Beyond Coincidence: Misconceptions Log Out | Topics | Search
Moderators | Edit Profile

Zodiackiller.com Message Board » Zodiac Theories » Beyond Coincidence: Misconceptions « Previous Next »

Author Message
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Sean
Username: Sean

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Friday, May 26, 2006 - 4:30 am:   

All,
In the second thread I am about to put all of this together and explain how everything interconnects and fits. Also (let me put myself under more pressure)"prove" albeit on paper, that what's here can only be here by design.
On that score, there's no point (at least on my part)waiting until this is over to challenge some of the misconceptions and/or criticisms aimed at this theory.
If there are more to come, which there probably will be, I'll deal with those too.
Please believe,I'm not being arrogant here, but there are statements being made here and not backed up.I wanted to start this thread to challenge those notions in detail.I welcome the discussion and am here prepared to back up my claims, that's all there is to this.
It's important that anyone who reads this theory
knows what they are looking at and appreciates the argument from both sides. That's my only motivation here and I sincerely hope I don't cause offence.
So then, let me make a list of the things thus far that have been raised, with a short reply to each and if anyone wants to come in and discuss them out,I'm only too willing to do so.....
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Sean
Username: Sean

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Friday, May 26, 2006 - 4:44 am:   

1.Raised by Ed.
Other people (specifically Zander and Penn) have come up with other names and so the implication is that this is all of these things are similar and in effect they cancel each other out.

Answer:- Zander has not found TK's name within these communications. What Zander did, was to take the last line of the first code, apply a system he invented himself and "changed" the letters of the last line to kazcynski's name.
Using the exact same methodology it is possible to implicate any suspect in this case and therefore by definition the system is flawed.In fact, the system is ridiculous.
Penn, I can't account for as I've only seen snippets. However Penn uses advanced math, chooses where he wan't to apply it ,without explanation and uses it to come up with things like his suspects mothers initials.
When challenged on his work, he point blank refuses to explain things and answers in riddles.
His suspect, O Hare is not who he started out with.
When using such advanced number systems it is possible to identify just about anyone.
The final point being, it doesn't matter how many
names occur in these communications,all deserve to be looked at independently, However in the vast majority of cases these names aren't there to begin with.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Sean
Username: Sean

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Friday, May 26, 2006 - 4:52 am:   

2.Raise by Deoxys and others
This can all be chalked up to Zynchronicity.

answer:- There is an absolute limit that can be explained by Zynchronicity, especially in this instance as what's being used are things Zodiac himself gave us,his own words and it's confined to a name.
Anyone can go into these things and pick a few or even a good few coincidences and chalk them against their suspect.This is especially possible when anecdotal evidence is at play. however in this instance, it's direct and to the point.
It's just not possible to get things matching over and over again.

3.Allen is my suspect and I see things that way and thus this enables me to pick out things associated with him.

Answer:- same as above, there is a limit and i was never interested in Allen much until i found these things
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Sean
Username: Sean

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Friday, May 26, 2006 - 5:00 am:   

4. Scott I believe..
This is too complicated to pull off and therefore is unlikely.

Answer:- Actually, (by the time we reach the end and all is explained), this is simple stuff.
It's no more that a guy playing simple word games.
Ninety percent of this is right under our nose with him protecting the important parts with known cipher methods. Simple known methods.
That's actually what makes this so convincing to me, had it been rocket science it would have defeated the purpose. He put it right there under our nose.

5. It can't be right because Allen can't be Z.

answer:- I'm fully aware of the other physical evidence that appears to eliminate Allen and appreciate it.All I can say is that i have confidence that what's here, is here by design and have a shot at proving that. If the code is right the code is right and we can take it from there.Now i don't know, but I'm at least sure by the end of this that you will realise at the very least why I would want this to be checked out
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Sean
Username: Sean

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Friday, May 26, 2006 - 5:06 am:   

6. raised by Howard.

many names are possible and many ingenious solutions have been forwarded.I haven't given a key.

Answer:- No, many names are not possible at least in the context of anything resembling code work.
We can spell many names from any type of text and it has nothing to do with anything other than the english language. Find them over and over again using known methods.
I haven't seen any of these ingenious solution, perhaps you could post one or two as examples.

I am about to give the "key"
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Sean
Username: Sean

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Friday, May 26, 2006 - 5:18 am:   

7. raised by Doug,
a. Much of this is down to my creativity
b. It's getting convoluted
c. You can use the exact same methods to extract something more convincing
d. I'm wringing A's E's an L's from everywhere (apparently in ways that are either untenible or driven by tunnel vision)

answer:- It was a simple case of spotting the tricks used. Like I said once the Belli letter find fell, the rest followed in quick order.
I haven't given a single thing that I can't back up numerous times and again there's a limit to what someone could achieve, either dishonestly or with tunnel vision. There are people out there who know how this evolved and it was undertaken honestly and will be argued honestly.

Much of the rest of what you say can has been ansewered above and with more to come, I'm sure you will appreciate exactly where I am coming from.
I couldn't keep wringing letter out of things if they weren't there in the first place and if that was possible it should likewise be possible from any english text.
The Z letters would only equate to a couple of pages of any standard book. Please attempt to test this against your claim. Clearly there is an anomaly here and in each instance it's tied to deliberate errors. Now I know we both agree that these errors were deliberate...
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Sean
Username: Sean

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Friday, May 26, 2006 - 5:30 am:   

As to using similar methods and coming up with something far more reasonable, this is where we have a fundamental disagreement.

To encode anything in a limited space (especially in grid form) the author is limited also.It's a foreign message hidden in an otherwise normal letter. What I suggest is tied to errors and numerical clues and fits with these limitations.
What you suggest amounts to little other than going in looking for words and associating them to a suspect. Even then the vast majority of them can be linked to many suspects or suspects unknown.
True...there is little difference between LEE ALLEN in this code and MATH I TEACH in appearence.
However,I have again linked it to other things directly and there are previous finds and more to come that will back that up.
On the other hand MATH I TEACH is linked out of sequence and there is no reason to go there other than it was found. Had it been there deliberately, it would be a waist of time and we couldn't seperate it from other possible spellings or demonstrate it's significance in any real way.
Finally I would also remind you that I have no control over the dates of Zodiac crimes or the stamps he chose for his letters, but I will show quite reasonably why the match.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Scott_b
Username: Scott_b

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Friday, May 26, 2006 - 4:34 pm:   

Sean wrote:

"I haven't given a single thing that I can't back up numerous times . . ."

Only if by "backing it up" you mean that you're willing to make the same leaps in logic time and again, and believe me, you are making a ton of them here.

Sean, I'd like a simple answer to a very simple question, if you don't mind. If any one aspect of the direct evidence were to exonerate Allen beyond all doubt whatsoever, would you have to admit that your theory is flawed? If, for example, SFPD crime lab located a DNA sample that ALL would agree could have only come from Zodiac and it didn't match Allen's DNA, would you consider your code theory flawed?

It's also interesting to note that if Zodiac and Allen are two different people, then your theory can't hold water unless Zodiac knew Allen and was trying to implicate him. Otherwise, by the time Zodiac could have known that Allen had come under suspicion as a possible suspect, Zodiac's letter writing campaign was well under way.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Sean
Username: Sean

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Friday, May 26, 2006 - 5:32 pm:   

Scott,
Perhaps you would point out what you believe those "leaps" to be.

I would have bet money that Zodiac licked his own stamps, no question.I would follow that by saying that I don't believe this was someone setting him up, he has to know at the very least.
The handwriting doesn't match. The DNA,(one stamp) doesn't match. The finger prints don't match and according to key eyewitnesses, they didn't see Allen.
Do you think I'm nuts or delusional? But you know what Scott, I trust what I see and as I've said on the other thread, the mathametical odds of this coming together are staggering.
Now,my position is, if the theory is sound, then we need to question what we believe/think we know.If the theory is flawed,(and I acknowledge it could be) point out those flaws based on the theory, not on something you believe.
It's the easiest thing in the world to say, this can't be right because of the other physical evidence, however, language, like anything else leaves fingerprints and footprints when disturbed.
This is simple stuff,every theory that we know about Z has been trashed. I'm not looking for any favours here.There is more than an abundance of intelligent people on this board, tear it to shreds, I'll be happy.But I haven't seen anything yet, that constitutes a direct challenge to what's here.As with other theories these things fall apart in quick order, what's the problem?
Don't give me an argument based something else.You have my word that I will argue this honestly and I expect others to do the same
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Scott_b
Username: Scott_b

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Friday, May 26, 2006 - 6:19 pm:   

"Don't give me an argument based (on) something else."

No arguments based on known facts? It's easy to win the game if you're allowed to make, change, and set your own rules, Sean.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Sean
Username: Sean

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Saturday, May 27, 2006 - 2:35 am:   

Scott,
I have already acknowledged that there is an abundance of physical evidence that appears to eliminate Allen, ever before I even posted this stuff.
What is it you want to do? Turn this into a discussion we have already had a million times.You win that, it's a one line argument.
The odds say, based on what we think we know about Zodiac and the physical evidence, that Allen can't be the Zodiac.
How is that discussing this theory?
Let me ask you a simple question in return:-
If the odds of those formations in the Zodiac letters turn out to be a million to one against chance, what will your opinion be?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Sean
Username: Sean

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Saturday, May 27, 2006 - 3:03 am:   

It goes without saying Scott that all of this has to be considered against what's known, that's a given.However, this is another aspect of the evidence, if it's a racing certainty that Allen couldn't be involved in this case, then this should be easily torn apart.
The argument you have in mind is I say, "there's Allens name encoded within a known cipher type" and you say "but the DNA doesn't match" and I say Oh look there it is again in another know cipher" and you say, "yeah but the fingerprints don't match" and so on.
If that's the line, it's a pointless discussion
Is it not fair that every aspect of the evidence should be considered in this case?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Scott_b
Username: Scott_b

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Saturday, May 27, 2006 - 8:15 pm:   

"Is it not fair that every aspect of the evidence should be considered in this case?"

Of course it is fair, that's exactly my point, which is exactly what you are refusing to do. The fact remains, the only way that your theory makes any sense whatsoever is if Zodiac and Allen knew each other and Allen didn't mind being blamed for murders that he didn't commit. Until you can address some of the issues I've raised in a meaningful way, you're right; it is a "pointless discussion."

"If the odds of those formations in the Zodiac letters turn out to be a million to one against chance, what will your opinion be?"

Well, since there is no way of quantifying virtually every aspect of your theory, I don't really have an answer to that question. The links to Jefferson, the significance of the Belli letter, that Zodiac was Allen or knew Allen, etc., is all a matter of conjecture. You are presenting them as facts but they aren't facts, it's speculation of the highest order.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Sean
Username: Sean

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Sunday, May 28, 2006 - 6:11 am:   

Scott,
I'm not refusing to do anything. I agree with you 100% that the other physical evidence appears to eliminate Allen. I knew and acknowledged that ever before I posted this theory.
The difference between us is that you want to work backwards and I want to work forward.
You wrote:- "the only way your theory makes any kind of sense is if"
That's not true at all and you have prejudged this based on other beliefs.It therefore ,doesn't matter a jot to you what's here, because you have already made your mind up that it can't be right anyway.
I haven't presented anything as fact, that isn't a fact, you are confusing that with the implications derived, which are up for discussion.
The facts are that know cipher methods have been used on the Zodiac letters to give us formations that produce odds against chance of a very high order, not once, but several times....
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Sean
Username: Sean

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Sunday, May 28, 2006 - 6:23 am:   

We have things that Zodiac himself gave us more that once that appear to support these finds
and we have Allen himself co-operating to further strengthen what's here.
Is it all a series of million to one coincidences, maybe it is, that's what I'm here to find out.In order to do that,I was hoping that people would analyize this,in and of itself first, draw conclusions on the various aspects and then figure whether I should throw this in the bin or if it's worth following up on.
I can only leave you with one question Scott,
suppose a code expert looks at this and says, I find what's here is/more likely to be, here by deliberate design.
What then?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Scott_b
Username: Scott_b

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Monday, May 29, 2006 - 1:15 pm:   

"I can only leave you with one question Scott, suppose a code expert looks at this and says, I find what's here is/more likely to be, here by deliberate design. What then?"

Code experts aren't infallible, Sean.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ed_neil
Username: Ed_neil

Registered: 5-2006
Posted on Monday, May 29, 2006 - 4:33 pm:   

One of them allegedly told Yellow Book that his solution to the 340 cipher was valid (assuming he didn't fabricate that too, just like he did many other things).
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Sean
Username: Sean

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Tuesday, May 30, 2006 - 1:05 pm:   

I think in all fairness, it would have been reasonable to assume that my question went to "experts" as opposed to one in particular.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Howard_davis
Username: Howard_davis

Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Wednesday, May 31, 2006 - 5:55 pm:   

Sean,
Please continue to present your work as you have put in so much time on ciphers,etc.
Keep posting for all to see and let others,of course,make their own decisions.

Good,if you have made a submission/s!!!

Add Your Message Here
Post:
Bold text Italics Underline Create a hyperlink Insert a clipart image

Username: Posting Information:
This is a private posting area. Only registered users and moderators may post messages here.
Password:
Options: Post as "Anonymous"
Enable HTML code in message
Automatically activate URLs in message
Action:

Topics | Last Day | Last Week | Tree View | Search | Help/Instructions | Program Credits Administration