You know exactly what I meant by "fun" Tahoe don’t play the semantics game.

As if any of us are going to solve this case lol! if it is making a person turn into an obsessive jerk to other people that they can’t even consider the new theories of others then there’s no reason to follow the case/site any longer. That’s the point. We are all online armchair sleuths with this stuff. If any of us had any actual ability to get our hands on physical Evidence in this case I don’t think that person would be here debating or theorizing. I do also enjoy reading through the theories of other’s. Zodiac’s case is interesting to me in the way that it is sort of a case study in what happens when an investigation isn’t handled properly. I feel like the Zodiac’s letters/case info should have never been released to the public bc this increased the likelihood of copycat killers working off an anonymous killer’s persona. also the issue of investigators being so sure of a suspect that their blinders disable them from seeing any other possible lead or scenario. As many have informed me, the Z case as what we know it is just the tip of the iceberg. Who knows what else the Zodiac sent to reveal who he is and what his motivations are? Who knows if he did claim other terroristic or murderous acts? We don’t, but we can theorize and play around with ideas. No need to be so serious as if we are Olivia Benson in a super dramatic Law and Order episode. I tend to be more serious when researching missing persons or UIDs and matching them
Bc it is serious and I actually am attempting to help my community and contact law enforcement. The Zodiac case? All I can contribute are theories. I do also feel a bit close to the CJB case since it happened not far from me and I go to RCC to see if there’s anythjng left there to help with the people who are interested in Ross or the library (even though I don’t really know if I believe Ross is a good POI anymore).

I agree Talon. What I wouldn’t do to go to SFPD and spend even just a minute looking through Z evidence. Would be interesting. Hopefully someone over there will.

nonsense theories. we have probably 500 pages of "evidence" and some of the theories, based on none of the evidence, defy both logic and a sense of how people operate.

(I think) I agree with what your saying but I see the whole case as a total lack of evidence. Somehow over the years, speculation has become fact to some extent. The case has been scrutinized to the ninth degree for some 40+ years, yet to my knowledge we’re no closer to a resolution (and due to time passage we may actually be further away from closure).
I sure would like 24 hrs. locked away in the basement of the SFPD beside the filing cabinet marked ‘Z’!

i think we agree, mostly. speculation has become fact because speculative theories are insisted upon without any chain of evidence. we may be further away from closure because of these crackpots theories that manifest themselves into supposed facts (everything darlene ferrin’s sisters said in the 1980s comes to mind). basically i see a difference between

a) "i believe zodiac was in the military because le has an imprint of a military style shoe at the lb crime scene." – you’ve taken a piece of evidence and extrapolated a layer of significance based on the evidence. you might be wrong, but your wrongness is based on an interpretation of evidence.

and

b) "i believe zodiac was involved with a south american devil worshipping cult. if you take all of the letters of "the zodiac" and transpose them using egyptian hieroglyphics, then find the prime number of the result (except for the first three letters) you get a word that is an anagram for "the devil" in russian." – in this case you’ve entirely made something up based on nothing other than a complicated scheme that isn’t backed up by anything we know about the case.

i guess the popular opinion, especially amongst those who have theories closer to b is that we’re supposed to act like all of these theories are on equal footing. they’re not. i can ignore most of them (and i do) but some leak into the non crackpot arenas and then it turns into an argument. there isn’t really a solution, but that’s what irks me.

Thing is – I suppose – that while there’s room for pure speculation in this case, what irks some people (including me) is that too many construct theories (many of which offer up a particular suspect) based on pure speculation, more specifically on the sheer assumption (often enough not backed up by a single fact) that the theorist has somehow managed to divine what Zodiac’s "actual" intentions were.

The latter isn’t sound – I don’t care what anyone says. It’s not an acceptable approach to solving the case – even for online amateurs. If you can link it to the facts, to what most of us will agree is the evidence, then I don’t care if you claim that Z was a time traveling, super intelligent chimpanzee – it’s fine by me, but you can’t simply go ahead and assume that he was.

If you do, then you can’t legitimately claim that your theory has as much merit as the next one. It’s not how it works. If you propose an entirely unscientific and illogical explanation for a phenomenon which remains unexplained, you may be right. But your proposal is still unscientific and illogical.

… basically i see a difference between

a) "i believe zodiac was in the military because le has an imprint of a military style shoe at the lb crime scene." – you’ve taken a piece of evidence and extrapolated a layer of significance based on the evidence. you might be wrong, but your wrongness is based on an interpretation of evidence.

and

b) "i believe zodiac was involved with a south american devil worshipping cult. if you take all of the letters of "the zodiac" and transpose them using egyptian hieroglyphics, then find the prime number of the result (except for the first three letters) you get a word that is an anagram for "the devil" in russian." – in this case you’ve entirely made something up based on nothing other than a complicated scheme that isn’t backed up by anything we know about the case.

i guess the popular opinion, especially amongst those who have theories closer to b is that we’re supposed to act like all of these theories are on equal footing. they’re not. i can ignore most of them (and i do) but some leak into the non crackpot arenas and then it turns into an argument. there isn’t really a solution, but that’s what irks me.

THIS ^^ Absolutely. What ‘masootz’ said. I hereby change my previous irk to this one.

(a) is fact-based, reality-grounded, sensible reasoning.
(b) is pretty much the polar opposite.

And speaking for myself, I have seen, and continue to see way too much (b).

Not only are the two not on equal footing, the latter does a disservice to the board and the people who are serious about the case. Zodiac boards in general often are criticized as being made up of a bunch of wild-eyed conspiracy theorists, and that sort of "stuff" just adds to the critic’s arguments.

The reason that the "old-timers" on the boards get upset at this stuff is that 1.) it has been seen over and over again, and 2.) that it is always the "newcomers" that do it.

If someone comes on the board with some wacky theory, gets called out on it, can’t support what they are saying, and leaves in a whiny huff, then GOOD. It means things are working properly.

The people that DO stick around, and become "old-timers" are those that can use fact, reason, and polite argumentation and debate to show why their ideas have merit. And this board, in particular, seems to me to have been, and continue to be, good at this "cleaning" process. It is peer-review, basically, but in a less formal non-academic setting.

It’s a good thing. It raises the bar. Separates the wheat from the chaff, etc., etc. Just my opinion.

-glurk

Just my opinion.

-glurk

And it’s a good one.

Just my opinion.

-glurk

And it’s a good one.

Agreed.

Actually Glurk many of the old timers aren’t so polite when informing new members of information or correcting them. This is the precise reason why so many new comers leave in a huff so to speak. You know if you want to follow a fact based site with no discussion, opinions, thoughts, theories shared then maybe a forum isn’t the place to be.

Furthermore with this a and b baloney – if someone says it’s their opinion or theory (which people here typically do when expressing an opinion or theory) it should not require the IQ of rocket scientist to determine that what they are saying is Theory. Furthermore, putting so much weight into the opinions/theories of other’s isn’t healthy. On the same token considering those theories and keeping an open mind is always beneficial. I don’t typically see people passing off theory as complete fact here.

Why are you here? To bully people that have new ideas and state them as such, just ideas?

If one doesn’t agree with a theory that’s fine, but personal jabs (that you Glurk are notoriously guilty of) are not appropriate. People (new comers or not) will respond in kind. Don’t be surprised when they do.

Furthermore with this a and b baloney

since it’s my baloney that you’re personally jabbing (ironically in a thread about what irks us – i guess i should be more careful with my opinions) –

if you see theories based on nothing but conjecture as valid, and rejection of those theories as bullying then how far are you prepared to go with that? if my theory is fettucine alfredo and i create a thread posting my fettucine alfredo recipe as a theory to solving the zodiac case should everyone discuss it and keep an open mind about it? what if i start another one where i’ve solved the 340 cipher with a brownie recipe and i post that? at some point doesn’t the discussion become so ridiculous and the theories so outlandish that they don’t have a place on a forum with the purpose of aiding law enforcement in catching a murderer? you have to draw the line somewhere. morf and the other moderators seem to take the "ignore it if you don’t like it" stance, which isn’t a problem except that this is a thread about what irks us, where we’re supposed to, you know, state what irks us. i stated what irks me. for the most part i avoid the insane threads and ridiculous fantastical theories but often they creep up in the threads where we’re making headway and that stinks. i also avoid most of the posters who seem to be into that stuff but, again, they don’t limit themselves and their insane theories to threads that i can wholly avoid.

No I mean bullying like when someone inferred I smoke crack. Things like that. Have also seen people accuse others of having substance abuse issues or comparing them to animals. If someone responds to a theory with such rubbish, why expect a positive reaction in kind? I’m quite capable of understanding when I am being mocked as are others. I have every right to call out something as baloney when responding to a theory, but one should refrain from making fun of tht individual. If you feel like I’m directly hurting you by thinking the a and b scenario seems baloney to me then sorry. I have seen countless times where people offer the caveat of "no offense" to then follow it up with very personal offenses. Just because one says "no offense" it doesn’t negate the fact that the statement is offensive.

And omg newsflash! None of us are detectives so what makes you think you or anyone else has the authority to act so superior?

And omg newsflash! None of us are detectives so what makes you think you or anyone else has the authority to act so superior?

Time invested. For some its money and also leg work. That deserves some amount of respect.

Soze

No I mean bullying like when someone inferred I smoke crack. Things like that. Have also seen people accuse others of having substance abuse issues or comparing them to animals. If someone responds to a theory with such rubbish, why expect a positive reaction in kind? I’m quite capable of understanding when I am being mocked as are others. I have every right to call out something as baloney when responding to a theory, but one should refrain from making fun of tht individual. If you feel like I’m directly hurting you by thinking the a and b scenario seems baloney to me then sorry. I have seen countless times where people offer the caveat of "no offense" to then follow it up with very personal offenses. Just because one says "no offense" it doesn’t negate the fact that the statement is offensive.

And omg newsflash! None of us are detectives so what makes you think you or anyone else has the authority to act so superior?

no, i don’t feel like you’re hurting me. i do think you’re doing exactly what you’re getting upset at others for doing. i’m superior because i disagree with you? i’m superior because, in a thread about what irks you, i responded with what irks me? so this open-minded "discussion, opinions, thoughts, theories shared" only applies to the ones you like?

No I mean bullying like when someone inferred I smoke crack. Things like that. Have also seen people accuse others of having substance abuse issues or comparing them to animals. If someone responds to a theory with such rubbish, why expect a positive reaction in kind? I’m quite capable of understanding when I am being mocked as are others. I have every right to call out something as baloney when responding to a theory, but one should refrain from making fun of tht individual. If you feel like I’m directly hurting you by thinking the a and b scenario seems baloney to me then sorry. I have seen countless times where people offer the caveat of "no offense" to then follow it up with very personal offenses. Just because one says "no offense" it doesn’t negate the fact that the statement is offensive.

And omg newsflash! None of us are detectives so what makes you think you or anyone else has the authority to act so superior?

Pink–I was joking about someone at the FBI. For the record: PinkPhantom, to my knowledge, does not smoke crack.

The problem lies when someone reads something and considers it to be factual information and creates theories off of something that most likely holds no water.

Of course newbies (which obviously you are not a total newbie–only in posting, as PinkPhantom at least) aren’t expected to know everything. At first you mentioned several things about this case which was false information and had ideas from this false information. This type of thing gets carried out into Zodiac-land and forever becomes someone else’s facts in which theories are based. So yes, we get annoyed at times.

We see often someone has a theory, which snowballs into the king of all whacky theories–so yes, people will mock and .

There are people way more knowledgeable than others when it comes to this case. People who should take my advise over yours and people who should take someone else’s advice over mine. Doesn’t mean my thoughts about certain subjects are right, but I do know more about this case–facts of it–than most newbies. It doesn’t make be better than you…only more knowledgeable.

Just my 2cents worth (we don’t even have a 2c anymore in Australia so hey!) – NOTHING irks me about the Zodiac case, it’s all about understanding. I’ve come into this case way past it’s prime and I understand those that have invested so much effort and time into the case without resolution. I think they have a right to get a bit upset with newbie ‘Zodiac Flat earthers’ (for the lack of a better word). But here is where the dilemma lies – it’s been 40+ years, maybe longer without result, maybe you do have to look a little bit outside the Circle (and Cross) to find the answer. This is why Judges dismiss juries – Juries don’t think they are biased but they usually are! A great analogy is the boy who cried wolf – after 100 people claiming they know who the Zodiac is …are you really even going to consider Z solver 101?

So your "irk" is that anything goes? Heck, I’m inclined to agree with that!

-glurk

EDIT: Nope, I wrote that wrong. I don’t think that the first 100 are wrong, and 101 is correct. Nor 102.

But here is where the dilemma lies – it’s been 40+ years, maybe longer without result, maybe you do have to look a little bit outside the Circle (and Cross) to find the answer.

That has been what we have tried to do here at ZKS. Nothing is ever simple with this case. Not even the admin side of a Zodiac related site.

For the record I agree with the points Tahoe made in her previous post regarding newbies, theories etc and even the reactions they incur. Having said that I do empathize with both sides. When I first started I was, you guessed it, a newbie. That was on ZKF. I chose that site because it seemed like it would have less ‘chaff’ to be honest. It was however a culture shock to me. I had read as much as I could before joining and got a feel for how to post and so on but I still had some adjustments to make in terms of my thinking and tbh that’s still ongoing lol.

People were dealing with the ‘facts’. Pouring over them and analyzing them. Whilst I was fascinated by this and learned a thing or two about good practice and so on but part of me too wanted to explore more. It’s in my nature to take things apart. I think back to some of the things I posted on in those early years and I roll my eyes at them and I posted them. I remember things that seemed like a great ‘idea’ only to feel deflated by the lack of enthusiastic replies or even just replies or worse a rebuttal or apparent ridicule. I’ve been through all the "OMG these people aren’t even open to ideas unless they conform to the accepted norm" thoughts.

That of course wasn’t the reality. The reality was that it had already been done. Those ‘ideas’ had been had. They’d been discussed. They’d been dismissed. They’d been brought up again. Given another go. Dismissed again … then I’d suggested them. Tumbleweeds and no wonder. The decision was made a few years back to open this forum to the public. To widen the circle as you put it. To hear new ideas, hopefully get new leads, new avenues to explore but that doesn’t and can’t over-ride critical thinking and what has already been worked through in this case. Whether that be POI’s, theories, ideas etc etc.

I hope you don’t mind that I have expanded on your comment. To give it some context within the "zodiac posting" story. We can go as wide as we want to but we have to remain tethered to reality. What you might think is ridicule, being dismissive or narrow-minded or even interfering where they aren’t wanted might just being someone tugging on your tether.