I suppose I have exhausted all I have to say about the cipher and experience of sharing it.  Those that are interested may read, those that are not may skip.  

While the natural origin, or watering hole theories are quite popular for the explanation of the landmark next to the decoded coordinates, this can be verified.  However there is resistance against that verification step that is necessary.  The forum discussions won’t be sufficient to make the determination.  Still, the knowledge has been shared free of charge.  The cipher itself is actually fascinating.  I wasn’t sure where it would lead.

It led to a series of surprises that were entirely unexpected.  The cipher blends the abstract with physical reality.  It is very odd.  I have no idea why he did this.  It does imply some deranged creativity and intelligence, yet he also misspelled the word “Christmass”, and misused the word “Radians”.  So at the same time, he is pretty stupid.  And evil.

Posted by: @coder1987

↑

While the natural origin, or watering hole theories are quite popular for the explanation of the landmark next to the decoded coordinates, this can be verified.  However there is resistance against that verification step that is necessary.  The forum discussions won’t be sufficient to make the determination.

I mean, there is still research that you could do and discuss online.

As to the natural origin, you could do some research using data from the US Geological Surveys, which is not difficult to undertake at certain levels starting from their Map Locator. Although not suitable for micro-analysis, their mapping shows clearly the downslopes of three surrounding hills (one, merely a hillock) proceeding in just the very orientations that a north-facing triangular-shaped waterlogging may form in their midst. Which, of course, is what we see.

Of course, none of this would answer the question as to whether The Zodiac threw an old bicycle, or something, into an already formed marshy spot. As you say, only GPR can answer that one.

@shaqmeister 

Yeah the forum posts aren’t going to answer the question.  You are funny though.

Natural origin theory is silly.  Testable, with GPR, as you have admitted.  But silly as well.  I await the test results.

And I will be very grateful to know what is or is not there, after 4 months that have felt more like 6.  Even knowing there is nothing there would be satisfying at this point.  My paper doesn’t even claim anything is buried there, only that it should be scanned to check.  Pretty simple.

For now it is just a loop of mostly arguing about cows and natural origin, construction feasibility that assumes depth (I do not), and it not being a CSP.  

Given the potential significance, if true, that is annoying to me.  We do have a way to know if it is the solution, if physical evidence is recovered.  That doesn’t rely on opinion, it relies on playing this waiting game I am currently engaged in.

I will take a week break, play some video games, have some fun, and disengage.  Then probably try the Youtube route.  I would like more people to see what I found.

I will also say if it turns out to be true, I don’t plan on doing any interviews, Netflix specials, ect ect.  The paper has all of the interesting information and I don’t have much to add on top of it.  I simply wanted to solve the cipher and I think I have done that, despite that it is still unconfirmed as we head into April.  I’ve added it to the list of surprises.  I have a feeling there will be more ahead.  

There is a dark energy to this case and this code, didn’t enjoy that aspect of this.  Wasn’t really into true crime, or the Zodiac case itself, prior to this.  I was just interested in Z32 mostly.

After your return, @coder1987, and as you prepare for v3 of your white paper, I would like to encourage you to step back a little further first and think about how research, and the subsequent presentation of theories, goes. One important aspect to focus on is how you handle – as you must – potential counter-theories. If what you are proposing, in any field whatsoever, has one or more potential alternative explanations, which you would clearly be wanting to set aside, then you have to give an account in your presentation of the reasons why the latter must be untenable. For instance, the most obvious interpretation as to what we are to do with the Diablo Map and code is just to decode and mark the spot on the map. If, however, you are wanting to propose that we should, in fact, be doing something different, then you have to first present your arguments as to why the ‘obvious’ is to, and must, be rejected. And all this has to be in place, solidly, even before we get to the specifics of our own proposal.

It’s the same at the other end of the research, having reached your proposed location and offered that it is something that was created, not just by human intervention, but by a specific individual at a specific time. As just indicated, the ‘natural formation’ hypothesis can clearly be strongly argued using geological evidence, backed by survey data. Consequently, if you are proposing some other explanation, you have to rule out this one first. And “theory X is just silly” doesn’t cut it, not even close. The alternatives require just as much attention as the model you are proposing.

Equally, I’d encourage you to think, for your presentation, about the proper handling of verification. As DMW has pointed out previously, and soundly, if, on the infinitessimal off-chance that anyone will take up your conjecture and perform a GPR survey, and if, on the even remoter chance that something was found that identified The Zodiac as having constructed this site and placed the something there, you could argue that your theory has been verified. However, the opposite is not the case, in the event that nothing is found. Thus, your GPR proposal, in fact, offers no verification at all of your theory. (Your theory, as you’ve pointed out, doesn’t demand anything at all as to the nature of what is expected to be found there. Hence, not finding anything is simply a null result.)

This last is because, as above, you haven’t ruled out with countering arguments the very likely possibility that, even had The Zodiac had a specific location in mind and encrypted accurately its coordinates, he was only wanting to get authorities tied up in searching for his non-existent ‘bomb’. There could, indeed, be nothing in that field at all, and yet the location – if argued according to correct method – could yet be just the one that The Zodiac had in mind.

Good luck. Enjoy your break.

Posted by: @shaqmeister

↑

After your return, @coder1987, and as you prepare for v3 of your white paper, I would like to encourage you to step back a little further first and think about how research, and the subsequent presentation of theories, goes. One important aspect to focus on is how you handle – as you must – potential counter-theories. If what you are proposing, in any field whatsoever, has one or more potential alternative explanations, which you would clearly be wanting to set aside, then you have to give an account in your presentation of the reasons why the latter must be untenable. For instance, the most obvious interpretation as to what we are to do with the Diablo Map and code is just to decode and mark the spot on the map. If, however, you are wanting to propose that we should, in fact, be doing something different, then you have to first present your arguments as to why the ‘obvious’ is to, and must, be rejected. And all this has to be in place, solidly, even before we get to the specifics of our own proposal.

It’s the same at the other end of the research, having reached your proposed location and offered that it is something that was created, not just by human intervention, but by a specific individual at a specific time. As just indicated, the ‘natural formation’ hypothesis can clearly be strongly argued using geological evidence, backed by survey data. Consequently, if you are proposing some other explanation, you have to rule out this one first. And “theory X is just silly” doesn’t cut it, not even close. The alternatives require just as much attention as the model you are proposing.

Equally, I’d encourage you to think, for your presentation, about the proper handling of verification. As DMW has pointed out previously, and soundly, if, on the infinitessimal off-chance that anyone will take up your conjecture and perform a GPR survey, and if, on the even remoter chance that something was found that identified The Zodiac as having constructed this site and placed the something there, you could argue that your theory has been verified. However, the opposite is not the case, in the event that nothing is found. Thus, your GPR proposal, in fact, offers no verification at all of your theory. (Your theory, as you’ve pointed out, doesn’t demand anything at all as to the nature of what is expected to be found there. Hence, not finding anything is simply a null result.)

This last is because, as above, you haven’t ruled out with countering arguments the very likely possibility that, even had The Zodiac had a specific location in mind and encrypted accurately its coordinates, he was only wanting to get authorities tied up in searching for his non-existent ‘bomb’. There could, indeed, be nothing in that field at all, and yet the location – if argued according to correct method – could yet be just the one that The Zodiac had in mind.

Good luck. Enjoy your break.

Big wall of text.

You have brought little value to the discussion.

Your natural origin theory is absurd.

We can circle back around if they check this 100 foot triangle landmark out by LHR that was created during the years of Zodiac activity, and matches the triangle symbol in the cipher (see my profile picture).

We keep going back and forth, you simply haven’t convinced me that triangle is of natural origin.  I think that theory is stupid as hell.

Arguing with you has been very tiring @shaqmeister.  I will give you credit in that you are incredibly persistent, and always switching up your angle.

I am pretty much done with you and not really debating you further.  We just disagree, and that is pretty much the end of that.  Nothing that you will say will convince me that the landmark isn’t worth scanning, sorry.  You tried to sway me but you failed, just being real with you.  Natural origin is a bad joke.

👍

Posted by: @shaqmeister

↑

👍

Thank you for the thumbs up.

I will say some people I have interacted with have been very nice.  You and I weren’t able to reach agreement on some things, but I won’t hold that against you on the personal level.  Expecting everyone to agree with me wouldn’t be smart.  It is convincing enough for me, however.  At least to check, not to claim I know what (if anything) is there.

Even if there is nothing buried in the triangle, it’s construction was deliberate and carefully designed.  Human intention went into this, it wasn’t a simple watering hole.  Zodiac could have marked the land, and put nothing inside.   Just to make people dig and waste their time, while also generating a news story when it is found.  Or, he put something there.  Or, as you claim, it is a cow watering hole, but you have pivoted to natural origin.  So it is a natural origin, cow watering hole, that happens to be 100 ft and point north and match the ciphertext symbol, and be next to the same road as the Zodiac’s first crime scene.

Please tell me the odds of this happening.

While you do that I will be recharging my battery and reassessing my approach.  I have partially enjoyed our interactions.  You were one of the few that engaged.

Good morning!

as mentioned earlier, I believe that homophonic substitution is not the right approach in this case. That said, I do recognize the value of your solution from a methodological standpoint, as it is coherent and well-structured. I would therefore encourage you to continue along this path, refining it further and presenting it as effectively as possible.

The idea of presenting the solution through a video seems particularly strong to me, and it’s something I was considering as well. Not only does it help reach a wider audience, but it is also far more accessible and engaging than asking someone to go through a spreadsheet or a purely text-based explanation.

Regarding the possible natural formation, I wouldn’t underestimate it. On the contrary, it could turn out to be a key element: it’s plausible that Zodiac himself was aware of this feature and intentionally used it to hide something (which, as mentioned before, does not necessarily have to be a bomb).

Furthermore, if a radar inspection were to find nothing, this would not completely rule out the hypothesis. It could simply mean that something was there in the 1970s and was later removed. The statement “you have until next fall” could align with this scenario: something hidden temporarily and then retrieved once the deadline had passed.

Finally, I believe that a truly authoritative evaluation of this kind of solution could only come from an experienced cryptographer, ideally someone who has already worked on deciphering Zodiac’s previous codes.

Have a good day! 😀 

Posted by: @coder1987

↑

Please tell me the odds of this happening.

Well, since you have asked for me to reply, I would say it’s not so much about odds of something happening as of the tendency of humans to see relevance in things where none is actually present. This is kind of like pareidolia (seeing faces in clouds). Nowhere did The Zodiac emphasise his trianglular cipher symbol over any other, thus giving it no especial importance to him. Consequently if, then, we were to think of the sheer number of different symbols he did use in his ciphers, even just those in the Z32, it would be unsurprising if we didn’t find objects and forms matching one or other of them anywhere we looked.

Also, I would argue that, as Zodiac Hunters (if you like), we are greatly at risk of wanting to see clues and meaning in absolutely everything and anything he may ever have communicated, feeling he must have been intentially directing us towards something, especially the very ‘something’ we just happen to have found.

Our task, then, is to be aware of this tendency and to, at the very least, work to fight against it.