Odds of "THEODOR KAZNSKI" in 340 CHARACTER ZODIAC CIPHER
Zodiackiller.com Message Board: Ciphers: Odds of "THEODOR KAZNSKI" in 340 CHARACTER ZODIAC CIPHER
|By obiwan (Obiwan) (ciw2.ciw.edu - 126.96.36.199) on Tuesday, July 23, 2002 - 01:40 am:|
In response to questions by Lapumo, and spurred on by recent
successes of Zander, Bobbitt and others, I finished up something I'd
been working on for some time which I set aside for several months.
Basically I tried to compute, as rigorously as possible the probability that
the 340 Character Cipher contains "close matches" to both THEODORE and
KACZYNSKI. I hope this will help some of our discussions on topics of
coincidences, which are often difficult to resolve because it is difficult
to compute the odds. You can find text at:
I'm creating a new discussion, because, unlike previous discussion,
the topic of this work is not SOLVING the meaning of the cipher, but
interpreting the cipher-text itsself.
|By Zander Kite (Zk) (dialup-188.8.131.52.dial1.nashville1.level3.net - 184.108.40.206) on Tuesday, July 23, 2002 - 07:41 am:|
Obiwan: highly impressive work: You've set the odds on this at 100,000 to 20,000,000 to 1. That's the way I see this too. Very high odds if only coincidence. "Theodore Kaczynski" is communicated plainly in the respective first and last lines. I allowed for the symbol on the last line that strongly resembles a capital "I" to equal "I". Allowing each symbol to be its letter or the one it closely matches: you get: THEODORVPLVVKIOLTGOD and KAZINSKIMDHNPO. That's the standard by which I would set odds on, of course that is essentially what you have done. We are not dealing with a killer who's interested in jail cells, so I wouldn't expect a perfect layout of the killers name. I don't wanna go crazy on this: but the middle of the code is represented by a six-letter 2x3 block. The first letter of that block is "J". There is already a strong case for connecting the two publicity-seeking disaffected killers, Kaczynski and Zodiac. Now, we have two estimates agreeing on 100,000 to 20 million to 1 for Kaczynskis name being communicated in the 340-code. I'm not sure about the odds of a near TK anagram in the opening line. It seems odd though that the word "the" is used. It's an odd phrase and there are 17 letters after it(The Zodiacs number), so it really looks too much like "This is Theodore Kaczynski". I wonder what the odds are on two-publicity-seeking-disaffected-killers using such a similar sentence: Zodiac: In light of recent events, this kind of murder glorification can only be deplorable at best. Kaczynski: We strongly deplore this kind of indisriminate slaughter that occurred in the Oklahoma City event. It must be high odds also.
|By Scott Bullock (Scott_Bullock) (spider-ntc-tc054.proxy.aol.com - 220.127.116.11) on Tuesday, July 23, 2002 - 08:24 am:|
I'll bet the odds of Arthur Leigh Allen's name being found by random chance in the
340-character cipher are even greater than 100,000 to 20,000,000 to 1. Why not work up the
numbers on Allen and see? In fact, why not work up the numbers on numerous suspects,
including Alfred E. Neumann, and then determine the odds?
Biased investigation without a foundation in the factual will only lead to biased answers. Face it folks, the numbers of interpretations that can be found in the 340-character cipher are infinite: It will never be solved because it was never meant to be. Otherwise, it would have been solved by now. At least, that is what can be derived from Ockham's Razor; a very useful edict when concerning oneself with the 340-character cipher, in my opinion.
|By Ray N (Ray_N) (user-38ld82l.dialup.mindspring.com - 18.104.22.168) on Tuesday, July 23, 2002 - 09:55 am:|
My two cents worth says that there is a major problem with this whole line of inquiry, with respect to logic. Of course the odds are against finding any one specific name. We can guess that much. The problem lies in the fact that the name was not "found". It was haphazardly manipulated into being. It would be different if it was just lying there or if a particular algorithm was applied without a preconceived expectation that just happened to produce TK. This is far from what happened.
Although I applaud efforts into code solving, this is not the kind of work that is going to solve this case. Objective analysis has to be the controlling motivation. Yes, there is plenty of circumstantial evidence that TK was Zodiac. That should not motivate one to write his name at the top of a sheet of paper and then start trying to figure out some way (which involves arbitrary transposition of each and every letter) to arrive at the predetermined (desired) solution. Of course, once this is achieved, then a search is commenced into the Zodiac missives for any/all numeric references which can be construed in some way as intended to describe the actual mechanics that ultimately produced the "result". This is 180 degrees out of phase with legitimate investigative techniques. Granted, code work often involves guesswork and unproven precepts, but manipulation on the level seen by Zander's solution (manipulation of each letter by some unknown algorithm that only arguably has a definite pattern) stands out in the history of work in this area. It is no more credible than the Hines solution of the 13-cryptogram. What's worse is the fact that the solution is unprovable. It relies wholly on some unknowable range of odds to establish itself as correct. There is not any proof provided that what Zander offers was the intended solution. If the Z took the trouble to encode his name here, he certainly would have done it in a way which could be shown not to be subject to doubt.
As an example of what I'm trying to say, why doesn't someone compute the odds of someone trying to construct a particular 17 letter phrase when they are allowed to manipulate the string arbitrarily according to no identifiably fixed pattern? There are plenty of numeric references which could later be used to back this up, e.g. 0, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 20, 27, 37, etc. In short, how could one possibly fail?
Of course, in Zander's solution, the string must also first be carefully anagrammed to one particular order for which there is no basis other than to succeed in finding TK's name. Frankly, this is not something that even approaches the general description of legitimate cryptography.
In my view, Occam's Razor suggests that the last line of cipher text was only provided to fix the size of that section equal to the others in order to make it impossible to determine at a glance in which order the full message was written. It is highly probable that much effort is being expended upon cipher text which is nothing more than dead-end gibberish.
Well, good luck!
|By Douglas Oswell (Dowland) (31.philadelphia08rh.16.pa.dial-access.att.net - 22.214.171.124) on Tuesday, July 23, 2002 - 10:01 am:|
Zander, you observe "there is already a strong case for connecting the two
publicity-seeking disaffected killers, Kaczynski and Zodiac." That's precisely why
Obiwan's work here, allied with your observations on the 3-Part Cipher, my own on the
13-Symbol Cipher and the significance of anagramming in "the Zodiac speaking,"
are such powerful elements in connecting Kaczynski to Zodiac. You start with a baseline
that asks what the odds are that two male Caucasian individuals bearing the same
psychological profile and criminal signature are the same, then use that baseline to
factor in the probabilities concerning additional connections. The baseline figure is
going to be exceptionally low to begin with, especially if you factor in the commonalities
in locations and dates. I haven't tried to work it out, but it's probably something like
one in ten million at the very least. You can take that figure and apply the probabilities
Obiwan has come up with, then factor in the 3-Part Cipher and the "Zodiac
speaking" anagram to arrive at a figure that is so ridiculously low that it's almost
not a figure at all. Having done that, you can look at other factors such as the
similarities in style, once again further reducing an infinitesimal number.
Well done, Obiwan. It's refreshing to see someone actually invest some personal time on a project such as this. Ultimately it will make a lot of difference.
|By Ray N (Ray_N) (user-38ld82l.dialup.mindspring.com - 126.96.36.199) on Tuesday, July 23, 2002 - 10:15 am:|
Zander, you observe "there is already a strong case for connecting the two publicity-seeking disaffected killers, Kaczynski and Zodiac." That's precisely why Obiwan's work here, allied with your observations on the 3-Part Cipher, my own on the 13-Symbol Cipher and the significance of anagramming in "the Zodiac speaking," are such powerful elements in connecting Kaczynski to Zodiac."
This is exactly what I'm talking about. The assumption is that TK is Zodiac, and hence the search for his name. That's precisely why Obiwan's analysis says nothing, neither for or against, Zander's solution. You might be impressed, but that doesn't make something real.
|By Zander Kite (Zk) (dialup-188.8.131.52.dial1.nashville1.level3.net - 184.108.40.206) on Tuesday, July 23, 2002 - 03:27 pm:|
Ray, the odds established here are not for my "Beoriete Methhpiti" solution. I've noticed the trend with you is not to really take the time to analyze what's posted concerning code connections to Ted Kaczynski. I can only guess that you(Scott too)are so convinced that Arthur Leigh Allen was The Zodiac that you find any other approach to be ridiculous. The odds established here by Obiwan deal with uncoded symbols and their frequency of use etc.. Nobody's making up anything. Theodor Kazinski is plainly communicated in the respective first and last lines of the 340-code. For example, a quick count reveals that the symbol "K"(backwards and forwards) appears around 12 times, while the "Z" is used only 4 times. The last line holds 2 K's and one "Z". That is well against the odds. You analzye the rest of the symbols similarly and then you're left with defying great odds like what Obiwan arrived at. Doug, I agree. When you start stacking the odds, the number is no longer realistic, and (in my opinion) one is forced to accept that TK must have been The Z before FC.
|By Ray N (Ray_N) (user-38ldeuh.dialup.mindspring.com - 220.127.116.11) on Tuesday, July 23, 2002 - 04:37 pm:|
I read it alright. Every word. And I repeat that it has no bearing on your solution. In fact, it has no bearing on anything because you have manufactured every occurrence you claim is plainly communicated. "Plainly communicated" is a concept that we must have different definitions of. Until you stop playing "let's find Ted's name in the codes," the board will keep hearing from me on this topic. I'm not trying to disuade you from your investigation, I'm trying to make sure the board doesn't swallow your methods and conclusions along with the hook, line, and sinker. Obiwan's odds have no bearing on TK being Zodiac.
"When you start stacking the odds, the number is no longer realistic, and (in my opinion) one is
forced to accept that TK must have been The Z before FC."
I can only guess that you are so convinced that Ted Kaczynski was The Zodiac, you are willing to accept anything as proof that he was. With methodology like this, it's absolutely pointless to invest the time to fully analyze the proofs of things that are unprovable. You have your views, I have mine. But I can't let 100% purified nonsense stand unchallenged on here. Sorry, there just has to be a counter-opinion available on this.
|By Ray N (Ray_N) (user-38ldeuh.dialup.mindspring.com - 18.104.22.168) on Tuesday, July 23, 2002 - 05:21 pm:|
Sorry, please change "you have manufactured". I should have said, "Every occurrence has been manufactured."
|By Scott Bullock (Scott_Bullock) (spider-ntc-tb073.proxy.aol.com - 22.214.171.124) on Wednesday, July 24, 2002 - 12:02 pm:|
You aren't expecting an actual key to the solution are you? I wouldn't abstain myself from sex if such is the case, my friend.
Didn't Graysmith already "solve" the 340-character cipher back in '79? Let's see here . . . ah, yes! Zodiac, p.243:
I GIVE THEM HELL TOO.
BLAST THESE LIES. SLUETH
SHOELD [SHOULD] SEE A NAME
BELOW KILLEERS FILM. A PILLS
GAME. PARDON ME AGCEPT TO
BLAST NE [ME]. BULLSH*T.
THESE FOOLS SHALL MEET
KILLER. PLEAS ASK LUNBLAD.
SOEL [SOUL] AT H LSD UL
CLEAR LAKE. SO STARE
I EAT A PILL, A*SHOLE. I
PLANT MR. A. H. PHONE LAKE B.
ALL SSLAVES BECAUSE LSD
WILL STOLEN EITHER SLAVE
SHALL I HELL SLASH TOSCHI?
THE PIG STALLS DEALS OC [OF]
EIGHTH SOEL [SOUL] SLAIN.
Obiwan, would you be kind enough to run the numbers on Graysmith's conclusion with regard to probability of random chance? In Graysmith's solution, he has Zodiac mentioning 2 different cops that worked the case, a plant on a phone at Lake Berryessa, Slaves, Souls, a body count, etc. I'm just curious, what are the odds of Graysmith's conclusion being random chance? Somehow I think it's going to be a little higher than TK being mentioned twice.
Zander, if you were able to derive TK's name from the cipher you must obviously possess a key of some kind, right? By all means, enlighten us as to the other parts of the cipher that you've figured out. Or is that all you have; just the same name mentioned twice? If so, that's pretty weak, especially in light of Graysmith's conclusion.
|By Peter H (Peter_H) (pool-141-154-20-140.bos.east.verizon.net - 126.96.36.199) on Wednesday, July 24, 2002 - 12:30 pm:|
You already stated my position precisely: Occam's Razor. The simplest explanation of why the cipher is not solved is that it can't be.
The rest of the discussion is beyond Greek to me.
|By obiwan (Obiwan) (ciw2.ciw.edu - 188.8.131.52) on Wednesday, July 24, 2002 - 03:20 pm:|
Scott: 340-character cipher will .. never be solved because it was
never meant to be.
Ray: The last line of cipher text was only provided to fix the size ...that
much effort is being expended upon cipher text which is nothing more
than dead-end gibberish.
Peter H: The simplest explanation of why the cipher is not solved is that it can't be.
I would like to clear up what appears to be a misunderstanding of
my recent post. The three comments above all refer to the
(interesting) topic of DECODING the cipher(s), to discern their
intended meaning. This is a difficult, but, certainly in the case of
the 480 cipher, worthwhile, endeavor.
However my recent posting has NOTHING to do with decoding the
meaning of the cipher(s), from unintelligible ciphertext into
readable plaintext. It is only about examining the actual
ciphertext, ie, those characters which the cipher author, who is
presumably the Zodiac killer, wrote. I do not assign any meaning to
those characters (ie T represents E, O represents S, etc.) The only
exception is that backward letters are read as their forward
counterpart, and circles count as O's., as described in my posting;
(see the link above) Otherwise, I read all the letters exactly as they
Perhaps, to avoid confusion, discussions of the SOLUTIONS of the
ciphers, (such as Graysmith's, posted above) should be held under a
different sublist of the Ciphers category, according to the
organization of this message board.
Therefore, Scott, I cannot "run the numbers" on Greysmith's solution,
because my analysis is only designed to see what the odds of a certain
pattern appearing IN THE CIPHERTEXT, by chance are. Which pattern
would you have me look for? What "matching criteria" should I apply?
I suspect you were requesting that I compute the odds that Greysmith's
mapping from ciphertext to plaintext should occur by chance? I do not
know how to compute such odds. That is why I do not venture to
evaluate any of the proposed cipher solutions as more viable than any
others, because I have no way of demonstrating such.
|By obiwan (Obiwan) (ciw2.ciw.edu - 184.108.40.206) on Wednesday, July 24, 2002 - 03:28 pm:|
I'll bet the odds of Arthur Leigh Allen's name being found by random chance in the
340-character cipher are even greater than 100,000 to 20,000,000 to 1
I agree with you completely, Scott. The odds of such a name as Allen's, or Alfred E. Newman's or Abraham Lincoln's appearing in, or as I say "closely matching" one or two lines of the 340 cipher are very low. And indeed those names do not appear. (as far as I am aware)
|By Ray N (Ray_N) (user-38ldehr.dialup.mindspring.com - 220.127.116.11) on Wednesday, July 24, 2002 - 07:19 pm:|
Zander wrote: "I allowed for the symbol on the last line that strongly resembles
a capital "I" to equal "I". Allowing each symbol to be its letter or
the one it closely matches: you get: THEODORVPLVVKIOLTGOD and KAZINSKIMDHNPO. That's the
standard by which I would set odds on, of course that is essentially what you have
The problem that appears here is that a statistical analysis was carried out showing a low probability of TK's name appearing at random. The problem is not in understanding what you have done. The problem is that, just like Allen, Neumann, Lincoln, etc, Kaczynski also does not exist, except when the manipulation quoted above is first applied. Unfortunately, Zander is attempting to use your results as a "proof of life" for his theory. You are right though, this probably belongs on a different thread.
|By obiwan (Obiwan) (ciw2.ciw.edu - 18.104.22.168) on Wednesday, July 24, 2002 - 08:33 pm:|
Ray N wrote: The problem is that, just like Allen, Neumann, Lincoln, etc, Kaczynski
also does not
exist, except when the manipulation quoted above is first applied.
In Fact, even after Zander's substitution of "Curvy I-with-dot" = "I", KACZYNSKI does not exist in the last line of the 340 (its KAZYNSKI). However, even WITHOUT Zander's substitution, a "close match" to KACZYNSKI can be found in the last line, and a "close match" to THEODORE can be found in the first line. It is these "close matches" which I was exploring in my analysis. Since the choice of
what is a "close match" and what isn't is arbitrary, I carefully define which choices I'm using.
With a strict definition of "close match" (what I call Type 2), you are right, Ray, that neither THEODORE nor KACZYNSKI exist on any single line of the code. It is also true that under this definintion, as well as the more liberal Type 1 match definition, ZODIAC does not exist in the 340 Ciphertext either. In order to find ZODIAC in the 340 cipher one needs to change a triangle to a D and change a K to a C. Given these two changes are semi-arbitrary, should we conclude that the "near match" to ZODIAC in the last line of the 340 cipher is just a case of finding a name we want to find out of pure jibberish???
|By Scott Bullock (Scott_Bullock) (coral.tci.com - 22.214.171.124) on Wednesday, July 24, 2002 - 11:15 pm:|
I understand what you are saying. However, please explain how finding "THEODOR" and "KAZINSKI" in the 340-character cipher is not an example of "decoding the meaning of the cipher(s), from unintelligible ciphertext into readable plaintext"? After all, without manipulation of the characters/symbols, they are clearly not examples of "plaintext." At least, not in the way in which I was taught to read.
|By Douglas Oswell (Dowland) (147.philadelphia05rh.15.pa.dial-access.att.net - 126.96.36.199) on Thursday, July 25, 2002 - 12:55 am:|
Obiwan, correct me if I'm mistaken, but the point of this exercise isn't to decrypt the
cipher. Rather, we're assuming that a character like Zodiac might have gratified himself
by hiding his identity somewhere within the ciphertext, in a manner calculated to stroke
his own ego without actually giving himself away, or exposing him to risk if he were
caught. Given those conditions, there is always going to be a certain degree of
extrapolation to take into account, and the relative validity of any such exercise will
depend upon the amount of extrapolation that needs to be done. I believe you've taken that
into account. As the navigator of the B-52 said to Slim Pickens in Dr. Strangelove,
"I'm sorry, sir, but those are the numbers."
We now have four separate examples (3-Part Cipher, 13-Symbol Cipher, 340-Cipher and "the Zodiac Speaking,") in which Kaczynski's name pops out with a relatively minor bit of effort. That's significant.
|By Scott Bullock (Scott_Bullock) (spider-ntc-tc064.proxy.aol.com - 188.8.131.52) on Thursday, July 25, 2002 - 07:29 am:|
Doug wrote, "We now have four separate examples . . . in which Kaczynski's name
pops out with a relatively minor bit of effort. That's significant."
I can find Allen's last name in the first line of the 3-part cipher and it took me all of 9 seconds. However, admittedly, I had to use the half-shaded squares for the letter "L." I figure that doesn't really matter though, after all, the half-shaded square characters do represent the letter "L" part of the time in Don Harden's solution to the first cipher, and they also appear side by side, just like the double "L" in the word "Allen."
Hmm? How interesting. Allen's name is right there in the first 13 characters of the first line of the first part of the first cipher. I wonder what the odds of that are? Obiwan? Do you have enough data to compute the odds of that occurring by random chance? Doug, do you find this observation significant? Seriously, tell me what you think, because I don't think we are playing on a level ball field here.
|By obiwan (Obiwan) (ciw2.ciw.edu - 184.108.40.206) on Thursday, July 25, 2002 - 08:41 am:|
With regard to ALLEN in the 3-part cipher, I believe you pose a fair question for which odds could be calculated, in priciple. I will not be able to do this calculation for several days since I will be away & quite busy. However, it would help if you could tell me:
1.) Which non-alphabet characters you would replace with alphabet characters in addition to "half-shaded square" = "L"
2.) What are your "match criteria", ie how close do we have to come? Even after we change "half shaded square" into "L", I do not see A, E or N in the first 13 cipher-characters of the 3-part. Am I missing something?
3.) We need to know how many characters to draw at a time. You suggest ALLEN can be found in the first 13 characters. If so we could draw 13 at a time from pool of 480.
Regarding your other question "please explain...":
The 1st line of the 340-cipher contains these letters: THER & backward D. If we were decrypting the cipher, as Greysmith, Zander, Edward V. have done independantly (with different results), then we would assign each of these letters of ciphertext to represent a plaintext letter. Indeed we would to this for all the symbols in the cipher to get a "solution".
On the otherhand what I have done is to only consider ciphertext symbols themselves. I do not assume THER stand for other letters, I just keep them as they are. Now, in addition to this I treat backward D as "D". I also treat the "O" like symbols as O. I suspect this is where my effort looks like it trying to "decode" the cipher. I admit, if you do not accept such replacements as plausable, (ie you prefer to read ciphertext "Backward D" = nothing ) then you would not see a close match to THEODORE in the first line, and the calculation I have done would not apply. (it could be redone with a much looser definition of "close match" ) In that case you would also not be able to find "ZODIAC" in the last line of the cipher.
May I ask: do you find a significant "close match" to ZODIAC in the last line of the cipher? Or do you feel since 2 replacements need to be made, the apperent "close match" to ZODIAC in the last line, is probably just a coincidence?
ps. One last comment, which is an aside: I do not happen feel my latest calculation is conclusive proof of anything, per se. It merely represents the first time a probability has been able to be assigned to something related to the ciphers.
You will notice that I never stated "these must also be the odds of TK not being Z". In particular, nothing I have done detracts from the large amount of evidence which has been collected in regard to other suspects in this case.
Since I feel like I'm being dragged into a "my suspect vs. your suspect" discussion, I will state the following. It is not the "goal" of my work to "prove" that TK was the Zodiac. As Douglas knows, I approach this case from the TK angle, with an interest in the socio-psychological ramifications it has on our modern technological society, In particular how isolation and frustration can lead to varying real and percieved political solutions, including, for example violence and non-violence.
So I would say that my angle on the case is to determine if the Z crimes were something TK did in his early years. If I have an answer to that, yes or no, I'll be satisfied.
|By Lapumo (Lapumo) (p51-51.as1.clm.clonmel.eircom.net - 220.127.116.11) on Thursday, July 25, 2002 - 09:15 am:|
In the first line of the 340 we have a close approximation to PETER O (PETRO) only one letter missing.
In the last line of the first cipher we have
Again we have PETER O, or let's take it a little further IM PETER O
Let's take him down to Riverside.Again depending on your interpretation, the letter was signed ENTERPRISE (Peter Risen).
One could argue that these solutions are a little more concrete because there is a connection.
Now I do not believe in the above, but I think it goes to demonstrate our problems with the approach
on this thread.
I agree with you Doug,that the statement "this is the Zodiac speaking" is very significant and I do also agree that finding Kaczynski's name or a close approximation in there is interesting.But is that where it's significance lies?.I cannot argue with Zander's math with regard to the last line of the first cipher. I do however,have major problems with his interpretation.It's there though
and warrants a closer look.
The less said about his decipherment of the 340 the better.First of all it was based on Graysmiths solution, which was "rubbished" in some detail by Glen.Not only did Zander fall into the same trap as Graysmith by looking for things he wanted to find, but took it a stage further
by attributing values to symbols, already suspect, in an attempt to force Kaczynski's name in there.Of course this is just my opinion on the 340. However, all this is clearly solved by sending it away for professional opinion.Then we can discuss what's there and what isn't.Zander!
|By Howard Davis (Howard) (dsl-gte-10407-2.linkline.com - 18.104.22.168) on Thursday, July 25, 2002 - 11:06 am:|
You had Allen in there too-according to old posts.
|By Zander Kite (Zk) (dialup-22.214.171.124.dial1.nashville1.level3.net - 126.96.36.199) on Thursday, July 25, 2002 - 12:46 pm:|
This whole thing is so simple and straightforward, it should be very easy to understand this. The last line of the 340-code contains the symbols K A Z I N S K(backward) and I(symbol closely resembling a capital I.) These symbols are a very unlikely combination because: K is used 4 times in 19 lines: A only 1 in 19: Z=4/19 i=7/19 N=2/19 S=3/19 I=2/19. Ray(and anyone else), I'd really like you to explain exactly how I am manipulating this. Zodiac is the one who chose which symbols to use in the last line, not me. As far as the symbol closely resembling a capital I, it does. Of course, if you are totally convinced that Arthur Leigh Allen was The Zodiac, then maybe it doesn't. Ray, let me ask you this: If I were to hand you a slip of paper reading: K A Z I N S K(backward) and the I symbol: what would you read: of course you(and anyone else) would read and pronounce Kazinski, so i can only infer that you don't accept that Kaczynski is communicated on the last line because you are resistant to this evidence, because it suggests that Kaczynski is The Zodiac and not Arthur Leigh Allen. Ray, unlike your December 18th phantom call, I have not manipulated or made up anything. You created a thread that named Allen as most likely The Zodiac because he was a white guy from Vallejo. That's an example of foundationless manipulation. I am working off what Zodiac has personally penned in on the last line. Theodor and Kazinski are communicated and matched to the first and last lines. It is clear to see it and very suspicious. I'm sorry, but the numbers don't lie. And it's done in the fashion that you'd expect from someone who has no interest in apprehension. He's not gonna lay out his whole name perfectly, yet when he picks up a paper and sees his name there, it is amusing and satisfying or whatever. The "C" is left out, but it is silent, so that's a good one to leave out. The "Y" is replaced by an "i" while the other "I" is not perfect.
|By Zander Kite (Zk) (dialup-188.8.131.52.dial1.nashville1.level3.net - 184.108.40.206) on Thursday, July 25, 2002 - 01:26 pm:|
Stats on my previous post should read K=7/19. Backward K=4/19. Lapumo, first of all, I am the professional opinion that you are looking for: but it's not necessary to realize that it's strange and well against the odds for Theodore Kaczynski to be communicated in the matched first and last lines. "Graysmiths" solution has no meaning here, because this is based on the undecoded symbols chosen by the one and only Zodiac. Because of the rarity of the symbols chosen within a 17 symbols line and the "last" match etc. for Kazinski, it defies millions to one odds.(my own math has it around 2.5 million to one). However, Theodor is not the same kind of odd-defyer. Similarly Petr O, is not a great one either. The "O" possibilities are way too much so 1/1 on that. The backwards "P" is also 1/1. The "E" and the "R" are rarer. Also you're dealing with a missing "E" that compromises the pronunciation a bit. I dont find "petro" as much of a longshot and I dont find it to have much meaning. I can't imagine, let's say a guy named Peter O'Baskins, picking up a newspaper and laughing about how he slipped "Petro" into the first line of the code.
|By Lapumo (Lapumo) (p51-148.as1.clm.clonmel.eircom.net - 220.127.116.11) on Friday, July 26, 2002 - 01:19 am:|
I clearly understand what your saying about the first and last lines.However any name
you can pick out of this cipher will produce the same odds against chance.We do not have
Peter O's last name,but that's not to say it (or a close approximation) is not in here
somewhere.If you choose to pick the first two lines instead of the first and last you can
also get Kevin O Dowd.You can pick Tom Reid from line eleven and Tom again from line 12.I
could go on with several names.
You make the point that finding a close approximation of TK's is interesting and it is.
However quoting odds has no meaning here unless there is a positive link.
There were over 2500 suspects in this case finding a name without proof that it was intended
When I spoke of Kaczynski's name in the last line of the cipher I was referring to your complete decipherment of the 340 code.I think you forced it in there.I believe you found "THEO" in Graysmith's solution and went from there.
If your solution is valid,then you have one hell of a find.However the only way to verify that is to send it away for independent analysis.It is after all, the "professional" thing to do.
|By Scott Bullock (Scott_Bullock) (coral.tci.com - 18.104.22.168) on Friday, July 26, 2002 - 01:45 am:|
Sorry, I accidentally led you astray. Allen's name doesn't appear in the first 13 characters of the first part of the cipher; it appears in the first 13 characters of the first line of the third part of the cipher. Sorry about that. Nevertheless, the odds of this appearing by random chance still have to be pretty far out there.
Lapumo wrote, "When I spoke of Kaczynski's name in the last line of the cipher I was referring to (Zander's) complete decipherment of the 340 code."
Zander, you have a solution to the 340-character cipher? Would you mind sharing that with us? Also, would you mind explaining why your solution is better rooted in the factual than Graysmith's?
|By obiwan (Obiwan) (ciw2.ciw.edu - 22.214.171.124) on Friday, July 26, 2002 - 04:27 am:|
Zander's solution was posted on a different thread a few months ago:
Could I advise discussing it there?
ps. You can also find it, along with discussion of the 340 cipher here:
|By Ray N (Ray_N) (user-38ldcv6.dialup.mindspring.com - 126.96.36.199) on Friday, July 26, 2002 - 07:57 am:|
You state that you are certain your find has merit. I think you are saying that in light of Obiwan's information it proves Ted Kaczynski was the Zodiac. If I am correct on this, what will you do with this information? What will be your next step?
|By Zander Kite (Zk) (dialup-188.8.131.52.dial1.nashville1.level3.net - 184.108.40.206) on Friday, July 26, 2002 - 08:56 am:|
Lapumo, Tom Reid is not the same thing as the Theodor Kazinski find. Theodor involves
7 out of 17 while Kazinski is 8 out of 17. That's a whole world of difference from 3 and
4. TOM only defies the odds of the T and the M being on the same line, because the O is
1/1. Finding Reid is probably about 1 in a 100, I'd guess. Kevin O'Dowd: you are combining
the first two lines: that's not the same thing at all. On some lines you will find combos
or names that are rare, but we see a pattern here of matching a first and last name to the
first and last lines: If someone notices a pattern of a similar 7 and 8 letter names
suspiciously matched or placed in the code: let me know: but I really can't accept smaller
names as a counter. It's not realistic to do so. If you keep doubling a penny: you will
have 32 cents, 5 days later, but you will be a millionaire before a month, is it? So odds
works the same way. The order of events was that I solved the 340 code in 1991. 2002: I
noticed for the first time that the code appears to hide "THEO" right before
"SEE A NAME"(I should have noticed that a long time ago, but I had it down as a
"should" misspelling). My secondary solutions for the 340-code are possibilities
only. I believe my original solution is mostly accurate. It seems as if you all like to
accuse me of somehow doctoring my results, but that's way off. No one knows how I came up
with my BEORIETE METHHPITI solution, for example, and maybe you don't wanna know.
Ray, I am only requesting and am interested in your opinion on this. You say that there has to be a counter on this: and I want to know what it is. You have suggested manipulation, without explaining further. There is only one letter in question, that is the symbol looking like an "I"."KAZINS" are exactly the letter. And a backward "K". Those are exact. "KAZINSK" and now place the capital I symbol for "KAZINSKI". Or even with only the exact "KAZNSKI" it is still suspicious. So really I was asking for further explanation on how you feel this is manipulated. I am a believer in the reasonable doubt system. I believe that Kaczynski is The Zodiac, the same way I believe that Ted Bundy was Seattles "Ted" killer. In each case, there is not any evidence to convict.
|By Scott Bullock (Scott_Bullock) (spider-ntc-tb023.proxy.aol.com - 220.127.116.11) on Friday, July 26, 2002 - 08:56 am:|
You've got it all wrong. In light of determining that the odds of a suspect's name appearing in a line of non-ciphered text are so astronomical, I've decided that Allen must be the Zodiac based upon the fact that his name -- correctly spelled, I might add -- appears in the first 13 characters of the first line of the third part of the first cipher. Therefore, it can't be TK don't you see? Not only that, but his name also appears in the 13 character, "My name is . . ." cipher: ART LEIGH ALLEN. My God man, it's as plain as the nose on your face!
Personally, I don't plan on doing sh*t with my findings, for three reasons: The cops ain't interested -- done tried that, I figured I'd bounce it about on the message board for 5 to 6 months to get an idea of what y'all think before actually acting on it, and finally, because the fat, pathetic, lowlife, trailer trash, scumbag idiot is dead.
Okay Zander, I'm done harassing you, seriously. You seem like a bright guy and so does Obiwan, so I won't waste any more of your time; at least, not on this thread. I'm just of the opinion that the solution to this case does not exist within any of the cryptograms; mainly -- though hyperbolic to be sure -- because of the reasons I've already outlined in this thread.
Let's just say that I'm sticking to the right here and agreeing with Ockham's Razor: How can any solution be deemed correct when it can be shown that other solutions exist? And I am speaking to both ciphered and non-ciphered text. Besides, this type of crime research and line of reasoning is much too esoteric for my tastes.
|By Scott Bullock (Scott_Bullock) (spider-ntc-tb023.proxy.aol.com - 18.104.22.168) on Friday, July 26, 2002 - 08:59 am:|
Wow, there you go, astronomical odds occurring right here in cyberspace! You must have known I was thinking about you!
|By Scott Bullock (Scott_Bullock) (spider-ntc-tb023.proxy.aol.com - 22.214.171.124) on Friday, July 26, 2002 - 09:13 am:|
"My secondary solutions for the 340-code are possibilities only. I believe my original solution is mostly accurate."
"Ray, I am only requesting and am interested in your opinion on this. You say that there has to be a counter on this: and I want to know what it is."
I wrote, "How can any solution be deemed correct when it can be shown that other solutions exist? And I am speaking to both ciphered and non-ciphered text."
Where's the problem? I even gave you several examples of why your line of reasoning is off without saying a word about manipulation. Are you choosing to ignore me, or eschewing the truths of which I speak?
|By Scott Bullock (Scott_Bullock) (spider-ntc-tb023.proxy.aol.com - 126.96.36.199) on Friday, July 26, 2002 - 09:16 am:|
Ps. Okay, now I'm done harassing you.
|By Zander Kite (Zk) (dialup-188.8.131.52.dial1.nashville1.level3.net - 184.108.40.206) on Friday, July 26, 2002 - 09:20 am:|
Hi Scott. Look at those odds! I thought of a good example for Ray concerning his argument "if it's not good enough for the courts, then it's not really evidence." Imagine if the last line of the 3 part cipher read: CTVJWTNGKIJCNNGPX. Now if that was the case(those letters are all 2 up from ARTHURLEIGHALLEN(X)), I would agree that Allen must have been The Zodiac. But, it's something I wouldn't bring to court.
|By Lapumo (Lapumo) (p50-49.as1.clm.clonmel.eircom.net - 220.127.116.11) on Friday, July 26, 2002 - 10:08 am:|
"Tom Reid is not the same thing as the TK find".
No Zander it is not.What it is though,is relative.
It depends what you are looking for.A name is a name.Doesn't matter whether Kacyznski's name is longer and it doesn't matter how many letters are in the name.I am not approaching this because I want to knock Kaczynski.I believe more than anything else that Zodiac's name is in here somewhere.If TK is Zodiac so be it.However calling odds on close approximations does not advance this case anywhere.
When the correct name is found,it will be shown that it was intended, there will be a pointer to where to look,there will be instruction on how to decode it and when it is decoded, proof that we have arrived at the correct answer will be provided.That and only that is what's going to set it apart from everything else.
|By Ray N (Ray_N) (user-38ldcv6.dialup.mindspring.com - 18.104.22.168) on Friday, July 26, 2002 - 10:21 am:|
That's a fair question. My counter opinion is that you haven't found anything, but rather willed it into being. Here is the manipulation I am talking about. Really, a better word for it might be BIAS. In other words, we don't really have a true anagram on TK's name here. What we have is a set of 34 letterform symbols from which you have selected those which make up a close variant of TK. A true anagram would be something like this:
YNANXRIO = RAY NIXON
All letters of a typical anagram must be used for the solution to be valid. Alternately, if these letters were "buried" in a larger document, there would have to be some predescribed algorithm provided by the crptographer to enable the cracker to pick out only the relevant letters. Certainly such an algorithm might be cryptic, but in order to have a credible solution, the burden is on you to indentify and prove it. What you have done is akin to the following:
Whomever's name is in this cipher wins $1 million dollars:
Obviously, since I want the money, I'll pick only the following: QANRXYN, which gives RAY NXQN. I'm not going to worry about the Q because it looks like an O nor am I going to be concerned about the symbols I didn't use. Just give me the money.
What's worse, in your 340 find, it happens not after the plain text has been deciphered, but you are applying this to the raw ciphertext, which can easily be argued to have no legitimate meaning on it's own (unless you can find some proof). You ignored many of the symbols on those lines subjectively, as if the rest had no intended meaning, yet you offer no method by which a codebreaker is supposed to be able to pick them out. As far as the numbers go, again, you might find them interesting. But Obiwan's numbers are not applicable to what you have done.
You have, in the opinion of the vast majority on here, not achieved a valid solution. If you are that impressed with them, I'll repeat Lapumo's suggestion to have them subjected to a professional cryptographic examination. That is where the rubber will meet the road, not on this message board. The "nonsense" I was referring to was your assertion that this find proves TK was the Zodiac. I do maintain that your find is interesting, but not any more than any other name that might be found by a similar, subjective method. Of course, my fault-finding doesn't necessarily mean that TK was not the Zodiac. It only is intended to say you haven't proved that he is. If you don't claim you have, I have no problem with your posts here, and withdraw my "nonsense" label with apologies.
The problem with your 340 solution is that it is based upon RG's solution. I know you think it is correct. Graysmith thinks his is correct. See how it works? Everybody thinks theirs is correct. The major problem with Graysmith's solution is that he got started on it with a set of his infamously unfounded assumptions of fact, namely that Zodiac was fixated on Herb Caen and was a drug crazed lunatic. Thus the solution is based on certain important letters contained in HERB CAEN, PILL, PILLS, LSD. If he is not correct on these, the whole solution is off. He relies again on the drug stupor angle to explain the incoherency of his solution. He may be right, or you may be right. Both remain highly suspect.
I am in complete agreement that this case might indeed be eventually solved by cryptography. What we (and the authorities in particular) are going to be looking for, however, is a system by which someone is going to find the name of the Zodic by applying a legitimate, coherent, describable methodology and be able to prove it correct beyond a reasonable doubt.
|By Scott Bullock (Scott_Bullock) (spider-ntc-tb033.proxy.aol.com - 22.214.171.124) on Friday, July 26, 2002 - 10:45 am:|
"I am in complete agreement that this case might indeed be eventually solved by cryptography. What we . . . are going to be looking for, however, is a system by which someone is going to find the name of the Zodiac by applying a legitimate, coherent, describable methodology and be able to prove it correct beyond a reasonable doubt."
That's exactly what it will take for me to give a solution to the 340-character cipher any legitimacy. However, if the same conclusion cannot be achieved time and again using blind experimentation, I'll happily relegate any conclusion to the rubbish heap where it belongs. That's an extremely tall order my friends, but I wish you luck nevertheless.
|By Zander Kite (Zk) (dialup-126.96.36.199.dial1.nashville1.level3.net - 188.8.131.52) on Friday, July 26, 2002 - 02:06 pm:|
"Graysmiths" solution has been approved by code experts as legit. My
solution is essentially the same as "Graysmiths" anyway. I've pointed out a few
additional items like "THEO" right before "SEE A NAME" but
"Graysmith" has the same thing also, just that he accepts it as errors on
"SHOULD". Also i've explained the long nonsense sequence placed in the middle as
an attempt to confuse by running back nearly the same letters as before it. Also, I've
showed how when Zodiac decides to use the real first letter of a word, his second choice
is always the second or last letter of the word, suggesting design.
I would use the odds defied as a guide, and not say "well, TK must be The Zodiac by 2.5 million to 1 odds." It's when you start stacking the odds though, that you are facing long odds that Kaczynski is not The Zodiac. Honestly, in my opinion, I feel there is a lot of flawed logic being displayed here by several people, and I don't want to counter every little bit. Let me put it this way: I find it highly, highly suspicious that disaffected bomber, killer, and letter-writing publicity-seeking Theodore Kaczynskis name is communicated in the 340-code, the way that it is. We are only dealing with letters of the alphabet, it's not complicated, and really doesn't require much analysis. So, at this point, either one is moved by this or not, I guess. I wonder though, if we were to find out tomorrow, that there was a DNA match to Kaczynski, if the people that think there is nothing to this, would still think that?
|By Douglas Oswell (Dowland) (79.philadelphia04rh.16.pa.dial-access.att.net - 184.108.40.206) on Friday, July 26, 2002 - 04:39 pm:|
Remember, too, Zander, that when you say "disaffected bomber, killer, and letter-writing publicity-seeking" you're only looking at the tip of the iceberg. Your point is well taken. This isn't Joe Blow whose name is popping up all over the place with just a minimum of effort.
|By Douglas Oswell (Dowland) (79.philadelphia04rh.16.pa.dial-access.att.net - 220.127.116.11) on Friday, July 26, 2002 - 04:41 pm:|
Just as an aside, I'm gratified to see that someone is using the term "disaffected" that I've coined to describe what is essentially the mass-murder type. I think it states the case more accurately than a term that simply defines the number of victims taken over a specific period of time.
|By Howard Davis (Howard) (ont-cvx1-85.linkline.com - 18.104.22.168) on Friday, July 26, 2002 - 11:58 pm:|
The two cryptologists that are listed as approving GSs 340 code work are Greg Mellon
of the American Cryptogram Association.Internet searches show the late Mr. Mellon had a
good code background.Eugene Waltz of the same association agreed with Mellon.GS is
supposed to have a letter from Mellon (and Waltz)congratulating him "...on having
broken the second Zodiac cipher.Both Zodiac messages are homophonic ciphers with the
second complicated by an added,apparently random,transposition of the letters of each
word...The errors in spelling and in encipherment are to be expected and are within an
acceptable range...you have extracted all the information that is there.
Waltz wrote"...we[Mellon]are both agreed that your solution is good and valid...You are to be congratulated...for breaking the cipher..."
|By Scott Bullock (Scott_Bullock) (coral.tci.com - 22.214.171.124) on Saturday, July 27, 2002 - 12:29 am:|
Interesting stuff. If Graysmith's conclusion to the 340-character cipher has been
corroborated by 2 experts in cryptography (I wonder, were the results corroborated
blindly, or did they merely "check" Graysmith's work/conclusion for viability?),
then why are people still trying to decipher it? Tom has the code listed as
"unsolved" on this website; Zander has come to a conclusion that is close too
but not exactly the same as Graysmith's; Eduard's solution is altogether different; and
others believe -- such as myself -- that it hasn't been solved at all. What's up with
As I stated in an earlier post, if the cipher can be solved time and again with the same results, then said solution must be correct. If not, or if multiple solutions can be ascertained, then I believe that no true solution exists. Furthermore, I bet that the scientific community would concur with this assessment.
|By Scott Bullock (Scott_Bullock) (spider-ntc-td043.proxy.aol.com - 126.96.36.199) on Sunday, July 28, 2002 - 12:37 am:|
I can only assume from the lack of response either one of two things: Either nobody has been able to corroborate their findings utilizing blind analysis, or someone has done so and just doesn't wish to share the information at this point in time. Okay, that's fine with me. I'm still left waiting either way.
|By Lapumo (Lapumo) (p50-26.as1.clm.clonmel.eircom.net - 188.8.131.52) on Sunday, July 28, 2002 - 10:18 am:|
Its not that I think there is "nothing to it"
I do find it interesting.I believe Zodiac's identity is in here somewhere.Hence when we find kaczynski's name or a close approximation more than once its time to sit up and take a look.
Each find must be looked at individually and the merits of each examined.If you are the professional you claim to be ,then you know full well, that these cannot be "lumped" together for statistical analysis.
What is crucial here is how these "finds" have been arrived at.
You have explained how you arrived at the solution at the bottom line of the first cipher.It's there,the math is good.Its interesting and merits a closer look.The flip side of the coin is that you have made assumptions
(not that I'm saying the are incorrect)you have assumed that there are 17 letters as opposed to 18.You have linked it to the crossed circle as laid out in the phillips map.This is something Zodiac was using for another purpose.Furthermore,your solution depends on extracting random letters from the last line.Again ,let me say you could be 100% correct.However if there is any flaw in your methodology the solution is meaningless.
That there is a close approximation of Ted's name in the introduction "this is the Zodiac speaking" and in first and last lines of the 340 ,which are also interesting.And yes,if the DNA comes back positive in favour of Kaczynski,I for one would inclined to go with what you are suggesting.However,again this all hinges on the name "THE ZODIAC".He either chose this mokiner because he could work it around his real name(there's a reasonable argument for that) or it holds some other significance for him.If its the latter, then again, approximate solutions are meaningless.
Lastly your most substantial work comes from the complete decipherment of the 340 cipher.You have the opportunity Zander,to do this investigation,the people on the board and yourself a great service by simply sending this away for independent analysis.With respect,its no good quoting Graysmith here.Even if it has been verified by some experts,then others have rubbished it.The general consensus is that this decipherment is flawed at best.The difference it makes now is that we have Kaczynski's name or we do not.We can then go on to discuss this significant find or waste out time discussing a whole lot of nothing.
|By Zander Kite (Zk) (dialup-184.108.40.206.dial1.nashville1.level3.net - 220.127.116.11) on Sunday, July 28, 2002 - 11:05 am:|
Scott, I agree with you on that. I have reached basically, the same results as "Graysmith", more or less on my own. The reason that code experts have approved the "Graysmith" solution, is that it has to be, by and large, correct. That's the reality of codes, you can't just make up what you want or the rest is dribble. There are disputable areas involving encirclement etc.. For example, the colored "P" is used only twice, both for the word "Pills", so maybe the colored P doesn't equal "L", maybe it's not "pills". But, for example, there is no doubt that the Zodiac opened with "I give them hell too". Other areas are too clear to be in question like "These fools shall meet killer". The Zodiac must have wrote in code, at least most of the "Graysmith" solution. Perhaps there are some corrections to be made, or secondary or otherwise hidden messages. Code experts and I and "Graysmith" have agreed that one of the sections reads "LUEHSTHEOLHSSEEANAME." I propose it is to be read "LUEHS THEO LHS SEE A NAME". No need for a further "professional" opinion, it's already been approved. Another area I encircle different than "Graysmith" is where he has "Phone Lake B.. All slaves.. I have "Phone Lake B slllaavees". I believe that that is written because Hartnell offered The Zodiac his phone number. I find a later Unabomber false clue reading "Call Nathan R. Wed 7 P.M" to be suspiciously parallelled to the Lake Bery. event.
|By Ray N (Ray_N) (user-38ldeek.dialup.mindspring.com - 18.104.22.168) on Sunday, July 28, 2002 - 11:31 am:|
Has there every been any interest in exploring whether Z might have used more than one key sheet for this cipher, that different sections might have been encoded using different key sheets? Or the alternate possiblility that on different lines, Z employed a shift of some sort on a single key sheet to shift the substitution letters? If a pattern could be identified as to the nature of the key shift, one unified, comprehesible message might be deciphered. Hmmm...I wonder....
|By Zander Kite (Zk) (dialup-22.214.171.124.dial1.nashville1.level3.net - 126.96.36.199) on Sunday, July 28, 2002 - 12:08 pm:|
There is one long nonsense sequence in the middle of the 340. I believe it is an
attempt to confuse by running back the same letters, but it could involve a seperate key
or some trick.
Lapumo, like Howard says, several code experts approved the "Graysmith" solution. My solution doesn't stray too far from "Graysmiths", so similarly it has, more or less, been verified. So, it's already been done and is now up to the individual to accept it or not. But, I know I wouldn't bust into a brain surgery operation and tell the doctors to let me operate.
I will accept the position that it is only coincidence as far as my Beoriete Methhpiti solution, because it may well be. It was the first and only number system I tried, besides basically gauging stats on the letters. Actually, I was looking thru the back of yellow Zodiac, and noticed the part about looking for an encoding wheel as a possession for The Zodiac. That made me think of the Zodiac symbol as a circle. I originally was going to use 3,6,9,12 like a clock, because I was thinking circles and numbers. Then I remembered Z used that in a letter, looked it up to verify, and discovered it was 0,3,6,9. Instinctively, I realized it would be a tough fit, so i was surprised to find that it worked out. But I was shocked to see that the double letters(EOK) all equalled the same letter. The designed appearance of the string of numbers and the zero beginning and end made it more compelling. The Zodiac may have had an obsession with time. It could be a coincidence, but I proudly proclaim it as the best "Beoriete Methhpiti" solution out there.
|By Scott Bullock (Scott_Bullock) (spider-ntc-tc074.proxy.aol.com - 188.8.131.52) on Monday, July 29, 2002 - 10:30 am:|
Zander, I understand exactly what you are saying and, if blind analysis can prove the same solution time and again, then I'll have to admit that the 340-charater cipher is, indeed, solved. Under those conditions, there simply cannot be an argument to the contrary. What I'm wondering is if you have submitted your work to such an analysis? If not, then talking about it doesn't carry much weight. And I agree with Lapumo and Ray than comparison to Graysmith's solution is tenuous at best for the same reason: Was it or was it not subjugated to blind analysis? The answer to that question makes all the difference in the world if you want an investigator to take your work seriously. You understand what I'm saying, right?
|By obiwan (Obiwan) (ciw2.ciw.edu - 184.108.40.206) on Tuesday, July 30, 2002 - 07:39 pm:|
How can any solution be deemed correct when it can be shown that other solutions
Scott, I would say it can't. However do you think the 3 part cipher has been solved? I bet you do, and the reason you think so is that the standard solution returns readable text without anagramming, etc. I could easily come up with a Graysmith-340-esque solution for the 3-part cipher, requiring anagramming, etc, yielding garbled text, which you would rightfully dismiss out of hand on the basis of Occam's Razor. This is why I consider the 340 cipher "not solved", in spite of useful "candidate" solutions.
Also, I place very little weight on the experts who "verified" Greysmith's solution. We can apply Occam's Razor just as well as they can. I'm sure they just checked it and did not try to derive their own solution.
I would bet 100 zodiac buttons that NO TRUELY INDEPENDENT confirmation of Greysmith's solution has ever occured. Neither I nor Zander could do this because we have both seen the Greysmith solution. I propose that we all try to find crypto-knowledgeable people who have NOT seen Greysmith's solution and see what they can get out of it. My guess is they will come to the same conclusion the NSF or FBI or somebody came to: there are too many different characters for this length of code to get a
definitive solution from pure cryptology. Having said that, it is conceivable that Zodiac made the code unsolvable & unproveable via cryptology BUT solvable IF you knew something about him, for example his identity, his background, etc.
P.S. Scott, since you are done harrassing, perhaps I may be permitted to "harrass" you? Would you care to answer my previous question:
Do you find a significant "close match" to ZODIAC in the last line of the 340-cipher? Or do you feel that since 2 replacements need to be made, the apperent "close match" to ZODIAC in the last line, is probably just a coincidence?
|By obiwan (Obiwan) (ciw2.ciw.edu - 220.127.116.11) on Tuesday, July 30, 2002 - 08:02 pm:|
if multiple solutions can be ascertained, then I believe that no true solution
I agree Scott. I would say that several candidate solutions exist, none confirmed. Confirmation would have to take place via means other than cryptography, or else by an exhaustive exploration of ALL POSSIBLE solutions, which as I easily computed is beyond the scope of all computers in the world now.
Regarding your questions to Zander on independant analysis: YES I have tried to independantly derive A solution to the 340 code, completely disregarding the Greysmith solution. I wrote a computer program similar to the one posted by Bobbitt to assist me. I could not come up with anything that really made sense, although there are still a lot of possibilities to be explored.
|By Scott Bullock (Scott_Bullock) (spider-tm022.proxy.aol.com - 18.104.22.168) on Wednesday, July 31, 2002 - 10:07 am:|
Obiwan, you asked, "[D]o you think the 3 part cipher has been solved?"
Of course I do, don't you? It was solved into readable text and is the only solution that will ever exist. That is not the case with the 340-character cipher, at least, not in my opinion.
"I could easily come up with a Graysmith-340-esque solution for the 3-part cipher, requiring anagramming, etc, yielding garbled text, which you would rightfully dismiss out of hand on the basis of Occam's Razor."
I'm not real sure I understand what you mean, but I'll give it a shot. First of all, what the hell is "a Graysmith-340-esque solution for the 3-part cipher" suppose to mean, and why in the world would you want to do that?
Here's the difference, in my opinion: For a cryptogram to be truly solved it must have one and only one readable text that can be blindly analyzed at will and the exact same solution will be derived time and again. On the other hand, anagramming non-deciphered text is the equivalent, at the very minimum, of rolling 340, 36-sided [A - Z & 0 - 9) dice onto a table and then looking at them to see if anything interesting strikes your fancy. You could literally roll the dice until you were, at some point in history, able to read whatever it is that you desired. Therefore, and in other words, how can there possibly be "one and only one" solution to the garbled text?
As for the 340-character cipher, I agree that it is not solved. I was merely alluding to the fact that Graysmith's solution must be included among the "candidates" of possible solutions. You see, that's the part that kills me, the idea of multiple solutions is absolutely absurd, and can only serve to show that no solution actually exists.
"[I]t is conceivable that Zodiac made the code unsolvable & unproveable via cryptology BUT solvable IF you knew something about him, for example his identity, his background, etc."
Or his name, right? How is that anymore objective than not being able to solve the 340-character cipher because you and Zander "have both seen the Greysmith solution"? Furthermore, how is your solution any more significant than the one I found in the 3-part cipher that "implicated" Allen? After all, I found it in non-deciphered, garbled text and had to use anagramming for 2 of the letters, which were actually the same "character" -- the letter "L" -- in both the deciphered text and in the non-deciphered text. What are the odds of that? Astronomical?
"Do you find a significant 'close match' to ZODIAC in the last line of the 340-cipher?"
Yes, I find a "close match" but I do not consider it significant. Not at this point, anyway.
|By obiwan (Obiwan) (ciw2.ciw.edu - 22.214.171.124) on Thursday, August 01, 2002 - 04:52 pm:|
Scott, my question about the 3 Part cipher was just intended to point out that you,
and all of us, have applied some criteria to candidate solutions before judging them as
"acceptable". Whatever criteria you apply to the 3 part (and you layed out
yours) we could also apply to the 340. That's all.
"how is your solution any more
significant than the one I found in the 3-part cipher "
Let me clarify that I don't have a solution to the 340 cipher. I only use the word SOLUTION to discribe translating ciphertext into cleartext.
Now there is in fact a difference between the finding of ALLEN in 3 part and the finding of THEODORE & KAZNSI in the 340. The difference is that in the 340 we are working with the cipher text. The encoder of any message has complete freedom in which characters to use for cipher text. Therefore the ciphertext can easily be made to contain letters or words separate from the plaintext for which it stands. In the case of searching for a name in the plaintext, there is much less freedom because the author has presumably already come up with an intended messages (about slave in the afterlife, etc.) . So there is a difference here. Having said that, I still think it would be possible to compute the odds regarding ALLEN as you suggest, I just am not able to do this right away.
|By Scott Bullock (Scott_Bullock) (coral.tci.com - 126.96.36.199) on Friday, August 02, 2002 - 03:44 am:|
Obiwan, you wrote, "Now there is in fact a difference between the finding of
ALLEN in 3 part and the finding of THEODORE & KAZNSI in the 340. The difference is
that in the 340 we are working with the cipher text."
Obiwan, that is exactly what I am working with also: the ciphered text of the 3-part cryptogram.
|By obiwan (Obiwan) (ciw2.ciw.edu - 188.8.131.52) on Friday, August 02, 2002 - 01:30 pm:|
Scott: Correction to my previous: In order to find "ALLEN" in the 1st line
of the 2nd part of the 3 part cipher we must use 3 letters from Cipher text (AE & N)
and 2 letters from plain text "LL". To find this 5 character match on a single
line, we were able to draw from 34 possible characters of plain and encypherd text.
You seem saying that the ****CIPHERTEXT***** "Square with a Diagonal Line through it with the lower half filled in" looks unmistakably like a ciphertext "L" to you, right? I do not see any reason for making this assignment. Although we could make some more obvious assignements in the ciphertext of this line, like "Backward C" = C, or Even "O" with line = "O". These seem relatively straightforward CIPHERTEXT replacements. But replacing fully or half filled squares with english letters does not seem so obvious to me since there is no English letter which looks like a square box. Yes, T, L, I & H all have right angles, but none of them obviously looks like a box to me.
Let me put this another way. If we are to compare the 3-part and the 340 ciphers on the same footing for purposes of my calculation, then we must treat them the same. That is to say we must treat them as UNSOLVED. You and I agree that the 340 is unsolved. In order to compare Ciphertext with ciphertext, we must forget that we know the solution to the 3 part, and only look at the ciphertext. When we do this we only have a 3 Letter AEN close match to ALLEN. Now, if you find such a match significant then yes I could calculate the odds of drawing 17 cipher characters at random and achieving a near match (by this definition) to ALLEN.
|By Lapumo (Lapumo) (p51-248.as1.clm.clonmel.eircom.net - 184.108.40.206) on Saturday, August 03, 2002 - 06:22 am:|
Did you ever try the method you applied to the last line cipher, on the Bomb code?.
Seems a very reasonable possibility in those circumstances!
|By Scott Bullock (Scott_Bullock) (cache-mtc-ak04.proxy.aol.com - 220.127.116.11) on Saturday, August 03, 2002 - 12:27 pm:|
"You seem saying that the ****CIPHERTEXT***** 'Square with a Diagonal Line through
it with the lower half filled in' looks unmistakably like a ciphertext 'L' to you, right?
I do not see any reason for making this assignment."
Despite the fact that it is the exact same character in the same line that the rest of the ciphered text is in? Despite the fact that it appears in said line twice, side-by-side, and represents the same letter in the ciphered text as it does in the deciphered text, which is also side-by-side? I suppose the frequency of such an occurrence is one in three, eh?
Zander's find is interesting, I'll admit, but it is way too subjective to be taken seriously. If not, then I can apply my "Allen in the 3-part cipher" with the exact same vigor. Either way, the odds are still astronomical. Why focus on the esoteric view when the realistic is still undecided?
|By Douglas Oswell (Dowland) (171.philadelphia01rh.15.pa.dial-access.att.net - 18.104.22.168) on Saturday, August 03, 2002 - 02:03 pm:|
A .22 and a howitzer both work on the same principle, and both fire a projectile. The difference is that the .22 fires a teeny little projectile and the howitzer fires a great big projectile.
|By obiwan (Obiwan) (ciw2.ciw.edu - 22.214.171.124) on Saturday, August 03, 2002 - 02:41 pm:|
Scott I'm afraid I don't understand this sentance:
"Despite the fact that it is the exact same character in the same line that the rest of the ciphered text is in? "
Despite the fact that it appears in said line twice, side-by-side
The fact that "Lower-Half-filled-square" appears doubled in ciphertext does not suggest to me that as a CIPHERTEXT character this should be taken to be "L". It does not look like L, any more than say "N". However the doubling does suggest that if we are trying to SOLVE the cipher, as the two amatures did, then we would be wise to consider doubled CIPHERTEXT characters as "L"'s, since L is a frequently doubled letter. I am not, repeat not talking about solving ciphers here.
But as I said, when computing odds of CIPHERTEXT, we must ignore any solutions we think we have as to the plaintext. Otherwise we are comparing apples and oranges and calculation must account for both cipher and plain text and thus becomes vastly more complex.
|By Zander Kite (Zk) (dialup-126.96.36.199.dial1.nashville1.level3.net - 188.8.131.52) on Saturday, August 03, 2002 - 09:55 pm:|
Scott Bullock: There's a reason I can pull in about $4000 a year at a dog track thru
handicapping. It's because I understand "odds" and because I'm competing for the
money with people like you at the track. I'm sorry but I just can't accept finding
"Allen" like you have in the first line of the third part of the 3-part cipher.
It's woefully pathetic, and reflects odds-ignorance. In fact, I'll give you a good
odds-estimate on that right now. The "L" is very common in the 3 part code. So
both "L's" defy no odds at all, they are 1 to 1. Which leaves us with finding AE
and N within either the symbols or decoded symbols. At this point, it should already be
abandoned as meaningless because AEN are such common letters, since you've made it
available to pick from either symbols or decoded symbols. Just to really make this easy to
understand: Look at it this way: You say the odds are astronomical of finding
"ALLEN" in the fashion you have, on the first line of the third part. However
out of 24 lines, "ALLEN" can be found that way in 9 of 24. When someone signs
something, it's usually at the end. In summary, I find this comparison to Kazinski as
insulting. There are several strong examples on the table for Kaczynskis name being
slipped into his codes and writings. Arthur Leigh Allen is nowhere to be found, and he is
portrayed as this great risk-taker and police-taunter, so I'd expect his name to be seen
somewhere suspiciously, but it's not!
Lapumo, I'm not quite ready to reveal my 32-code solution, and to be quite honest, I don't think that you all are ready to hear it.
|By Lapumo (Lapumo) (p50-14.as1.clm.clonmel.eircom.net - 184.108.40.206) on Sunday, August 04, 2002 - 09:59 am:|
Yet another brilliant one liner "I don't think that you are all ready to hear it".It's right up there with such gems as "I intend to lay to waste any 340 analysis previously posted" and "the solution is correct","if you reject my solution I would strongly advise against gambling as a career move" (Scott be warned).
Like everybody else Zander ,when you present "evidence" here on the board,it's going to be analyzed,discussed and challenged.
You appear to want us all to sit back and accept what you put forward.When you are challenged, you retreat back into your shell and cry foul!
Of course you had the opportunity to "prove" your statements correct by sending it away for independent analysis,you declined.
Now,when asked another honest question,"we are not ready to hear it".If the same technique that you used on the last line of the first cipher was applied to the bomb code and found to work,then it could only serve to strengthen your earlier finding.Would it not?
|By Scott Bullock (Scott_Bullock) (cache-dr05.proxy.aol.com - 220.127.116.11) on Monday, August 05, 2002 - 01:53 pm:|
Zander wrote, "The "L" is very common in the 3 part code. So both
"L's" defy no odds at all, they are 1 to 1."
When they appear side-by-side in the same line of text as the "A" the "E" and the "N", and are also representative of the letter "L" in the deciphered text, the odds are not one to one, they are much greater. Maybe the odds are not "astronomical," but they are certainly greater than 1 to 1. Even appearing side-by-side in the text makes the odds greater than 1/1. Take a look at this very post for example. How many letter "Ls" do you see? How many of them appear side-by-side? I count 17 letter "Ls" but only in one instance are they side-by-side. See how easy that was to debunk your assertions about odds? Where did you come up with that 1 to 1 crap?
|By Zander Kite (Zk) (dialup-18.104.22.168.dial1.nashville1.level3.net - 22.214.171.124) on Monday, August 05, 2002 - 03:12 pm:|
A count of the "L's": 31 in real letters: which on it's own means you'll find 1.3 L's per line(31/24lines): But also you've included "L" symbols. Your "Allen" find requires located two "L's" in the same line. It is basically 1 to 1. If you are counting backwards "L's" included then it is 1 to 1(in other words, it reaches or passes a 48 count). Either way, it just is not a factor. In laymans terms(even though it already is), the "L's" are too common in this code, for finding 2 "L's" in a line to have any meaning at all. If you say you will draw two aces out of a deck and then do so, you have defied 221 to 1 odds. The odds of the first ace are 13 to 1, while the second ace is 17 to 1(51 cards left, 3 aces left). 13x17=221. But, if you only say you will draw 2 of the same card, you are only defying 17 to 1 odds. Because it doesn't matter what the first card you draw is, you only have to match the second card to it. That first card drawn is meaningless, a non-factor, it's 1 to 1. The "L's" are the same thing in the code, they are meaningless in affecting the odds. Scott, I really don't know where you're going with this double "L" idea. You seem to be suggesting that The Zodiac used words like kill, will and thrilling, as an attempt to clue us in that his last name also included a double "L" in it. That's kind of ridiculous to me. I shall no longer counter any counter to "Theodor Kaczynski", if it is ridiculous like this or if someone tells me they can also find Don Ho or Ed Ott in the code, and a name is a name so it doesn't matter. I would rather hear "Well, Athur Allen must have been The Zodiac, so there can't be anything to this". That would work for me, this other nonsense is just insulting really. I also have additional analysis to offer, but one would have to accept the "Graysmith" solution. In the solution, all the vowel symbols equal themselves. It's a pattern. A=A E=E ETC. The symbol "A" is used only one time before the last line (the "A" in Kaz(I)nski). But we all know that the "A" is very commonly used in words, so this makes it look more suspicious. Another possibility is that it was meant to be read "Ted Kaznski".
|By Howard Davis (Howard) (126.96.36.199.lcinet.net - 188.8.131.52) on Monday, August 05, 2002 - 10:41 pm:|
In Kellehers This is the Zodiac speaking, he gives another encipherment for the 340
"Theifs slowed deaths from...Death off as still forrest...eat from...With tests...it
is ears Made the forrest far...A theif of...so Later...while...were Was a
He does not inform us who did the 'translation',but it is included in this thread as another attempt at deciphering the 340.FYI
|By Scott Bullock (Scott_Bullock) (cache-mtc-ak04.proxy.aol.com - 184.108.40.206) on Wednesday, August 07, 2002 - 09:52 am:|
If you are going to try and discredit me, at least do it correctly. From the outset I stated that I was only concerning myself with just one block of the 3-part cipher. Remember one other thing, I, like you and Obiwan, am strictly dealing with, for the moment, ciphered text. If you look at this one block of ciphered text you will notice the following on the first line: "N", backward "K", "O" with a horizontal slash through it, "S", backward "C", "E", "/", "Triangle", "Square" partially shaded, "Square" partially shaded, "Z", backward "F", "A": Okay, hold it right there for a moment. Examine the line to that point. There are 13 characters, right? However, if you observe closely, you should also notice something odd. Do you see it? I do, it's Allen's last name spelled too the letter and in perfect order; reading from right to left.
But wait, you ask, where are the two "Ls" that are in Allen's last name? Good question; one that I thought about myself. Then I thought, wait a minute, the "Ls" are right there in the cipher; in the exact same block of 136 characters of ciphered text: Two "Ls" which are, curiously, the only two "Ls" in the entire 136 character block. I figured that such a find must be significant so I placed them among the original 13 characters to equal 15 so that I could derive "Allen" from the block of ciphered text. Oddly, when I went to the deciphered text to determine what the two partially shaded "Squares" and the two "Ls" represented in the decoded text, it turned out that the "Squares" were "Ls" after all, and the two "Ls" represented "Ts."
Pretty bizarre, huh? Now, I'm not sure what the odds of my "find" are, but it sure as hell has to be a lot larger than 1 to 1, wouldn't you say? First of all, there are only 2 "Ls" in the 136 character block of ciphered text to which I'm referring; that's 1 in 68 my friend, so you'll have to give it a go from there.
|By Ed N (Ed_N) (acbfdd6d.ipt.aol.com - 220.127.116.11) on Wednesday, August 07, 2002 - 12:47 pm:|
I'm surprised no one has mentioned this, since we're talking about TK intentionally using ciphertext characters to (mis)spell his name in the 340 code (one would think he'd take the time to actually spell it correctly). In the second block of the 408 cipher, line 8, characters 11, 12, 13, 16 and 17 spell backwards, very obviously, "IM GOD" (with a transposition of the "I" and "M," and with the Z symbol as the "O"). Since we know Z had a gigantic ego, it would seem that he used ciphertext characters to spell that out.
|By Howard Davis (Howard) (dsl-gte-10407-2.linkline.com - 18.104.22.168) on Wednesday, August 07, 2002 - 02:40 pm:|
CM said he was God too!Well,throw in Jesus Christ,Buddha,Satan,Abraxes,etc.too!
|By Zander Kite (Zk) (dialup-22.214.171.124.dial1.nashville1.level3.net - 126.96.36.199) on Wednesday, August 07, 2002 - 03:36 pm:|
Scott, with your system, you've found "ALLEN" out of these letters: NSEZAPBVXWFABOTRTRUYSWVZEGYKETYALHFBXXADLPORXFGZJTJIBPQWVEXWIEHMUI. That's some creative code sleuthery! How did you manage to pull that off? I'm at a loss for words! Zander Kite is in there too! Anyone else see their name?? Now if you also count backwards letters, include: KCF(by the way, that's the first 3!-Did Allen like to go to KFC?? (maybe he liked to call it Kentucky Chicken Fried?). list continued: PECCDQEDECQRRK. I'm only asking one to find suspicious that the last 9 symbols that are forward or backward letters of the 340 code are NPKSZOAIK. Wow!, I never really looked at it that way, but the 13 last symbols as letters used close with NPKS-ZO-AIK-- or KAZNSKI OP.
|By obiwan (Obiwan) (ciw2.ciw.edu - 188.8.131.52) on Wednesday, August 07, 2002 - 05:02 pm:|
Thanks. You have now provided an algorithm for finding ciphertext ALLEN in part 3 of the 3-part cipher, which is completely analogous to the algorithm I presented to start this thread. Since you have a pretty clearcut system, we should now be able to calculate the odds.
Your system is: draw 136 characters (out of the 408 characters in the 3 part cipher), and amoung these 136 characters of ciphertext, how often will they contain ALLEN by pure chance?
To calculate the odds using my program I would require an ASCII tablulation of all the Ciphertext characters in the 3 Part Cipher which you feel are obvious letters (if you wish to compare with my calculation you could include all backward letters, circular characters as "O", etc.)
If you can provide this, I'll do the calculation rigorously, however one can already see the answer we'll get pretty clearly by looking at the other two parts of the 3-part cipher: BOTH of them also contain ALLEN, so my guess is that it would be rather difficult to draw 136 random characters and NOT find ALLEN, due to the commonness of A,L,E & N in the ciphertext. Thus I suspect these odds are in fact close to 1 to 1.
You point out that AEN can be found in the first line, so perhaps you would like to redifine your algorithm more strictly. Let us say this:
1.) Draw 136 characters randomly
2.) Find ALLEN, with at least three of those characters coming from the first line.
Here the odds would be lower. I could work them out if you give me an ASCII version of the entire 408 cipher. Here's a quick way to gauge the odds of this restricted definition: How many lines of the cipher contain 3 of the letters in ALLEN? It looks to me like about 1/4 of them do. I would guess that even with this restricted definition, the odds of finding ALLEN by pure chance would be 1 in 10 to 1 in 100. Just a guess.
|By obiwan (Obiwan) (ciw2.ciw.edu - 184.108.40.206) on Wednesday, August 07, 2002 - 05:23 pm:|
Ed: Regarding TK not spelling his name correctly, note that Zodiac did not spell
Zodiac correctly in the 340-cipher. Also, if any of the Ciphers, including the 340
contained an exact anagram of ANY suspect's full name in undiguised ciphertext, you can
bet that that suspect would quickly be under arrest. Clearly Z wanted to avoid this.
THEODORE is spelled correctly, but only after "obvious" substitutions are made
for the "O"s & backward-D.
If just THEODORE had appeared without these substitutions, you can bet the FBI would have searched for socially mal-adjusted Theodore's in the Bay Area who knew about Radians & the unit circle.....where do you suppose that would have led them?
Regarding "IMGOD": Nice find! Perhaps God should be included on Tom's list of suspects.;) S/He is a known serial killer, of sorts.
|By Zander Kite (Zk) (dialup-220.127.116.11.dial1.nashville1.level3.net - 18.104.22.168) on Wednesday, August 07, 2002 - 08:15 pm:|
Obiwan, Scott can't seem to settle on where he wants to find ALLEN. Originally, it was
in the first 13 symbols(and letters)of the first line of the third block. Then he cleverly
adopted the symbol "L's" from the entire block. Apparently he finally realized
that "Kazinski" used only raw symbols. I like the part where he says that ALLEN
is spelled backwards to a tee in the first line except for the missing L's. Obiwan writes:
Thus I suspect that these odds are in fact close to 1 to 1. I agree, like you've said,
it's not hard to figure that out! I know you might have been tempted by the suggested 68
to 1 base, afterall 136/2=68! Taking something, that's already ridiculously strained,
further, would be a waste though. Scott could request the odds of ALLEN placed in a block
whereas the A is the 13th spot, L=66th L=82nd E=6th N=1st. It's million to one odds. Then
he associates the name ALLEN with million to one odds. You see, that's the kind of garbage
he's trying to produce here. Anything'll do.
Obiwan, I agree with you on how you described why Kaczynski wouldn't want to communicate his name perfectly. I'm guessing that The Zodiac was aware of how the last line of his first code was shredded for names. At any rate, Ted was a math man so I'm sure he realized that full and complete name equals jail cell. Hey, I had a professor and he quit sometime before the last summer when those kids were shot and wow I can read Theodore Kaczynski just as plain as day matched to the first and last lines of The Zodiacs latest code. I wonder about that? Ok, what's the number? However, touch it up a little and greatly reduce the risk, yet still slip your name into the front page and laugh at the police.
|By Scott Bullock (Scott_Bullock) (coral.tci.com - 22.214.171.124) on Thursday, August 08, 2002 - 01:03 am:|
"You see, that's the kind of garbage [Scott's] trying to produce here. Anything'll
Tell me about it. You can't find a single shred of evidence against TK, direct, circumstantial, or otherwise, so you are forced to come to some esoteric conclusion that doesn't mean squat. You've still got your figures all messed-up but that is okay. Like I said in one of my first posts on this thread, "I can find Allen's last name in the first line of the 3-part cipher and it took me all of 9 seconds."
I just knew you'd fall all over yourself trying to prove me wrong, Zander. That's what makes this whole mess so amusing: I really did find Allen's name in about 9 seconds just to show how ridiculous your conclusion concerning the 340-character cipher is. If you really want anybody without rose-colored glasses to take your work seriously, you'd be better off addressing those issues I've brought up in "The Book of the Dead" thread. However, I doubt I'll be hearing from you over there because it will demand that you demonstrate the use of real logic instead of insignificant BS such as that you have demonstrated with regard to the 340-character cipher.
I'd love to hear what you have to say in the other cipher thread I created, Obiwan. At least you have shown the ability to remain objective despite your convictions concerning TK. Take the blinders off, Zander; there is nothing, and I mean nothing which even remotely suggests that TK was the Zodiac.
See y'all in the funny papers.
|By Ed N (Ed_N) (acc1562e.ipt.aol.com - 126.96.36.199) on Thursday, August 08, 2002 - 11:46 am:|
obiwan: I certainly wouldn't put it that way. However, in this day and age, with so much New Age philosophy that preaches we are all God, that would mean that anyone and everyone is a suspect. However, I'd look for suspects that had a holier-than-thou attitude first...
|By obiwan (Obiwan) (ciw2.ciw.edu - 188.8.131.52) on Thursday, August 08, 2002 - 11:53 pm:|
Ed: My "God" comment was intended toungue in cheek. Regarding Him/Her being a serial killer, I was thinking of sodom & gomora, and I'm sure there are other examples. In anycase I think you are right, looking for suspects with ego problems is a good idea. Many people with bragadocious egos are infact simply trying to mask massive insecurity, so we should look for both of these.
|By obiwan (Obiwan) (ciw2.ciw.edu - 184.108.40.206) on Friday, August 09, 2002 - 12:02 am:|
Scott: Yes, I have realized all along (and I would hope that others realize this too) that you were not serious in proposing your "ALLEN" theory, that in fact it was a straw-man, designed to show that a totally different name could be found by a similar method which I used to find THEODORE KACZYNSKI, with similarly long odds. However, based on our discussion up to now, I would say that this has not been shown. If you would like to present other methods for finding "ALLEN" or any other name, than those mentioned above, I'd be willing to conduct a fair comparison.
|By Lapumo (Lapumo) (p51-183.as1.clm.clonmel.eircom.net - 220.127.116.11) on Friday, August 09, 2002 - 12:34 pm:|
1.If I had another name with a similar amount of letters and you calculate the odds,what would it show or prove to you?
2.If I had a shorter name,amounting to long odds
but not as high as Kaczynski's,what do you think that would show?
3.If I have no other name what does the original "find" amount to?.(your view).
|By obiwan (Obiwan) (ciw2.ciw.edu - 18.104.22.168) on Friday, August 09, 2002 - 05:45 pm:|
1.) Suppose we consider another 17 letter name, say SALVADORE PARADISO. I just ran this name and the odds of randomly drawing 1 line which closely matches SALVADORE are less than 10,000 to 1 and the odds of matching PARADISO, are around 1%, for a combined total of 1 million to 1. We would thus not expect to find this name on single lines of the cipher text randomly, and indeed we do not. As far as I know there are NO OTHER NAMES, of similar length which can be found each on a single line of ciphertext. But I have not explored other names yet.
2.) Shorter name? In fact there IS a shorter name found in the code: TOSCH is found on 3rd to last line. Very roughly I compute the odds of one random line of 340 cipher containing a close match to Zodiac inspector TOSCHI to be about 2%, per line drawn. Given that you get 20 draws in the cipher, the odds that one of those lines will contain a match to this short name are perhaps 1 in 3.
3.) "If I have no other name"...
I take it you mean: What if we conclude that the ONLY name for which we can find a close match in the 340-cipher is TK's, what does that imply?? I have so far refrained from trying to answer this question, since it requires speculation. & intuition..and the people on this board are capable of that. At the least it suggests that if pure chance is not responsible for the matches we find, then inteligent design likely is, Ie that name was put there deliberately. Now it is concievable that perhaps someone named Arthur wrote the cipher and decided to insert the name of a math prof. he knew at berkeley into the cipher. No calculation can disprove this but intuition tells us it is quite unlikely. I think most everyone would agree that IF a name was deliberately placed in the ciphertext, that name is the name of the cipher's author. The debate centers thus on whether or not a name appears.
|By Lapumo (Lapumo) (p51-5.as1.clm.clonmel.eircom.net - 22.214.171.124) on Friday, August 09, 2002 - 06:17 pm:|
Let's take this slowly and deal with point one first.The odds of finding a close match
to Salvadore is less than 10,000 to 1. Matching Paradiso on another line increases the
to approx 1 million to 1.
How then does finding a shorter and not so close match,in Theodor Kaznski reach odds of up to 20,000,000 to 1?
We are not dealing with 17 letters here only 14.
Even though Scott had a different agenda,what do you see as the diffeence between making two "O,s" from the half shaded circle and pulling two "L's" from the half shaded square?
|By obiwan (Obiwan) (ciw2.ciw.edu - 126.96.36.199) on Saturday, August 10, 2002 - 12:54 pm:|
Good question Lapumo. First of all the closeness of match is the same, I used (one of)
the same criteria for SALVADORE PARADISO as I did for TK. In point of fact, it did the
S.P. calculation rather quickly & sloppily. I only ran 10,000 trials on SALVADORE and
did not find a single match at random. So I quoted odds of 10,000 but in fact they are
probably much longer than that for SALVADORE. Now PARADISO it turns out was easier to find
by chance, 1%, so the true odds on SALVADORE PARADISO are probably more than 20 million to
Regarding, 14 vs. 17: Since I'm only requiring a "close match" to SALVADORE PARADISO, only 14 the characters in this name need to be found in the randomly drawn ciphertext to count as a match, so both names are on the same footing.
At this point let me say that I think there is an error in my final computation of the odds for TK.
While it think the computation of the odds for each line is valid, we also should account for the fact that in the 340 cipher you get 20 lines in which to find a name, ie you get 20 tries, giving you a better chance to find a match. So to account for this, we should scale the odds down by a factor of 20. Ie in the case of the longest odds, from 20 million to only 1 million to 1 odds.
(I'll add however that if we consider significant the fact that TK's 1st and last name are on the 1st and last lines of the cipher, then in fact we don't get 20 tries)
Second Question, also a good one: To me the difference is that there is really only one letter in the english alphabet which resembles "half filled circle" and that is "O". Indeed an "O" must be drawn to make this symbol. To draw "half shadded square" as it appears in the 3-part cipher, you could first draw an "L" or an "N" or "I", possibly even a slanted "V". If you walked up to the proverbial "man on the street" and showed him that symbol and asked "what letter is this?", I doubt many would say "L". But in the case of "half filled circle" I suspect most would say "O".
But I have to grant that if you do not feel that "half filled circle" resembles O, or that "Backward D" does not suggest "D" to you, then my calculation is meaningless.
|By Lapumo (Lapumo) (p51-153.as1.clm.clonmel.eircom.net - 188.8.131.52) on Saturday, August 10, 2002 - 04:55 pm:|
Thanks Obi, you have hit the nail on the head.
It's a question of interpretation.I don't believe it but I could argue that Allen was hiding the "L's" in the shaded squares.I could further argue that this was intended because he wanted us to figure that out.I could provide "proof" of this because he has actually attributed the half shaded square to represent L.
Because "your average man on the street" would call the half shaded circle an O means nothing in this context.Neither does pulling a name from the first and last lines as opposed to any other two.
Therefore "Theodor" means nothing,despite quoting odds,because assumptions have been made.
Thats not to say that TK is not the Zodiac or that
what has been discovered was not intended.
What is most definite is that it is interesting but proves nothing.What are the odds for example of someone other that TK being the Zodiac?
Please again,this is not an attempt to knock Ted as a suspect it is simply holding such finds up to proper analysis.
|By obiwan (Obiwan) (ciw2.ciw.edu - 184.108.40.206) on Saturday, August 10, 2002 - 11:12 pm:|
I could argue that Allen was hiding the "L's" in the shaded squares.
Ok, no problem. Then your algorithm is: "Let each ciphertext character represent not one letter but any of the letters which can be "extracted" from it. You are free to choose". As I pointed out, the Half-square symbol we are discussing could represent: L,A (tilted), I, N (backward) , V, U, and even upside-down Y (see y two lines below).
For sake of arguement I will adopt your algorithm. Guess what I find in find in line 1 part 3, of the 3 part cipher: KACZYNSKI! Its there: Kand C are backward. The I is in the Half-square, and the Y is in the solid square block (this can be made into any letter!) In fact if I use one of the half-squares as a y (upsidedown), then I don't even need to re-use the K, I've got a perfect match.
What conclusion can we draw from this? Only that the Algorithm you have chosen to find ALLEN is a very permissive algorithm, and it allows for many names to appear by pure chance. If you can present an algorithm which finds a name, and that algorithm has a low likelihood of finding such names by pure chance, then I think that name merits further study. I believe I have presented such an algorithm. Perhaps others will as well.
he has actually attributed the half shaded square to represent (plaintext) L.
Ok, now you are suggesting an alternative algorithm, namely "Use all ciphertext letters PLUS all plaintext letters from the decoded version as well" In this algorithm you are thus allowed to draw 17x2 = 34 characters. This is such a large number that once again I find an 8 letter match to TK, namely KACZINSKI. Since the number of matching letters (8) exceeds that for ALLEN (5) this match could be called "more significant". However, as above, I think the proper conclusion to draw is again simply that the algorithm is verypermissive; many other names could be found by pure chance.
This I think is the difference between the (straw-man) algorithm you and Scott have been using to find ALLEN, and the one I presented: the ease with which the algorithm can find names by pure chance.
|By Lapumo (Lapumo) (p51-160.as1.clm.clonmel.eircom.net - 220.127.116.11) on Sunday, August 11, 2002 - 06:55 am:|
In a nutshell what I'm saying is this; "Theodor Kaznski" has been found in the first and last lines of the 340 cipher.Very interesting.Next step,what does this mean? was it intended?
The argument made is that,this was deliberate.That
Ted slipped his name in here using symbols.Furthermore he has decided not to use his full name because that could give him away.This way there is no proof and he gets satisfaction knowing its in there.
Is this possible? maybe. How does it hold up under scrunity? Lets look at the assumptions made.
1.He has chosen not to give his full name for the above reason.
2.He has chosen the first and last lines to encode
3.The plaintext symbols are plaintext letters.
4.The reversed letter symbols are also Pl. letters
5.The symbols that look like letters are also letters.
6.The odds against chance being large, must proove something?
7.That his name is here in the first place.
8.That other letters on the same lines are to be ignored in favour of a name.
Taken what we are dealing with here the first assumption doesn,t make a lot of sense,since encoding his full name will make no difference.If the codes were to be examined like this then any suspicion raised is going to be the same.
There is no strict math or formula here.
If we take points 3,4,and 5 together then what we have on the first line is 17 letters.If we assume backwards=forwards, then by the same assumption we cannot exclude upside down or rotated look alikes.Therefore we have;-
HERVPLVVPKIOLTGOD (although the P's could also be Q's).I ask you where is the sense in pulling
THEODOR ,seven letters out of 17 in favour of a close match to Kazcynski?.For no other reason than we went in there looking for it.But also because we have a similar type match on the bottom line.MDHNPKSZOAIKE.So now we have pulled 14 letters out of 30 and ignorned the rest.Of course ,we go to the last line in the first place only because it suits.A reasonable alternative would be lines one and two.Who's to say?
The assumption made was that these two lines were significant only after the match was made not before.Let's put them all together:-
HERVPLVVPKIOLTGODMDHNPKSZOAIKE.How many names addresses,or statements can be taken from these,that holds any advantage over any other?
|By obiwan (Obiwan) (ciw2.ciw.edu - 18.104.22.168) on Sunday, August 11, 2002 - 09:17 am:|
The first assumption (1.He has chosen not to give his full name ..because that could
give him away.), doesn,t make a lot of sense
You don't think so? Let me ask you this Lapumo: If the first line of the cipher were N E L L A H G I E L R U H T R A, (ALA spelled backward), or an anagram thereof, do you think the Zodiac case would have proceeded differently? I think it certainly would have. If the police had been able to find an EXACT anagram of a name in the cipher, that person would have been arrested, or at least had his home(s) searched very thoroughly, back in 1970, not in the early 1990's or after he died. Given Z's desire for publicity, such intense scrutinty might possibly have produced a confession.
(Now in the case of TK, it admittedly would have been difficult to track him down after his departure from berkeley....indeed plausably part of the reason for this departure is that he had come so close to giving himself away, he thought surely someone might notice.)
You quite correctly point out that those who have found TK's name in the first and last lines, are only using about half the characters in each of those lines and discarding the rest. Yes, this certainly raises the question: couldn't such a process, produce a name like THEODORE out of the characters in the 340 code by pure chance???? This is precisely question I attempted to answer in my analysis, because I prefer not to attribute intention when RANDOM CHANCE is a better explanation. The answer I found is YES, finding TK's name could have occured by pure chance, but it would require a 1 in 100,000 coincidence, if not more.
these two lines ... Let's put them all together:- HERVPLVVPKIOLTGODMDHNPKSZOAIKE.How many names ...can be taken from these ?
So far, only ONE.
But if you can find a close match to another full first and last name in there, that would be quite interesting. Indeed if this happened to be the name of a known murderer living in the Bay Area during the Z crimes, I think you would have made quite a find. Care to try?
I should point out that if you combine both lines as you have done, you are much more likely to mix and match to find a name. This again is a "more permissive" algorithm than the one used to find T&K in the first and last lines individually. So if you want to put yourself on equal footing with the comparison I've done, you need to treat each line separately.
How about this, as a challenge: If anyone can pick two lines from the 340 ciphertext which, treated individually, reveal the first and last(perhaps even middle) names of ANYONE, I will submit that the finding of names in the cipher is "relatively easy". You can make all the substitutions I did (backward letters, "O"'s etc), but please no short names like BOB ORR. To equal the odds of finding a close match to THEODORE KACZYNSKI, the name you find should be around a total of 17 letters, give or take a few, and it might help if it was the name of a person living in CA between 1966 and now. Bonus points if it is a known murderer.
|By Lapumo (Lapumo) (p51-241.as1.clm.clonmel.eircom.net - 22.214.171.124) on Sunday, August 11, 2002 - 11:18 am:|
While such an anagram as you suggest might have brought suspicion on a particular individual.
I seriously doubt it would have been enough for a warrant.
The only thing that links line one and twenty are two close approximations made after the find.But lets pretend these are significant before hand.
Lets also work on your assumption that he chose not to give his full name because of the points you have raised.The general idea is that he is providing us with some clue.
I have added the + because it looks like a T.I have ommited the cross circle as O.
You have made the assumption that "CLUE" means name.I say clue means CLUE.
LEIGH ALEN /KEVIN SHEPPARD/MARVIN HAGLER
IM PETER O SOLLIVAN/THEODORE KAZNSKI/DENIS HOPPER/ PHILLIP THOMPSON/MARTIN DAVIS/LEONARD HOMES/
The list is possibly endless.One could also put smaller second names in there such as DAVID LEE THOMAS/
If we take clue meaning exactly that,then there are several statements in the also,that could be worded to give clues.ZODIAC/P.STINE/PR. HEIGHTS/KILLING/MAPLE STREET/LEIGH HIT STINE etc etc etc.
That took about five minutes without trying very hard.I reckon I could also come up with some type of instructions.The point being nothing is defined
or that any holds an advantage over the other.
In fact a name spelled correctly would probably hold more weight.
There is one more that we could use to start a new theory.THOMAS N.VOIGT
|By Zander Kite (Zk) (dialup-126.96.36.199.dial1.nashville1.level3.net - 188.8.131.52) on Sunday, August 11, 2002 - 11:30 am:|
What happened here(most likely) is that Kaczynski wanted to slip his name into the 340 code. On the last code, everyone was scrambling to solve it, looking for his name decoded in there. So, humorously, this time he decides to put it right under their noses, using the symbols. He must decide how he wants to do this. He does not want to have to go on the run, so it is obvious to the mad genius that he can't plainly offer his name, so a compromise is reached where his name is communicated well enough to get satisfaction, while altered enough to avoid detection. The end result is the use of some half moons, backward letters and possibly the use of a symbol closely resembling "I". I believe it is highly significant that there is a match of the first and last.
|By obiwan (Obiwan) (ciw2.ciw.edu - 184.108.40.206) on Monday, August 12, 2002 - 07:08 am:|
Congrats, at finding all those names in the COMBINED first and last lines of the cipher
Lapumo. As I mentioned if you COMBINE both lines you will have so many letters that
indeed, as you clearly show, many names are possible. But in the case of TK, we are doing
something different. We are treating the lines individually, and therefore the number of
possibilies is much much fewer. So my challenge remains: if you can find a 17 character
name of a person, (perferably a CA resident, post-1966) in any 2 lines of the cipher,
TAKEN INDIVIDUALLY, then I will concede your point that finding names in the 340 cipher is
You have made the assumption that "CLUE" means name.I say clue means CLUE.
Not exactly sure what you mean by this. I don't recall making any assumptions regarding the letters "CLUE" ?
|By Lapumo (Lapumo) (p50-219.as1.clm.clonmel.eircom.net - 220.127.116.11) on Monday, August 12, 2002 - 02:33 pm:|
OK,I will look at that.But I do not understand why it has to be 17 characters,afterall
what you guys have is 14.Before I get into this let me take one example(which might make my point)
and please tell me the difference as you see it between it and "THEODOR KAZNSKI".
On the first line we have an anagram of "OLIVER" and on the last line we have the surname "VADINO".
So we have a direct alternative in exactly the same place.OLIVER VADINO V THEOROR KAZNSKI.
Now at a glance,without much effort,I can see a dozen surnames on different lines such as POTTER,MOODY,OLCOTT etc.The are shorter than what you have granted,and I don't know if anyone with such a name lived in CA at that time.But the odds have to be pretty high and they are proper spellings of names.There were over 2,500 suspects in this case.Could it be that the Zodiac has a name shorter than Kazcynski's?.
On the "assumption of clue" what I meant is this;
There is absolutely nothing connecting the first and last lines except what you have found.Therefore the "find" came first and the connection later.For the purposes of this experiment we agreed that they were imortant.What you have decided or assumed is that their purpose was to encrypt a name.Again, all I was doing is offering an alternative, proposing that something other that a name may be included here.
These points go to the heart of this discussion,I agree that finding a close approximation of TK's name is interesting.We can't prove it was intended
and as a stand alone item it means nothing.
This should have been presented as something interesting or something to keep at the back of our minds in case something similar showed up.Nothing more.Instead, the inference being made was that since the odds against chance were high it must be some kind of proof.
I still do not understand how odds can be quoted when we do not even have a correct spelling.Perhaps you can take the name OLIVER VADINO and compare.
|By Douglas Oswell (Dowland) (55.philadelphia08rh.16.pa.dial-access.att.net - 18.104.22.168) on Monday, August 12, 2002 - 05:13 pm:|
I think the point was that you have a connection to a major suspect. If you didn't already have the name of such a suspect, pulling names out of the cipher would be an exercise in futility.
|By Ray N (Ray_N) (user-38ldds2.dialup.mindspring.com - 22.214.171.124) on Monday, August 12, 2002 - 07:30 pm:|
Right. So what does that say about any solution that would have been offered to incriminate Zodiac before his name was known by authorities? He would have done it in a different way. A way that would have provided proof and not left message board threads running to many pages in length with discussions about whether statistical odds could prove whether anything found (or manufactured) was the result of the work of Zodiac or a researcher with an agenda. This type of message, if/when found, will be damning and irrefutable on its face.
|By obiwan (Obiwan) (ciw2.ciw.edu - 126.96.36.199) on Monday, August 12, 2002 - 09:02 pm:|
Lapumo: 14 characters total matching is fine. Or you can have a 17 char. name which
"closely matches", as does TK's.
That's right the only significance of First/Last is: 1st Line of text: 1st name of TK, last line of Text: last name of TK. Nothing else connects these two lines (except perhaps they function as the boundary of the cipher..wink to doug)
Could it be that the Zodiac has a name shorter than Kazcynski's?.
Yes, it certainly could. But in that case there would be little we could say along the present lines of inquiry because it would be easy to find his name everywhere.
I'm not familiar with the family name VADINO. I guess you are getting the V from the 1st character in the last line via a 90 degree rotation. That's slightly more permissive, but I think that's fine, ie Zander considers the 2nd to last symbol to look like "I". I changed my program to allow V,<,>,^ = "V".
Really quickly, I compute the odds of finding an EXACT match to OLIVER in a single line of the 340 by chance to be 0.3%, ie 1 in 300. Finding an EXACT match VADINO by chance is about 0.1 %, ie 1 in 1000. So the odds of an exact match to the 12 character name OLIVER VADINO, accounting for a factor of 20 lines to choose from are around 1 in
17,000, ie a little below the low end of the odds I worked out for TK. Resonable given the shorter name.
I'm going to guess that with a fair amount of work you could find one or two or perhaps a dozen 14 character names, which would likely have similar odds to the TK odds. That's a fairly limited pool. I'll also hazard to guess (and feel free to prove me wrong) that it won't be possible to find a single 14+ character name of a real person who lived in CA.
This should have been presented as something interesting or something to keep at the back of our minds in case something similar showed up.Nothing more
Sorry if you felt my presentation heavy-handed.
I said: If random chance is not the reason that this name "appears" ..., rather than: random chance cannot possibly explain...
|By Lapumo (Lapumo) (p51-118.as1.clm.clonmel.eircom.net - 188.8.131.52) on Tuesday, August 13, 2002 - 06:41 am:|
A question on your method of calculating odds.When you say you calculated the odds of finding "Theodor Kaznski" would it be fair to say
you calculated the odds of finding those particular letters,on these lines? What I'm trying to figure out is if we are comparing apples and oranges here.In other words there is no such christian name as "Theodor" and there is no such surname as "Kaznski".How have you been able to factor in that quality of being a correct spelling?
Would it be fair to say that any 14 letters will throw up similar odds?(once they happen to be in a name).
Perhaps a clearer example is this; Lines 1 and 9 throw up Oliver Boycott and Theodor Boycott 13 and 14 letters respectively.
By my way of thinking the latter should produce greater odds than that of "Theodor Kaznski" because it actually is a full correct surname.
Even the former, with a letter less, should hold some statistical advantage being a full correct name.
Obi,I don't not think "your" presentation was heavy handed.
In fairness,I don't know how you can make a statement like that on one thread and follow it up on another with "I'm not a big fan of these exercises in anagramming unless there's a clear method to the madness".Not only is this an exercise in anagramming,the rules are being made up as we go along.Any symbol that looks like a letter will do and we can connect any two lines we want.I'm not doing this to knock Kaczynski but to examine if this find is special.
Being able to come up with proper names,spelled correctly,using the same methods,demonstrates to me at least, that the original offering cannot be relied upon.Furthermore,I would go as far as to say,that if I had a phone book from that era or the full list of the 2500 suspects in this case, I could pull many of them out of these letters and ciphers using such methodology.
|By Scott Bullock (Scott_Bullock) (spider-ntc-tb013.proxy.aol.com - 184.108.40.206) on Tuesday, August 13, 2002 - 07:29 am:|
"Being able to come up with proper names,spelled correctly,using the same methods,demonstrates to me at least, that the original offering cannot be relied upon.Furthermore,I would go as far as to say,that if I had a phone book from that era or the full list of the 2500 suspects in this case, I could pull many of them out of these letters and ciphers using such methodology."
My thinking exactly, Lapumo. However, when I found Allen's name (There are only 2 cipher text "L's" in the whole 136 character block, fellas. That is not 1:1.) suddenly the odds were 1:1. Go figure.
|By Lapumo (Lapumo) (p51-79.as1.clm.clonmel.eircom.net - 220.127.116.11) on Tuesday, August 13, 2002 - 08:52 am:|
Here's another argument that was used in favour
of the TK find.Zodiac spells his Moniker ZODAIK in the last line of the 340 because he's telling us that there is a name there.He does not want to give his full name for fear of arrest.Using the same reasoning and methodology we can get another two suspects surnames from that exact same line;
KANE and DAVIS.What's the odds of me being told that they do not count because their names are too short?
|By Douglas Oswell (Dowland) (233.philadelphia06rh.16.pa.dial-access.att.net - 18.104.22.168) on Tuesday, August 13, 2002 - 09:55 am:|
Lapumo, it isn't that they "don't count," but simply that, due to their
length, they're not as significant. Then, too, are the first names found anywhere in the
preceding lines? That's something else that has to be accounted for.
From my perspective, I'm looking upon these exercises only as a means of drawing suspicion toward a particular person, not as a means of bringing him to the execution chamber. I believe Obiwan would say much the same thing.
|By Lapumo (Lapumo) (p51-247.as1.clm.clonmel.eircom.net - 22.214.171.124) on Tuesday, August 13, 2002 - 12:05 pm:|
Yes Doug,I appreciate that and its not that I am trying to knock T.Kaczynski just to examine the significance of this particular find.
|By Zander Kite (Zk) (dialup-126.96.36.199.dial1.nashville1.level3.net - 188.8.131.52) on Tuesday, August 13, 2002 - 03:37 pm:|
Since 17 appears to be a significant number to The Zodiac(length of code lines and This is "17 letters" opening), and since a signature is more likely placed at the end, let's check the last 17 symbols of the 340 code that are letters(forward or backward) They are: YOBCCMDHNPKSZOAIK. There are only a few names to be found, but one is: KACZYNSKI,(CHBODOPM)-leftover.
|By Ed N (Ed_N) (acbf2f90.ipt.aol.com - 184.108.40.206) on Tuesday, August 13, 2002 - 04:40 pm:|
Actually, when we see "ZODAIK" in the last line, we are assuming that the
filled-in triangle represents the Greek majuscule delta (D),
which is the same as our D.
What I'm thinking is that when Z finished the 340 cipher, he was probably thinking, "Well, will you look at that! I didn't realize it, but there's a close approximation of my name at the end of the cipher! I bet those cryptanalysts will go nuts thinking that I put it there on purpose..."
|By Lapumo (Lapumo) (p51-252.as1.clm.clonmel.eircom.net - 220.127.116.11) on Tuesday, August 13, 2002 - 04:58 pm:|
Of course Ed, anything is possible.I'd be more inclined to think that was intended
Zander,why don't you just say you can pull Theodore Kacznski's full name and address out of the entire code and have done with it?
|By Zander Kite (Zk) (dialup-18.104.22.168.dial1.nashville1.level3.net - 22.214.171.124) on Tuesday, August 13, 2002 - 07:57 pm:|
Keep in mind, Lapumo, that there are only 2 chances in the entire code to find "Kaczynski" with raw symbols, because there are only 2 "A's". Also remember that I am stating facts now. They are: Signatures usually are placed at the end. The Zodiac used 17 symbol code lines. The last 17 symbols that are letters in the 340-code are YOBCCMDHNPKSZOAIK..which also reads KACZYNSKI,CHBODOPM. These symbols by their frequency are highly unlikely to make up the last or any series of 17 symbol letters, suggesting design by the author for some reason, or otherwise coincidence.
|By Ed N (Ed_N) (acc13460.ipt.aol.com - 126.96.36.199) on Tuesday, August 13, 2002 - 08:53 pm:|
Actually, Zander, it reads "KACZINSKY BOOM D CHP." What that tells me is that TK was planning to blow up the California Highway Patrol.
|By Lapumo (Lapumo) (p50-79.as1.clm.clonmel.eircom.net - 188.8.131.52) on Wednesday, August 14, 2002 - 05:21 am:|
"There are only two chances in the entire code to find "Kaczynski" with
raw symbols,because there are only 2 "A's".
This is my point about your work Zander,you are going into these things looking for Kaczynski.The rules come later.What began on lines one and twenty are now gone to nineteen and twenty.First of all we had a close approximation(where missing letters did not bother you,now that's abandoned in favour of picking another two lines to get a surname.Your first argument was that spelling his name correctly would land him in a cell,now it's ok.Too many assumptions and too many alternatives
render this a stretch IMO.Personally ,I believe he chose to spell ZODIAK and nothing more.
Stick with what you have done on the last line of the 480 and see if it can be repeated elsewhere.
With the bomb code perhaps.If you can extract a coherent message using the same methodology,then you have a case.
|By Zander Kite (Zk) (dialup-184.108.40.206.dial1.nashville1.level3.net - 220.127.116.11) on Wednesday, August 14, 2002 - 02:56 pm:|
Lapumo: I am only pointing out stats on the 340 code. If you have a problem with it, you should take it up with The Zodiac, not me. Any attempt to suggest that Kaczynski is The Zodiac is met with total, all-out "Allen-resistance". It's funny here, because this doesn't involve much more effort than being able to read the alphabet. I would not call this my "find" or anyones find, it's just there. That is, the last line has the letters MDHNPKSZOAIK. The last 9 are NPKSZOAIK: To have so many letters that make up "Kaczynski" near the end is suspicious. That's the whole point here. Taking it further, you realize those symbols are a very rare combination if only resulting from random chance. I have also pointed out that the last 17 symbols that are forward or backward letters read YOBCCMDHNPKSZOAIK(That does not spell KACZYNSKI!). It's also a possibility but I would say that "Theodor Kaznski" matched to the boundaries was most likely the idea. Lapumo, I am not making any effort at all to produce Kaczynskis name from the 340 here. I am running off stats. In fact, this doesn't take much effort. It's simple to grasp. But, I have read where you set out to find Allens name in the Belli letter. So I'm assuming by what you've said here srounding this 340 debate, that you would be willing to label your "Belli" solution as meaningless?
|By Douglas Oswell (Dowland) (153.philadelphia06rh.15.pa.dial-access.att.net - 18.104.22.168) on Wednesday, August 14, 2002 - 04:03 pm:|
Lapumo, you wrote, "This is my point about your work Zander,you are going into these things looking for Kaczynski." Actually, however, that's what anyone with a known suspect should be doing. It should always be supposed that a criminal with a penchant for teasing would try to slip his name somewhere into his correspondences. One of the first things that caught my eye when they arrested Kaczynski was the near anagramming of his name in "the Zodiac speaking." I would have been a fool not to notice this, or have it enhance my suspicion.
|By obiwan (Obiwan) (ciw2.ciw.edu - 22.214.171.124) on Wednesday, August 14, 2002 - 06:20 pm:|
Lapumo: I computed the odds that one LINE of 20 characters, drawn from the characters
in the 340 cipher would contain a "close match" to THEODORE, another line of
randomly drawn characters should contain and a "close match" to KACZYNSKI. That
is all. Depending on the definition of close match, the odds range from the around 10,000
to 1 to 1 million to 1, accounting for the fact that there are 20 lines in the code so you
get 20 "tries".
For purposes of my method, a "close match" of 17 characters seems to produce similar odds to an EXACT MATCH (such as those you have presented) of 14 characters. So yes, you are right an exact match does carry more weight.
However the exact odds also depend upon which characters comprise the name. The more common the letter (O,B,F) the more likely it is that the name will occur by random. So its important to realize that the pool of letters I'm drawing from is the 340 cipher itsself, not the most commonly used letters in english. And as we've discussed, I'm not computing the odds of ANY name could be found in the cipher by these means. To do so I would need a list of all possible names.
Furthermore,I would go as far as to say,that if I had a phone book from that era or the full list of the 2500 suspects in this case, I could pull many of them out of these letters and ciphers using such methodology.
Well I can't really dispute that, Lapumo, but it would be interesting to see that list. Amoung the 14 + character names on the list, my suspicion is that we would not be able to find very many First/Last names each in single line of the cipher. If for example, the names of half of long-named suspects on that list could be found in the cipher by the above methods, then I would agree with you that the find of TK's name carries diminished significance.
|By obiwan (Obiwan) (ciw2.ciw.edu - 126.96.36.199) on Wednesday, August 14, 2002 - 06:29 pm:|
KANE and DAVIS.What's the odds of me being told that they do not count because their
names are too short?
Heh...pretty good. As Doug said, its not that they don't count, its just that short names fall prey to the exact criticism you and Scott have been making all along: They could just be there by chance. Now for example if there were say a woman suspect with the hyphenated last name: KANE-DAVIS, then we would have a 10 character match exact match, the odds of which would be thousands of times lower than a match to KANE or DAVIS individually.
|By obiwan (Obiwan) (ciw2.ciw.edu - 188.8.131.52) on Wednesday, August 14, 2002 - 06:36 pm:|
I agree with Doug, (and Lapumo) that what's going on here is some of us are starting with a hypothesis, something like: "TK is the Zodiac", and seeing what conclusions we could come to IF that hypothesis were true. Then these conclusions are checked against known data to evaluate the validity of the hypothesis. This is the scientific method. The method can and should be applied to all suspects. In my own case I happen to know a lot more about TK than any other suspect so I'm focusing on appling this method to him, & not to suspects about whom I know little, ie, Batman.
|By Lapumo (Lapumo) (p51-106.as1.clm.clonmel.eircom.net - 184.108.40.206) on Wednesday, August 14, 2002 - 07:25 pm:|
Go back and read it again Zander,I did NOT go looking for any name in
particular.Furthermore,as I have said about 200 times since we began this discussion,I am
not trying to knock finding Kazcynski's name.I believe the Zodiac's name and/or clues to
his identity are in here somewhere.You keep coming back with the Allen BS.Yes ,I do think
Allen is the Zodiac but I do not close my mind to other alternatives.And I most certainly
do not knock other suspects because of that.Perhaps you have me mixed up with others.
Go back again and read,that I was the one who first mentioned Ted's name showing up in here a couple of different places and that a closer look was warranted.
Now that you have found Kaczynski's name in the last 2 lines(a correct spelling of the surname) do you dismiss the earlier find and reasoning behind it? Or do you think it's ,ALL, right?.
In one instance, he didn't want to spell his name correctly because it would give himself away and now we have a "be sure to be sure".Surely even you can't argue, that the two are right.
This is the way things work in the real world Zander;you put forward a find,it's examined,discussed and the merits of same are put to the test.Do not even talk to me about bias when you wait until now to talk about my discovery.You are not about seroius research if it does not include Kazcynski and that proves it.You obviously (unlike myself) do not want to discuss anything that does not involve "your suspect" and yet you get bent all out of shape when honest questions are asked or alternatives are put forward.
What I am about Zander, is finding PROOF.After all ,that's all that matters.An idea was put forward here,and as far as I can see it does not stand up to close scrutiny BECAUSE other names and alternatives were put forward using the same reasoning and methodology.By any standards,that's end of story UNLESS you can add to it.
IF ITS MORE THAN COINCIDENCE, PROVE IT.
If you think there is something here that's provable, bring it to the attention of the appropriate people.If not, we agree afterall, it's interesting but nothing more.
Doug, I have no problem with people going into these communications looking for names or messages.However, you have quoted me out of context.
My next sentence was "The rules come later"and it DOES make a difference.In other words what's happened in this particular case is that a close approximation of TK's name has been found.Then the rules and explanations are applied to make this fit.But are these rules and explanations good enough to exclude all other possibilities?NO So what's next? Everybody shut's up and accepts it or do we offer alternatives.Again, I used the same reasoning and methodology and came up with KANE and DAVIS.No,the "odds" are not the same because Kaczynski's name is longer.But I do not agree that the significance is any less given the original reasoning.I put the same question to you as I did to Zander, there are now two alternatives with TK's name here,Do you think both are correct?.
You said earlier"I'm looking upon these exercises only as a means of drawing suspicion toward a particular person".Well Doug, I do not know what that means exactly.If it means,that's it's a loose unproven connection to your suspect, that's already achieved.However, it's proof ,I'm looking for.
|By Howard Davis (Howard) (220.127.116.11.lcinet.net - 18.104.22.168) on Wednesday, August 14, 2002 - 10:38 pm:|
"I shall NOT give you my [real]NAME or you will try to slow down or stop my
collecting of slaves"(killing folks!).He did not want to get caught('the police shall
never catch me...I have been too clever for them')so he did not give his real name either
in code or written communications.
Kinda' contradictory to place your real name -both first and last(!)-and then send it to the police and public to be decoded like the first cipher(the one he said had his "name" in it-oh sure-got some beach front property in Bakersfield/Weed Patch/Houghten or how about Ceres?).
He CONCEALED his real identity before the authorities and public,but was rich in names,like "Zodiac","Red Phantom" that were NOT his REAL or actual name.
My door has to stay open(even though waiting out this name deal may be like leaving your porch light on for Jimmie Hoffa!)-it was just an opinion and you know what those are.
Let the games continue as it is part of the spirit of free inquiry,not to be supressed by anyone.It is all very interesting.I just don't think posters should attack each other as it detracts from the fine WORK that is being done by all of them.IT IS ONLY A POSTING BOARD-easyyy!Have fun!
|By Zander Kite (Zk) (dialup-22.214.171.124.dial1.nashville1.level3.net - 126.96.36.199) on Thursday, August 15, 2002 - 07:02 am:|
Lapumo: you asked can both be correct? I answered that in my last post. I believe that Theodor Kaznski matched to the boundaries was the idea here. As an alternate possibility, I am suggesting that "Ted Kaczynski" was placed in the first(Ted) and last(Kaczynski) 17 symbols or otherwise the beginning and end of the code. There are 198 symbol letters(that are backward or forward). (HERPLVPKILTGD NPBO)DWYKF BYCMUZGWLHJ SPPLVPORK MDIFPPK PRFLODCKFD KQUCXGVLI GJFJONYL DMBZRFBCYAK LUVJOPFBY UREIDYBPBTMKO CLRJITMPBF SYNIFBCR GFNFBCV YBXCEVUZ ICBKOPFMQG RCTLCFLWBIL WCWCPOSHTP IFKDWB(YOBCC MDHNPKSZOAIK). These aren't necessarily really 2 seperate ideas. If Ted wanted "KAZNSKI" on the last line, you can see why this works also. And obviously "TED" is in "THEODOR", so no change there. I offer all 198 as a comparison.
|By Ray N (Ray_N) (host-216-77-212-212.fll.bellsouth.net - 188.8.131.52) on Thursday, August 15, 2002 - 08:19 am:|
That's one of the difficult things about reading the Z letters. You can quote one thing in one place, but that doesn't mean it is to be taken literally. There are at least a couple of instances already where this can be shown. So, you can't just say there is no name in there because he said there was no name in this one instance. He also said, "In this cipher is my identity." So what makes you able to decide which of these statements is true? Have you considered the possibility that they are not mutually exclusive? Identity and name are closely related, but they are not the same thing, necessarily.
I think people are a bit quick to make judgements about these kinds of things, which has the effect of immediately slamming the door on many possibilities, including (potentially) the one which could finally solve this case.
|By Tony (Mahalo) (hnllhi1-ar1-4-65-054-089.hnllhi1.dsl-verizon.net - 184.108.40.206) on Thursday, August 15, 2002 - 07:25 pm:|
"I will not give you my name"! Nailed again Howard. Thanks. Just the facts ma'am...Z's got us all running in circles which I'm sure was his intention. Maybe the 340 cipher is just gibberish.But it's so meticuously written it must have meaning!...B.S. How much trouble would you go through if YOU were wanted for MURDER!!
|By Howard Davis (Howard) (220.127.116.11.lcinet.net - 18.104.22.168) on Friday, August 16, 2002 - 01:26 am:|
Zodiac stated in a letter,as we know,he was going to 'shoot children as they got off a bus',but later he says that if the police believed that statement they "deserve to have holes in their heads."Affirm/deny.
He says his "identity" is in the first cipher as,I believe ,an inducemnt to focus on it and to increase public interest,which worked.Of course he throws in another push for publication to the Editor-'print the code and place it on the front page or I go out and kill people all weekend!'
Who wouldn't want to find the killers name?Great PR!
I know the dictionary has several definitions as to what the word "indentity" can mean.I cover that in my in my book.
There could be "clews" as to his 'identity' such as his philosophy-'slaves in paradise',etc.;his life style(Robert Emmet the Hippy-a rebel/revolutionary hippy type-was this the 'name' or 'identity' he meant -another pen name,not his literal name-just FYI);don't (indirect)'kill animals -it is much more fun to kill people-'his mental/emotional state or beliefs about killing-it's 'fun and more enjoyable than sex;'he thinks mankind is "dangerous' and sees them as "animals"("none of them will be missed").
He seems to equate his former use of the word "indentity"in his intro letter for the cipher with "name"too, as he says later"I won't give you my name."Same kind of contradiction(worse yet are all the bomb threats!) as the 'pick the kiddies off as they come bouncing off the bus'statement.
As my post clearly says-I am open and find all of the discussions in this regard as interesting and vital to free and open discussions of this aspect of the case.
Z was very clear in the 13 character cipher "My NAME is----."This short string of symbols has been the topic of hot endless debate with many sides seeing their suspects "name" in the mix.Each one presents pretty good arguments for their side or interpretation.I say to let this continue-it's great!
The FBI saw three possible Irish names ,such as Flanagan,etc.(see posts)each preceded by Adam as the first name and the word Gemini!
Let's see where it goes I say.
|By Ray N (Ray_N) (user-38lddka.dialup.mindspring.com - 22.214.171.124) on Friday, August 16, 2002 - 11:17 am:|
That's the spirit! We don't need to spend any more time looking at the ciphers because they're just Z's way of running us around in circles. Why bother? After all, the FBI already looked at them, right? Yeah, let's just ignore evidence, quite possibly the last available avenue of productive new investigation in this case, which might actually solve it.
To answer your question, if I was guilty of the Z murders, I wouldn't be who I am - a normal, rational person. The person who actually did the crimes was not balanced, so it is pointless to expect rational thinking and behavior from him at other times, such as when he was writing codes and seeking publicity.
Man, I've seen some doosies on here, but that post takes the prize. Maika'i hana.
|By Tony (Mahalo) (hnllhi1-ar1-4-65-054-089.hnllhi1.dsl-verizon.net - 126.96.36.199) on Friday, August 16, 2002 - 03:54 pm:|
Ray: I'm not saying there isn't a message in the cipher or to ignore ANY evidince. It's astonishing how heated people get on this MB. What an amazing case. Getting heated & frustrated tends to close the mind however, & my hats off to everyone trying to solve 340 from day one.Guess what?? It hasn't been offically solved in 34 YEARS!! Triple letters, quadruple letters, c'mon. You figure it out. Oh, then let the top codebreakers in the world know 'cause they haven't got a 'clew'. A Hui Ho! Tone
|By Howard Davis (Howard) (dsl-gte-10407-2.linkline.com - 188.8.131.52) on Friday, August 16, 2002 - 05:02 pm:|
It's only a message Board!
|By Zander Kite (Zk) (gsa-24-197-136-23.sc.charter.com - 184.108.40.206) on Friday, October 18, 2002 - 08:48 pm:|
As perhaps a final point on the "Kaznski-340". The letters near the end are ordered "NPKSZOAIK". The O and P are the odd out. However, if you replace the O and P with the symbol above it: you end up with the string "N<KSZYAIK" or "KA<ZYNSKI". Of course, the "less-than" symbol looks a lot more like a fluent "C" than shown here. Just another possibility. I'm kind of interested in the recent talk surrounding the year long project. Any chance of starting a thread on it? or otherwise a more detailed explanation of it?