Posted by: @coder1987

↑

But they would need to use a computer.  There is just no way around that.  Too many possibilities that need to tested, and a human isn’t going to be able to do that.  You might get lucky subjectively, that is possible, but how would you prove what you found is right, when you didn’t try all of the others?  That is what I did, as we see with the code.

(Emphasis added—S)

And this is very much the issue. How would we go about selecting a set of candidates that we could then argue comprised all of the others?

Well, of course we can’t.

As with your coded example, we have to start somewhere with a set (perhaps) of formal templates and a lexicon to populate the former, to then permit testing. Yet, in the act of doing so we are already pruning down the ‘all’ set to just those that match with the choices we have thereby imposed. On this reasoning, then, we are – even at the outset – denying ourselves (as we must) the option of being able to come back later saying “what my code has found is right.”

In your code, for example, you have – what is it – 12 templates, under a couple of exclusion tests foremost:

f"{pre}{dist_word}{frac_str}{rad}{angle_word}"
f"{pre}{angle_word}{rad}{dist_word}{frac_str}"
f"{pre}{dist_word}{frac_str}{angle_word}{rad}"
f"{pre}{angle_word}{dist_word}{frac_str}{rad}"
f"{pre}{rad}{angle_word}{dist_word}{frac_str}"
f"{pre}{rad}{dist_word}{frac_str}{angle_word}"

f"{pre}{dist_word}{frac_str}{dunit}{rad}{angle_word}"
f"{pre}{dist_word}{frac_str}{dunit}{angle_word}{rad}"
f"{pre}{angle_word}{rad}{dist_word}{frac_str}{dunit}"
f"{pre}{angle_word}{dist_word}{frac_str}{dunit}{rad}"
f"{pre}{dunit}{dist_word}{frac_str}{rad}{angle_word}"
f"{pre}{rad}{angle_word}{dunit}{dist_word}{frac_str}"

and a rather limited lexicon:

_WORD_TOKENS = [
"THIRTEENSIXTEENTHS", "FIFTEENSIXTEENTHS", "ELEVENSIXTEENTHS",
"SEVENSIXTEENTHS", "NINESIXTEENTHS", "FIVESIXTEENTHS", "THREESIXTEENTHS",
"THREEQUARTERS", "THREEFOURTHS", "THREEEIGHTHS", "SEVENEIGHTHS", "FIVEEIGHTHS",
"TWOTHIRDS", "SIXTEENTH", "RADIANS", "RADIAN", "INCHES",
"TWELVE", "ELEVEN", "QUARTERS", "QUARTER", "FOURTHS", "FOURTH", "EIGHTHS", "EIGHTH",
"SEVEN", "THREE", "EIGHT", "NINE", "FOUR", "FIVE", "ZERO", "THIRDS", "THIRD", "HALF",
"INCH", "RADS", "ONE", "TWO", "SIX", "TEN", "RAD", "AND", "THE", "FROM",
"IN", "AT", "TO", "BY", "GO", "ON", "A",
]

from which it would seem hardly justifiable to claim that your code, in contrast to others’ attempts, has tried all of the other candidate options. Others have chosen some set to begin from, you have likewise; as we must.

In short, if that is our aim – to evaluate under the claim that we have taken into consideration all possibilities –  then we are already stymied by the very nature of the problem, even before we have had begun to run out code or trimmed our spreadsheet.

Posted by: @shaqmeister

↑

Posted by: @shaqmeister

↑

As none of the candidate first words have ‘E’ as a second letter, …

Apologies, typo. That should, of course, have been ‘S’ as the second letter.

 

No problem @shaqmeister, I have made plenty of them during my time here.  Not really editing myself very much, just putting the thoughts out there.

You’ve mentioned some useful things and I appreciate you for that.  

Also Zodiac imposed the Radians and Inches with his explicit instructions.  I just followed his orders.

If someone brings a Z32 proposed solution to me and there is no mention of radians and inches in the plaintext, I’m not super interested in it, but that is just me.

I know there is a subset of people interested in this cipher that believe it contains no coordinates, or it contains a phrase instead.  I didn’t approach this cipher with that pre-conceived notion.  I approached this cipher with the intent of respecting all of the instructions provided by the Zodiac himself.

Not just following all of his instructions for Z32, but also not adding anything of my own on top (like an unnecessary transposition).

He didn’t add a transposition step because he wanted this solved, that is my hypothesis, awaiting scan (real science not guesswork).

Doubling down on my other hypothesis that people made this cipher harder than it needed to be.  If the scan finds something that will be proven to be correct.  I don’t know if it is.  Awaiting scan.  Pretty simple/straightforward.  Obviously I have no control over when/if that happens, but am hoping that it does one day.  Sooner the better, as the landmark is not natural in origin.

You won’t see a better Z32 proposed solution in your life time.  Someone can prove that wrong in this thread by finding a better one.

I will be waiting here for all of eternity for that to happen, good luck.  I say this because the landmark matches the ciphertext symbol when overlaid, points north, and is by Lake Herman Road.  It is simple (to me).  But not to others on Zodiac internet forums.  That is a failure on my messaging and how I communicated the information.  It went over many heads, although it actually isn’t super complex.

I am amazed that we are almost at 900 posts.

That is truly incredible.

Posted by: @coder1987

↑

Not just following all of his instructions for Z32, but also not adding anything of my own on top (like an unnecessary transposition).

He didn’t add a transposition step because he wanted this solved, that is my hypothesis, awaiting scan (real science not guesswork).

And what about the projection step, to which you can apply the exact same reasoning, surely?

Posted by: @shaqmeister

↑

Posted by: @coder1987

↑

Not just following all of his instructions for Z32, but also not adding anything of my own on top (like an unnecessary transposition).

He didn’t add a transposition step because he wanted this solved, that is my hypothesis, awaiting scan (real science not guesswork).

And what about the projection step, to which you can apply the exact same reasoning, surely?

 

Crosshair over Mt. Diablo.  My code projects from the summit, as instructed by the Zodiac.

It is just one of those things that you and I will never agree on.  It is basically a forum standoff.  Trench warfare, where neither one of us will gain ground.  Still, you have engaged, and continue to do so.  Being one of the very few, I respect that.

Either way, readers get to consider the counterarguments the alternative viewpoint (even if I don’t agree with it, obviously) and so @shaqmeister brings balance to the force.

But for the reader, which would have to dig through many pages of my spam now, I will bring back a few of shaqs counter arguments:

“He didn’t use RADIANS in the plaintext”.  Matter of opinion, I disagree (because of the post script hint).

“The landmark is natural in origin” Disagree.  Nature doesn’t produce equilateral triangle landmarks such as this.  I’ve mentioned the other aspects of the landmark enough times (see profile picture)

“The landmark shouldn’t be scanned because it will violate the privacy of the cows”.  Cow privacy is not protected in any country,  The scan is quick, cheap, non-invasive, and potentially provides physical evidence in the Zodiac case, which I, David Stampher, have found.  I solved Z32 back in December 2025, and found the triangle by Lake Herman Road.

That expiration on the editing sucks, because I am making too many grammar errors on here.  Whatever.  Less important than the landmark.

I am loving version 3 and it will be a massive relief when it is done.  Been working on it for 2 months, I just don’t want to rush it.  I was trying to release the other two ASAP while ensuring correctness, this one I put more care and time into.  The images in version 2 were never to my liking, and are major part of the work.  There was also more information I wanted to incorporate, as I only became aware of it after releasing version 2.  This big difference is adding more candidates, up to 8 million.  Still the same winner, still the same landmark.

Also there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in an open field, so the cow privacy argument was always moot.  However such an argument fits well into Zodiac internet forum discussions in my limited experience with them.  I do admire you fighting for the rights of the cows, although such rights do not exist.

I assume you were being silly with that assertion.  Must have been.