Too be clear my entire case rests on the triangle being scanned, and authorities determining Zodiac origin.  They are capable of doing this.  If they say it is natural origin, you win @shaqmeister

Although that will not be happening.  Want to bet?

If they say it is Zodiac origin I win.  Agreed?  

Posted by: @coder1987

↑

Too bad the diagram was useless.

Statement, only.

*argued.  I will correct my typos even if I can’t edit them.  

The reason it is upsetting it anyone can make up any theory they want on the origin.  I gave an example where I just said aliens made the triangle, so we know it wasn’t the Zodiac.

See how easy that is?  It ignores everything else.

Natural origin, watering hole, aliens, improbable meteor crater, pranksters.

Who knows.  Anything but the Zodiac, apparently.

If we just assume aliens made the triangle, then the proposed solution is wrong.  It is simple.

And since we know aliens made the triangle, there is no reason to scan it.

This is basically internet forum types of debates.  It isn’t serious.

Posted by: @coder1987

↑

If they say it is Zodiac origin I win.  Agreed?  

As with your theorising, you don’t consider all the possibities, having no conception nor thought that the water hole may be not natural and not The Zodiac at the same time, which is very probably the most likely truth. Shaped by some cattle herder to the profile of the hills to maximise the rain capture. But all you’ve got to do is ask the current landowner—”hey, what’s that thing in the dip on your land there?”

Wouldn’t that just end the waiting? For you, I mean. I’m not waiting for anything.

Posted by: @shaqmeister

↑

Posted by: @coder1987

↑

If they say it is Zodiac origin I win.  Agreed?  

As with your theorising, you don’t consider all the possibities, having no conception nor thought that the water hole may be not natural and not The Zodiac at the same time, which is very probably the most likely truth. Shaped by some cattle herder to the profile of the hills to maximise the rain capture. But all you’ve got to do is ask the current landowner—”hey, what’s that thing in the dip on your land there?”

Wouldn’t that just end the waiting? For you, I mean. I’m not waiting for anything.

The land owner aren’t law enforcement.  I submitted the tip to law enforcement.  They can contact whoever they’d like.  The soil disturbance in ’68 aligns with this landmark.  They’ll have access to more aerial photography than I had access to.  They can look at ’69 and ’70 and see what is there.

If they see a triangle, do you think they will say “natural origin”?  No, they’ll scan the triangle.  Why?  Because it requires one person and takes less than an hour is why.

Think deeply about that one before responding.

Posted by: @coder1987

↑

Like I said, we are just engaged in trench warfare.

I’m not. I guess, if I’m being honest, I just thought some banter would pass the time until you reached your 1000 posts and you might move on to your new YouTube career and we could have our forum back.

Posted by: @shaqmeister

↑

Posted by: @coder1987

↑

Like I said, we are just engaged in trench warfare.

I’m not. I guess, if I’m being honest, I just thought some banter would pass the time until you reached your 1000 posts and you might move on to your new YouTube career and we could have our forum back.

Ah ok, you are hard to read sometimes.  I was interpreting this as you continuing to object.  My new approach to that, with you is, “you are entitled to your opinion”.  Yes this is dodging, it is because we’ve gone back and forth too much already.  It just became tiring.

Still glad to talk about the case in general, other things about the Z32 cipher, Z13 (I worked on this briefly and bailed).  But yeah we are never going to agree on my proposed solution which is fine.  It actually doesn’t bother me that much.  I still feel good about what I’ve brought to the table, it is very promising.  But remains unresolved.

Let’s say that you were able to prove my Haversine formula was wrong (it isn’t).

That would completely falsify the projected location.  Or let’s say I used a wrong index in the homophonic lock check (I didn’t).

These would be critical errors proving the proposal objectively wrong.  Hasn’t happened.

Maybe my Mt. Diablo summit lat, lon’s were off.  They aren’t.  Same for the crime scenes.  They are all pretty close to perfect.  If they weren’t that would be a problem.

Posted by: @coder1987

↑

Let’s say that you were able to prove my Haversine formula was wrong (it isn’t).

That would completely falsify the projected location.  Or let’s say I used a wrong index in the homophonic lock check (I didn’t).

These would be critical errors proving the proposal objectively wrong.  Hasn’t happened.

All granted. Every point here.

And since we have come full circle to the very point where we started, this feels like the perfect place for me to close with the reminder that:

This has been peer review, and in peer review the criteria of evaluation are decided for you, not by you.

Posted by: @shaqmeister

↑

This has been peer review, and in peer review the criteria of evaluation are decided for you, not by you.

Still, wouldn’t it be nice if it were otherwise?

Another day, and I am here.

Awaiting the science to happen.  But also still working on version 3.  What a slog.  I am in perfectionist mode with it.  As I would like for it to be the second to last version.  The last being post-scan.

Has anyone seen this show?

Shaq disagrees.  We at least agree to disagree.