IN THREE AND THREE EIGHTHS RADIANS TEN is the solution to Z32. Discovered by David Stampher in December 2025, who found the triangle landmark by Lake Herman Road, solving the cipher after 55 years.
Run the code: https://github.com/dstampher/zodiac-z32-cipher
Read the paper: https://zenodo.org/records/18645227
It has been a pleasure being of service.
Here is how you can prove it wrong, this is an open challenge to all readers. All experts are welcome to challenge this proposed solution. Here is how you can prove it wrong:
Falsification Criteria
In the interest of scientific rigor, we present explicit criteria by which the proposed solution can be objectively tested and potentially falsified. These are intended to be concrete and non-subjective—
not matters of interpretation or feeling, but measurable outcomes.
1. Subsurface survey. If ground-penetrating radar at the triangular anomaly reveals no sub-surface disturbance (no excavation, no backfill, no anomalous density contrast), this would substantially weaken the physical evidence line. Conversely, confirmation of a deliberate excavation basin would constitute strong corroboration.
2. Temporal dating. If the triangular feature can be dated—through soil stratigraphy, den-drochronology of vegetation, or other forensic methods—to a period outside the Zodiac’s known active period of 1968–1970 (e.g., demonstrably post-1975 or pre-1965), this would weaken the
temporal coincidence argument. Conversely, dating the feature to within this narrow window would strengthen it considerably. The 1964–1982 creation window established by available aerial imagery is broad; forensic dating methods could narrow this significantly.
3. Alternative plaintext. If an alternative candidate plaintext is identified that (a) satisfies all three constraints (length, locks, bounds), (b) ranks higher than the proposed solution by proximity to a known crime scene, and (c) is corroborated by independent physical or geo-metric evidence at its decoded coordinates, this would supersede the proposed solution. The solver code and data are public; any researcher can verify that no such candidate currently exists in the enumerated space. We note that any proposed alternative must include physical corroboration at the decoded site: the Zodiac’s explicit instruction to “dig it up” implies physical disturbance of the ground, and digging leaves detectable evidence—subsurface anomalies visible to ground-penetrating radar, soil compaction differences, or crop marks visible in aerial imagery. An alternative candidate whose decoded coordinates show no such physical evidence would not meet this criterion.
4. Framework non-uniqueness. We have tested this criterion directly. A grid search of 7,676 alternative anchor points at 0.02° resolution across the Bay Area (37.3°–38.8°N, 121.0°–123.0°W) was conducted, scoring each point on a composite metric combining (a) the sum of angular errors between each crime scene’s magnetic bearing and its nearest whole clock-hour position, and (b) the deviation of the Presidio Heights–Blue Rock Springs angular separation from 60°. Mt. Diablo ranks 4th of 7,676 tested points (top 0.05%), with only 3 points scoring better on the composite. The three better-scoring points lie 14.3–43.1 miles from Mt. Diablo and lack the cartographic, historical, and navigational significance that make Mt. Diablo the natural anchor: it is the origin of the Mount Diablo Meridian and Base Line (the reference coordinate system for California land surveys since 1851), the site of the Eye of Diablo aerial navigation beacon, and the point explicitly marked by the Zodiac on his map. The clock-face framework is not unique to Mt. Diablo in a strict mathematical sense, but Mt. Diablo is among the strongest anchor points in the region, and it is the only one with independent evidentiary support from the Zodiac’s own materials.
5. Agricultural provenance. If the triangular feature can be documented as a known agricultural or civil-engineering structure with a recorded construction date and purpose (e.g., a drainage basin in county engineering records), this would provide an alternative explanation
for its presence.
None of these criteria have been met in four months!. We invite independent researchers to test them.
IN THREE AND THREE EIGHTHS RADIANS TEN is the solution to Z32. Discovered by David Stampher in December 2025, who found the triangle landmark by Lake Herman Road, solving the cipher after 55 years.
Run the code: https://github.com/dstampher/zodiac-z32-cipher
Read the paper: https://zenodo.org/records/18645227
It has been a pleasure being of service.
Here is how you can prove it wrong, this is an open challenge to all readers. All experts are welcome to challenge this proposed solution. Here is how you can prove it wrong:
Falsification Criteria
In the interest of scientific rigor, we present explicit criteria by which the proposed solution can be objectively tested and potentially falsified. These are intended to be concrete and non-subjective—
not matters of interpretation or feeling, but measurable outcomes.
1. Subsurface survey. If ground-penetrating radar at the triangular anomaly reveals no sub-surface disturbance (no excavation, no backfill, no anomalous density contrast), this would substantially weaken the physical evidence line. Conversely, confirmation of a deliberate excavation basin would constitute strong corroboration.
2. Temporal dating. If the triangular feature can be dated—through soil stratigraphy, den-drochronology of vegetation, or other forensic methods—to a period outside the Zodiac’s known active period of 1968–1970 (e.g., demonstrably post-1975 or pre-1965), this would weaken the
temporal coincidence argument. Conversely, dating the feature to within this narrow window would strengthen it considerably. The 1964–1982 creation window established by available aerial imagery is broad; forensic dating methods could narrow this significantly.
3. Alternative plaintext. If an alternative candidate plaintext is identified that (a) satisfies all three constraints (length, locks, bounds), (b) ranks higher than the proposed solution by proximity to a known crime scene, and (c) is corroborated by independent physical or geo-metric evidence at its decoded coordinates, this would supersede the proposed solution. The solver code and data are public; any researcher can verify that no such candidate currently exists in the enumerated space. We note that any proposed alternative must include physical corroboration at the decoded site: the Zodiac’s explicit instruction to “dig it up” implies physical disturbance of the ground, and digging leaves detectable evidence—subsurface anomalies visible to ground-penetrating radar, soil compaction differences, or crop marks visible in aerial imagery. An alternative candidate whose decoded coordinates show no such physical evidence would not meet this criterion.
4. Framework non-uniqueness. We have tested this criterion directly. A grid search of 7,676 alternative anchor points at 0.02° resolution across the Bay Area (37.3°–38.8°N, 121.0°–123.0°W) was conducted, scoring each point on a composite metric combining (a) the sum of angular errors between each crime scene’s magnetic bearing and its nearest whole clock-hour position, and (b) the deviation of the Presidio Heights–Blue Rock Springs angular separation from 60°. Mt. Diablo ranks 4th of 7,676 tested points (top 0.05%), with only 3 points scoring better on the composite. The three better-scoring points lie 14.3–43.1 miles from Mt. Diablo and lack the cartographic, historical, and navigational significance that make Mt. Diablo the natural anchor: it is the origin of the Mount Diablo Meridian and Base Line (the reference coordinate system for California land surveys since 1851), the site of the Eye of Diablo aerial navigation beacon, and the point explicitly marked by the Zodiac on his map. The clock-face framework is not unique to Mt. Diablo in a strict mathematical sense, but Mt. Diablo is among the strongest anchor points in the region, and it is the only one with independent evidentiary support from the Zodiac’s own materials.
5. Agricultural provenance. If the triangular feature can be documented as a known agricultural or civil-engineering structure with a recorded construction date and purpose (e.g., a drainage basin in county engineering records), this would provide an alternative explanation
for its presence.
None of these criteria have been met in four months!. We invite independent researchers to test them.
IN THREE AND THREE EIGHTHS RADIANS TEN is the solution to Z32. Discovered by David Stampher in December 2025, who found the triangle landmark by Lake Herman Road, solving the cipher after 55 years.
Run the code: https://github.com/dstampher/zodiac-z32-cipher
Read the paper: https://zenodo.org/records/18645227
It has been a pleasure being of service.
Here is how you can prove it wrong, this is an open challenge to all readers. All experts are welcome to challenge this proposed solution. Here is how you can prove it wrong:
Falsification Criteria
In the interest of scientific rigor, we present explicit criteria by which the proposed solution can be objectively tested and potentially falsified. These are intended to be concrete and non-subjective—
not matters of interpretation or feeling, but measurable outcomes.
1. Subsurface survey. If ground-penetrating radar at the triangular anomaly reveals no sub-surface disturbance (no excavation, no backfill, no anomalous density contrast), this would substantially weaken the physical evidence line. Conversely, confirmation of a deliberate excavation basin would constitute strong corroboration.
2. Temporal dating. If the triangular feature can be dated—through soil stratigraphy, den-drochronology of vegetation, or other forensic methods—to a period outside the Zodiac’s known active period of 1968–1970 (e.g., demonstrably post-1975 or pre-1965), this would weaken the
temporal coincidence argument. Conversely, dating the feature to within this narrow window would strengthen it considerably. The 1964–1982 creation window established by available aerial imagery is broad; forensic dating methods could narrow this significantly.
3. Alternative plaintext. If an alternative candidate plaintext is identified that (a) satisfies all three constraints (length, locks, bounds), (b) ranks higher than the proposed solution by proximity to a known crime scene, and (c) is corroborated by independent physical or geo-metric evidence at its decoded coordinates, this would supersede the proposed solution. The solver code and data are public; any researcher can verify that no such candidate currently exists in the enumerated space. We note that any proposed alternative must include physical corroboration at the decoded site: the Zodiac’s explicit instruction to “dig it up” implies physical disturbance of the ground, and digging leaves detectable evidence—subsurface anomalies visible to ground-penetrating radar, soil compaction differences, or crop marks visible in aerial imagery. An alternative candidate whose decoded coordinates show no such physical evidence would not meet this criterion.
4. Framework non-uniqueness. We have tested this criterion directly. A grid search of 7,676 alternative anchor points at 0.02° resolution across the Bay Area (37.3°–38.8°N, 121.0°–123.0°W) was conducted, scoring each point on a composite metric combining (a) the sum of angular errors between each crime scene’s magnetic bearing and its nearest whole clock-hour position, and (b) the deviation of the Presidio Heights–Blue Rock Springs angular separation from 60°. Mt. Diablo ranks 4th of 7,676 tested points (top 0.05%), with only 3 points scoring better on the composite. The three better-scoring points lie 14.3–43.1 miles from Mt. Diablo and lack the cartographic, historical, and navigational significance that make Mt. Diablo the natural anchor: it is the origin of the Mount Diablo Meridian and Base Line (the reference coordinate system for California land surveys since 1851), the site of the Eye of Diablo aerial navigation beacon, and the point explicitly marked by the Zodiac on his map. The clock-face framework is not unique to Mt. Diablo in a strict mathematical sense, but Mt. Diablo is among the strongest anchor points in the region, and it is the only one with independent evidentiary support from the Zodiac’s own materials.
5. Agricultural provenance. If the triangular feature can be documented as a known agricultural or civil-engineering structure with a recorded construction date and purpose (e.g., a drainage basin in county engineering records), this would provide an alternative explanation
for its presence.
None of these criteria have been met in four months!. We invite independent researchers to test them.
IN THREE AND THREE EIGHTHS RADIANS TEN is the solution to Z32. Discovered by David Stampher in December 2025, who found the triangle landmark by Lake Herman Road, solving the cipher after 55 years.
Run the code: https://github.com/dstampher/zodiac-z32-cipher
Read the paper: https://zenodo.org/records/18645227
It has been a pleasure being of service.
Here is how you can prove it wrong, this is an open challenge to all readers. All experts are welcome to challenge this proposed solution. Here is how you can prove it wrong:
Falsification Criteria
In the interest of scientific rigor, we present explicit criteria by which the proposed solution can be objectively tested and potentially falsified. These are intended to be concrete and non-subjective—
not matters of interpretation or feeling, but measurable outcomes.
1. Subsurface survey. If ground-penetrating radar at the triangular anomaly reveals no sub-surface disturbance (no excavation, no backfill, no anomalous density contrast), this would substantially weaken the physical evidence line. Conversely, confirmation of a deliberate excavation basin would constitute strong corroboration.
2. Temporal dating. If the triangular feature can be dated—through soil stratigraphy, den-drochronology of vegetation, or other forensic methods—to a period outside the Zodiac’s known active period of 1968–1970 (e.g., demonstrably post-1975 or pre-1965), this would weaken the
temporal coincidence argument. Conversely, dating the feature to within this narrow window would strengthen it considerably. The 1964–1982 creation window established by available aerial imagery is broad; forensic dating methods could narrow this significantly.
3. Alternative plaintext. If an alternative candidate plaintext is identified that (a) satisfies all three constraints (length, locks, bounds), (b) ranks higher than the proposed solution by proximity to a known crime scene, and (c) is corroborated by independent physical or geo-metric evidence at its decoded coordinates, this would supersede the proposed solution. The solver code and data are public; any researcher can verify that no such candidate currently exists in the enumerated space. We note that any proposed alternative must include physical corroboration at the decoded site: the Zodiac’s explicit instruction to “dig it up” implies physical disturbance of the ground, and digging leaves detectable evidence—subsurface anomalies visible to ground-penetrating radar, soil compaction differences, or crop marks visible in aerial imagery. An alternative candidate whose decoded coordinates show no such physical evidence would not meet this criterion.
4. Framework non-uniqueness. We have tested this criterion directly. A grid search of 7,676 alternative anchor points at 0.02° resolution across the Bay Area (37.3°–38.8°N, 121.0°–123.0°W) was conducted, scoring each point on a composite metric combining (a) the sum of angular errors between each crime scene’s magnetic bearing and its nearest whole clock-hour position, and (b) the deviation of the Presidio Heights–Blue Rock Springs angular separation from 60°. Mt. Diablo ranks 4th of 7,676 tested points (top 0.05%), with only 3 points scoring better on the composite. The three better-scoring points lie 14.3–43.1 miles from Mt. Diablo and lack the cartographic, historical, and navigational significance that make Mt. Diablo the natural anchor: it is the origin of the Mount Diablo Meridian and Base Line (the reference coordinate system for California land surveys since 1851), the site of the Eye of Diablo aerial navigation beacon, and the point explicitly marked by the Zodiac on his map. The clock-face framework is not unique to Mt. Diablo in a strict mathematical sense, but Mt. Diablo is among the strongest anchor points in the region, and it is the only one with independent evidentiary support from the Zodiac’s own materials.
5. Agricultural provenance. If the triangular feature can be documented as a known agricultural or civil-engineering structure with a recorded construction date and purpose (e.g., a drainage basin in county engineering records), this would provide an alternative explanation
for its presence.
None of these criteria have been met in four months!. We invite independent researchers to test them.
I marked my thread as solved because the experts had four months to say otherwise.
Awaiting the scan.
Not even sure why people were telling me natural origin, cow watering hole, lol!
People really thought their stupid little debunks falsified the work.
IN THREE AND THREE EIGHTHS RADIANS TEN is the solution to Z32. Discovered by David Stampher in December 2025, who found the triangle landmark by Lake Herman Road, solving the cipher after 55 years.
Run the code: https://github.com/dstampher/zodiac-z32-cipher
Read the paper: https://zenodo.org/records/18645227
It has been a pleasure being of service.
Here is how you can prove it wrong, this is an open challenge to all readers. All experts are welcome to challenge this proposed solution. Here is how you can prove it wrong:
Falsification Criteria
In the interest of scientific rigor, we present explicit criteria by which the proposed solution can be objectively tested and potentially falsified. These are intended to be concrete and non-subjective—
not matters of interpretation or feeling, but measurable outcomes.
1. Subsurface survey. If ground-penetrating radar at the triangular anomaly reveals no sub-surface disturbance (no excavation, no backfill, no anomalous density contrast), this would substantially weaken the physical evidence line. Conversely, confirmation of a deliberate excavation basin would constitute strong corroboration.
2. Temporal dating. If the triangular feature can be dated—through soil stratigraphy, den-drochronology of vegetation, or other forensic methods—to a period outside the Zodiac’s known active period of 1968–1970 (e.g., demonstrably post-1975 or pre-1965), this would weaken the
temporal coincidence argument. Conversely, dating the feature to within this narrow window would strengthen it considerably. The 1964–1982 creation window established by available aerial imagery is broad; forensic dating methods could narrow this significantly.
3. Alternative plaintext. If an alternative candidate plaintext is identified that (a) satisfies all three constraints (length, locks, bounds), (b) ranks higher than the proposed solution by proximity to a known crime scene, and (c) is corroborated by independent physical or geo-metric evidence at its decoded coordinates, this would supersede the proposed solution. The solver code and data are public; any researcher can verify that no such candidate currently exists in the enumerated space. We note that any proposed alternative must include physical corroboration at the decoded site: the Zodiac’s explicit instruction to “dig it up” implies physical disturbance of the ground, and digging leaves detectable evidence—subsurface anomalies visible to ground-penetrating radar, soil compaction differences, or crop marks visible in aerial imagery. An alternative candidate whose decoded coordinates show no such physical evidence would not meet this criterion.
4. Framework non-uniqueness. We have tested this criterion directly. A grid search of 7,676 alternative anchor points at 0.02° resolution across the Bay Area (37.3°–38.8°N, 121.0°–123.0°W) was conducted, scoring each point on a composite metric combining (a) the sum of angular errors between each crime scene’s magnetic bearing and its nearest whole clock-hour position, and (b) the deviation of the Presidio Heights–Blue Rock Springs angular separation from 60°. Mt. Diablo ranks 4th of 7,676 tested points (top 0.05%), with only 3 points scoring better on the composite. The three better-scoring points lie 14.3–43.1 miles from Mt. Diablo and lack the cartographic, historical, and navigational significance that make Mt. Diablo the natural anchor: it is the origin of the Mount Diablo Meridian and Base Line (the reference coordinate system for California land surveys since 1851), the site of the Eye of Diablo aerial navigation beacon, and the point explicitly marked by the Zodiac on his map. The clock-face framework is not unique to Mt. Diablo in a strict mathematical sense, but Mt. Diablo is among the strongest anchor points in the region, and it is the only one with independent evidentiary support from the Zodiac’s own materials.
5. Agricultural provenance. If the triangular feature can be documented as a known agricultural or civil-engineering structure with a recorded construction date and purpose (e.g., a drainage basin in county engineering records), this would provide an alternative explanation
for its presence.
None of these criteria have been met in four months!. We invite independent researchers to test them.
This is post number 700. Where are the experts to falsify the work.
Can they even do so? I don’t think so….
But that hasn’t been admitted. Because to admit it, would mean I am right. And I am.
IN THREE AND THREE EIGHTHS RADIANS TEN is the solution to Z32. Discovered by David Stampher in December 2025, who found the triangle landmark by Lake Herman Road, solving the cipher after 55 years.
Run the code: https://github.com/dstampher/zodiac-z32-cipher
Read the paper: https://zenodo.org/records/18645227
It has been a pleasure being of service.
Here is how you can prove it wrong, this is an open challenge to all readers. All experts are welcome to challenge this proposed solution. Here is how you can prove it wrong:
Falsification Criteria
In the interest of scientific rigor, we present explicit criteria by which the proposed solution can be objectively tested and potentially falsified. These are intended to be concrete and non-subjective—
not matters of interpretation or feeling, but measurable outcomes.
1. Subsurface survey. If ground-penetrating radar at the triangular anomaly reveals no sub-surface disturbance (no excavation, no backfill, no anomalous density contrast), this would substantially weaken the physical evidence line. Conversely, confirmation of a deliberate excavation basin would constitute strong corroboration.
2. Temporal dating. If the triangular feature can be dated—through soil stratigraphy, den-drochronology of vegetation, or other forensic methods—to a period outside the Zodiac’s known active period of 1968–1970 (e.g., demonstrably post-1975 or pre-1965), this would weaken the
temporal coincidence argument. Conversely, dating the feature to within this narrow window would strengthen it considerably. The 1964–1982 creation window established by available aerial imagery is broad; forensic dating methods could narrow this significantly.
3. Alternative plaintext. If an alternative candidate plaintext is identified that (a) satisfies all three constraints (length, locks, bounds), (b) ranks higher than the proposed solution by proximity to a known crime scene, and (c) is corroborated by independent physical or geo-metric evidence at its decoded coordinates, this would supersede the proposed solution. The solver code and data are public; any researcher can verify that no such candidate currently exists in the enumerated space. We note that any proposed alternative must include physical corroboration at the decoded site: the Zodiac’s explicit instruction to “dig it up” implies physical disturbance of the ground, and digging leaves detectable evidence—subsurface anomalies visible to ground-penetrating radar, soil compaction differences, or crop marks visible in aerial imagery. An alternative candidate whose decoded coordinates show no such physical evidence would not meet this criterion.
4. Framework non-uniqueness. We have tested this criterion directly. A grid search of 7,676 alternative anchor points at 0.02° resolution across the Bay Area (37.3°–38.8°N, 121.0°–123.0°W) was conducted, scoring each point on a composite metric combining (a) the sum of angular errors between each crime scene’s magnetic bearing and its nearest whole clock-hour position, and (b) the deviation of the Presidio Heights–Blue Rock Springs angular separation from 60°. Mt. Diablo ranks 4th of 7,676 tested points (top 0.05%), with only 3 points scoring better on the composite. The three better-scoring points lie 14.3–43.1 miles from Mt. Diablo and lack the cartographic, historical, and navigational significance that make Mt. Diablo the natural anchor: it is the origin of the Mount Diablo Meridian and Base Line (the reference coordinate system for California land surveys since 1851), the site of the Eye of Diablo aerial navigation beacon, and the point explicitly marked by the Zodiac on his map. The clock-face framework is not unique to Mt. Diablo in a strict mathematical sense, but Mt. Diablo is among the strongest anchor points in the region, and it is the only one with independent evidentiary support from the Zodiac’s own materials.
5. Agricultural provenance. If the triangular feature can be documented as a known agricultural or civil-engineering structure with a recorded construction date and purpose (e.g., a drainage basin in county engineering records), this would provide an alternative explanation
for its presence.
None of these criteria have been met in four months!. We invite independent researchers to test them.
