Best case scenario, my solution checks out, leads to physical evidence, which leads to identification.

To be clear, I am not betting on that last part happening.  The physical evidence part, I think there is a pretty good probability of that one happening due to the intricate design, that goes beyond the landmark itself.

And so we could say through the chain of events that Z340 being cracked also led to that discovery, which is pretty cool.

Still my work has mostly been ignored (for now).  This is due to early roadblocks that led to frustration.  Forum battles were draining because it is too easy to assert things that are actually wrong.  With no experts around as referees, it tends to devolve into useless bickering over differing opinions.

I will point out again, a list of debunks so far:

1.  The landmark is natural in origin, so your proposed solution is wrong.

2.  The landmark is not close enough to a road. (LHR is right by it)

3.  The landmark is a watering hole.  (weird watering hole design and placement).

4.  The landmark should not be scanned, as cows inhabit this land.  By scanning the landmark, we will infringe on the privacy rights of the cows.

5.  The methodology is not a CSP (Reddit user that claims to have a PHD).

And that is it.  The rest has been silence, and a few positive but brief comments from capable individuals.

And so if some people would prefer to talk about Black Dahlia, ALA sketches, ect, ect rather than the landmark I found, that is cool.  But I will keep talking about the landmark in my thread here until it is scanned.

And I do thank any mods for at least not censoring my thread and letting me spam it.  I realize that is easy to just click a button and make it go away (from here).  But the code and paper are the cleanest Z32 method to date.  I’ve looked around.  

Spamming this thread let’s me vent frustrated energy and also talk more about the cipher.

Bad debunkers won’t sway me but they can still try.  

An objective falsification is a different story, to be clear.  That is a legitimate debunk.

If I pointed to the wrong place and that is provable, major mistake.  But that isn’t what happened.  I pointed to the right place.

And there are many ways to point to the wrong place.  There is only one right way to do this.

The right way to do this is what you see expressed in the code I shared.

I realize an expert could just say, “how do we know he didn’t encrypt a taunting phrase instead?”.

I file this under bad debunk, due to all of the clues + the physical landmark I found.  Difference of opinion.

I realize that is technically true, but it is highly improbable given what I have found.  I would think experts realize this?  Hope so.  They must.

Anyways one way to know if my solution is right is to just scan the triangle.  That would put “taunting phrase theory” to bed as well.