@fayzr: you sound so French in your video!

@fayzr: you sound so French in your video!

Nothing we can can hide from you! I hope I didn’t stop you from watching

There’s something about this that’s just.. idk, creepier than other results.

I made some computation to evaluate what were the odds to get a location in south lake Tahoe, given any random 32 digits long sequence (= finding 10 digits sequence following the pattern 45.6_ _58.7_ _ ). I found 1/50000. That would be a very unlikely coincidence, wouldnt it ?

@fayzr: you sound so French in your video!

Nothing we can can hide from you! I hope I didn’t stop you from watching

There’s something about this that’s just.. idk, creepier than other results.

I made some computation to evaluate what were the odds to get a location in south lake Tahoe, given any random 32 digits long sequence (= finding 10 digits sequence following the pattern 45.6_ _58.7_ _ ). I found 1/50000. That would be a very unlikely coincidence, wouldnt it ?

Very intriguing, would be helpful to have some input from doranchak and other cipher experts.

I get a completely different result when using those geomagnetic coordinates (see attached). Could you elaborate please?

I have tried getting this to work but I don’t get to the geographical coordinates near Lake Tahoe

I have tried getting this to work but I don’t get to the geographical coordinates near Lake Tahoe

Yeah, the thing is, among this "solution’s" many issues, one is that those coordinates DO NOT point to that area.

And, before the guy tries to "correct" me, I am aware that coordinates change over time. A fraction of an arcsecond every year. So in 50 years, they would be off by – at most – 100 feet.

I said something similar the first time I saw the results. However there are issues with getting an exact location due not only to the inherent inaccuracy of analogue methods used at the time, but also differences in the formula used to convert between the two. There doesn’t seem to be any one absolute agreed method. I’m not sure if it’s fair to hold it to an exactly 100 foot margin of error, but there should be some sense that the result is strong.

It’s superficially curious that the results seem to point to somewhere in the Lake Tahoe area, and at first I thought that might be a sign of being near to a breakthrough. But at the same time Zodiac has demonstrated a certain legibility in his other solved ciphers, by which I mean that they result in a very readable plain text. It would not seem very satisfying for him to create an elaborate puzzle with such a vague solution, and it would not be consistent with his other solved ciphers.

The more I think about this solution the less I like it. It showed some promise, but like an OK suspect, it was worth pursuing, but seems to be leading no where and just isn’t "panning out".

I said something similar the first time I saw the results. However there are issues with getting an exact location due not only to the inherent inaccuracy of analogue methods used at the time, but also differences in the formula used to convert between the two. There doesn’t seem to be any one absolute agreed method. I’m not sure if it’s fair to hold it to an exactly 100 foot margin of error, but there should be some sense that the result is strong.

It’s superficially curious that the results seem to point to somewhere in the Lake Tahoe area, and at first I thought that might be a sign of being near to a breakthrough. But at the same time Zodiac has demonstrated a certain legibility in his other solved ciphers, by which I mean that they result in a very readable plain text. It would not seem very satisfying for him to create an elaborate puzzle with such a vague solution, and it would not be consistent with his other solved ciphers.

The more I think about this solution the less I like it. It showed some promise, but like an OK suspect, it was worth pursuing, but seems to be leading no where and just isn’t "panning out".

Exactly this. Particularly the part that Zodiac demonstrated a certain legibility in his other solved ciphers, this involves so many new steps that we have never seen from the Zodiac before to reach a result which in itself isn’t even that convincing.

I do think that fayzr has a good reasoning ability and I wouldn’t lump him in with the usual kooks, but I think this line of enquiry is starting to look like a dead end. I really did like his first couple of posts on the Z32 and it’s a real shame that this isn’t holding up better. I think we’ll continue to see good contributions from fayzr and perhaps there might still be a grain of something within all this.

I agree. I wrote the same thing in another post as well, I really liked the amount of depth, creativity and reasoning put into it. My advice would be to follow Z’s clues (radians and inches along radians etc.) and not to publicly claim ciphers as solved unless they really are.