I will also be releasing version 3 of the paper probably tomorrow or the next day. I have been working on it essentially since I finished version 2. The work/research never stopped once the plaintext was decoded, that was only the beginning.
Sadly, I was a long ways off over in San Francisco, so it’s only proper if I were to humbly step aside and let our other two friends share the glory.
“This isn’t right! It’s not even wrong!”—Wolfgang Pauli (1900–1958)
@shaqmeister As you wish, but if it pans out and you change your mind, I am happy to give you a mention and explain that others came close and deserve to have their efforts acknowledged as well.
While we sparred a bit over the triangles origin, I did check out Google Images to look at random aerial images of watering holes. Almost all were circular/oblong, as we would expect. But there was one watering hole that did have a triangular shape.
And so, your pushback was fair. When I shared this, I expect major pushback. Offering alternative explanations for its construction is completely valid, but the radar test would tell us beyond any doubt.
I will add that when checking the topographic map around this triangle, there are other obvious, circular holes in this general area. They present as having a lighter color than their surroundings. As we have the quarry across the street, this area definitely has some holes around. If they find anything in that triangle, it would be a good idea to check out those other holes nearby as well.
He is suspected to have written the 13th hole card not long after the Z32 letter.
Adding a message for @DMW @shaqmeister and @Oliv92
If my proposed solution/methodology is validated, I am happy to acknowledge your past efforts on Z32, by name, username, or not at all.
Please do not do so, even by username. Thank you.
Adding a message for @DMW @shaqmeister and @Oliv92
If my proposed solution/methodology is validated, I am happy to acknowledge your past efforts on Z32, by name, username, or not at all.
Please do not do so, even by username. Thank you.
You got it, after all, you pointed to the wrong place. Still, you tried. I won’t mention that you said IN THREE AND THREE EIGHTHS RADIANS TEN points to a suspects house.
Adding a message for @DMW @shaqmeister and @Oliv92
If my proposed solution/methodology is validated, I am happy to acknowledge your past efforts on Z32, by name, username, or not at all.
Please do not do so, even by username. Thank you.
You got it, after all, you pointed to the wrong place. Still, you tried. I won’t mention that you said IN THREE AND THREE EIGHTHS RADIANS TEN points to a suspects house.
I believe I was very clear. Do not mention, cite or acknowledge me, even by username. Thank you.
Not only did you point to a suspects house, but you told me I pointed to the wrong place, even though I used the more accurate method. Pretty sure the math is right, as you are not the first to review the work. Haven’t heard any complaints about the projection accuracy. You have also attempted to discourage the triangle from being scanned, which is the critical test to know if something is there.
So I do understand why you wouldn’t want to mentioned, even by username, should it turn out to be correct.
As an aside, @dmw:
Why do you think ALA is the Zodiac? Just wondering. I don’t have any particular suspect in this case. I realize he is a popular suspect, but I just think if he was Zodiac, that would have been confirmed by the authorities.
Not only did you point to a suspects house, but you told me I pointed to the wrong place, even though I used the more accurate method. Pretty sure the math is right, as you are not the first to review the work. Haven’t heard any complaints about the projection accuracy. You have also attempted to discourage the triangle from being scanned, which is the critical test to know if something is there.
So I do understand why you wouldn’t want to mentioned, even by username, should it turn out to be correct.
I’m sorry – this post really crosses a line. Please do not try to invent reasons why I do not wish to be cited by you – I held my tongue and did not share any of them with you.
Goodbye, sir. I am finished with this topic.
Not only did you point to a suspects house, but you told me I pointed to the wrong place, even though I used the more accurate method. Pretty sure the math is right, as you are not the first to review the work. Haven’t heard any complaints about the projection accuracy. You have also attempted to discourage the triangle from being scanned, which is the critical test to know if something is there.
So I do understand why you wouldn’t want to mentioned, even by username, should it turn out to be correct.
I’m sorry – this post really crosses a line. Please do not try to invent reasons why I do not wish to be cited by you – I held my tongue and did not share any of them with you.
Goodbye, sir. I am finished with this topic.
Goodbye. Better luck on the next cipher. Computers are a useful tool.
I’ve held my tongue with you as well, as I feel you pointing at someone’s house incorrectly, with what I have found through constraint satisfaction to be the correct plaintext, is deeply wrong. Unlike you, I point to an empty field. If it landed on a house, I would know that is not the solution to Z32.
You shouldn’t be writing whitepapers pointing to someone’s home with this cipher, given your projection is inaccurate. Let me guess, “he put it in the basement”. No.
Since the methodology is programmatic, one of the first communities I shared it with was HackerNews, 3 months ago.
The reason I selected that community, is because they are professional programmers. If anything was wrong, they would have been the ones to rip the math or code apart. This was before I even had written the whitepaper, and only had the code and some corroborating evidence shared in the GitHub README.
It got 8 upvotes, but no comments. As a result, it didn’t make the HackerNews front page, and was buried by AI related news.
It has been a consistent pattern of capable individuals reviewing the work, but not providing feedback or reaching out afterwards. The 8 upvotes were positive feedback, since that community is very critical. It would have been downvoted to hell, but that isn’t what happened.
When I shared it on Reddit, a PhD in physics responded within 5 minutes saying it isn’t a CSP, and therefore, IN THREE AND THREE EIGHTHS RADIANS TEN is not the solution.
Well, it is a CSP. And generate-and-test is a valid approach, as the search space is not massive in this case. That might be true for other problems, but not Z32.
The ranking step (proximity to crime scenes) would count as Constraint Optimization.
After around 4 months of pushing for this one, I would say that has been a near equal challenge to solving the cipher itself.
The previous notion that the short length of Z32 made it harder/impossible to solve was a misconception, although not everyone subscribed to it. It ignored the additional context relevant to his specific cipher.
Shorter passwords are easier, not harder, to crack. This is known. When you reveal part of your password (radians and inches), that certainly makes the job easier. Fractions will take up a good portion of the plaintext.
All of the Zodiac’s hints must be followed exactly. Gareth Penn was pretty close a long time ago.
@coder1987 thank you, alas, I have not yet found the time to carefully read your paper, or even to fully catch-up with the contents of this thread. I think the same may be true for Dave and Sam. My e-mail is my forum handle plus @yahoo.com.
Of course I still love your solution, and also the way you are handling it “proposed solution”. I find it the most compelling Z32 solution to date, to the extent that even I am a little worried that you shared the location, because people may actually go there and disturb potential evidence.
I understand you have seen little traction yet for your solution, I think that may be in part due to 2026 being a slow year to start so far. Many people feel a little dark right now.
Again, thank you for your work.
