…my solution tells who he is to some degree
there is a reason why I connect him to this , but you all are just spectators on the wrong side of the police tape
if you lack knowledge about that how can you judge ?

So now you are claiming to have information no one else has? That’s convenient. And tedious. So many others have used the same tactic. It’d be nice if the claim was true for a change.

You’re skating on thin ice here.

Yuup
Seagul was told of it in a pm
and the dude it is not his name , but he gave whom he was
in a anagram of sorts

Please refresh my memory Ace, what was I told in a PM that led you to this solution?

Please refresh my memory Ace, what was I told in a PM that led you to this solution?

Yes my bad ,it wasn’t a pm we talked about it on the post , i’ll find it but there are 9 pages of my posts
it was the post titled GI

I don’t want to pile on the criticism here, but the problem that we are having with this Ace is that any valid solution, in order to be believed, requires a demonstration of the technique so that we can reproduce it, without already knowing the solution first. This has no technique to speak of, it just requires specific information that you have.

If this solution is in fact correct, I would challenge that yourself and Zodiac would be the only people who could ever possibly come up with it. You basically said that yourself. Do you understand why that is a problem for us?

This thread qualifies as nonsense, and is now locked.

To improve the quality of your ideas, please refer to Carl Sagan’s "Baloney detection kit":

1. Wherever possible there must be independent confirmation of the “facts.”

2. Encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of all points of view.

3. Arguments from authority carry little weight — “authorities” have made mistakes in the past. They will do so again in the future. Perhaps a better way to say it is that in science there are no authorities; at most, there are experts.

4. Spin more than one hypothesis. If there’s something to be explained, think of all the different ways in which it could be explained. Then think of tests by which you might systematically disprove each of the alternatives. What survives, the hypothesis that resists disproof in this Darwinian selection among “multiple working hypotheses,” has a much better chance of being the right answer than if you had simply run with the first idea that caught your fancy.

5. Try not to get overly attached to a hypothesis just because it’s yours. It’s only a way station in the pursuit of knowledge. Ask yourself why you like the idea. Compare it fairly with the alternatives. See if you can find reasons for rejecting it. If you don’t, others will.

6. Quantify. If whatever it is you’re explaining has some measure, some numerical quantity attached to it, you’ll be much better able to discriminate among competing hypotheses. What is vague and qualitative is open to many explanations. Of course there are truths to be sought in the many qualitative issues we are obliged to confront, but finding them is more challenging.

7. If there’s a chain of argument, every link in the chain must work (including the premise) — not just most of them.

8. Occam’s Razor. This convenient rule-of-thumb urges us when faced with two hypotheses that explain the data equally well to choose the simpler.

9. Always ask whether the hypothesis can be, at least in principle, falsified. Propositions that are untestable, unfalsifiable are not worth much. Consider the grand idea that our Universe and everything in it is just an elementary particle — an electron, say — in a much bigger Cosmos. But if we can never acquire information from outside our Universe, is not the idea incapable of disproof? You must be able to check assertions out. Inveterate skeptics must be given the chance to follow your reasoning, to duplicate your experiments and see if they get the same result.