Zodiackiller.com Message Board: Ciphers: Anagramming/Ciphers
|By Lapumo (Lapumo) (p50-183.as1.clm.clonmel.eircom.net - 18.104.22.168) on Tuesday, August 20, 2002 - 10:26 am:|
The following is a response from a professional I have previously dealt with and goes
the problems we face with recent offerings,in relation to anagramming;-
"Each method of decipherment has a specific rule that must be followed,and also has a certain set of mathematics that determine its strength as a system.
Anagramming for instance,when used without any mathematically determined set of rules for extraction,follows the same rules as natural language.The end result of anagramming would be that any extracted alternate reading would have the same validity as any other extracted meaning.
All extractions would carry the same weight of validity,which has no higher degree than the original text ie they would all have to be considered invalid,or at least all as unworthy as the next without a set mathematical rule".
|By Ed N (Ed_N) (acc21970.ipt.aol.com - 22.214.171.124) on Tuesday, August 20, 2002 - 02:20 pm:|
I guess that means that finding TK's name in the 340 cipher really doesn't mean anything after all (like most everyone's been saying anyway). Why is it we need an expert to confirm the opinions of the majority of posters???
|By Douglas Oswell (Dowland) (61.philadelphia01rh.15.pa.dial-access.att.net - 126.96.36.199) on Tuesday, August 20, 2002 - 03:15 pm:|
Ed, I believe Obiwan has already made the point that his observations didn't involve an attempt to solve the cipher. The point was that a sly and sneaky person like Zodiac might have tried to slip his name somewhere into the ciphertext, and the exercise involved determining the likelihood that a given set of letters was represented in certain lines of the ciphertext. Obiwan's work in that regard had nothing to do with cryptology.
|By Ed N (Ed_N) (acbed79b.ipt.aol.com - 188.8.131.52) on Tuesday, August 20, 2002 - 06:13 pm:|
Quite right, Douglas. Even though Lapumo's post involves the solution to a cipher, shouldn't it also apply to any attempt to extract a name out of random ciphertext characters?
|By obiwan (Obiwan) (ciw2.ciw.edu - 184.108.40.206) on Tuesday, August 20, 2002 - 06:48 pm:|
Hi Lapumo, I invite your expert to participate in this group. I happen to agree with
his/her comment, which, as you will note involves decipherment AND anagramming.
In that respect it pertains directly to the Graysmith Solution to the 340 cipher, and its
many variants. In particular I agree with his/her assessment
All extractions would carry the same weight of validity,which has no higher degree than the original text ie they would all have to be considered invalid,or at least all as unworthy as the next without a set mathematical rule
I think this pertains to the Graysmith solution, to Zander's solution, the "Batman" solution,
Eric's recent solution, and,also my partial "solutions" to the the 340 cipher, (which are nothing more than re-annagrammings of Greysmith's solution). Although I do not claim my re-anagrammings (see link above) have any bearing on the case, I would say, in agreement with your expert, that statistically they are equally valid/invalid to the greysmith solution. Without a mathematical mapping there are a lot of possiblilities, and some of them will contain Z-esque words.
Ed, it does not directly apply, because what the expert was suggesting is that, if DECIPHERMENT + ANAGRAMMING were the correct solution, we ideally would like the anagramming to follow some mathematical rule (ie every other word is reversed, the rest are forward, etc.)
However it does indirectly apply in the following way: Every 8 letter name you can find a close match to in the 1st line of the cipher should be considered as valid as THEODOR. Similarly any and every 7+ character last name you can find a close match to in the last line should be considered as valid as KAZNSKI. Names found in (the combination of two) other lines can also be similarly assessed.
Lapumo, I would be flattered if your expert friend had enough time to read: http://www.ciw.edu/chris/z/monty.txt
And was able to comment. I think s/he might make some valuable inputs to this group, general or specific. Thanks, obiwan
|By Ed N (Ed_N) (acbed79b.ipt.aol.com - 220.127.116.11) on Tuesday, August 20, 2002 - 08:04 pm:|
You know, instead of "THEODOR" (which is totally arbitrary anyway), how do we know that it isn't supposed to be read "THE DOOR" (ie, The Doors)? In other words, maybe Z was a fan of Jim Morrison...
|By J Eric (J_Eric) (0-1pool25-131.nas7.los-angeles1.ca.us.da.qwest.net - 18.104.22.168) on Tuesday, August 20, 2002 - 09:16 pm:|
In my many years of working as a paralegal, I have found that "experts" as
used by attorneys to prove their cases are merely hired hands with piles of credentials
and a convincing way of talking. That is, one can hire ten experts and come up with ten
different opinions, each "valid." The judge or jury ends up deciding which is
But, by all means, if there's an expert or two out there, let's have them look things over! I've posted my solutions for 340 and 32 both by letter-grid and words 'n' puns as anagrammed, so what could be easier? Read on--me!
|By Zander Kite (Zk) (dialup-22.214.171.124.dial1.nashville1.level3.net - 126.96.36.199) on Tuesday, August 20, 2002 - 09:35 pm:|
Let's look at this way: Let's say that Allen was The Zodiac. That means when he chose his name, he used 9 of Theodore Kaczynski's 14(different) letters(The Zodiac). He also used 17 length code lines, the number of letters in TK's name. Not a huge coincidence, until you look at his opening line-"This is (the zodiac speaking)". That is: "This is "17 letters"". Now it is a huge coincidence because it's only 4 letters off "This is Theodore Kaczynski". In the 340, The Zodiac uses as the last 17 raw symbols that are forward or backward letters "YOBCCMDHNPKSZOAIK". These are a highly uncommon series of letter symbols. In other words, you would have to run off another million lines after 20 in order to find KACZYNSKI within a 17 series of letter symbols. It's also the last 17, like a signature. Allen as The Zodiac also sent in a short cipher, My name is... Another coincidence has Allen sending in a code that very closely resembles a page from TK's math work. By another coincidence we find that when the math work is applied in a no-nonsense manner to the cipher, the result is From Ted Kaczynsi(double letters can't result). "Graysmiths" solution has been approved by some code experts. In his solution, at one point it reads (LUEHS) "THEO LHS SEE A NAME". "Graysmith" has it reading "sleuth should see a name". This requires The Zodiac making 2 back to back errors.(My opinion here is that it was meant as "Sleuth, see a name below killers film?" Not wanting to plainly offer "sleuth theo see a name..", Kaczynski adjusted it.) None of these things named here are the result of manipulation. They are clear-cut and simple to grasp. Of course it would difficult to uncover the name Theodore Kaczynski without having it first, but that is consistent with The Zodiac not ever being captured. My opinion on the 340, is that Ted wanted to see his name on the front page, and deciced to slip his name into the 340 in raw symbols(raw symbols would allow for his name to make the front page).
|By Ed N (Ed_N) (acc30e18.ipt.aol.com - 188.8.131.52) on Tuesday, August 20, 2002 - 10:57 pm:|
I still think it reads "KACZINSKY BOOM D CHP"... My solution accounts for all the letters, it makes perfect sense, and I don't pick and choose which letters I want to use.
|By obiwan (Obiwan) (ciw2.ciw.edu - 184.108.40.206) on Tuesday, August 20, 2002 - 11:23 pm:|
how do we know that it isn't supposed to be read "THE DOOR" ?
Ed, we don't. That's one possiblility of course. However it doesn't really tell us much about the suspect, considering howmany DOORS albums have been sold. If only THEODOR was found in the 340 ciphertext, I think the link to TK would be quite tenuous...But there is also the last name/last line "match". Hmmm. Anyway to anagram that last line to read "This is the end..."
|By Lapumo (Lapumo) (p50-148.as1.clm.clonmel.eircom.net - 220.127.116.11) on Wednesday, August 21, 2002 - 07:45 am:|
Doug and Ed, you are both correct in what you say
with regard to finding Kazcynski's name in the ciphertext.It has nothing to do with cryptology and Zodaic/Kazcynski may have chosen to do just what Obiwan suggested.However,it is just as good/bad as any other name OR message you can pull out using the same methodology and may be nothing more than coincidence.
ObI,I disagree with your take on first/last line
extraction.Simply, the "rules" were applied after the find.Even though we are able to find alternative names on these lines,excluding any other name or message from any other lines holds the same weight.
If Kazcynski was the Zodiac and chose to encrypt his full name,it still falls under the above conditions.
Zander,if Graysmith's solution was approved by experts,then the letters attributed to symbols would have had to have been approved,"before anagramming".Therefore,Graysmith's solution is correct or it is not.Anything that happened after that IS manipulation.There are at least four alternatives posted on this board and another in Mike Kelleher's book.Most fall at the same hurdle,
assumptions are made before the cipher is tackled,the rules and explanations come later in an effort to make the solution "fit".
Every one of these will be shot down for the same reason.Eric's may stand some chance because it offers a two-way read that may provide some kind of proof in and of itself.
Eric,the opinion offered by the professional was in response to earlier work I was involved with.It
is not a direct response to any "solutions" offered here recently.
|By Howard Davis (Howard) (dsl-gte-10407-2.linkline.com - 18.104.22.168) on Wednesday, August 21, 2002 - 10:35 am:|
GS was told by Mellon that he had extracted ALL the information from the 340 that
could be found and that he and his associate/s could add nothing more.
Ephron and Peterson showed that various names(Ferrin,Jensen,Dean,God,Crabtree,Davis,etc.)can be 'extracted' from the code and most have not been brought out here.It doesn't really prove anything as many 'solutions',such as names and so on can be conjured up.I can easily 'find' Cain/Kane in the "My name is",but does it refer to Herb Caen or Larry Kane or it isn't C/Kane, but some other 'name'?
Some "solutions" are masterful to be sure.In spite of this fact work should continue on the ciphers as it is part of the case.
Lapumo has a good take on this matter.
|By obiwan (Obiwan) (ciw2.ciw.edu - 22.214.171.124) on Saturday, August 24, 2002 - 07:24 pm:|
Lapumo: TK's first and last names are "closely matched", each in one line of the 340 cipher, that is the main point. You are right it is basically a judgement call as to whether the First Line:First Name/Lastline:Lastname connection is significant. If it is not, then the odds of finding the matchs by chance improve by a factor of 20, because there are 20 lines in which to find a match. Shorter messages like "THE DOOR" or "I TED" (line 11), could concievably have been intentional, but we cannot, at this point assign much significance to them due to the very good odds of them appearing by pure chance.
|By Lapumo (Lapumo) (p50-226.as1.clm.clonmel.eircom.net - 126.96.36.199) on Sunday, August 25, 2002 - 08:16 am:|
I think we have flogged this particular find to death already.The pros and cons have been examined and its up to the individual what he/she chooses to read into it.I'm all for examining anything like this,long may it continue.
Let's add more fuel to the fire........The last two lines of the 340 contain 23 letters backwards and forwards.The Bomb code contains 23 letters backwards and forwards.I make out about 13 of these to be identical(not including some symbol matches).As Zander has pointed out, taking the last 17 we get Kaczynski.The bomb code,gives an anagram of Theodor(Kaci),whats to be made of
|By Douglas Oswell (Dowland) (75.philadelphia-18-19rs.pa.dial-access.att.net - 188.8.131.52) on Sunday, August 25, 2002 - 10:37 am:|
Let me stir things up a bit further by inquiring whether it's only coincidence that Theodore Kaczynski's name just happens to contain all the letters of "the Zodiac." If that's the case, it explains everything.
|By Lapumo (Lapumo) (p50-218.as1.clm.clonmel.eircom.net - 184.108.40.206) on Sunday, August 25, 2002 - 11:00 am:|
This is where we are Doug!Either Kaczynski chose the moniker because it fits with his real name or some other guy liked the name Zodiac.
|By obiwan (Obiwan) (ciw2.ciw.edu - 220.127.116.11) on Sunday, August 25, 2002 - 09:38 pm:|
Hmm.. Interesting. To elaborate: The 1st line of the bomb code (which has 17
characters) has 12 letters, forward or backward. The 2nd line of the bomb code has 11
letters. They are:
The 2nd last and last lines of the 340 code, have 11 and 12 letters respectively, they are:
I find 11 unique letters which are common in both: IFKWODCMHPA
Lapumo the 11/12 coincidence above suggests an interesting possibility, which no doubt has been explored by others: Perhaps the bomb code is the KEY to the 340 code. Perhaps we are supposed to map those 11 & 12 letters onto one another somehow...though this would not explain what to do with the strange symbols.
Here's another thought: I'm sure someone must have done this, but what if you take all the symbols from the bomb code which are in the 340 in order and assign them to say "THIS IS THE ZODIAC SPEAKING" ....
|By Lapumo (Lapumo) (p50-189.as1.clm.clonmel.eircom.net - 18.104.22.168) on Tuesday, October 01, 2002 - 05:51 am:|
A spelling of "Ted" and/or "Theodor" using plaintext
letters,reversed letters and symbols,in the first line of the 340 has been put forward as
significant.A line of reasoning and a quote of odds against chance has been offered in support of this.
How then do we account for the legitimate spelling of LEIGH, using plaintext letters only, on the exact same line?
|By Zander Kite (Zk) (dialup-22.214.171.124.dial1.nashville1.level3.net - 126.96.36.199) on Tuesday, October 01, 2002 - 08:12 am:|
Lapumo, The TK in "I though you would nead" started with your own observation that the first 3 misspelled words in the dripping pen card could be an attempt to draw attention to the letters "TAU". So, I think you can understand why I feel a level of phoniness is being displayed when you offer a counter ("nead"="dean") that interferes with your own cryptic observation. Let's face it, any cryptic meanings, dealing with misspelled words in the dripping card, go thru the letter "T". You recognized that with your awareness of TAU and also TEO. "TK" started out with an effort to be more precise than TAU. The blatant missing "T" needs to be added to "though", so I tried to add a letter to the next misspelled word also, that allowed for the sentence to be read correctly-"I thought you would need". The "TK" solution goes from solid to elaborate when revealed that it works with another cryptic clue- "this is (the zodiac speaking)". It falls under the TC, making TK placed under TK in Ted's name. I also like how "thought" when the "T" is seperated becomes "though" rhyming with dough. That makes it appear as if the killer is playing a word game with his opening line misspelled words. (though-nead) (knead-dough).
|By Lapumo (Lapumo) (p50-136.as1.clm.clonmel.eircom.net - 188.8.131.52) on Tuesday, October 01, 2002 - 02:23 pm:|
I agree Zander that if there is a word game here the "T" must be used.The
"TAU" observation has been weakened because I did not see the apparent
misspelling in "aufully" and I had deliberately left out the "S" in
DES as I considered it outside of the actual letter.Tom's observations were on a par with
my own,in that,IMO we use all of the misspellings here.This is afterall a very short
note.Taking all those into account we are left with "TAUUS".The most credible
solution here would be to find that missing "R".
There are eight used in all,however the one in cipher is not disctict.It appears as CIPHE-.
That's debatable though and not worth pushing without a link.
Your suggestion,on the other hand is something else again.I would find it interesting if these two misspellings were the only ones.However, as I see it, you have just taken the two that suit and abandoned the rest.You have taken two pieces of the jigsaw and made your own picture.
That was the point I was making in offering DEAN.
Its a perfectly reasonable cryptic clue when taken on its own.
I did as you did,I ignored the other misspellings because I could get something else to fit.Its the same story with the first line of the 340.You offer "TED" and Theodor" and ignore the legitimate spelling of LEIGH on the same line.
Believe me,I understand what you consider good enough here. You have to understand that not everyone holds the same opinion.That does not mean
that those peolpe who disagree with your methods are dishonest or phony.
|By Ed N (Ed_N) (acac345e.ipt.aol.com - 184.108.40.206) on Tuesday, October 01, 2002 - 03:53 pm:|
Has everyone forgotten that someone else's name appears in the 340 cipher??? Look closely at line 12, symbols 10-12, and line 14, symbols 13-17. The name is unmistakable. And you don't have to anagram anything.
|By Zander Kite (Zk) (dialup-220.127.116.11.dial1.nashville1.level3.net - 18.104.22.168) on Wednesday, October 02, 2002 - 12:21 am:|
The dripping pen card has spelling errors on the second and fifth word. This is completely unlike any other Zodiac letter in the "Letters" file. One has an error on the 6th word(Christmass) and the Exorcist letter has "saterical comidy" early on, but that looks like Zodiac was having fun switching the E and I. It appears that he doesn't start faking poor spelling until getting into the writing a bit, but not here. Lapumo, in a technical sense, I have not ignored the other misspellings. There is nothing available to add to frunt and aufully that preserves or corrects what's written. Of course, if the killer is playing a word game with his initials and the misspelled words, the first place that draws your attention is the two on the opening line. The problem I have with "Taurus" as a possibility, is that I see no reason to cryptically hide the word "Taurus". The satisfaction involved with someone like Zodiac, is in flirting with revealing his name(or initials). If you'll notice there is a very short distance between the two misspelling "U's", so there really is no "R" possiilities at least for the correct order. I think it reads(fr(u)nt page? I get a(u)fully..). As far as the 340, the nucleus is that the symbols KAZNSKI are right at the end of the code. It may be that Ted communicated his name to the point he'd risk with a first and last match. It is possible that Ted designed the ending so that the last 17 letter-symbols includes "Kaczynski". He may have for good measure included "Ted" in the first 17 symbol-letters. "Ted","Theodor", or "Leigh" are not, on their own, suspicious findings for a line in the 340. "KAZNSKI" in the last 9 symbol-letters of the code, and "Kaczynski" within the last 17 symbols of the code are extremely suspicious. WHY? Because if you ran a random computer program, to imitate the frequency of the symbols in the 340 etc., you would find such readings(Kaznski within 9, and Kaczynski within 17) about once every million lines or so. Yet, here it is that one in a million chance, right at the end of the code like a signature. The way I see it, this will remain a thorn in the side, because there is just no way to dismiss what is a fact(KAZNSKI in 9 or KACZYNSKI in 17 are million(s) to one longshots).
|By Lapumo (Lapumo) (p51-156.as1.clm.clonmel.eircom.net - 22.214.171.124) on Wednesday, October 02, 2002 - 07:44 am:|
What we have here is an illusion in terms of applying odds.Ed's observation coupled
with other possible names drives this point home.First of all
there has been in excess of 2,500 suspects in this case.While we all have our favourites,fact is,we don't know who Zodiac is.His name could be Ted,leigh,Bob,Tom or even EdN( rotate N and switch to front = Zed =Z ;there! english connection as well)we don't know.Different people see different things.All we have here is a couple of curiosities at best.The first post in this thread goes to show how un-scientific the approach is here.
Any extracted meaning holds the same weight as any other.When applying odds to an exercise such as this, an error or illusion is perpetrated in terms of attributing value to the finding.
To best explain,peolpe fall into the same trap
when evaluating cards at Poker.A person gets a
ROYAL FLUSH and immediately imagines the odds against chance as being great.Which they are.Why do they do this? Because they recognise the FLUSH.
What they fail to appreciate is that getting ANY particular five cards has similar, massive odds.
The symbols that make up this cipher,in terms of odds,are similar for any line.However,what we do not have here(as in poker) is a set mathematical rule for extraction.
So Zander,when you say "the way I see it", that's really all we are discussing "the way YOU see it".
KAZNSKI is NOT Kaczynski its a group of symbols that look like it.
KACYZNSKI in "17" is another illusion.Not least because you have skipped over letters that do not fit. Even if it was there it holds no statistical advantage over LEIGH in 8.
You make this connection between the number of letters in TK's name ,the number of columns in Zodiacs ciphers,and the number of letters in "the Zodiac Speaking"..You appear satisified with that, but they are nothing more that number games.
Why for example include "SPEAKING" and not "THIS IS"? Because that makes 23.The Zodiac is 9 letters!Many such games are possible.
|By Zander Kite (Zk) (dialup-126.96.36.199.dial1.nashville1.level3.net - 188.8.131.52) on Wednesday, October 02, 2002 - 03:15 pm:|
Lapumo, I honestly don't understand a lot of your post. You wrote: (("KACZYNSKI
in 17 is another illusion. Not least because you have skipped over letters that do not
fit. Kaczynski in 17 holds no statistical advantage over Leigh in 8.")) Am I to
assume then that if Beoriete Methhpiti actually read (ARTHUR)XTZ(ALLEN)WER, you would
dismiss it as an Allen cryptic, because of skipped letters? Come on, let's be realistic
here. This isn't about rocket science and exact formulas. We're dealing with a guy who
wants to flirt with revealing his name. Cryptic clues are by his design, not out of a
technical book. When you write that "Leigh" in 8(it's Leigh in 12) is as good as
Kaczynski in 17, I can only laugh, because it's not even close. Lapumo, it's up to you to
properly understand the odds within the discussion here. Right now, you don't. It's not
the way I see it on this cryptic. WE are dealing with facts. I believe that the foundation
for your denial of the facts here, is not your expertise in understanding odds(clearly),
but that you are totally convinced that Arthur Leigh Allen was the Zodiac. In other words
you are displaying Allen-resistance. The closing symbols of the 340 read: N P K S Z O A I
K. Now, you don't have to be a rocket scientist to see something there. You also wrote:
"Why not include "THIS IS" in the anagram, because that makes 23".
You see I find that confusing because in a previous post you said you were semi-impressed by the This is..(anagram) because it forms a statement-("This is Theodore Kaczynski").And I'm not the only one to notice the number 17- (remember Ed's favorite book X17). I think what I'll do is pull out all names closely cropped that defy high odds(not LEIGH and NO, not DON REID) and see how many other names surface from the 198 forward and backward letters.
|By Ed N (Ed_N) (acc0de37.ipt.aol.com - 184.108.40.206) on Wednesday, October 02, 2002 - 07:13 pm:|
We're dealing with a guy who wants to flirt with revealing his name.
That, my dear Zander, is an assumption on your part. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that Z intentionally "flirted with revealing his name" (other than the "my name is" cipher which, considering its brevity, is impossible to solve without the key. Z knew that, and that's why he did it).
Of course, Z claimed in his first three letters, "In the cipher is my identity," but, in the actual 408 cipher, he wrote, "I WILL NOT GIVE YOU MY NAME" (emphasis mine). Since many seem to be willing to take him at his word, then I choose to believe that he had no intention of giving us his name at all.
Some might assume that identity and name are synonymous. According to The New Lexicon Webster's Dictionary, "identity" has the following meaning: "who a person is, or what a thing is" (emphasis mine). I submit that Z did give us his identity as he claimed in the decoded 408 cipher with his "mission statement" (I also mentioned it in General Zodiac Discussion: Origin of Zodiac's "Slaves in the Afterlife"? on Sunday, July 28, 2002 - 11:17 am). Therefore, by telling us what he was, or what he was doing, Z did indeed give us his identity, which was not his name. His name was, as we know it, "The Zodiac." His true name, that is, the name he was given at birth, we don't know, and I do not for one second believe that Z was stupid enough to, or thought that he was being clever by, "flirting with giving us his name."
If we look at things that way, then any name one can derive from ciphertext or cleartext is meaningless. And since we can do things the Penn way and derive all sorts of proof that Mike O'Hare was Z by looking at text and code, then any name you find is all the more meaningless. TK and MOH cannot both be Z. Only one, the other, or neither, can be, and I am forced to choose neither.
|By Lapumo (Lapumo) (p50-82.as1.clm.clonmel.eircom.net - 220.127.116.11) on Thursday, October 03, 2002 - 05:21 am:|
1. Ok,If you know what you are talking about with respect to odds,please outline here how you made your calculations.Don't beat around the bush,give me the calculation.
How you can turn around and tell me that I do not understand odds,when you can't even grasp the nature of calculating odds defies belief.You have jumped on the back of Obiwan's calculation with respect to odds,which are seriously flawed.Think about it.Unlike you, Obiwan will be honest and mature enough to acknowledge that.
2.If I found Arthur Allen in the last line of the first cipher,with a few letters left over.I would think it very interesting.It would be a full correct spelling all on one line.However,that's all it would be "interesting".Same with any name.
3.You write;" When you write Leigh in 8 (it's leigh in 12)I can only laugh because it's not even close". Again,not only do you not understand odds,you do not even know what it is your calculating.The most important word here,which Ed
nailed is "assumption". You and you alone have set the rule.The illusion is Kaczynski in 17.You have elected to call the forward and backward letters only and left out the symbols.
Your assumptions are that;(a) Zodiac flirted with giving his name, (b)Done so in this cipher (c)Done so using the raw symbols (d)Done so in the last two lines,(E)factored in the number 17,(f)decided to use symbols that appear as Straight and Backward letters, (g)connected the number 17 to letters only and ignored symbols,(h)assumed the the moniker Zodiac was inspired by his real name (i)made up his first two ciphers in columns of 17 because that was the amount of letters in his name.
Lets forget that a guy who took such risks when murdering people,including making phone calls to police afterwards,would get satisfaction in encoding his name,as you suggest here.In a manner that nobody could ever recognise,unless they went in here looking for it.Even then,its so obscuere its meaningless.
If even one of these ASSUMPTIONS is wrong,what have you got?
But let's pretend that is the correct calculation.
You have 9 in 17.
Now, you cannot tell me I can't make my own assumptions and rules along the same lines.Therefore, I change the rules.I decide to count Plaintext letters only,no backward letters no symbols.There are only 9 such letters in the first line.H,E,R,V,P,I,L,T,G. Leigh is 5 out of 9.
You may not like it or understand it but 5/9 and
9/17 are practically identical odds.
You say yours makes sense because a person normally signs at the end of a letter.
I say,a person would introduce himself at the beginning.Both are assumptions,nothing more.
4.I don't have to be a rocket scientist to see something in NPKSZOAIK.You don't have to be a rocket scientist to see something in HERVPILTG!
5.I do think (think) that there is something significant in "This is the Zodiac speaking".That does not mean I want to extract 17 of the 23 letters in an effort to tie it to something else.
I have no doubt in my mind Zander,that if you had found KAZCYNSKI originally, using straight letters only.If anyone else came back trying to make a name from a combination of Straight/backward letters,you would cry foul.
Do not misunderstand here Zander,I am not pushing LEIGH as anything.Its just a name that's there.Like your find, its curoius but virtually meangingless.Again,I appreciate where your coming from.The idea that Zodiac "flirted" with giving his name is one I agree with.All such "finds" should be looked at and examined.Nor do I dismiss your findings out of hand. I'm hoping though,that he went further.Look around Zander,I am about the only one dumb enough to be even engaging with you in these discussions.I only do that because I believe in the principle of your theory and out of a genuine desire to explain to you why these "findings" are not(at this time) as solid as you believe them to be.If you want to discuss such things ,fine.However if you cannot take me at my word and keep coming back with these
"anti-TK"/Pro-ALLEN phony comments,I'd just as soon get my headache elsewhere.
As you pointed out Zodiac did flirt with revealing his name.Not only in the original letters and the 13 code, but also in the "More details letter",the Halloween card and with the apparent "signature" type symbol in the Exorcist letter.Given the whole nature of these written communications combined with his ego,I do think that him slipping his name and/or giving clues to his identity is consistent.The problem thus far, has been that what has been put forward,is(as you rightly say)conflicting.Nothing more that one person's intepretation over another,that can't be connected in any meaningful way.I believe it is here somewhere and when it is uncovered it will be obvious to all.Just MO!
|By Zander Kite (Zk) (dialup-18.104.22.168.dial1.nashville1.level3.net - 22.214.171.124) on Thursday, October 03, 2002 - 07:36 am:|
Lapumo you wrote: ((Zander, you do not only not understand odds, you don't even know what it is that you're calculating)). Come on. Let's be realistic. I have put a lot of work into studying odds and coincidence, enough so that I'm a skilled handicapper. Lapumo you also wrote: ((You may not understand it, but 5/9 and 9/17 are practically identical odds.)) COME ON! This is NOT the formula here for the odds in the 340! Not even close(why are you ignoring the frequency of the symbols used?, which has everything to do with calculating the odds). Lapumo, before I explain why "Kaznski" is a million(S) to one shot. First: Tell me you're just joking about the 5/9 and 9/17. Second: You brought up the odds of having a royal flush as compared to any 5 particular cards. Show me the odds of both. That is fairly elementary and should only be about 5 minutes work. Specefically: What are the odds of being DEALT a royal flush? Compared to the odds of naming any 5 cards and then drawing them(like a psychic). Because I am only trying to show that the odds of "Kaznski" at the end of the 340 are a million to 1. Of course, arguments of "high coincidence" or questioning it further can be forwarded. I'm establishing that the odds are extremely high if not over a million to one. It's a fact, we have the stats on the frequency of symbols in the 340. Finding "Kaczynski" within a series of 17 raw symbols is a one in a million lines or so. Don't even take my word for it. Have someone work out a random program. Use 198 marbles to represent each backward and forward letter-symbol of the 340 and draw them out of a sack. As far as making a list of the number of assumptions I've made in order to allow "Kaczynski" in 17. That's not real. Remember when Gilligan threw everyone in jail because he was getting too technical? The only assumption I've made is that Ted decided to slip his name near the end of the 340 in raw symbols. And short of making the last 9 symbols read "KACZYNSKI", he had to mask it to some degree, resulting in either "KAZNSKI" right near the end and/or "Kaczynski" in the final 17. I'm not saying you have to accept that Ted must been the Zodiac, but you must accept the high coincidence involved here. ED, in answer to your post, I agree with the end of Lapumos post, except the part "it will be obvious to all".
|By Lapumo (Lapumo) (p50-184.as1.clm.clonmel.eircom.net - 126.96.36.199) on Thursday, October 03, 2002 - 09:15 am:|
Zander, the odds of getting a Royal Flush in poker
is 1 in 649,740.There are 2,598,960 possible poker hands in a fifty-two card pack.The odds of getting a no-pair hand is i in 1.99.
This is the number of groups of five into which into which 52 different cards can be arranged,and is equal to the product of 52x51x50x49x48 = 311,857,200 divided by the product of 5x4x3x2x1=120,producing a total of 2,598,960.
There you go, odds and formula.
While these odds are relative in poker because there is a math formula.The same does not apply here with the 340.If I name out five cards say,King of clubs,three of hearts, seven of diamonds,two of spades and the ten of hearts.Now if I want to be drawn those exact cards the odds are as high as naming any other five cards.There is no difference in drawing the 10 through Ace of clubs,a royal flush.
Same holds through in this cipher, any nine symbols you take from any line will have the same odds.Obiwans calculations refer to symbols,by his own admission,he could not factor in that quality of a "correct spelling".
Now you claim to have worked out the odds here in relation to kaczynski's name in this cipher.
You have read extensively and are a skilled handicapper.Surely if you went to the trouble you will be able to produce it here on the board.Odds and formula.Its fairly elementary,according to you
and should take no more than five minutes to get from your file.Your CALLED..
|By Ed N (Ed_N) (acc1d86f.ipt.aol.com - 188.8.131.52) on Thursday, October 03, 2002 - 05:17 pm:|
Gentlemen: if you are saying that Z did mention something about revealing his name,
you are entirely correct. For instance, from the Halloween card: "I feel it in my
bones, you ache to know my name, and so I'll clue you in... But, then, why spoil the
game!" If you want to count that as flirting, then I must agree. Regardless, and this
is an assumption on my part, Z never had the intention of giving his name anywhere in any
of his communications. Therefore, I would understand "flirting" as Z saying he
would give us his name, and then actually give it to us (albeit in disguised form).
We're working from two different perspectives: both of you believe Z intentionally hid his name somewhere in one (or more) of his communications, while I do not. In other words, I understand Z's "flirtatiousness" to be nothing more than empty words, which is why I'm not too particularly concerned about any findings, especially since Gareth Penn did a lot of work to extract O'Hare's name from the same communications. Your work is both interesting and entertaining, but since "Tom Voitt" can be found in the 340 cipher, I consider any finds to be meaningless.
|By Lapumo (Lapumo) (p51-85.as1.clm.clonmel.eircom.net - 184.108.40.206) on Friday, October 04, 2002 - 04:17 am:|
It certainly is a call Ed. What's fascinating here is not only the case itself,but how
different people see it.Not only, with their favourite suspects but also in the type of
evidence they are inclined to look at.For me,there
is only one place to look,that's at these written communications.At least this is where we should start.While other evidence cannot be ignored this is all we really have.We can all argue about height,weight, various descriptions etc,but they always come back to the same thing,we don't know.
Too much has been compromised.This case ,I think,would really benefit,by going back to basics.Too often here, suspects get in the way of a good discussion or important evidence is missed or compromised because of them.Unfortunately,in many cases we are not looking at the evidence but how we can squeeze our suspect in to fit that evidence.Some excellent and very interesting questions have been asked of late but ultimately, the threads have been lost.
When we look at the letters we get a glimpse of the man behind them.Zodiac wasn't shy about expressing himself.Metaphorically speaking its just about impossible for him not to have transferred himself on to the pages.I have to look at his words and compare them to his actions.
A braggart,an egomaniac,who not content with killing wanted to show how clever he was.I see the same guy willing to take great chances.A guy who waltzed into the heart of San Francisco to shoot an kill a taxi driver.Why? To make a point.
Its by no means a stretch for me to think this same guy would gamble with giving clues to his identity.
I am therefore interested when anything suspicious pops up within these written communications,regardless of message or who that suspect may be.With this TK "evidence", what we have is something to keep in mind,nothing more. But we have to be realistic in the claims we make about it.Quoting odds of over a million to one is an illusion. Nothing more than a play on numbers.
Your observation Ed is reasonable and correct to a point IMO. When various names can be extracted
they have to cancel each other out.Especially in the case of the 340 here.Too many assumptions have been made and too many alternatives can be offered.The principle I believe is still a good one and it doen't mean one can't be right.
Incidentally Ed,I never got a chance to read Penn's book.It wasn't available over here and with poor reports I never went to the bother of of trying to order it in.It is only recently when you posted that I became aware that he associated misspellings etc with the name of his suspect.Can you offer an example or two ,either here or privately.I just want to see the thinking behind it.Thanks, if you can.
|By Zander Kite (Zk) (dialup-220.127.116.11.dial1.nashville1.level3.net - 18.104.22.168) on Friday, October 04, 2002 - 08:37 am:|
Ok Lapumo, translate the 340-code into a deck of cards. Stop before the "N,*,K,S,*,Z,O,*,A,I,K". Approaching that point, your deck has 327 cards. 1 is an A, 3 Z, 3 S, 4 N, 4 K(backward), 6 K, 9 I. Then you ask: What are the odds that with this deck of cards, that the next series of 11 cards drawn will hold KAZNSKI. I'm not so sure you can set exact odds on this because I believe you would have to factor in the solution to the code. It would probably have to branch over to what each symbol equals, which I'd like to include because, for example the symbol Z=E and A=A, very common letters and more options to pick from. In other words if Zodiac has 10 symbols for the letter E, ok, why is he picking Z, to help form Kaznski?, or he just happened to pick that out of 10 choices. I find it suspicious that he spelled Toschi as POSHT in relation to Kaznski. I am a skilled handicapper which means I have talent in estimating odds when there is not an exact formula. What are the odds that Kaznski can be found within an 11 series like at the end of the 340, with the solution considered? I place it at 10,000,000 to one. But you don't even have to accept my estimate. A simple random computer program matching the 340 frequencies, designed to flag Kaznski within an 11 series, will tell you about the same. When I talk about Allen-resistance, it's not all about sarcasm. IF you are convinced that ALA was Zodiac, then you find a way to dismiss that KAZNSKI is written in close quarters at the end of the 340. You find a way to ignore that the symbols there are rarely used and that they are an extremely unlikely formation. ED wrote: ((Since Tom Voitt can be found, then I believe any name found is meaningless)). No offense Ed, but that is classic Allen-resistance. This kind of logic is so easily overturned. Let's imagine that the last raw symbols on the 340 read ARTHUXRLEIHGALLNE. OK, here Lapumo would disqualify it due to skipped letters and ED would can it because he can also find (a really strained reading) of Tom Voitt. I really dont want to keep writing about this subject. It never should have gone this far. A common sense Allen-resistant-free reply to this is to say well that is a coincidence of a high order to find the close approx of a name of a publicity-seeking killer right at the end of the 340, using rarely used symbols. You all can have the last word on this if you want, because I shall no longer go on with this charade.
|By Tom Voigt (Tom_Voigt) (12-224-139-118.client.attbi.com - 22.214.171.124) on Friday, October 04, 2002 - 10:37 am:|
"I really dont want to keep writing about this subject."
|By Alan Cabal (Alan_Cabal) (126.96.36.199) on Friday, October 04, 2002 - 11:47 am:|
Oh c'mon, Tom: any line of speculation on this case is a welcome distraction from the
coup going on in this country and its direct consequences.
Welcome to the USSA.
|By Tom Voigt (Tom_Voigt) (12-224-139-118.client.attbi.com - 188.8.131.52) on Friday, October 04, 2002 - 12:10 pm:|
Unfortunately, in Zander's case it's the same line repeated endlessly...
|By Zander Kite (Zk) (dialup-184.108.40.206.dial1.nashville1.level3.net - 220.127.116.11) on Friday, October 04, 2002 - 12:42 pm:|
All I am saying is that if the Belli letter held the line "I have (fallen)(farthur)into a sea of despair. Please help me I am drownding.", I would admit that it's an extremely good cryptic clue. I wouldn't say well "fallen" isn't pronounced the same as Allen. You know, Zodiac misspells a lot of words, why not "farthur", it's consistent. Let's look at "would nead". AHA, That's just as good as "farthur fallen". Why not look for a "Dean Wood"? How about "get it adjus(TED J)ust right.." That's also as good as (farthur fallen). NO, I wouldn't say any of that. I would give my honest(with myself) opinion that's it's a very strong cryptic Allen possibility. I would say that I'm convinced that TK is the Zodiac and so it must be just a high order coincidence. But I would say it that way, and not just make up things.
|By Lapumo (Lapumo) (p51-106.as1.clm.clonmel.eircom.net - 18.104.22.168) on Friday, October 04, 2002 - 03:08 pm:|
Now I really don't know what your talking about.
Make thinks up???
|By Ed N (Ed_N) (acbe0ea4.ipt.aol.com - 22.214.171.124) on Saturday, October 05, 2002 - 01:27 pm:|
... (a really strained reading) of Tom Voitt.
No more strained than seeing "Kaznski."
You also wrote:
No offense Ed, but that is classic Allen-resistance.
No offense, Zander, but even though Allen has always been my favorite suspect (thanks to reading Graysmith first), you know I don't push him or any other suspect as definitely being Z. Quite the contrary, I go out of my way to avoid that entirely, but I certainly don't mind pointing out the problems with various suspects. I have noticed that you do exhibit the classic "(put the name of your favorite suspect here)-resistance" that you seem to enjoy accusing others of.
|By Zander Kite (Zk) (dialup-126.96.36.199.dial1.nashville1.level3.net - 188.8.131.52) on Saturday, October 05, 2002 - 03:17 pm:|
The idea originally started as "Theodor Kazinski"(which I still suggest was the killers design) matched to the first and last lines. Ojections were raised that using colored O's etc. was too flimsy, and I agree somewhat, so I increased the standards, using only forward and backward letters. At any rate, "Kaznski" in a rash at the end is the main draw. "TOM VOITT" has 5 of 8 symbols that don't keep up with the "Kaznski" standards(No, this is not "cry(ing) foul"(I don't know who used that first, but I really hate that expression)). You even used an upside down "T" as an I. Even if you counted that as a real "TOM", it's a meaningless find because O and M are way too common. The names are too short even if you had Voitt, but all you have is a "V". By the way, when's the last time Tom achieved national publicity as a letter-writing serial killer? It's like the "Fallen Farthur" example I gave. Without ALA, it could easily be passed up. But with ALA as a leading suspect, it immediately catches your eye. Lapumo forwards the argument that any reading in raw symbols has a similar chance of appearing. That's not true, because unlike a deck of cards, the 340 does not have exact parts. Let's imagine the 340 DOES have exact parts. Let's then say that the last raw symbols read "YOU SUCK PIGS". By Lapumos logic we should dismiss this as intentional because there are equal odds on any formation showing. Come on, this is kiddie logic. I'm started to understand now why Arthur Allen is such a strong suspect in some peoples minds. All right, seriously, I'm gonna stop writing in this thread. I promised you all the last word...: ZANDER, Now I really don't know what you're talking about. Making up things????-LAPUMO..... ZANDER, No offense but I have noticed that you exhibit the classic"(put the name of your favorite suspect here)-resistance" that you seem to enjoy accusing others of.-ED N
|By Tom Voigt (Tom_Voigt) (12-224-139-118.client.attbi.com - 184.108.40.206) on Saturday, October 05, 2002 - 03:35 pm:|
Zander, from now on all of your TK stuff is going to be deleted unless it is in an
actual Ted thread.
The horse has officially been beaten to death.