@jarlve 

Thank you for the message.  I am a patient person, and realize proper review of such a proposal takes time.  There are many ways it could be wrong, such as bugs/logic errors, or bad input data.  But so far it has held up against anything critically wrong being mentioned.

The good news is that the triangle does not have legs.  It won’t be going anywhere, and so there is no rush for it to be checked out.  That will be a decision for the proper authorities, but I am glad to have pointed them to this triangle.  I hope they find something there, and the tip leads to to progress being made in the case.

Posted by: @coder1987

↑

But so far it has held up against anything critically wrong being mentioned.

Did I fall asleep and miss that? Because, seriously, just saying that it did doesn’t count.

Just by way of illustration, let me put forward again the following so you can demonstrate your proposal “holding up.”

Your proposal fails the assignment in its entirety because it ignores the clear instructions and does not locate a site at the side of a road where school buses pass sufficiently close to trigger the detailed light sensor mechanism which, likewise, is unambiguously given. 

If you will accept further clarification of the above, since I can already hear your retort that such objections don’t address ‘the code’, let me state this as: your coding model fails to incorporate appropriate exclusion criteria filtering on roadside proximity.

Posted by: @shaqmeister

↑

If you will accept further clarification of the above, since I can already hear your retort that such objections don’t address ‘the code’, let me state this as: your coding model fails to incorporate appropriate exclusion criteria filtering on roadside proximity.

Are you telling me that Lake Herman Road isn’t a road?

Posted by: @shaqmeister

↑

Just by way of illustration, let me put forward again the following so you can demonstrate your proposal “holding up.”

Your proposal fails the assignment in its entirety because it ignores the clear instructions and does not locate a site at the side of a road where school buses pass sufficiently close to trigger the detailed light sensor mechanism which, likewise, is unambiguously given. 

Apparently you skipped over the topographic corroboration section.  Road side ditch, check.  Check the hill profile in the diagram against the hills by the triangle.  Match.  

I wonder if there is any significance to LHR and the Zodiac?  

Rhetorical question.

Let’s see what happens if they radar the 100 foot triangle that points north and is right next to the decoded coordinates.  The offset is only in the distance component, the width of a pencil tip.  The angular 10 o’ clock is near perfect alignment with the 100 foot triangle on the ground, which you claim was created by the cows.

@shaqmeister

Can you prove that a bus has never travelled on LHR?  You’ll need records from schools that no longer exist.  Children in rural parts of town are worthy of bus rides to school.

The only notable geographic feature in Zodiac’s A + B sketch is the roadside depression and the hills, which is all there is by LHR + the triangle I found.  There are no trees, or anything else really.  Just roadside depression and hills, exactly as he sketched.

Someone else mentioned that the sun in that sketch is in the correct orientation, relative to the hills I am mentioning.  I didn’t verify that myself, but maybe someone can look into that.  I am busy finalizing v3 of the paper, and don’t really care if the sun is in the wrong orientation.  But if it is right, that is interesting to know.

Posted by: @shaqmeister

↑

Posted by: @coder1987

↑

But so far it has held up against anything critically wrong being mentioned.

Did I fall asleep and miss that? Because, seriously, just saying that it did doesn’t count.

You’ve been asleep this entire time, apparently.  

I have already mentioned it has received responses from two legitimate, real life computer science professors.  They didn’t mention any problems with the math or code.  It is a fact.

For the purpose of transparency, one of these professors did object to the feasibility of Zodiac constructing this triangle, as it is large.  He didn’t have anything about the proposed solution itself.  He felt it would require heavy machinery to construct this triangle.  However, my paper never makes a claim regarding the depth of the triangle depression. 

The paper and code were shared publicly on Hacker News.  I do not know if you are familiar with what that place is, but I can tell you this:  they would have destroyed this in the comments if it were wrong.  That didn’t happen.  It got 8 upvotes, and 0 comments.

Such a depression can be created with a shovel, if shallow.  The inner circle vegetation within the larger triangle shape appears even in the driest conditions, indicating it retains moisture differently than its surrounding environment.  That is science, and is observable via satellite imagery.

Why do you think the cows are doing this, @shaqmeister?

Posted by: @coder1987

↑

Posted by: @shaqmeister

↑

If you will accept further clarification of the above, since I can already hear your retort that such objections don’t address ‘the code’, let me state this as: your coding model fails to incorporate appropriate exclusion criteria filtering on roadside proximity.

Are you telling me that Lake Herman Road isn’t a road?

Thank you. And that is exactly as I remember it going throughout. You heard, and responded to, “road” and ignored “side of the road.” Later, you heard, and responded to, “proximity” and ignored “sufficiently close to trigger…” And thus your ‘holding up’ went. You (under some premise I still can’t comprehend) took the instruction to use “The Map coupled with this code [which] will tell you where the bomb is set” and cherry-picked what you wanted from ‘The Map’ rather than using it as a map. You did not let any of the perfectly valid objections even get sight of your watering hole in the sky. 

You did, to be fair, once indicate that you had an idea what ‘cherry-picking’ meant, but you didn’t then show that you understood how it comprises an invalidating error in research and, moreover, how it applied to the path of your own efforts specifically.

Yes, this is exactly how I remember it going.

Posted by: @shaqmeister

↑

Posted by: @coder1987

↑

Posted by: @shaqmeister

↑

If you will accept further clarification of the above, since I can already hear your retort that such objections don’t address ‘the code’, let me state this as: your coding model fails to incorporate appropriate exclusion criteria filtering on roadside proximity.

Are you telling me that Lake Herman Road isn’t a road?

Thank you. And that is exactly as I remember it going throughout. You heard, and responded to, “road” and ignored “side of the road.” Later, you heard, and responded to, “proximity” and ignored “sufficiently close to trigger…” And thus your ‘holding up’ went. You (under some premise I still can’t comprehend) took the instruction to use “The Map coupled with this code [which] will tell you where the bomb is set” and cherry-picked what you wanted from ‘The Map’ rather than using it as a map. You did not let any of the perfectly valid objections even get sight of your watering hole in the sky. 

You did, to be fair, once indicate that you had an idea what ‘cherry-picking’ meant, but you didn’t then show that you understood how it comprises an invalidating error in research and, moreover, how it applied to the path of your own efforts specifically.

Yes, this is exactly how I remember it going.

 

@shaqmeister

Let me make sure I understand your position correctly. You believe the solution must locate a site “sufficiently close to trigger the detailed light sensor mechanism” described in the device diagram. You also stated earlier in this very thread — and I quote — “there almost certainly never was one,” referring to the device itself. You further said the Zodiac’s aim was to get law enforcement “tied up in searching” and that “nothing about this as an aim would require anything to be actually in situ.”

“The Zodiac’s primary aim, through his letters, appears to have been mostly to taunt. Getting LE tied up in searching for such a mechanism would have met his needs at all levels, and nothing about this as an aim would require anything to be actually in situ.”

https://forum.zodiackillerciphers.com/community/postid/88924/

So your falsification criterion for my proposal is that it must satisfy the operational specifications of a device you yourself believe never existed. You are demanding that decoded coordinates be compatible with the triggering radius of a fictional “Death Machine”.

Meanwhile, here is what you are not demanding of your own proposal. You proposed EIGHT SIGNS PLUS FOUR INCHES NE GEMINI, as the solution to Z32.

A quick note for the readers, since you’ve raised roadside proximity as a criterion that my proposal fails “in its entirety.”

I computed the Haversine forward projection for your proposed solution, EIGHT SIGNS PLUS FOUR INCHES NE GEMINI, using your own parameters: 8 signs × 30°/sign = 240° magnetic, plus 17° declination = 257° true bearing, at 4 inches × 6.4 miles/inch = 25.6 miles, projected from the Mt. Diablo summit at 37.88175°N, 121.91417°W.

The result is 37.79752°N, 122.37105°W. Anyone can paste those coordinates into Google Maps right now.

It’s in San Francisco Bay. Underwater. Just south of the Bay Bridge, between Treasure Island and the Ferry Building.

No road. No roadside. No school bus. No hillside. No light sensor. No land.

Ironically, I actually grew up on the island just to the north, Yerba Buena Island.  My dad was in the Navy.  Call me a liar, you’d be wrong.

You have spent two weeks telling me my solution “fails the assignment in its entirety” because it doesn’t locate a site at the side of a road, but it does. Your solution locates a site at the bottom of the bay.

As for cherry-picking: I used the map’s origin point, its scale, its magnetic north instruction, and the Zodiac’s own word RADIANS. You used none of these and instead introduced SIGNS — a word the Zodiac never wrote — and GEMINI — a word with no connection to any Zodiac communication. Then you accuse me of cherry-picking. The readers can evaluate that for themselves.

The decoded coordinates are next to Lake Herman Road. Lake Herman Road is a road. The terrain matches the hillside profile in the diagram. Whether a school bus ever drove that stretch is an empirical question neither of us can answer from a forum, but it is a rural road connecting Vallejo to Benicia that has served the surrounding community since before the Zodiac was active. The idea that no school bus has ever used it is an assumption, not a fact, and it is certainly not grounds to dismiss the entire proposal “in its entirety.”

You’ve spent two weeks telling me and everyone reading this thread what’s wrong with my work. You have not identified a single error in the code. You have not found a mathematical mistake. You have not proposed an alternative location with testable physical evidence. What you have done is argue that cows dig equilateral triangles, that the Phillips 66 map is simultaneously too distorted to project from and the only valid surface to search on, that GPR is unnecessary, and that a solution must satisfy the engineering specs of a device you believe was imaginary.

I think the readers can see what’s happening here. I’m going to get back to work on version 3 of the paper.

If possible, could I ask that replies on this thread avoid active mentions on my username? I can unsubscribe per thread, but it seems turning off mention notifications is global. If you could, I would very much appreciate it. Thank friends!

Posted by: @shaqmeister

↑

If possible, could I ask that replies on this thread avoid active mentions on my username? I can unsubscribe per thread, but it seems turning off mention notifications is global. If you could, I would very much appreciate it. Thank friends!

@shaqmeister

Request denied.  You inserted yourself into this conversation.  It is a public forum and you are welcome to do so, with dissenting opinions.  But that is all you have brought to the table, opinions.  Mentioning your username in response to your post is standard practice.

Nothing personal, but I am not sure if you have been arguing in good faith, or rather due to the fact that you have proposed a competing solution to this cipher in the past.  The reason I say this, is that capable people have already seen the work, none of which attributed the triangle to cow related construction.  None of them told me Lake Herman Road isn’t a road.

Did I stutter?

Posted by: @shaqmeister

↑

Did I stutter?

“Request denied.  You inserted yourself into this conversation.”

If you would like to abandon the thread, go ahead and do so. 

Or, if you would like to do something useful, obtain and precisely orthorectify aerial photography from the years 1969 and/or 1970 of sufficient resolution, then post the images of this specific location in this thread.  Let’s see what is there.

Good luck with the orthorectification, you will need enterprise grade software, and you will probably do it wrong.