The Most Dangerous Game


Zodiackiller.com Message Board: Zodiac Media: The Most Dangerous Game

By Curt Rowlett (Curt) (63.174.96.177) on Tuesday, November 28, 2000 - 04:10 pm:

Well, I finally got around to watching "The Most Dangerous Game" this weekend (and used Kozmo to rent it, no less!).

My critique? Being a fan of vintage cinema, I actually liked the movie and yes, you can definitely see where someone like Zodiac would have been (and probably was) inspired by this movie.

Lots of creepy and moody atmosphere and the Count Zarhoff character (and Faye Ray) were typical of the RKO actors who starred in these types of old flicks. My favorite part: the hunted couple being chased through the swamp by Count Zarhoff's pack of vicious hounds.

Next film rental for me: "Charlie Chan at Treasure Island," another of the alleged films that may have "inspired" the Zodiac.

Curt,
http://members.aol.com/Labyrinth13/X/ZFiles.htm

By Gregorypraxas (Gregorypraxas) (spider-mtc-tg071.proxy.aol.com - 64.12.102.181) on Tuesday, November 28, 2000 - 05:29 pm:

I think it's strange that everyone assumes that Allen identified with Zaroff, as he is obviously not the hero of the story. It's perfectly possible that Allen identified with the hunted, and not the hunter. Just my opinion...

I left my copy of Charlie Chan on Treasure Island back in Az, so I can't offer you a copy, Curt. However, I know that Tom, Ed and Doug and others have copies, so maybe you might be able to convince one of them to make you one. I know the movie is available for rental in some places, but I had a hard time locating it in my neck of the woods, but, good luck to you.

By Curt Rowlett (Curt) (ac9b9ecc.ipt.aol.com - 172.155.158.204) on Tuesday, November 28, 2000 - 07:56 pm:

Thanks, but I won't need a copy. My local video store (an independent one) has it.

Re Allen as Zaroff: I don't know enough about suspect Allen to judge whether he did or didn't identify with the movie anymore than other suspects.

And I agree, it would be hard, if not impossible, without knowing what Zodiac really thought about the movie (if in fact he truly did) to pinpoint which character he identified with. For all we know, it was Faye Ray! (Zodiac as a cross-dressing serial killer).

O.K., its past my bedtime as you can probably tell.

Curt,
http://members.aol.com/Labyrinth13/X/ZFiles.htm

By Tom Voigt (Tomvoigt) (ac86eb14.ipt.aol.com - 172.134.235.20) on Tuesday, November 28, 2000 - 08:21 pm:

Gregorypraxas wrote,
"I think it's strange that everyone assumes that Allen identified with Zaroff, as he is obviously not the hero of the story. It's
perfectly possible that Allen identified with the hunted, and not the hunter. Just my opinion..."

Strange?
Gee, I don't know.
We know the book made a lasting impression on him, because he said so on several occasions. And he's alleged to have talked about hunting people for sport, just for the fun of it.

By Gregorypraxas (Gregorypraxas) (spider-tq031.proxy.aol.com - 152.163.201.56) on Tuesday, November 28, 2000 - 10:49 pm:

"Alleged" being the key word there. When police interviewed Allen's friends and family in 1971, only Don claimed Allen had spoken of hunting people - a claim which has so many holes in it that it's simply a perfect edition to the case against Allen.

The "book" must have made a lasting impression on him, since he didn't seem to remember that it is a short story, and not a book.

It IS strange. There's no evidence (other than incredulous claims) that Allen talked of hunting people, and, it IS perfectly possible that he identified with the hunted and not the hunter. After all, the hunted is the hero, and is victorious, NOT Zaroff. Therefore, it's perfectly possible that Allen identified with the hero, and not the villian. Of course, you have already made up your mind, so, he just had to be identifying with the villain...

By Tom Voigt (Tomvoigt) (aca139d6.ipt.aol.com - 172.161.57.214) on Tuesday, November 28, 2000 - 11:02 pm:

If I said I was impressed with the movie "Dirty Harry," and later I allegedly told people that it would be fun to kill bad guys, would you think I related most to Harry Callahan or Scorpio?

By Gregorypraxas (Gregorypraxas) (spider-tq031.proxy.aol.com - 152.163.201.56) on Tuesday, November 28, 2000 - 11:05 pm:

Again, the word "alleged" is the important part of the discussion. For those who keep forgetting...

By Tom Voigt (Tomvoigt) (aca139d6.ipt.aol.com - 172.161.57.214) on Tuesday, November 28, 2000 - 11:12 pm:

This is silly.
OK, if we are assuming Allen DIDN'T say anything incriminating, or make references to killing people like animals, that would mean he might not be Zodiac after all. In that event, who cares what he thought of the movie?!?

By Gregorypraxas (Gregorypraxas) (spider-tq041.proxy.aol.com - 152.163.201.61) on Tuesday, November 28, 2000 - 11:53 pm:

What's silly is the way in which any mention of the MDG has been milked to death, the way that people don't remember anything about Allen talking about hunting people when first questioned by police but magically recall such comments later, and the way in which others accept this nonsense as "a huge amount of circumstantial evidence" against Allen.

THAT is silly. What Allen thought of the movie or book or short story seems to be a subject you are fond of discussing, as long as the discussion leans towards your opinions. When someone else raises a differing opinion, and comments on the incredulity of the claims regarding Allen, suddenly it's "silly" to talk about it...

By Tom Voigt (Tomvoigt) (aca154ab.ipt.aol.com - 172.161.84.171) on Wednesday, November 29, 2000 - 12:53 am:

Gregorypraxas wrote,
"When someone else raises a differing opinion, and comments on the incredulity
of the claims regarding Allen, suddenly it's "silly" to talk about it..."

What is silly is your obsession with Allen.
If he's proven NOT to be Zodiac, which I am hoping, I will continue doing what I have been doing...collecting all data on the case. You, on the other hand, will probably explode with glee. And that's weird.

By Gregorypraxas (Gregorypraxas) (spider-tq041.proxy.aol.com - 152.163.201.61) on Wednesday, November 29, 2000 - 01:16 am:

I'm not obsessed with Allen. If I am obsessed with anything, it's seeing to it that the bulls**t and irresponsible reporting that has plagued this case and so muddled the facts come to an end, or is at least balanced with some responsible reporting. I don't have any vested interest in who the Zodiac is or is not. You do. That much is obvious. I am only concerned that the facts are reported accurately and thoroughly, not in the buffet-style "journalism" you practice, which not only misleads people, but simply continues the same tradition of crap.

If and when it is proven that Allen was not the Zodiac, I probably will be happy. That will be a good day for anyone who cares about the truth, and it will be a good day because an innocent man will finally be vindicated after years of lies, exaggerations and more -- perpetuated by people just like you.

In that event, I, too, will continue my research. After all, I'm just interested in the truth -- whatever it may be. If it is proven that Allen was the Zodiac, that will be a happy day, too.

And, Tom, if you really HOPE that Allen is not the Zodiac, then stop trying so hard to manipulate everyone into thinking that he was, and start being more responsible when it comes to reporting the facts. Better yet, try being objective when it comes to Allen -- even if it's only for five minutes. Try. I know it will be hard at first, but just try it. Who knows, you might just like it.

As it is, trying to engage in a legitimate debate of the facts regarding Allen with you is a bit like trying to debate the facts of the JFK assassination with Arlen "Magic Bullet" Specter...

By Tom Voigt (Tomvoigt) (aca154ab.ipt.aol.com - 172.161.84.171) on Wednesday, November 29, 2000 - 01:23 am:

I'm very objective with Allen.
You wanted facts connecting Allen to Zodiac, and I gave you facts connecting Allen to Zodiac.
(Don and Philip's police statements are FACTS.)
Of course, now you're whining that I didn't include more speculation in my update, such as potential reasons they were lying.

Do YOU know the difference between fact and speculation?

By Gregorypraxas (Gregorypraxas) (spider-tq041.proxy.aol.com - 152.163.201.61) on Wednesday, November 29, 2000 - 01:48 am:

No, Tom. You didn't present ALL the relevant facts. That's SOP. No one asked for specualtion; we asked for objectivity. Something you obviously can't comprehend. And you didn't present facts -- you presented half the story, and only that half which supports your theories. The fact that both of the people changed their stories is CRUCIAL when assessing the stories. To you, it's just some information that isn't really relevant. THAT says it all, my friend.

I'm not going to keep trying to get you to acknowledge the obvious and undeniable. Your methods stink, Tom. Attack me all you want, you can't change that fact...

By Tom Voigt (Tomvoigt) (ac831ea4.ipt.aol.com - 172.131.30.164) on Wednesday, November 29, 2000 - 01:54 am:

I see.
And you keep coming back to my site because...?

By Edward (Edward) (adsl-63-205-196-44.dsl.scrm01.pacbell.net - 63.205.196.44) on Wednesday, November 29, 2000 - 11:13 am:

I was going to ignore you, but I just couldn't resist the JFK thing. (More on that later.)
I had hoped that you would eventually start your own site, Greg, where you could rule the world. I see that you would much rather display your rabid aggression and lack of decency here. It's odd. After all, this type of "discussion" you practice is obviously something more for you than just communication of facts. It is an outlet for your ignoble idea of communication on some human level. What that is, I will not be so harsh as to venture.
The fact is that you are obsessed. Anyone with half a brain can see that. Many of us on this site are, me included. Where we differ is in our quest for facts and information and our interpretation of those facts. What is truly amazing is your lack of any valid rebuttal of the facts. Read that again. I said facts. You would rather argue over opinion. And not really argue. You attack. Hey, some people just have a different style. You want to attack, attack. But don't whine when you are in return.
You accuse Glen of firing off about Penn, you chastise and insult him for it, when all he did was point out the fallacy of your "science." Then you turn around and attempt do the same thing (and not as eloquently as Glen). You fire off about Allen, under the guise of manning the bastion of the truth totem you seem to want to dance around. You rail against Allen, yet offer no better suspects. And then you get indignant when we call Allen the best. I wonder why? No better suspects means Allen's the best.
As for the facts, several of us have attempted to point out to you, numerous times, the facts and our interpretations of them. You interpret them in your way, but don't seem to want us to interpret them in ours.
We use facts. We glean opinions from these. You want to argue that these opinions are wrong because they are based on illegitimate interpretations. You want us to discount the facts because you believe otherwise. We use these facts, when you want to throw them out because you don't "think" they're truthful. That's your right. Don't deny us ours. You undermine the truth (you so vehemently say you are seeking to protect) when you do that.
I, personally, don't think it's truth you're after at all. You doubt the truthfulness of someone's statement based on your perception. You accept your opinion as "truth," yet won't allow others to the same. Something else is going on here, Greg. Look into it. I know you'll probably attack me for saying that. But it's the "truth," as I see it.
BTW, I'm sure Mr. Douglas would love to know he was wrong in his fallacious commentary on the Zodiac in "The Cases That Haunt Us." Write to his publisher, they'll see that he gets it. You're also wrong if you think he got his facts about Zodiac from the internet.

P.S. - As for JFK: Your last line betrays your lack of knowledge and your ability to go with the status quo of the popular theory regarding JFK's assassination and anyone's right to think Oswald acted alone based on your concept of what a bullet should do in a given situation. Right on, Greg. You go girl.

By Gregorypraxas (Gregorypraxas) (spider-mtc-tg024.proxy.aol.com - 64.12.102.159) on Wednesday, November 29, 2000 - 03:30 pm:

Your statements reveal that you know next to nothing about me, my opinions, or my statements.

I DO argue the facts here. Instead of getting facts in response as rebuttal, we get more opinions, more distortions, omissions, etc, etc, etc. If you haven't noticed this, you're not paying attention.

I'm not upset about anyone expressing their opinion, and if you had been paying attention, you would know that much. I am upset by the manner in which some people selectively use the facts towards a deceitful purpose. Try paying attention.

Glen yammered on about a lack of scientific method, yet, when he presented his own "case," he didn't use anything remotely resembling scientific methods, and offered his opinions, and his "I knows" as if they were facts instead. Pay attention. You're wrong on that count, too.

The fact that you are still hung up on the word "best" is further proof that you don't have the slightest idea what I was talking about. Try paying attention.

I don't doubt someone's statement based on perceptions. Pay attention. I based that doubt on the FACTS. I repeat - anyone who had this information in their possession would reach the same conclusion. It's a no-brainer. Pay attention.

This is about the truth for me. Unfortunately, we can't get past all the nonsense, lies, distortions and exaggerations long enough to get to the truth. That is wholly evident on this message board. I really don't care what you think of me - everything you have said about me proves that you don't know anything about me.

I'm not wrong in thinking that Douglas got that erroneous information from the Internet. How do you know that I was wrong about that? Do you know better? I don't think so. I know that that information came from the Internet because we know that's where the story was posted in public, and because Douglas had sheets printed from the Internet which mentioned this erroneous information. It's a no-brainer. Maybe you should have thought that one through before you proclaimed that you knew better.

Edward, my last line doesn't betray anything but what it was meant to betray. I am very knowledgable about the JFK case, and I respect anyone's opinion, even if they beleive Oswald acted alone. But, that opinion should be based on fact, not assumption and selective truth-telling. Yet, the magic-bullet theory was not what I was talking about. I was talking about the fact that Arlen Specter is SO biased and so unconcerned with the truth that it has been impossible for him to engage in a debate based on the facts. THAT was what I was talking about. There's nothing wrong with having a differing opinion, but sometimes, some people become so in love with their own opinions that they can't examine the facts with an open mind. In my opinion, that is where the comparison between Specter and Voigt is appropriate.

See, if you actually knew what you were talking about, you'd know that your whole rant was simply an exercise in your own ignorance, and you could have saved yourself the time. You don't have the slightest idea what I am talking about, or about me, my work, my opinions, or the way in which I express those opinions or debate with others. Your post proves it.

...geez...

By Twagner129 (Twagner129) (spider-to038.proxy.aol.com - 152.163.204.20) on Wednesday, November 29, 2000 - 07:00 pm:

Most of the discussion of "The Most Dangerous Game" has been of the movie. I would like to point out that the Short Story on which the Movie was based was in many high school texts of the period, (It was in my texts 1960-65), in English Literature classes in High School. Just an aside, I realize that most of the discussion of the movie has to do with the costume the Zodiac wore. It is also possible that the suspect was familiar with this story thru literature; it is considered one of the great short stories.

By Gregorypraxas (Gregorypraxas) (spider-mtc-tg021.proxy.aol.com - 64.12.102.156) on Wednesday, November 29, 2000 - 07:51 pm:

Tom, is there some reason you keep deleting the message I posted? I can't see why you would possibly feel it necessary to do so...

The Richard Connell story is a classic, and it is a part of many anthologies used in high school. It is possible that the Zodiac was aware of this story, or the movie, but that is an assumption based solely on the statement found in his cryptogram. There is no other real evidence to support the idea that the Zodiac was aware of or influenced by the story. Of course, I'm not saying he wasn't, but no one really knows. It would be interesting to learn if the film was on TV around that time, and I tried to look through some of the old TV listings when I was searching through newspaper microfilm, but it was so small and took so long that I wrote it off for another day. Oh well.

By Tom Voigt (Tomvoigt) (ac90d251.ipt.aol.com - 172.144.210.81) on Wednesday, November 29, 2000 - 08:25 pm:

I deleted your post because this isn't a JFK message board.
However, if you just have to argue with Edward, I suggest you do it in private e-mail.

By Anonymous (cx206582-c.mesa1.az.home.com - 24.21.120.22) on Wednesday, November 29, 2000 - 11:38 pm:

Dear Gregory,

How does one get ahold of you by email? In otherwords, what is your address?

By Glen Claston (Glenclaston) (dialup-209.246.133.174.dallas1.level3.net - 209.246.133.174) on Thursday, November 30, 2000 - 01:41 am:

I agree, Gregory. A prolific and argumentative poster such as yourself should be willing to provide an e-mail address and be willing to carry some of these discussions off the board and in private. I invite you to contact me via my e-mail and give a listen in private to some of what I know and why I argue so strongly against Penn and the Radian theory. Post your e-mail like we all do so you can hear from both your supporters and detractors.

By Glen Claston (Glenclaston) (dialup-209.245.231.229.dallas1.level3.net - 209.245.231.229) on Thursday, November 30, 2000 - 02:32 am:

Gregorypraxas,

You seek the truth, this we all know, and we bow to your expert delivery and ability to grasp the truth from all the uninformed opinions you hear on this board. Kudos, dude!

In all the yammering I did about scientific method, I'm sure you've found the mistakes in my logic and are willing to correct them in detail? We would all be most enlightened if you did so.

Perhaps you could clarify for us - in detail - the "nonsense, lies, distortions and exaggerations" we all suffer from in our pursuit of the Zodiac. It's pretty obvious we are in dire need of an authoritative voice on the subject. It seems you're it - you're the emperor.

Gregorypraxas, if YOU had been paying attention, what you've done is dug yourself into a hole you can't get out of. You may have approached this subject with some really good ideas, but you carried them too far to be considered constructive by practical people. I have a few ideas like that, as do we all, but we have the good sense to keep them private.

I'm not writing you off while others have, but I think you need to tone down the rhetoric. You've attacked just about everyone credible on this board beyond what is reasonably acceptable, and I must admit you really pissed me off at one point, enough to sever my connection to a site that allowed disruptive influences such as yourself to randomly attack core ideas. It's to your credit that because of you and your senseless attacks, I've chosen to return and defend my territory. You have the distinction of being the test "embecile". Don't take that wrong by any standard.

Gregorypraxas, you demonstrate an impressive array of intelligence and intuitiveness, a degree beyond the average poster to this site. Your questioning is a "devil's-advocate" method which works when you have something in mind to use as a comparison against the results of the disruption you cause, but unfortunately you deteriorated into name-calling and defensive posture, indicating you have nothing at all to fall back on. Nothing to fall back on means you have nothing left of value to say.

Back up, regroup, restructure, and determine for yourself if you have anything to offer that is better than what you hear here. You have the brain for it, so use it. It's all in your hands.

If you sign on with another name, we will know. If you obfuscate the issues, you will be called to task. Your posts are already being deleted and you're being asked to take your arguments elsewhere, so what have you to lose but to make your best argument here, in this case? I will listen, as will everyone else. You have offended my understanding of scientific approach, but you have never offended me personally. Give it your best shot and see if you actually belong here.

You may yet have something to contribute.

By Eduard Versluijs (Eduard) (asd-tel-ap01-d09-170.dial.freesurf.nl - 62.100.8.170) on Thursday, November 30, 2000 - 02:54 am:

Gregory,
Can you please contact me, I find your postings interesting.

By Edward (Edward) (adsl-63-204-73-20.dsl.scrm01.pacbell.net - 63.204.73.20) on Thursday, November 30, 2000 - 11:39 am:

Gregorypraxas wrote:"Glen yammered on about a lack of scientific method, yet, when he presented his own "case," he didn't use anything remotely resembling scientific methods, and offered his opinions, and his "I knows" as if they were facts instead. Pay attention. You're wrong on that count, too."

Glen made an excellent argument for scientific qualification and against the methods you used to "prove" the radian exsisted and you attacked him for it.

"The fact that you are still hung up on the word "best" is further proof that you don't have the slightest idea what I was talking about. Try paying attention."

Who's kidding whom, here? This whole thing started because you took issue with someone calling Allen the best suspect.

"I don't doubt someone's statement based on perceptions. Pay attention. I based that doubt on the FACTS. I repeat - anyone who had this information in their possession would reach the same conclusion. It's a no-brainer. Pay attention."

I and others read it and didn't "jump" to the same conclusion as you. This "pay attention" thing you've got going indicates extreme insecurity, BTW.

"This is about the truth for me. Unfortunately, we can't get past all the nonsense, lies, distortions and exaggerations long enough to get to the truth. That is wholly evident on this message board. I really don't care what you think of me - everything you have said about me proves that you don't know anything about me.

I think I do. And you do care. It's obvious from your responses. I may not know that much about you and your situation, but I know that everything you wrote, as well as your reaction to this thread, proves you don't know much about yourself, either.

I'm not wrong in thinking that Douglas got that erroneous information from the Internet. How do you know that I was wrong about that? Do you know better? I don't think so. I know that that information came from the Internet because we know that's where the story was posted in public, and because Douglas had sheets printed from the Internet which mentioned this erroneous information. It's a no-brainer. Maybe you should have thought that one through before you proclaimed that you knew better.

Let me get this straight? You SAW him with papers that came off the internet? It's been made public there? First of all, the only papers ever seen off the internet in his possession were some of Jim Edwards' stories off APBnews.com, where Mr. Douglas was a contributor. The ticket was never mentioned there. Second, a source told me that the rumor of a ticket has been around for years. Long before the internet, as we know it, even existed. To say that a former FBI profiler got his info off the web because you saw him with web info is ludicrous. I hope this is not indicative of your skills. This is what happens when someone stands in a Borders in Pasadena and skims an author's work instead of of buying it and reading it. Had you done that, you would know where Mr. Douglas got his information and would be in a much better position to argue your point.

"Edward, my last line doesn't betray anything but what it was meant to betray. I am very knowledgable about the JFK case, and I respect anyone's opinion, even if they beleive Oswald acted alone. But, that opinion should be based on fact, not assumption and selective truth-telling. Yet, the magic-bullet theory was not what I was talking about. I was talking about the fact that Arlen Specter is SO biased and so unconcerned with the truth that it has been impossible for him to engage in a debate based on the facts. THAT was what I was talking about. There's nothing wrong with having a differing opinion, but sometimes, some people become so in love with their own opinions that they can't examine the facts with an open mind. In my opinion, that is where the comparison between Specter and Voigt is appropriate.

Sometimes people are in love with their own opinions. You hit the nail on the head there, Greg. (BTW "knowledgable" is spelled knowledgeable.)

"See, if you actually knew what you were talking about, you'd know that your whole rant was simply an exercise in your own ignorance, and you could have saved yourself the time. You don't have the slightest idea what I am talking about, or about me, my work, my opinions, or the way in which I express those opinions or debate with others. Your post proves it.

...geez..."


LOL. Okay, Opie.

Tom's right. If we continue to flame, let's take it to email and not waste everybody's time with our petty bickering. Notify Tom if you'd like my email.
Otherwise, see you around.

Edward

By Gregorypraxas (Gregorypraxas) (spider-tq061.proxy.aol.com - 152.163.201.71) on Friday, December 01, 2000 - 04:58 pm:

Here is the exact text of the "New Allen Info" section of the "Zodiac Homepage" as it originally appeared. I cannot account for many of the stories which are presented in this text, but I have not edited the content in order to preserve the text as it first appeared, and the information regarding the sources who provided these stories.

>>Here is some more information on Arthur Leigh Allen, who was a prime suspect for many years. He died in August of 1992. This information comes from two primary sources. One is a person who's family knew Allen for years. The other comes from someone who was able to talk to Graysmith for over an hour regarding the book and information that didn't make it into print for whatever reason. This information is presented in no particular order.

The father of the first source knew Allen very well. They apparently grew up together and remained friends throughout Allen's lifetime. When the cops would harrass Allen, he would go to Vallejo to give him moral support. Everyone in this source's family, including him, thinks that Allen could very well had been the Zodiac. "He may not have been, but regardless, he was a very strange individual."

The portrayal of Allen in Graysmith's book is fairly accurate. Besides the name change, Graysmith made up the part about Allen and his mother moving to Santa Rosa. Allen died in the same house he grew up in (in Vallejo), in the basement turned bedroom in which his mother made him live. (She apparently didn't like him. She favored his brother Ron. She eventually had a kitchenette and bathroom built in the basement so she never had to see him.) Allen's father was always at sea (when he was alive).

About 500 pages of Graysmith's book had to be left out due to legalities. Graysmith said he might consider a revival or update someday, but is very distracted now with his new Unabomber book. The information omitted from the book includes:

•Allen apparently recieved a speeding ticket near Lake Berryessa on the night of the attempted double murder. •Allen was also reportedly staying with a friend in the Presidio the night of the Paul Stine murder. The Presidio is mere blocks from the murder site. •Allen's brother Ron was at the Ferrin's painting party. (He's listed in Graysmith's book as being there.) Perhaps he took his brother along and Allen could have indeed been the "mystery man." •Apparently, chipmunk fibers were found on the bodies of the murdered Santa Rosa coeds (suspected, but not confirmed, Zodiac victims). According to investigators, they were unusual to find given the crime scene. (Remember, Allen had chipmunks in his basement and was a biology student at the time. Remember as well that this evidence is only circumstantial.) •Allen can supposedly be placed in the library the night Cheri Jo Bates was murdered in Riverside. Allen's DNA was reportedly compared to the DNA found under the Bates fingernails. It seemed not to match. (Remember that there is a good possibility that Bates was not a Zodiac victim at all and was murdered by her boyfriend. Graysmith said the "local youth" from the book was actually her boyfriend, a football player who was found to have scratches in his face right after the murder.) •Allen was a janitor at Cave Elementary School in Vallejo at the time of the "kiddie" bomb threats. •My source theorizes that there is a connection between Arthur Leigh Allen and Bill and Camela Leigh, Darlene Ferrin's close friends. He theorizes that Bill Leigh was Allen's uncle. (Graysmith states in his book that Allen's immediate family confided in his uncle just before calling the cops. This information intially seems extemporaneous but would fit if his uncle is actually mentioned elsewhere in the book.) •Graysmith also apparently mentioned a Berkeley professor that had pornographic charactures of women tied up displayed in his basement. The police discovered them after this man's death. This man was a good friend of Allen's. The charactures were each initialed . . . and the initials on each matched the dead Santa Rosa coeds.

The information on this page is the responsibility of the user. Humboldt State University assumes no responsibility for the content of this page.>>

By Tom Voigt (Tomvoigt) (ac9aebed.ipt.aol.com - 172.154.235.237) on Friday, December 01, 2000 - 05:36 pm:

Gregorypraxas, aren't you the guy that told everyone on TLC's "Case Reopened" that all three Bates letters had the same message? Oops.
Should we chastise television because mistaken information was broadcast?

I think you must have too much time on your hands. Spouting complaints about the Internet because of inaccurate information makes you sound like a bitter old man complaining about everything that's new under the sun. (Not to mention the fact that you are a prime Net user.)

So you found info that wasn't accurate. Big deal. Get a life.

By Kevinrm (Kevinrm) (cx206582-c.mesa1.az.home.com - 24.21.120.22) on Friday, December 01, 2000 - 06:01 pm:

Hey Gregory,

One thing I can't figure out. That is, if you are a researcher, how the heck is anyone supposed to send you any info if your email address is not listed? I dug up something awhile back that nobody else had managed to find, and sent it to both Tom and Ed. Need to send it to Jake as well, as I ain't no hog. No bombshells or anything, but kind of interesting.

If you want it, contact me.

By Gregorypraxas (Gregorypraxas) (spider-tq042.proxy.aol.com - 152.163.201.62) on Friday, December 01, 2000 - 08:12 pm:

Tom, you just keep grasping at those straws -- anything to avoid the issue. Yes, I made that mistake. I admit it. Wonderful. You'll never catch me doing the kinds of things you do, though. So, please, spare me your desperate attempts to distract attention from your credibility problems by catching me making a small factual error that does not have a bearing on the guilt or innocence of a suspect. Big deal. Get a life.

It's not about catching a mistake -- it's about the fact that a totally unsubstantiated rumor -- perpetuated by the Internet and, well, you, in addition to others -- has wound up cited as fact in a book published by an FBI profiler. WHY? Because it never occurred to anyone to find some proof to substantiate the story before they spread that story.

And, Tom, since you have SO much difficulty grasping the issues at hand, I'm not chastising the Internet. I'm criticizing sensational, irresponsible reporting, wherever it occurs. Come on, now, you're not SO dense that you can't see the difference, are you?

By Gregorypraxas (Gregorypraxas) (spider-wn072.proxy.aol.com - 205.188.197.182) on Friday, December 01, 2000 - 09:39 pm:

Edward,

On a season premiere of America's Most Wanted, titled "Obsession," Douglas is shown with pages from the Zodiac Homepage regarding Allen. I don't know where you got your information that he was seen holding pages from APBnews.com, unless that was on some other program.

By Ed N. (Edn) (spider-mtc-tg074.proxy.aol.com - 64.12.102.184) on Friday, December 01, 2000 - 09:56 pm:

I remember the date the old Zodiac Homepage was last updated: October 18th, 1997 (I majored in history, I have a knack for remembering dates that I find important). Humboldt eventually removed it, within a year, I believe, so the stuff Douglas had was way old.

By Howard (Howard) (1cust11.tnt12.sfo3.da.uu.net - 63.23.33.11) on Sunday, December 31, 2000 - 02:04 pm:

If we base our assumptions that Z got his 'most dangerous animal'reference from Connells famous short story we may leave out another source, or rather a possible source, and that is Ron Hubbards book Dianetics which was very popular in the 50s/60s.He says "Man...is...the world's most dangerous animal".Again, he says"That very dangerous animal...Man". yes,Hubbard could have gotten his references from Connell,but I see,from my perspective, that Manson/Davis could have combined Zaroffs 'thrilling/extiting'statements and the rest, and Hubbard's Dianetic remarks ,and used them in the cipher.Both men were into scientology and RH provided them with inspiration on a number of issues.Davis got into Scientology in 1966 and M said Davis was into S when he met him in 67'.Scientologists and their off shoot the Process used Alice in Wonderland and other stories in their teachngs.Manson said on a number of ocassions that killing people was a thrilling experience and even compared it to an orgasm( as did follower Susan Aitkins at her trial).M taught this to theFamily so they would be encouraged to kill . Aitkins told Ronnie Howard that these souls would be killed at random,andwould go to the afterlife to become Mansons slaves!

By Ed N. (Edn) (spider-ntc-td031.proxy.aol.com - 198.81.17.161) on Monday, January 01, 2001 - 02:30 pm:

Howard: even if the Manson Family had nothing to do with Z, I think it's possible that Z was inspired by Dianetics rather than The Most Dangerous Game. After all, Z wrote "man is the most dangeroue anamal of all..." He didn't write that man was "the most dangerous game." It's a minor point, but something I hadn't really considered until I read your post just now.

By Ed N. (Edn) (spider-ntc-td031.proxy.aol.com - 198.81.17.161) on Monday, January 01, 2001 - 02:38 pm:

P.S. It's interesting to note that in Penn's first piece on Z, "Portrait of the Artist as a Mass Murderer" (California Magazine, November 1981), he referenced Alice in Wonderland more than once...

By Howard (Howard) (1cust25.tnt10.sfo3.da.uu.net - 63.23.28.25) on Monday, January 01, 2001 - 04:05 pm:

Ed N. I know ,when I saw that article years ago, I thought of the Process cult and Scientology as they used stories to do" mock ups "or role playing .Since Manson and Davis 'belonged' they got their role playing from those sources and taught the Family to dress up in any costume they wished and fulfill any fantasy(Zs costume? See my site where a letter indicates Sandra Good or"Blue"(blue was an important color to Manson it represented water and his fav' religion Islam where blue is important )sewed Bruce Davis' Zodiac costume.The same guy told me he saw her sewing it !He is now threatening to tell all he knows about the Z connection and other unsolves of which some or all are in my book!They bad -mouthed him recently so hes on the warpath.The radian(which has been dealt with very nicely by you)lines that crossed London and Death Valley amazed me as these were 2 very important places to Davis/ Manson/the Family!If I recall in the article Penn is musing as to why the line/s pointed to these places.

By Howard (Howard) (1cust25.tnt10.sfo3.da.uu.net - 63.23.28.25) on Monday, January 01, 2001 - 04:32 pm:

Ed N.- You are right -you or anyone else- doesn't have to see a Manson connection ;I just throw that stuff in as I try to give just plain ol' Z case info.Use what ya can.I noted that some years ago when I spotted the Ron Hubbard remarks-both use "animal",Connell uses "game".Zaroff does speak of animals that he killed ,but he says "...man is the most dangerous game..."Of course, we know the 1st cipher says "man is the most dangerous animal" which agrees with Hubbards statement (sp corrected).Manson did teach that if you "love someone you can kill them "to release their souls. "kill then love" says Zaroff. All of Zaroffs remarks fit Mansons teachings to a T. Note, as only a point of interest ,where Zaroff says "One night as I lay in my tent with this -this head of mine , a terrible thought crept like a snake into my brain ..."he then thinks or dreams about killing people. Compare this to the Riverside confession letter"I lay awake nights thinking about my next victim'.

By Howard (Howard) (dsl-gte-10407-2.linkline.com - 64.30.209.40) on Thursday, January 18, 2001 - 05:47 pm:

EdN-Another jewel from Dianetics. Ron Hubbard wrote that "...use only blue ink in writing a log book". I think of Zs use of blue felt tip(better control-the felt) pens.Hubbard had his own Navy and they had Naval garb that they wore-it was called the Sea Org(organization).Just FYI stuff. E me about the "latest".

By Chris (Chris) (adsl-65-65-246-122.dsl.elpstx.swbell.net - 65.65.246.122) on Wednesday, June 19, 2002 - 03:13 am:

Did anyone ever see the movie THE PEST?

The Most Dangerous Game for my generation!

My wife who knows nothing about Zodiac pointed this out to me.

Shows how perceptive I am Huh?

By Spencer (Spencer) (revenant-e0.ucd.ie - 137.43.1.29) on Wednesday, June 19, 2002 - 06:22 am:

"Did anyone ever see the movie THE PEST?"

John Leguizamo is the most irritating person in the world. Although the opening scene of him in the shower is so bad that it's actually kind of funny -- sort of a "Plan 9 From Outer Space" for my generation.

By Chris (Chris) (adsl-216-63-174-248.dsl.elpstx.swbell.net - 216.63.174.248) on Wednesday, June 19, 2002 - 12:52 pm:

But it is a take on The Most Dangerous Game Right?

By Alan Cabal (Alan_Cabal) (12.81.120.233) on Wednesday, June 19, 2002 - 10:08 pm:

Howard, I respect your work on this case and your board etiquette enormously, but your religious bigotry is amazing in its shamelessness. Manson's connection to the Process was tenuous, at best, and holding Scientology responsible is like holding Ignatius Loyola responsible for Jerry Falwell.

The "Manson Family" was primarily an affinity group deeply involved in drug trafficking who wound up carrying out a collections hit for a couple of Process dealers from Canada who'd been ripped off by Sebring, Frykowski, and quite possibly LoBianco.

Manson plays up all his devil hoohah because that's the strategy a 5'4" white guy develops to avoid being punked by Yaphet Kotto while in the can. Manson was never a Scientologist, or a member of the Process, the OTO, or any of the other groups that Ed Sanders and Maury Terry slandered. If anything, Manson's philosophy (such as it is) is some kind of awful mutant Christianity.

I think the Z case was a little beyond the fairly common thuggery these types were capable of managing.

By Spencer (Spencer) (revenant.ucd.ie - 137.43.1.29) on Thursday, June 20, 2002 - 06:40 am:

"But it is a take on The Most Dangerous Game Right?"

Right.

Another in the endless string of takes on "The Most Dangerous Game" is "Surviving the Game," starring Ice-T and Gary Busey. It was "The Most Dangerous Game" for the urban youth and cokehead with big teeth generations.

Spencer

By Ed N (Ed_N) (acc1e59b.ipt.aol.com - 172.193.229.155) on Friday, June 21, 2002 - 09:03 pm:

I think the Gilligan's Island version was the best ("The Hunter," episode #86, first aired on 1-16-1967)... as a bit of trivia, Harold Sakata,who played Oddjob in Goldfinger, played Ramoo in that episode alongside Rory Calhoun as Jonathan Kincaid.

By Chris Bohn (Chris) (adsl-65-65-246-237.dsl.elpstx.swbell.net - 65.65.246.237) on Sunday, June 23, 2002 - 02:03 am:

Spencer sweet answer. Boy your swift! Right on!

By Howard Davis (Howard) (dsl-gte-10407-2.linkline.com - 64.30.209.40) on Monday, June 24, 2002 - 07:14 pm:

Alan,
Thanks for your frankness.Those that have known me for years know that I firmly believe everyone has the right to their choice of faith or belief or none at all.I do not reject people based on their beliefs as I have many friends and aquaintances from all walks of life and beliefs.
I have not affirmed that Scientology or the Process caused Manson to engage in acts of criminality.What I have always said was that CM used some of their beliefs and corrupted them to his own advantage,etc.Some of those teachings I don't agree with,but I think it was Mansons responsibility doing what he did and NOT Scientology and The Process.Both organizations condemned his crimes.
Manson and Bruce Davis were involved in the Process and Scientology.As a matter of fact, documents were seized at the Scientiogy office by the FBI and a report sent direct to Hubbards wife Mary Sue, relates both Davis and Manson were into their organization.I have spoken to and written old former Family members(plus my own research) and they all claimed Charlie and Bruce were into Scientology and the Process.Whether or not these groups reconized them as legit' members is besides the point.Read My Life With Charles Manson by Paul Watkins.
I totally disagree with your statemnt that CM and certain others,wern't capable of the "Z case"-they were!When you break the Z case down into SECTIONS from day one,it's just a series of seemingly random murders and letters/cards sent periodicaly, over time and the ACCUMLATION is what bewilders researchers and investigators.Let's not turn Zodiac into a super criminal-Zodiac researchers know better!
My posts in the past and my book and new evidence show,I believe,CM /BD were capable of the Zodiac case and top Z researcher Dave Peterson(with the Z case since 12/20/68) and others thought so too.It takes a lot of prolonged concentrated research to see all the angles in the Manson enigma.Davis alone had the background to do Zodiac!It has to be out of the box thinking.Thanks for your opinions and feedback -it's what makes the case tick!

By Metalex (Metalex) (129.210.209.158) on Wednesday, November 12, 2003 - 02:54 pm:

Heads You Win.....anyone:
http://cgi.liveauctions.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2200593115&category=52929

By Alan Cabal (Alan_Cabal) (cache-rh01.proxy.aol.com - 152.163.252.161) on Wednesday, November 12, 2003 - 03:31 pm:

It's overpriced.