You are most welcome. This is a good place for sure with lots of discussions on just about every aspect of the case with an abundance of different opinions.This for the most part develops into friendly conversations when new ideas are brought forward.
My main interest is in the cipher and the cipher guys here have done and continue to do extensive work trying to crack it from a conventional angle, which obviously differs from your approach you lay out in your documentary.
I find your documentary to me interesting and I look forward to any additional observations you present.
I like the concept. I think assuming that the codes should be deciphered in a traditional manner is simplistic and lacks imagination. I think the Zodiac had an imagination and some creative flair. His paste up art work in the Halloween card alone seems to hint strongly at possibilities other than a straight forward cipher. The Halloween card is full of symbolism and things tacked all over the place at odd angles. When you look at the doodles and diagrams of the bus bomb letter, the mind can’t help but think a more creative solution to the ciphers is plausible; perhaps even likely.
Think about the brain teasers and puzzles in children’s books, do they follow the rigid, trite and overly formal logic of a traditional cipher? No! They’re imaginative. I beg people look again at the bus bomb letter, look at the Halloween card, look at the goofy supervillian costume and the pirate dosh-darn treasure maps with radians and symbols, the Mikado, the comic books, the general strange creative wackiness. There is more to Z than formal logic. He has an artistic and creative side, and a sense of humor and he’s playful. The idea that he might have meant something to be solved by lining up a skelton’s eye socked with his gun site symbol may sound like something out of The Goonies, but that’s exactly my point. There’s some serious theatrics with Z.
Here is my problem the bars still the same. It doesn’t matter whether you try to solve the cipher using traditional and formal means, or with crazy Indiana Jones puzzles, you cannot make too many arbitrary decisions. The more arbitrary decisions you make the less likely the result and the more impossible to verify.
I would seriously question the decision to match the scaling of the letter "K". It may seem superficially logical, but it would seem to make the construction of the letters difficult. How could Z verify at the end that everything lined up correctly? And here’s the rub, it doesn’t line up well at all, it’s down right messy. Also complete words are still not formed, the results have to be stretched to an unreasonable degree.
There are a lot of letters and symbols to work with, you could line up a lot of things and construct words.
I still think the basic idea of try to line up symbols has a certain soundness to it. It’s consistent with Z’s other antics and really not at all outrageous given that the construction of such puzzles is common in real life. How many of us as children made our own codes? I remember mine as a child frequently involved illogical and wacky solutions.
I would try to make less arbitrary decisions and stick closer to the original source materials. The original letters were a particular size to begin with, if I was to print them at any scale I would first choose the original scale, as I think a person constructing a puzzle that hinged on alignments would have started with the correct sized to begin with.
Also the original letters are not transparent. I don’t hate the idea of using overlays to simplify alignments that can also be achieved through folding, but using them to create overlays that could not have been achieved with the original letters, I think is an arbitrary move.
I would start with the letters in their original sizes. I would then try to create alignments through folding. I believe discoveries made in such a way are far less arbitrary (depending obviously on the quality of the reasoning used to determine the folding locations). You might try creating the complete Zodiac symbol by folding the letter to align the dash __ with the center of the circle containing the vertical dash to create a completed Zodiac crosshair symbol. Such an alignment would seem very logical and not terribly arbitrary at all.
I’ve always been curious about the dashes at either end of line ten, when you relax your eyes it kind of jumps out as if to say "fold here", or "cut on the dotted line". Its also almost at the halfway point. I think it would be interest to cut, or fold the letter at that section and create simple, logical, or otherwise reasonable alignments.
In all, I really like the creative spirit. It’s a refreshing change from the assembly code logic of most of the approaches. But you still have to keep the moves to a minimum. The moment you rearrange something you move down one level in the odds of ending up with a verifiable result.
But really we need more of logical people trying these kinds of alignment type solutions. It’s always the hacks who try and line things up. I want to see one of the programmer guys put on his art smock, break out the macaroni and glitter and bring some hard science and mathematics to some of these more "artistic" solutions.
mad magazine is a good example of the "fold the paper here" mechanic. in the back of each issue was a drawing that had a funny second meaning when the page was tri-folded and the left 1/3 and right 1/3 matched up.
That is exactly the kind of thing I’m talking about. I think some people cling to the traditional cipher approach because it seems inherently more scientific. But when you look at the body of Zodiacs writings and drawings, it seems unlikely that none of them have hidden messages. In fact some of them almost certainly contain hidden messages.
What is the likelihood that there is not one single hidden message within, say, the Halloween card? It’s possible it’s all nonsense and gobbledegook, yes, but is it likely? No.
I think it’s fair to say that there are in all reasonable probability many hidden messages in his writings. I would also say that it is probable that the solutions are informal and playful. Why can I say that? Well because of the artistic style used in the construction of the symbols and doodles is informal and playful.
It seems doubtful that such create swooshes of imagination have formulaic and mathematically rigid solutions. When we look at the ciphers we see formal, neat rows, and we assume the solution is formal, but when we look at the Halloween card we see creativity and symbolism and so it would seem to follow that the solution is equally creative and abstract.
The problem is still this, how do we validate a creative solution? Well what makes us certain that MAD magazine intended people to fold the page? Well, they tell us to do so in a very unambiguous way. There is no assumption, we are literally instructed on how to fold it. We could say that such a solution has a net assumption of 0, or we could use the letter A to represent assumption and the MAD fold in a net assumption factor of A0. The next thing we need to consider is, if and when we do make an assumption, to what degree is the assumption logical vs. arbitrary? Now we bring an element of the subjective into play, but subjectivity is really not such a bad thing so long as you don’t let it run amok.
Lets look at the example of the dashes found at either end of line 10. To what degree is it likely that they represent a break point? The most formal way to examine it would be to first ask, what are the chances of a random code placing these symbols in that location? This would be a very deductive approach, it’s also extremely formal and will supply an infallible answer to the question posed. But it may not get us any closer to breaking the code. Instead we could take a more abductive approach and observe that the concept of a line break, or fold is both simple and a known puzzle trope. The next observation we might make is that the dashes appear almost in the middle of the page, which has some symmetry to it and is the most intuitive place to fold a page. And that is key, it is very intuitive to fold something in the middle, which is something that is difficult to explain with pure logic. Why is the middle more intuitive? Aren’t all points equally intuitive? No, all points are not equally intuitive, because humans instinctively want to create equal divisions. So folds made at divisible location are more intuitive and therefore less arbitrary. These observations do not lead us to an absolute truth, but they point to a high likelihood.
We can see from the example above that with an abductive approach we can at least create a compelling argument for an approach. If these arguments stack up we could end up with a verifiable solution that does not hinge on formal methods.
I would encourage the more logically minded members of this forum to attempt more novel and creative approaches to the ciphers and symbols. Be playful, but stay rational.
For obvious reasons I did not release everything in my documentary because I didn’t want to confuse the average viewer. Going back to the 340, I’m 100% positive I’m correct with my solution. No ego involved it’s just obvious. There’s still much more I have to release and the biggest one is the Z32 solve. But for now since this is a community that is familiar with codes please watch my documentary and my solve then look at this morse code within the 340. It is him and he coded it in many different ways. He is a Harvard graduate, he attended the same high school as Bill Gates. Xen was highly intelligent. He was also in the military, and he moved to San Francisco shortly before the killings started. He lived on Jackson street and he had a widow’s peak. His photo matches the composite sketch to a T AND he was identified at Paul Stine’s murder. This is a combination of "circumstantial evidence" and his signature within the code. It’s him. His family to this day are still very interested in Japanese culture he must have started a tradition with them. I called his widow and she hung up on me when I started to ask her any questions. I have sooooo much more to share but please watch and look at this photo with the morse code. It’s not a coincidence. Thank you!!!! 
~ Kelly aka Just A Sleuth
Going back to the 340, I’m 100% positive I’m correct with my solution. No ego involved it’s just obvious.
Hi Kelly,
I do not mean to burst your bubble. I don’t wanna come across as mean.
There is a 99.999 percent chance your solution is incorrect. Your solution involves cherry picking, speculation and follows no rules. There is no obviousness to your solution.
Doranchak (Dave Oranchak) is the resident Zodiac Cipher expert here and has appeared on several Zodiac related TV shows in regards to the ciphers. He has presented at several cipher related conventions in regards to the Zodiac ciphers.
Ask Doranchak directly if your solution has any merit or not. He is a moderator on this forum. He has already posted once in this thread.
Shawn
Thank you for your opinion, no bubble burst. You all can keep denying the obvious. I’m communicating with other specialists that aren’t involved in this forum or other forums. It’s their daily job.
Thank you for your opinion, no bubble burst. You all can keep denying the obvious. I’m communicating with other specialists that aren’t involved in this forum or other forums. It’s their daily job.
I’ll stick to denying the obvious until a valid solution comes along. Thanks for being condescending, though.
Hi,
I was thinking about the subject of subjectivity last night and with all due respect to Albert Einstein, I want to propose my "Theory of Subjectivity."
I think that it is difficult for someone who engages in subjective analysis to realize that what they are doing is subjective because it makes sense to THEM. Whether or not this solution to the codes is correct, it does involve a subjective first step of somehow (I have not watched the video but have gleaned info from the discussion here) using the reversed letter "K" as the anchor point for placing the 13 character code in a certain place and going from there. The act of using the backwards "K" in that manner is in itself right off the bat a subjective action but may not be perceived as being such by the author, since it makes perfect sense to THEM to do it. But there is nothing in anything Z said in his letters, codes or phone calls that would lead one to believe that this is what he intended or that he, in fact, did this himself. Therefore, the word "subjective" is not pejorative. It simply describes the action the author took.
Now, I do not know what type of person "does this for a living" and who is qualified to review and confirm this work because it is not straight code breaking. What is it "they" do for a living? It can’t be straight cryptography because that is not what this is. It is creative thinking, no doubt. But it is not cryptography in the classic sense. I doubt that David O. can "confirm" this solution due to the subjectivity inherent in it. Lyndon Lafferty had his decoding of the 13 CC "confirmed" (or rather not refuted) by the FBI but few believe Grant was Zodiac. And Hines used almost the same method that Lafferty did to come up with Kane’s name from the 13 CC. Both of those solutions depend on the subjective manner in which you count the letters–eight ahead in the alphabet or eight behind (assuming those are even "circled eights" to begin with!). And yet they can both be "confirmed" to be correct solutions to various degrees. However, both can’t be right!
I believe that the fact that a fragment of the name of a known Z suspect "XEN" came out of this solution confirms in the mind of the
solver that for that reason alone the method/solution must therefore be correct. But is it?
Now, I admit that while all of the circumstantial evidence in my book is objectively footnoted and documented, I do engage in some subjective work in the solutions I propose to both of the bus bomb diagrams. However, I do present the complete logic and step-by-step reasoning behind those two solutions and admit that I cannot say for certain that they are what the killer meant because the solutions are necessarily subjective. However, I feel like I earn the right to speculate a little bit after presenting a ton of documented evidence, as well. I leave it up to the reader to determine if they accept either or both of my interpretations or not. And in my very childishly simple use of the codes, I point out only readily apoarent things, like "KQ = SF", or the initials of my suspect (KQ) decoding into his home town of San Francisco in the Three-Part Cipher. I only use such examples because I am deeply aware of the subjectivity involved in trying to point out evidence from the codes, and and I most definitely do not BASE my solution to the case on a code solution for that very reason.
My code and bus bomb work serve simply to supplement my factual research and provide additional food for thought. That being said, in 1999 Dr. Mike Kelleher said my solution to the first bus bomb was the best one he had ever seen.
Mike
Mike Rodelli
Author, The Hunt for Zodiac; 3.9 stars on Amazon and
In The Shadow of Mt. Diablo: The Shocking True Identity of the Zodiac Killer, a second edition in print format. 4.3 Amazon stars and great Editorial reviews. Twitter:@mikerodelli
Thank you for your opinion, no bubble burst. You all can keep denying the obvious. I’m communicating with other specialists that aren’t involved in this forum or other forums. It’s their daily job.
Your amazing code breaking skills are matched only by your humility.
“Murder will out, this my conclusion.”
– Geoffrey Chaucer
Thank you for your opinion, no bubble burst. You all can keep denying the obvious. I’m communicating with other specialists that aren’t involved in this forum or other forums. It’s their daily job.
I watched the Youtube video today. Thank you. I don’t understand it well, so I don’t have a lot to add on that end. I will say this about Anthony …… he was supposedly ruled out by prints ….. but I still find him very intriguing.
He excelled at sports and academics in high school. He graduated from Harvard. He entered the Army (via draft). He left the army after 2 years. This is the point in the story where he should go to a major law school or medical school or business school. Instead, he went to work as a manager at a department store. And remained at that job for a while. And then he became a "business manager" for the school that his wife started.
And yet …. he married a Stanford graduate. They were prominent in the Junior Guild (which I take it is like the Junior League) in Pasadena. They owned a vacation home on the coast. And they move to a "tony" neighborhood in San Francisco, where they live down the road from the mayor and descendants of Leland Stanford.
…….. um ……… see …….. I ………
Something doesn’t add up here.
My personal theory of the crime – and I kind of hate it because it has high kook potential – is that Zodiac worked in intelligence/espionage. And if I were looking for a prominent secret intelligence offiicial ….. I might well look for someone with this exact sort of unusual resume.
They ruled him out by prints. And I accept that on some level. But isn’t that what they would say if he were an important person in intelligence?
Like I said, I semi-hate this theory, because it ends up in conspiratorial questions like that. But intuitively, there’s something about the Anthony situation that bugs me.
Just a Sleuth’s video on the Z13 cipher is quite creative and easy to understand.
Two new videos were released recently and another one will be out this week.
Z-13
Secret PAL Card to Paul Avery
