I’m always happy when I can hear any words from Tom Voigt, the predominant Zodiac expert.

-glurk

I’m always happy when I can hear any words from Tom Voigt, the predominant Zodiac expert.

-glurk

I’m not endorsing what he says, or backing any of his opinions, but I am happy to see this case spread to a wider audience

Gyke was a homosexual? Experts believe this would exclude him as a suspect.

36:30 in this video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uY_tqjdnDVk

Tom has done a lot of great work over the years, and the Z case has really come a long way because of it.

Gyke was a homosexual? Experts believe this would exclude him as a suspect.

36:30 in this video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uY_tqjdnDVk

Tom has done a lot of great work over the years, and the Z case has really come a long way because of it.

I read something a long time ago that Z may have been a latent homosexual. I can not find the document that contained that info, but I clearly remember the memo stating this based on the term "getting your rocks off with a girl". It went on to state that a heterosexual male wouldn’t write "with a girl", but a man who was wrestling with his sexual identity and wanted to come across as straight, would feel the need to write "with a girl" as a subconscious effort to assure himself & others that he was straight.

I agree, Tom has done a lot for the case.

Martin Lee, Chief of Investigators in S.F., mentioned the "latent homosexual" thing and Paul Avery wrote about it. See first article here:

viewtopic.php?f=85&t=1385

You can also find Lee stating that in a recorded news conference–can be found on youtube.

So where does that leave us? Does having homosexual tendencies exclude or raise the likelihood of any POI?

So where does that leave us? Does having homosexual tendencies exclude or raise the likelihood of any POI?

Z may have been gay, straight, bi, or A sexual

So where does that leave us? Does having homosexual tendencies exclude or raise the likelihood of any POI?

I’d bet the farm that Z identified as heterosexual. He killed couples because it served a number of needs for him: primarily, to punish young women for spurning/neglecting him, and to humiliate young men who tormented him by maintaining the kinds of romantic relationships he coveted. These were acts of brutal conquest, performed on the micro level as attacks on society as a whole, much as an assassin or bomber will envision his violence against a president or federal building as a commentary on the overarching political system that he believes has failed him.

Ultimately, the distance and relative detachment displayed by his preferred MO (not to mention the epistolary relationship he maintained with the press), suggest that he was either a virgin, impotent, or both. At any rate, this is not an offender with a lot of sexual experience/prowess.

All of this is IMHO, of course.

So where does that leave us? Does having homosexual tendencies exclude or raise the likelihood of any POI?

I’d bet the farm that Z identified as heterosexual. He killed couples because it served a number of needs for him: primarily, to punish young women for spurning/neglecting him, and to humiliate young men who tormented him by maintaining the kinds of romantic relationships he coveted. These were acts of brutal conquest, performed on the micro level as attacks on society as a whole, much as an assassin or bomber will envision his violence against a president or federal building as a commentary on the overarching political system that he believes has failed him.

Ultimately, the distance and relative detachment displayed by his preferred MO (not to mention the epistolary relationship he maintained with the press), suggest that he was either a virgin, impotent, or both. At any rate, this is not an offender with a lot of sexual experience/prowess.

All of this is IMHO, of course.

Suspects like Zode, Ross Sullivan,etc would meet this criteria…NOT the homosexual part, but rather a virgin,or very unsuccessful with Girls

I listened to this interview. It was interesting to hear Tom tell stories about Bigfoot.

I listened to this interview. It was interesting to hear Tom tell stories about Bigfoot.

I’d rather hear Nixon talk about Reagan seeing Martians.

-glurk

I listened to this interview. It was interesting to hear Tom tell stories about Bigfoot.

I’d rather hear Nixon talk about Reagan seeing Martians.

-glurk

Carter was the one who saw Martians; Reagan just talked to ghosts

See also:

http://www.nytimes.com/1988/05/04/us/wh … point.html

The takeaway I got from Tom’s interview was that he was strongly influenced by the famous Patterson-Gimlin film from 1967. He believes it’s real, and told stories of a few bizarre experiences he’s had in the woods that he believes can’t be explained by conventional means (animals and/or other people).

I was surprised to read about how inconclusive the analysis of the Patterson/Gimlin film seems to be. Both sides of the legitimacy of the film seem to be well represented among the scientific literature.

I’m very skeptical of Bigfoot but I learned something new about what motivates people to hunt for it.