This post confuzzles me.

I found this in the July 15, 1904 issue of the Los Angeles Herald. Second paragraph.

Where are you going with this QT? Or what is it you are having trouble with?

Hard to make sense of random "ideas" thrown out without any context.

Some focus is generally a good idea. Alternatively, keep inspired leaps and/or random nonsense in separate sections.

I can also start threads called "Guy with hat/did not have glasses".

Would you like me to? I could even provide links.

Norse, feel free to do so.

Currently I do some stuff on the 340 cipher structures..due to a specific variety of criteria I had received to some potential cleartext phrases. One of them was ‘LAMONTHALL’, therefore I thought if such a hall had actually existed? And I found one. And it was in the Bay area, too. So I went on looking where that place actually had been. And what did I find on the corner? ‘Monticelli Road’. Not to forget that Zodiac had sent a card with the word Monticelli on it. But all nonsense, of course.
QT

There was an ALTAMONT hall at 306 W. Walnut in Pasadena, which makes sense since there is a city named Altamont in CA.
There does not appear to have ever been an ALAMONT hall at all. Looks like a simple misspelling to me.

Not to forget that Zodiac had sent a card with the word Monticelli on it.

Really? Do you mean Monticello? Do you have an image of this card? Proof that Zodiac sent it (or that it even exists)? Anything at all?

IMO, Norse is correct in being critical of you because you seem to believe everything you have ever read, regardless of the source, don’t seem to do much (if any) fact-checking, and never state your own sources. This case has enough BS surrounding it, and adding more helps no one.

-glurk

Norse, feel free to do so.

No, I don’t think I will.

Look, I’m sorry if I came across as overly sour there (had a bad day, to be honest).

But essentially I stand by my criticism. Much of what you propose seems random and more like free associations than logical connections based on known facts (and confirmed Z communications, not least).

Glurk:

As I said – years ago – my approach is a different one than to ‘prove’ that Z had done this or had done that. Instead my approach is to first identify him, e.g. by one of us following many potential clues (see my introduction). ‘Proving’ is the second part and should actually belong to the court room. You will therefore understand that IF there is an – at least suspected – Z letter with the word ‘Monticello’, I may connect my thoughts to Monticello Road, if that is ok for you.

http://zodiackillersite.com/viewtopic.p … 3&start=30

Nevertheless Pasadena was a good clue, appears to be the Walnut Street there as it is an LA Times article.

QT

QT-

With all due respect, I am aware of your ‘approach’ to the case and I personally don’t much care for it. It all seems so random and willy-nilly and all over the place. But feel free to carry on, I’m just stating my opinion.

That said, it might be better for the board here in general if you could limit these types of posts to things that actually ARE based on known Zodiac letters, crimes, etc.

When you state things as fact, "Zodiac sent this…," "Zodiac wrote that…," regarding things that are dubious or contested, you really should at least say "maybe," or "in my opinion," or something. It’s important. Your posts even confuse the moderators here!

Doing that just seems more respectful, and less confusing to everyone here, IMO.

-glurk

Chillax

Mr. Lowe-

I assure you that I am both chilled out and quite relaxed, but the important thing is that facts are facts.

When anyone here says – as if it were known as true – "Zodiac wrote this," "Zodiac sent this letter," etc. And these statements are in dispute, it is easy for people that are new to the case, or less familiar with it to take them as proven and undisputed.

And that is a HUGE mistake.

There are many letters that "may" have been sent by Zodiac – but probably were not.

All I am asking here, and I think it is really simple, is please do NOT state things as fact that are not generally agreed on as fact.

-glurk

As an example, suppose I write this:

"As is quite well known, Zodiac worked with BTK (Dennis Rader,) and helped him in the construction of his letters."

That is, of course, not true at all. I just made it up. But by stating it as fact, it "sounds" like a fact. It’s a dangerous area to post suppositions as facts. And it is lying…

-glurk

EDIT: Or this –

1- "Since we know for a fact that Zodiac wore wing-walker boots, we know that he was in the military."
2- "There is some possibility that Zodiac was in the military, since we know he wore wing-walker boots."

I’m going for #2 every time.

You are right with the facts, although I did not state at any point that it was a ‘fact’. Actually I thought it to be correct, which – in fact – is not sure to be correct (‘suspected Z letter’). Nevertheless, Monticello and Monticello is not nilly-silly, but a coincidence which might be a clue – or might not.

QT

You mean Monticelli and Monticello?

Or … ?