Good morning!

I think your observation about the “load-bearing point” is valid, and it is probably the most important aspect to focus on.

You are right that the omega sequence concentrates much of the result: the angular value, the reordering, and the resolution of the letters all pass through that segment. If that point does not hold, the entire structure weakens significantly.

Where I see the difference is in what that concentration implies.

In many structured systems, the most anomalous or information-dense part is precisely where one would expect the signal to be. The fact that multiple constraints converge in a single segment does not automatically make it arbitrary; it may indicate that this is the point where the transformation is concentrated.

The question, for me, is not whether the result depends on that point, but whether the transformations applied there are consistent with the rules of the method, limited in number, and not freely adjustable once defined.

If these conditions do not hold, then your criticism is entirely valid. If they do hold, then the concentration becomes a structural feature rather than a weakness.

On X and Y, to clarify: they are not incomplete or separate outputs, but raw results that are part of the same process. It is precisely through the reordering of the omega sequence that these elements find their place within the overall structure, contributing to the construction of the result and, in a consistent way, also to the possible signature of the author. In this sense, they are not unresolved elements, but intermediate steps within a single transformation.

I understand the purpose of the row-swapping proposal, but there is an important distinction: this is not a neutral variation, because it alters the positional structure defined by the author. In my approach, order is part of the system, not an accessory feature.

That said, I did consider this modification, and it is interesting that the main result does not change: the structure leading to HERCULES and the angular value remain the same. What changes is only a secondary level of the result, related to the possible author signature.

This, in my view, is significant: it suggests that the core of the method is not fragile under this type of variation, while some components are more sensitive to arrangement.

The question then becomes whether it is more appropriate to test the method by altering the original structure, or to evaluate it within the configuration as defined by the author.

In this context, I tend to give more weight to the latter.

Posted by: @lendor-77

↑

I would also like to add an observation that I recently came across while watching a video by David Oranchak about the Z32.

In the video it is noted that, on the envelope associated with the July 26, 1970 letter, the abbreviation “Calif.” (California) appears to have been written in an unusual way, slightly rearranged as “Claif.”

Hello @lendor.77.

Although something of a side point to the main ideas of your thread, I am curious about you bringing this observation up, because I have to admit I had not noticed it before. I would, therefore, like to offer some thoughts about it, in relation to the Z32 cipher and its possible solution, but at the same time being cautious not to hijack your thread.

The envelope in question is, I see, this one:

And, there it is: “Claif.” instead of “Calif.”

For some while now, I have been struck by a couple of apparently non-random similarities between the Z13 and the Z32 ciphers. And the route to these is to begin with a comparison of the symbols that they have in common, as below:

So, the first things that I notice here are:

1. Aside from a repeated ‘A’ and a repeated ‘M’ in the z13, the common symbols appear to be intentionally gathered into two similarly ordered groups that, except for the intervening ‘N’ in the z13 (3rd to last), would likewise be equally spaced, too; and
2. There is a clear symmetry about the z13, around the ‘8-balls’, that can feel highly unlikely to have been achieved at random.

I had done some analysis, several years back now, that brought me to a point where I was forced to consider whether that second ‘N’ in the z13 should be elsewhere in the cipher, having only been moved to this interrupting position to achieve the symmetry that we actually notice. I won’t go into the details of all that here, but it did take me on to a consideration that the z13 has a single transposition (not a swap) in it, and that the last ‘N’ might actually belong in the second position, so:

And this is what your “Claif” reminded me of, where we have the letter ‘l’ (in one way of looking at it), shifted back from it’s expected position to the second.

All the same, just an observation that struck me as interesting.

I think it could therefore be plausibly argued that the common symbols across the two remaining ciphers are intentionally present in both as indicating a common key between the z13 and the z32.

But again, @lendor-77. Apologies for crashing your thread with random thoughts.

All the best.

Just as a point of clarification, lendor, you refer in several places to having determined Hercules to be “20 inches” from Mount Diablo. Of course, as to dimensions, the Phillips Map is itself, in fact, only around 8′′ × 7′′, very approximately, so such a distance between any two points on the map would be infeasible. Do you perhaps mean “20 miles?”

I measure the distance of Hercules from Diablo to be approximately 3 3/16′′ on the map. At 6.4 miles to the inch, then, this would equate to:

3.1875 × 6.4 = 20.4 miles

Ciao @shaqmeister! First of all, thank you for taking the time to read my analysis, I really appreciate it.

To clarify the point: my interpretation comes from the use of the graphical scale shown on the map, which I transposed directly onto the drawing by dividing it into 10 alternating segments (blue and red), each with a value of 2, for a total of 20 units. I initially read this value in “linear” terms on the map. Only later does it become more coherent to interpret it as a real-world distance (miles) represented graphically, rather than as a physical measurement in inches.

https://ibb.co/Jj5dm3gP
https://ibb.co/NdJfQCGB

Additionally, the fact that the number of segments seemed to match the code led me to consider this reading as a confirmation of the chosen approach, together with the ciphered interpretation that leads to “Hercules”.

In light of this, the numerical correspondence should therefore be understood in miles. Thanks for the clarification!

As for the Z13 cipher, I’ll try to share my interpretation later this evening. Since I consider it connected to the Z32, I’ll also explain why I interpret that inverted T as a double mirrored J in both ciphers.

I also have a possible solution regarding Z13 that I prefer not to disclose, not to be evasive, but because it would involve referring to a person who has never officially been investigated in the case.

In light of this clarification, I believe the solution can be reformulated as follows: Zodiac may have used two distinct levels of encryption. The first is homophonic, consistent with his other ciphers, while the second is more strictly cryptographic and reflects this interpretation.

The homophonic layer would serve to indicate elements such as radians and inches, while the second layer would function as a confirmation of the first through a more structured approach. In particular, by using an encoding system such as A=0, this second layer would not only point to the city of Hercules (already identifiable in the homophonic reading), but also suggest the author’s initials.

In fact, the homophonic substitution solution “ESTIMATE FIVE RADIAN AND THREE INCHES” appears to be a valid interpretation, and has also been independently proposed by other researchers, as shown in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FPnQxfwCmfw

Posted by: @lendor-77

↑

As for the Z13 cipher, I’ll try to share my interpretation later this evening. Since I consider it connected to the Z32, I’ll also explain why I interpret that inverted T as a double mirrored J in both ciphers.

Ciao, @lendor-77. Buongiorno!

I shall look out for your post later.

As to what you refer to as the “inverted T,” which you then interpret as a “double mirrored J,” have you noted that both of these actual symbols occurred in very clear fashion in the Z402? I point this out because it leads me to see the symbol in question—at position 10 in the Z13 and position 8 of the Z32—as intending something different from both.

Two possibilities jump to my mind when I consider these two ciphers. The first is nothing other than an inverted Greek gamma (γ). The second, which has its own merits, is an inversion of the symbol for the zodiacal constellation Aries, as here:

Posted by: @shaqmeister

↑

have you noted that both of these actual symbols occurred in very clear fashion in the Z402?

Here they are side-by-side in this annotated facsimile of the first cipher sent to The Herald:

Posted by: @lendor-77

↑

In light of this, the numerical correspondence should therefore be understood in miles. Thanks for the clarification!

Could we not, then, say that this causes a problem as to a positive evaluation of your proposal, given that we have been explicitly advised that the solution to the cipher concerns “#inches along the radians,” not miles?

In fact, I can no longer include that reading within my solution, since Zodiac explicitly refers to inches and radians 😀

I therefore need to reorganize the interpretation, as anticipated, and I believe it can be structured as follows (which, incidentally, makes it more robust):

In this proposal, the solution to the Z32 cipher operates on two distinct but parallel levels:

• Homophonic substitution, leading to the result: “ESTIMATE FIVE RADIANS AND THREE INCHES”.
• Cryptographic analysis, obtained by dividing Z32 into sequences, which leads to the identification of the city of HERCULES.

Both solutions coexist and reinforce each other: the first provides the operational instructions (inches and radians), while the second allows for the mathematical identification of the city, reducing the ambiguity inherent in a purely homophonic reading, which could otherwise allow for multiple interpretations.

Additionally, this is complemented by a reorganization of the “omega” sequence which, as suggested by the “Calif” envelope, makes it possible to derive the author’s initials.

Just one further point, lendor, while I’m here.

I’m not in a position to offer detailed feedback on your proposal as a whole as, in the first place, I am not an experienced cryptanalyst and, secondly, I do have something of a mental bias—I am, for my sins, an Occamist; for my personal guide, I have to stick close to the “law of parsimony.” But that’s just me.

What I have noted in your presentation, however, is the following.

If we start from the one specific point in your account—I think it is from your fourth link—so:

then we must be attentive to the fact that, having reached this far according to your detailed procedure, both the letters in the second row and their equivalent numerical associations in the first row, according to the A = 0, etc. assignment, are now wholly fixed. If we want the second row to contain the specific letters as you have assigned them, then they and their numerical equivalents above are not open to any further manipulation or alteration.

Once we note this fact, then, we come to understand that, even were The Zodiac of a mind to want to incorperate further both the bearing and the distance in miles from Diablo to Hercules, he nonetheless has, at this point, no freedom left to him to enable him to do so. Being thus shown to be incapable of introduction through intention, it remains solely down to pure coincidence—both in this, as in any other similarly constructed example—that you may be able to pull out numbers that match what you would otherwise be looking for.

They cannot have been intentionally put there.