Strange, isn’t it? There’s a very nice thread (yours T.!) about Spence which is only a couple of clicks away – and the stuff about "Buzz" is also a long way less than secret. (Sandy, where are you?!)
…and nope, that ain’t all, Rocky.
Still – I did enjoy quite a lot of the rest of it, I must say.

I thought the podcast was worth listening to. I hadn’t heard much of Horan before or his theory, but it’s good we have a board here where we can at least discuss it. Although there remain many holes.

I think the Rocky referred to by Horan was a union worker who Seagull’s Husband worked with, NOT a gang member

I really gave Horan a fair shake, I always want to read everything and doublecheck, and since discovering his theory I find myself unconsciously trying to prove him wrong.

Sorry if I can’t remember the first poster who mentioned LB as being a definite Zodiac case- I completely 100 percent agree, and agree also that Stine was a bonafide Z killing.

One takeaway I got after hearing his theories and looking at the facts again I think you could discount the 4 Vallejo shootings quite easily. The phone calls- they were placed around an hour after when someone could have heard it on a scanner, and he takes credit afterwards with no physical evidence like there is in LB and SF. He just mentions it in a letter. Yes he mentioned the crime scene, but he could have been privy to that info in some other way. And the ammo was very common indeed. I haven’t quite satisfied myself on that account as of yet. It isn’t as ironclad as I used to think.

BUT- I have asked him a few in depth questions on his blog and he just writes long, convoluted paragraphs that don’t add up to much. If you have a provable case, then you should be able to answer a question fairly directly. This is the problem i have with alot of theories, they require many leaps of faith and a lack of real connecting factors. If you throw dozens of references both cultural and physical on a board, you will get patterns, because we tend TO patterns. The human eye will draw connections, the human brain will draw connections, but that doesn’t mean they are real. You gotta have some straight lines and some straight answers in there somewhere, and his logic is circular, seemingly. You have to take for granted that THIS happened then THIS happened and then THIS and this to believe ANY of what he says is true. Its like an ourobouros mindmeld or something.

But my biggest beef with him is his disrespectful tone and the laughing amusement he seems to take at anyone who has labored over this case from the beginning. He even called Toschi "not even a good detective". On the basis of what? He just tosses out garbage and you wonder if his case is so provable he has to have a total lack of sportsmanship about it. You gotta be able to show me some connections that don’t take dozens of leaps of faith to believe, and show some freaking respect to some people who gave a chunk of their sanity to catch this guy.

"Ouroboros mindmeld" is my new favorite phrase!

Your assessment of Horan is accurate. He and others such as Grant seem to have a similar approach of creating hyper-elaborate circumstantial scenarios, then greeting you with hostility as soon as you try to point out any problems. And I think many of the problems boil down to a sort of "God of the Gaps" fallacy. In this fallacy, the absence of rational explanations is proof of God’s existence. Horan, Grant, and others see the absence of rational explanations as proof of a conspiracy’s existence.

"Ouroboros mindmeld" is my new favorite phrase!

Your assessment of Horan is accurate. He and others such as Grant seem to have a similar approach of creating hyper-elaborate circumstantial scenarios, then greeting you with hostility as soon as you try to point out any problems. And I think many of the problems boil down to a sort of "God of the Gaps" fallacy. In this fallacy, the absence of rational explanations is proof of God’s existence. Horan, Grant, and others see the absence of rational explanations as proof of a conspiracy’s existence.

Excellent point – couldn’t agree more.

There are holes in this case. After half a century, almost, that’s to be expected. People make mistakes, facts aren’t recorded, protocol isn’t followed to the letter, officers contradict each other (contradict themselves in some cases!), etc.

Plus – all the material pertaining to the Z case isn’t known to us. It’s impossible to pass judgment on the job someone like Toschi did without knowing all the details. There could even be evidence in the case we don’t know about.

On a general note, for my money you need to provide your audience with a motive if you’re going to serve up what is essentially a conspiracy theory. Who stood to benefit from this hoax? To me that remains unclear. We’re looking at an elaborate scheme, involving multiple jurisdictions and more than a handful of co-conspirators. You don’t perpetrate something like that for giggles. So, why?

Horan’s answer to that question seems to be something like: "Go and ask the person who did it!" Which doesn’t really cut it.

"Ouroboros mindmeld" is my new favorite phrase!

Your assessment of Horan is accurate. He and others such as Grant seem to have a similar approach of creating hyper-elaborate circumstantial scenarios, then greeting you with hostility as soon as you try to point out any problems. And I think many of the problems boil down to a sort of "God of the Gaps" fallacy. In this fallacy, the absence of rational explanations is proof of God’s existence. Horan, Grant, and others see the absence of rational explanations as proof of a conspiracy’s existence.

lol, it seemed the only phrase to use that didn’t use profanity, which I am inordinately fond of, but don’t want to use in a forum- I am trying to be a lady here.

"God of the Gaps"- YES. Trying to prove a negative or using the negative to prove a point that is not really provable. Etc. It strains credibility and certainly strains believability. And with a dose of pomposity in there it kinda all makes me wanna puke

"Ouroboros mindmeld" is my new favorite phrase!

Your assessment of Horan is accurate. He and others such as Grant seem to have a similar approach of creating hyper-elaborate circumstantial scenarios, then greeting you with hostility as soon as you try to point out any problems. And I think many of the problems boil down to a sort of "God of the Gaps" fallacy. In this fallacy, the absence of rational explanations is proof of God’s existence. Horan, Grant, and others see the absence of rational explanations as proof of a conspiracy’s existence.

On a general note, for my money you need to provide your audience with a motive if you’re going to serve up what is essentially a conspiracy theory. Who stood to benefit from this hoax? To me that remains unclear. We’re looking at an elaborate scheme, involving multiple jurisdictions and more than a handful of co-conspirators. You don’t perpetrate something like that for giggles. So, why?

Horan’s answer to that question seems to be something like: "Go and ask the person who did it!" Which doesn’t really cut it.

MOTIVE MOTIVE MOTIVE. WHY would they go to such lengths? There is no real reason. They never had to "pin it on z’ in Vallejo because nobody even KNEW about he Zodiac then. It just does not make sense and the hyperbole with which he delivers it is such a turn off.

And hey, when are we gonna get a researcher who says, "you know, I am not sure, maybe this is it" instead of everyone getting so positive without proof? I can’t stand that. Lets stay in the realm of logic, people, the bonafide evidence in the center, and go from there.

Mystery machine said:
And hey, when are we gonna get a researcher who says, "you know, I am not sure, maybe this is it" instead of everyone getting so positive without proof? I can’t stand that. Lets stay in the realm of logic, people, the bonafide evidence in the center, and go from there.

It’s not about proof, it’s about $$$. There is such a minuet amount of real facts out there about this case that almost any scenario one can dream up will fit.

Mystery machine said:
And hey, when are we gonna get a researcher who says, "you know, I am not sure, maybe this is it" instead of everyone getting so positive without proof? I can’t stand that. Lets stay in the realm of logic, people, the bonafide evidence in the center, and go from there.

It’s not about proof, it’s about $$$. There is such a minuet amount of real facts out there about this case that almost any scenario one can dream up will fit.

But it can’t fit EVERYTHING. TO me there is a core of clear evidence here in the letters and especially the Stine and LB killings and that forms the center. We have his handwriting. We have some symbols. We have this radian bit and a map and if some fool can fit all that together, not Gareth-Penn style, but PRECISE, its just wanky enough to be fit tightly in a puzzle without having to reach. That’s the problem- all the reaching. The farther you stretch from the evidence the farther you are from the truth. Ergo Horan.

In defense??? of Horan I don’t think he’s doing it for the money. He’s probably typed up waaay more for free on his blog than he did in his book for sale.

…. Basically, a bunch of obnoxious, pompous blowhards who can’t interact well enough with others to be able to remain on a message board, can’t write well enough to be an actual author, and so either self-publish or just spew their mewlings on the internet on sites that no one reads, or cares about.

glurk – I hate it when you beat about the bush. Just come out and SAY it for goodness sake!

Mr Thomas Horan? Well, it’s a good theory, well worth discussing. "There was no Zodiac killer, just a letter writer with inside knowledge." It’s a doozy.
Now – would it be a better if Mr Horan didn’t get so much pleasure out of being confrontational? Well, yes. He’d claim it’s a technique to get otherwise reluctant holders-of-information to speak up, I’m sure. Perhaps it once was but boy, he does seem to enjoy it. And yes, sometimes his arguments are decidedly elliptical. And yes, he can be a bit too damn smart-arse for his own good. (We all have our faults.)
Uh, what was I saying?
Ah yes! It’s still a damn good theory, though. Lots of fun.

The very core of the theory is interesting, Smithy – I agree there. But it’s only interesting as a more or less abstract concept: "The killer didn’t write the letters". Alright – good idea. That angle can be explored further. Once you go beyond this more or less abstract – and in my opinion very interesting – concept, though, you need much more than what Horan or any other conspiracy proponent has provided. If your take on it is "hoax" rather than "team Z" you need, above all, a motive. The hoax theory simply doesn’t work without a motive.

I could see one of the attacks being committed by someone else playing the Zodiac card to take attention away from themselves. Or, the Agatha Christie ABC Murders scenario…one target, but many victims to take away a direct connection to a closer individual.

We know there were hundreds if not thousands of fake letters (I believe it was Toschi who said thousands)…lots of kooks out there.

The very core of the theory is interesting, Smithy – I agree there. But it’s only interesting as a more or less abstract concept: "The killer didn’t write the letters". Alright – good idea. That angle can be explored further. Once you go beyond this more or less abstract – and in my opinion very interesting – concept, though, you need much more than what Horan or any other conspiracy proponent has provided. If your take on it is "hoax" rather than "team Z" you need, above all, a motive. The hoax theory simply doesn’t work without a motive.

I guess the motive is to cover up for someone in LE, tho its funny that the world being what it is and people not being that great in general at total secrecy, that no actual EVIDENCE of anything has come up that would cast suspicion that this is true. I mean, how many people would love to go on a talk show and say, "yes, this was a conspiracy, I know because my ex husband came home drunk one night muttering about a cover up" or something of that nature- nothing. Nothing until Horan decided in his infinite wisdom that it was a hoax.
I don’t think he is doing it for money either- honestly from my experience some people are just contrarians by nature and just want to say "no" when everything tells them to say "yes".
And some people just love a conspiracy theory. Personally I am not of that sort. I think most conspiracies hide themselves in plain sight.
Then again the Illuminati could be behind it. Or the Jews. (She says facetiously)