suspect’s
name? So take your suspect’s name, TK for example, and solve your cipher
backwards from there.



doranchak, Subject: Re: Meta-Zodiac: Endgame Analysis Fri Mar 29, 2013 12:40 pm

You need to show the justification for arriving at the letters in APETERSPLANTE in the first place. There is no reason to believe obiwan’s solution is correct. Therefore, any candidate solution for the 340 can be used to decode common symbols in the 13-character cipher, producing many different sequences of plaintext letters to choose from besides the ones in APETERSPLANTE.



onewhoknows, Subject: Re: Meta-Zodiac: Endgame Analysis Fri Mar 29, 2013 12:54 pm

What are the odds of taking Obiwan’s solution and plugging in the symbol(s) for each
letter into the " My Name is.." cipher and getting the exact letters of my suspect’s name?
Zodiac claims, if you have solved the 340, you should be able to solve to his name.
Obiwan must have had some basis for his solution. It refers to Clear Lake and LSD and
names cops and Herb Caen. It also says see a name below, then, I Plant Mr.
So what are the odds of taking this solution and with simple backwards substitution, coming
up with all the letters in my suspects name?



doranchak, Subject: Re: Meta-Zodiac: Endgame Analysis Fri Mar 29, 2013 1:22 pm

What are the odds of taking Obiwan’s solution and plugging in the symbol(s) for each
letter into the " My Name is.." cipher and getting the exact letters of my suspect’s name?

It doesn’t matter, because even if it is a small chance based on Obiwan’s solution, you can generate any solution to the 340 you’d like to arrive at a different combination of letters in the "My Name Is" cipher. Then, the chances of finding any suspect’s name approaches 100%.

Also, can you show how you plugged Obiwan’s solution into the My Name Is cipher? The taurus symbol from the 13 isn’t even in the 340. It could also be argued that the upside-down T-like symbol in the 13 isn’t the same as the one in the 340.

Zodiac claims, if you have solved the 340, you should be able to solve to his name.
Obiwan must have had some basis for his solution. It refers to Clear Lake and LSD and
names cops and Herb Caen. It also says see a name below, then, I Plant Mr.

Anyone can do that to the 340 cipher to make it say interesting things in some places, and gibberish everywhere else. Consider this example from traveller1st:

http://www.zodiackillerfacts.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=24906#p24906

Numerous phrases can be made to appear, but there is no basis shown to conclude that a particular partial solution is better than all the other ones.



onewhoknows, Subject: Re: Meta-Zodiac: Endgame Analysis Fri Mar 29, 2013 4:34 pm









AK Wilks, Subject: Re: Meta-Zodiac: Endgame Analysis Fri Mar 29, 2013 4:43 pm

OWK – That is the Graysmith anagramed final solution. IMO and the opinion of most researchers that is mostly a nonsense forced baby talk solution that uses extreme anagrams. You cant really base much on that.

I have a minority view that the RAW Graysmith solution, as worked on and developed by Kite, Obiwan, Ed, Claston, and then me, is largely or at least partially correct as a first stage solution. That is below. For example the Graysmith final solution will say BLAST, but the actual symbol to letter translation is something like ALSTB.

The FBI code unit, the police and most researchers reject both the final and raw Graysmith proposed solutions.

OK I see you are apparently using a raw version. I think. The version below is the best IMO and may be easier for you to work with, everything lines up better.

In any event, how do you translate the circled "8" ‘s as an "e", as they do not appear in the 340?





Daniel Gillotti, Subject: Re: Meta-Zodiac: Endgame Analysis Fri Mar 29, 2013 5:15 pm

APETERSPLANTE: with out the R…

APETEESPLANTE:

(ATE TEE) is a homophone of (80)

Anagrams:

ATE TEE (80) PEN PALS… 90%

If Graysmith’s “My Name Is” is right… this would be its Anagram counter because of what I said earlier by association to the cipher, it would be the 8 8 8…by no means am I trying to endorse Graysmith solution or better it.



doranchak, Subject: Re: Meta-Zodiac: Endgame Analysis Sun Mar 31, 2013 6:37 am

onewhoknows,

It seems you have really forced that name to appear in the 13-character cipher. Here are the problems with your method:

• There is no evidence that the raw Graysmith solution is correct (or even partially correct)[/*:m:24vjg6re]
• Your transcription of the raw Graysmith solution is incorrect. Look at the line you wrote starting with "RAHP". You’ve offset the solution slightly there, making the substitution invalid. Therefore, the symbol cannot be P. It should actually be H.[/*:m:24vjg6re]
• Also, your line ending in KITSO doesn’t match the raw Graysmith solution. It should actually be KTSIO. Therefore, your assignment of T to is wrong. It should be I instead.[/*:m:24vjg6re]
• You assign N to , but the corresponding symbol you indicated from the raw Graysmith solution is . How do you justify this assignment?[/*:m:24vjg6re]
• You assign E to , presumably because a similarly round symbol decodes to E in the raw Graysmith solution. But you could have selected other assignments from other symbols that appear round. For instance, is O, is L, is T, is H, is A, is W, is A (or S), is A, and is A or E.[/*:m:24vjg6re][/list:u:24vjg6re]



Nachtsider, Subject: Re: Meta-Zodiac: Endgame Analysis Sun Mar 31, 2013 6:48 am

How did this thread suddenly turn into a pure cipher discussion?



ggluckman, Subject: Re: Meta-Zodiac: Endgame Analysis Sun Mar 31, 2013 9:55 am

How did this thread suddenly turn into a pure cipher discussion?

Thanks, Nachtsider for drawing attention back to the original purpose of the post.

My intent in starting this post was highly idealistic. It was to try to cultivate/promote the idea of a somewhat detailed, and ideally sytematic, "Endgame Study", by way of analogy with chess. My hope is that This topic might help be a starting point in suggesting a new(-ish) paradigm for analyzing, abstracting and boiling down to useful principles that can shape how we go about developing our Z-theories and reviewing them.

We got onto the cipher discussion because I led with my own attempts to layout, at a very high level, an abstraction of what a cipher-driven endgame might look like. My intent was to stay at a generalized level, looking at things like the forces shaping the likelihood of a "positive" outcome (i..e.: an outcome in which Z is caught/or at least identified), and the forces that determine viability of any avenue of solution, and to extract any useful principles that I could.

Of course, my attempts don’t live up to my ambitions, but I do wish to try to point the way towards the idea of metatheory as a systematic tool of Z-analysis. My intention was to follow-up with a similar analysis on another of the main highways that might lead to a Zodiac endgame, then another. My apologies that I did not have time yet to submit anything further. II will do so as soon as time permits. Meanwhile, I would also be grateful if others submitted their own offerings.

G



ggluckman, Subject: Re: Meta-Zodiac: Endgame Analysis Sun Mar 31, 2013 10:45 am

As to whether our topic has gone too far off track, I hope not. I see some important themes in the discussion involving David and onewhoknows. It very closely ties to my earlier discussion about criteria and especially how it is shaped by an "assessment of rules of inference".

I had not touched on the subject of anagrams, but they are an important topic to the community as they relate to endgame analysis.

For some, the notion that Z used anagramming as a component of his ciphers seems highly likely. In my view, we cannot be dismissive about the idea that Z might have used anagrams. I have my personal ideas about Z as a clue-smith, and others have their own. Mine are largely based on my intuitions on the matter, they are certainly not proven. I expect the same is true of others’.

The problem is not whether we should allow the possibility that Z made use of anagrams–without proof to the contrary, we need to allow it, and we should be grateful to those who are inclined to explore that theory-space. The challenge, rather, is to understand which subsets of the universes of possibility (in which Z might have used anagrams) allow for a viable outcomes, and which don’t.

(BTW, the terms ‘viable’ or ‘viability’, are my shorthand way of referring to an endgame that has real potential to lead to a positive outcome–such as the verifiable identification of the Zodiac Killer.)

If there is enough interest, perhaps it would make sense to spin-off a new topic, possibly also under the Meta-Zodiac banner) on the forces shaping anagram-driven solutions and the conditions under which they are (and are not) viable. I am sure David has already posted on this topic elsewhere, but I am not sure at what level of generality.

Anyway, it’s a worthy topic, imo.

Many thanks,

G