CHASING THE RADIAN: X Marks the Spot


Zodiackiller.com Message Board: Theories: CHASING THE RADIAN: X Marks the Spot

By Gregorypraxas (Gregorypraxas) (spider-ta022.proxy.aol.com - 152.163.205.52) on Monday, October 30, 2000 - 10:09 pm:

CHASING THE RADIAN: X Marks the Spot

In December of 1980, Gareth Penn used a protracter, a piece of acetaite, a map of the Bay Area, and a pen to create what has become known as the "radian theory". According to Penn, 3 points on a map -- the scene of the Blue Rock Springs shooting, the scene of the Stine Murder at Washington and Cherry streets, and Mt. Diablo -- form a radian angel (valued at approximately 54.3 degrees).

Penn constructed an elaboraite theory surounding this discovery, and eventually declared that one Michael Henry O'Haire was the Zodiac. Articles for a Mensa journal led to Penn's book TIMES 17, and, some 20 years later, Penn continues to present complicated and convoluted mathematical analisys of the Zodiac's letters which he claims implicate O'Hare in the Zodiac's crimes.

Almost ten years ago, I learned of Penns' work, and I was intrigued by the radian theory. As time passed, I believed that Penn's suspect was not the Zodiac, but that Penn had made a valueable contribution by discovering the radian. Along with others, I consistantly sited Penn's discovery, at times going so far as to insult those who question this theory. To me, it all seemed so simple.

Of course, I was wrong.

The debate concerning the radian theory made me determined to settle the issue once and for all. To begin with, I threw out everything I had ever done in my previous map analisys, and started a new with the map sent by the Zodiac in June of 1970.

The Zodiac had drawed a crossed-circle over Mt. Diablo, however, the lines of this cross did not meet at the center. Rather, the Zodiac apparantly wanted the peak of Mt. Diablo to be seen through the center of his symbol. If the Zodiac was creating a radian, this point would serve as its ape-x.

Next, I located the scene of Paul Stine's murder at the corner of Washington and Cherry streets in San Francisco. Using several other SF Street maps, I was able to pin point the scene on Zodiac's map by noteing its relationship to the visable landmarks, such as the border of the Presidio base, the coast line, Geary Street, and the Golden Gate bridge, among others.

Unfortunately, the border of the Zodiac's map lies between the two Vallejo murder scenes, at the point where Lake Herman Road meets Columbus Parkway, and it was clear that the BRS scene was not visible. Since the radian suggestion pertained to the map, and Penn's theory included Blue Rock Springs, the Zodiac (or anyone else) could only measure a radian which included this scene by estimating where Blue Rock Springs Park might appear if it was visible on the map.

At this point, I knew I needed more information if I was going to accurately locate the Lake Herman Road and Blue Rock Springs scenes. I called upon Ed N. and Jake Wark to provide their analysis.

I mailed Jake and Ed copies of the Zodiac's map, a USGS map of the Bay area, and a map of Vallejo and environs, asking that they locate and mark all the relevant Zodiac scenes. I also asked the pair to estimate the location of the Blue Rock Springs scene on the Zodiac's map and mark that spot.

Jake dutifully participated in what he dubbed "the Zodiac Olympics," and soon returned the annotated maps. Ed took advantage of geography, using a video camera to gather footage of the two Vallejo crime scenes and the drive in-between. He also filmed himself charting the scenes on a map of Vallejo, and returned this video tape with his annotated maps.

I used the 6 maps provided by Jake and Ed, several other maps of the Bay area, Ed's videotape, a similar videotape I had made on an earlier visit to Vallejo, several Internet maps, and ariel photographs in my attempts to accurately locate these sites.

Accounting for the fact that my analysis was inaccurate until Ed corrected me, the results of the Zodiac Olympics are as follows:

1) Jake Wark, Gold
2) Ed N., Silver
3) Buterfield, Bronze

Jake's estimation of the Blue Rock Springs seen on the Zodiac's map was too far to the west of the actual site, but he was able to accurately locate all the sites which were visible on the map.

My approximation of the Washington and Cherry scene was accute, but I was wrong on both the Lake Herman Road and Blue Rock Springs scenes. It would seem that had a shoehorn been entered in these Olympics, I may have come in fourth.

Ed was accurate on those two scenes, but placed the Washington and Cherry site to the North and many blocks to the East of the actual scene, inside the Presidio. The location is actually nearer the middle and south of the base. It should be noted that the copy of the Zodiac's map which Ed was given to work with was a low resolution copy of a very small phonograph. Ed also stated that he had marked this scene in haste. This "guesstimate" serves to illustrate the precision necessary to locate the sites, as well as the difficulty and margin for error in doing so.

Once I was able to accurately locate all the scenes on the other maps, I marked them on my copy of the Zodiac's map. I placed another X where I believed the Blue Rock Springs scene would appear were it visible on that map. I did this to the best of my ability, using all the available information from Graysmith's excellent book.

To put the radian theory to the test, I used a protractor and a sharpened pencil to measure an angle valued between 574 and 58.1 degrees, with the Washington and Cherry site serving as the 0 point and Mt. Diablo as the apex. The Blue Rock Springs site lay somewhere between 58 and 59 degrees; the Lake Herman Road scene, somewhere between 59 and 60 degrees. As estimates, the margin for error would comprise a distance of at least one (1) (Uno) degree or more.

The line of a sharpened pencil is extremely fine, unlike the blunted felttip pen the Zodiac used to anno-tate his map. When this same radian is drawn on the Zodiac's map using such a pen (creating a line approximating the width of the Zodiac's crossed-circle), the lines fall directly through the Washington and Cherry Street sight, and the X approximating the location of the scene at Blue Rock Springs Park. Thus, if the Zodiac had used the same map to estimate such a radian, and had also used such a pen to mark the location of the Blue Rock Springs site on some sort of traceing, he may well have believed that this site fell between 54 and 58.1 degrees. Also, the difficulty in the estimating the Blue Rock Springs scene on the Zodiac's map may have caused the Zodiac to make a simple mistake while measuring, thereby incorrectly marking the site by one degree.

Arguements refuting the radian theory often mention the fact that the Zodiac's map does not show the Blue Rock Springs scene, and therefore, the Zodiac would not attempt to imply a radian which included this site. I believe there is a simple explanation for this perceived discrepancy, although I readily admit that my theory is only speculation.

The map sent by the Zodiac is what is generaly referred to as an "inset map," or, a small map featuring an area of the larger map which it accompanies. The Zodiac had apparantly cut the inset map from the larger map before sending it along with his letter of June 26, 1970.

The larger, or primary map most likely illustrated an area spanning an extensive view of both Mt. Diablo and the Blue Rock Springs scene, if not the areas further north of Vallejo as well. Undoubtadly, this map would not show as much detail as the inset map, and therefore, it would be even more difficult to accurately locate the crime scene with absolute precision. Yet, that map would probably show all of the relavant scenes, and it is possible that the Zodiac may have used that map to measure his radian. If so, the minor error in that measurement on that map may explain the discrepancy, especially if the Zodiac also used the same felttip pen which he had used to an-notate the inset map.

In short, the Zodiac may have believed that he had accurately constructed a radian, in spite of the tiny fraction of error created by the same difficulties which, Ed, Jake, Bill Nelson and I all encountered. The Zodiac may also have believed that the police would like wise consult a larger map which did include the Blue Rock Springs scene. After all, most police departments routinely consult large maps of their jurisdictions and outer areas in order to accurately locate pertinent sites. Assuming that his crime scenes did form a radian with Mt. Diablo, it is logical that he would also assume that the police would reach a similiar conclusion.

This analisys is not offered as a complete explanation of the Zodiac's map, or his radian suggestions. Rather, this analisys demonstrates that the "radian theory" is a plausible and credible interpretation of the material, despite minor discrepancies in measurements. Just as it is impossible to know that the Zodiac desired or intended such interpretations, it is equally impossible to prove that he did.

The radian theory may remain the subject of debate, and some may choose to dismiss its impotance or rule it to be the result of coincidence. Yet, this analisys of the Zodiac's map and the relevent scenes proves that this theory is by no means inviladated.

Others are welcome to repeat or improve upon my methods and offer the results of their own analysis. Thanks to Jake and Ed and Bill Nelson for all their help. If I have made any errors, please bring them to my attention. Thank you.

By Glen Claston (Glenclaston) (dialup-209.244.93.55.dallas1.level3.net - 209.244.93.55) on Tuesday, October 31, 2000 - 02:06 am:

If I have made any errors, please bring them to my attention. Thank you.

I'd begin by saying that the first mistake made in reiterating a theory by a "known criminal" such as Gareth Penn, is your lack of mention of the substantial known facts in the case and stating your comprehension of those facts in relation to the seqeunce of events that led up to your discovering the radian as you describe it.

As to Gareth Penn's criminal history - Gareth Penn has openly accused an innocent man of a capital crime without any evidence to support his accusations. This is at best slander, and at worst an attempt at revenge on the part of Gareth Penn. Penn's persistence in his actions in this case are feloniously criminal, and even if O'Hare doesn't desire the attention a lawsuit would bring, others of professional persuasion should willingly speak up in public forums condemning Gareth Penn and the crimes he has committed under the guise of legitimate research. His name and rantings should be shunned, and if any single point he made actually proves to be true, let it be rediscovered and proven independent of Penn's writings by an honest and legitimate researcher. Penn has committed crimes punishable by our public laws, for which he may go unpunished. He has however committed crimes against scientific investigation and procedure that cannot be ignored or let to go unpunished by his peers. To allow this causes our professional callings and endeavours to suffer irreparable harm.

As to your personal discovery of the radian in question:

How did the word "radian" lead you to discover the location of the bomb supposedly hidden by the Zodiac, the location of which was to be identified by using the "radians and inches along radians" information contained in the cipher, in conjunction with the map in question?

How is your radian situated against the magnetic north indicator supplied in Zodiac's map?

What measurement(s), in inch increments or portions thereof, have you ascertained by decipherment or discernation that have allowed you to locate the position of the bomb as indicated on Zodiac's map?

The radian theory may remain the subject of debate, and some may choose to dismiss its importance or rule it to be the result of coincidence. Yet, this analysis of the Zodiac's map and the relevant scenes proves that this theory is by no means invalidated.

So what you're saying is that we must by necessity dismiss the spoken intentions of the Zodiac, but we cannot dismiss the single term you focus on, that being "radian"? We must dismiss any preconceived idea that the map concerns the possible location of a bomb? We must forget the notation of Magnetic North because it does not apply? We must dismiss the markings on the Zodiac symbol clock-face, 3,6,9 and 0, zero being aligned to magnetic north?

Okay, so I've dismissed everything you want me to throw out. We've negated everything from the Zodiac letter and the map along with it, with the exception of the singular point on Mt. Diablo. One little point and we throw everything else out the window. Okay, done.

So now I'm supposed to link this singular point with a comment presented as a subscript in a later letter, now what was that comment? Oh yes, the "radians and inches along radians" comment. So where are the "inches"? You've left me with a single point from an entire map, and I am to throw the "inches" out as well? Are you actually trying to tell me that all you have is a point on a map and a reference to "radians", taken without regard to all the rest of the information, and you honestly expect me to go along with that? is there anything I've said or done on this site that would remind you of the term "gullible"?

What I need right now is for somebody to give me two pieces of information:

1. What is Gareth Penn's middle name?

2. Did Gareth Penn ever live in the bay area, and if so, where?

I'd bet a month's pay that with reasonable mathematical certainty, I can demonstrate that Gareth XXX Penn is the name that is hidden in the 13 character cipher. I can also prove by YOUR standards of accuracy that Gareth Penn, (no matter where he lived in the USA during that time) lived in a location that fell directly within the scope of a radian and is therefore the Zodiac Killer. Anyone willing to take me up on this? I certainly don't have to worry about magnetic north, or finding a bomb, or even EXACT representations of radians. Inches along radians is moot, so that doesn't matter either. And I don't even have to decipher the "Where's the Bomb Cipher", only closely approximate 13 characters to Penn's (10 characters without a middle name) monicker.

Any takers? Anybody at all? Just give me the information, I'll prove to you how criminal Penn really is! And I've increased the difficulty of my task far beyond Penn's stretch by adding more to my problem than simply contemplating the word "radian".

You should be applauded for your efforts, Gregory, but sometimes the greatest applause occurs when you decide to walk off the stage.

By Glen Claston (Glenclaston) (dialup-209.244.93.55.dallas1.level3.net - 209.244.93.55) on Tuesday, October 31, 2000 - 03:32 am:

Gregory, I beg your forgiveness!

Although my last parting shot sounded good at the time, it was not really directed at you, but at Penn. It was not my intention to suggest that YOU should walk off the stage or otherwise not participate in these discussions! I beg you please, take no offense at my remark! It certainly was not intended to offend or detract from you and your otherwise substantial contributions to this site. Please accept my apologies.

By Glen Claston (Glenclaston) (dialup-209.246.135.59.dallas1.level3.net - 209.246.135.59) on Tuesday, October 31, 2000 - 05:14 am:

I know I've made a couple of posts on this topic, but people were forewarned some time ago that to mention Penn was to inspire my wrath, so here we go again! (Die, bastard, Die!)

There must be some particular reason this theory offends me to the point of anger, and I can't always tell why something does this to me, but it is usually related to the "religious" fervor exhibited by the followers of a false belief. In this instance, it is the inclusion of information on a non-existent plane without aid or guidance from the author. Here's an example of my complaint:

This analysis is not offered as a complete explanation of the Zodiac's map, or his radian suggestions. Rather, this analysis demonstrates that the "radian theory" is a plausible and credible interpretation of the material, despite minor discrepancies in measurements. Just as it is impossible to know that the Zodiac desired or intended such interpretations, it is equally impossible to prove that he did not.

Analysis Indeed! Plausible and Credible Indeed! But now we're getting to the part I really like:

Just as it is impossible to know that the Zodiac desired or intended such interpretations, it is equally impossible to prove that he did not.

Let's see, Sherlock, your daughter draws a picture of her teacher with his hand up her dress, and you think what - she's drawing a picture of you and her pleasantly reading a book?

Let's hear what the Zodiac had to say about this before you pass final Pennitant judgment on his intentions:

"The map coupled with this code will tell you where the bomb is set. You have untill next fall to dig it up."

So there you have it. The total summation of what the map is and what its intentions are meant to be. At this time and this juncture, this is all you have, and you have to make the best of it. Where are the radians now? They're not here. Any further information you could or would deduce is contained in the cipher, which you can't read.

Only as an after-thought in a much later document, possibly because he saw no police activity in the required area, did Zodiac add "...radians and inches along radians".

It tells you two things, Sherlock - Zodiac intended for his ciphers to be read, and Zodiac fully expected the police to comprehend and act on his ciphers. Otherwise he would not have had to try to help them out when they blundered.

So how can we know for certain the intentions of the Zodaic? A true Pennitant would say "Just as it is impossible to know that the Zodiac desired or intended such interpretations, it is equally impossible to prove that he did not." A true logistician would say however, that a specific piece of information was offered to the police and the public at large at a specific time for a specific purpose, most likely the purpose stated by the person who proffered the information. Given that fact, the subsequent and much later additional information relating to "radians and inches along radians" must necessarily be directly related to the previously mentioned "stated purpose" of the provider of the original the information.

In other words, brother Gregory, unlike the cult of Pennitants, we mere humans are bound by a spacial phenomenon or constraint known as time, a singularly wicked progression that marks our actions in preceeding and proceeding order, also marking the distances between those actions and labeling any large grouping of marks between actions as "significant", as refers to length, action, or inaction, pertaining to any given event previously marked by time.

"...Radians and inches along radians" is marked in these increments of time as a proceeding event as opposed to a preceding event - something that occurred later than the main or actual event, that main event being the presentation of the "...map coupled with this code..." event.

The "...map coupled with this code..." event then stands out as the primary event, a singular moment in time, to be evaluated as a singular event with all its elements intact. This evaluation is in keeping with the meager human perception of "timeline", a concept apparently foreign to Pennitants, but necessary for the rest of us. Within this singularity we discover key mathematical variables, those being "map+code=bomb dig<=fall~good, dig>fall~boom."

If we take this singular time-event and supplement the additional intake of the later time-line, that being the "...radians and inches along radians" timeline", a mere human can only see in two chronological dimensions, so we as humans can only correlate the "radians and inches" to the following formula: "Map+(code=Radians/inches)=bomb dig<=fall~good, dig>fall~boom." That is our human weakness.

The Pennitant formula surpasses our perceived notions of time and space, and actually roles the two together as if there were no space at all involved in the formula. Forgive me a mere human for even attempting to attain to such advanced 3-D logic, but I will try to do you justice. Single point on Map(timeline 1)+Radians(timeline 2)=radians in any timeline making estimated crossings in previously chosen points for no apparent purpose other than to reiterate what is already known.

The simplicity is staggering, and the logic is so 3-D that you must by nature be extraterrestrial. So what do I have to do to be beamed up?

Or maybe I have to be somewhat more subtle - to the guy who suggested the keyboard cipher - can you read these comments? Shift the fingers just one to the right and understand my true feelings, and what is in store for future Pennitants around the world.

upi djpi;f nr ftshhrf piy sy mppm smf djpy ;olr yjr brt,om upi str. upi [orvr pg djoy~!

By Gregorypraxas (Gregorypraxas) (spider-ta064.proxy.aol.com - 152.163.205.74) on Tuesday, October 31, 2000 - 06:18 am:

Glen,

Before you ask for apologies, you had best go back and read what I wrote before you fly off the handle again.

In case you didn't notice, my post was NOT intended to address ANY of the issues you have raised here. Rather, my post was only meant to resolve two issues:

1) Where the crime scenes are on a map (specifically on the Zodiac's map).
2) If the SF and BRS scenes form a radian.

I specifically stated: "This analysis is not offered as a complete explanation of the Zodiac's map, or his radian suggestions." It means just what it says. I never said that anyone should disregard any of the Zodiac's instructions. I never said that you should believe anything that Gareth Penn said. Apparently, you were just bursting at the seams to let loose on Penn, and, without carefully reading what I wrote, opened fire.

My post was not about Penn. It was not about his mathematical theories, or his suspect. It was not about the Zodiac's instructions, or any of the other issues you raised. It was about ONE issue, and one issue only -- the radian theory. I intended to locate the scenes and make the measurements to determine if they formed a radian. I did this in order to put to rest the arguments over THOSE TWO ISSUES. Nothing more. Nothing less. I thought I made that perfectly clear, but apparently I didn't make it clear enough for some people.

After quoting my request for corrections, you wrote : "I'd begin by saying that the first mistake made in reiterating a theory by a 'known criminal" such as Gareth Penn, is your lack of mention of the substantial known facts in the case and stating your comprehension of those facts in relation to the seqeunce of events that led up to your discovering the radian as you describe it."

The use of the term "known criminal" is laughable, Glen. Get serious. Penn may be a strange man with strange ideas who has accused an innocent man, but he's not a "known criminal". Come on. As for the rest of your quote, it's a lot of nonsense that has nothing to do with my post. It's about your problem with Penn. Deal with it.

I was once a follower of Penn's work, and he and I maintained a "friendship" for three years. However, like Jake and others, I soon came to realize that there were some serious problems with his theories. I then spent a great deal of time researching his theories and essentially disproving them. I also spent a great deal of time corresponding with his suspect, and speaking to him over the phone. I am well aware of Mr. O'Hare's thoughts on the matter, and his decisions for not taking Penn to court. Unlike everyone else here, I have actually discussed this matter with him at great length. (I don't mean to imply that I am "better" than anyone for having done so, but I am certainly more informed.)

I have made a point to draw attention to Penn's errors, and, on many occasions, I have condemned his actions and defended his suspect. I have publicly stated, many times over, that I do not believe that O'Hare is the Zodiac, and I have taken the time to research the evidence in order to have an informed opinion on the matter. I was the one who discovered that the Incline Village records which Penn claimed were 'lost" were actually on a shelf at the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency. I was the one who took the time to investigate Penn's theory that O'Hare worked for Christo. I was the one who had the guts to call up O'Hare and simply ask him about many of these things and get the answers from him rather than Penn or anyone else. So, when it comes to this subject, I don't think you have any right or reason to attack me, accuse me of covering up for Penn or minimizing the depth of his errors. Anyone who knows me can tell you that I have spoken out against Penn's work many times, and that I have made it a point to state the facts to the best of my ability. In this respect, I think your criticism of my post is unwarranted and uninformed.

As for your other remarks about the Zodiac's suggestions, I can only say this again: My post was about the radian theory. NOTHING MORE. It was intended to address the viability of the theory as it pertained to the crime scenes, and a radian angle. I never said that it was meant to explain the map, or Zodiac's suggestions. In fact, I made it clear the post was NOT intended to address those issues.

Many people here seem to think that if you defend the radian, you must be defending Penn, or believe in his work. I do not. Rather, I believe that the crime scenes, and their possible relation to a radian angle, may play an important PART in deciphering the map instructions given to us by the Zodiac. Of course, I may be wrong, but it seems to me that there is only one way to find anything on that map using radians. If you have better suggestions, then, by all means, let's hear them. If you think you can solve this mystery, we'd all love to see the plan.

As for Penn accusing an innocent man, I agree. In my opinion, O'Hare is not the Zodiac. But let's not pretend that Penn invented this game, or is the only one engaged in such irresponsible and reckless behavior. Graysmith has been walking around telling everyone that he solved the Zodiac case and that Arthur Leigh Allen was the Zodiac, despite the fact that there is not a shred of CREDIBLE evidence to support either of his claims. He has outright LIED about Allen on numerous occasions, and his theories regarding the Zodiac's codes, methods and motives are just as absurd as Penn's.

It's easy for all of us to badmouth Penn, and laugh at his work. His theories are convoluted and he does little to research the actual case. Graysmith's theories are seemingly simple, so people don't find them as ludicrous. However, it is clear that none of his theories regarding why the Zodiac killed when he did, how he wrote the letters, etc., are credible. Since his theories are not as complex, they don't merit the same degree of ridicule as do Penn's. After all, Penn spent years creating that crap. Graysmith probably spent an afternoon picking his nose to come up with his. So, let's not pretend that Penn is the only "criminal" here. He's not even the worst. Graysmith's "crimes" are far worse in my book, although I am aware that is simply a matter of opinion.

Lastly, I should like to address your comment in which you said that you could prove anything by "YOUR standards." This seems to imply that there is something wrong with my standards, and I would beg to differ. I have made every effort to be thorough and objective to the best of my ability. In addressing the radian theory, I used dozens of references, consulted with cartographers, traveled to a map store and spoke with several people knowledgeable in map reading, conferred with Ed and Jake, and triple-checked all results. You may not like what I had to say, and you may wish I had addressed other issues, but the fact remains that I addressed the issue at hand, and offered an informed and thorough analysis on that issue. Therefore, I see nothing wrong with my "standards."

Again, I do not deny that the Zodiac's instructions did not say "Put a radian angle on Mt. Diablo," or that they were specific as far as "radians and #inches along the radians." I don't dispute the fact that there must be a larger interpretation of this material, and I don't deny that the radian theory may be irrelevant in that final interpretation. I was simply addressing ONE theory.

Take it for what you will.

PS: Now that I have seen that you simply cannot control yourself, and that you are now flying all over this thread like a madman, calling me "Sherlock", yammering on and calling me a "Pennitant", I can only say this: You don't know what the hell you are talking about. Next time, take care of that one little problem before you spew your anti-Penn venom at me, pal. I am not a "Pennitant", I don't subscribe to Penn's theories, and I don't believe that his suspect is Zodiac, and you don't have the slightest idea what you are talking about. Can YOU "read these comments", Sherlock? You need to check your anger at the door on this one. You're yelling at the wrong guy, and you're not even paying attention to the issues at hand. I suggest you go back, reread what I wrote, and pay extra-special attention this time....

By Glen Claston (Glenclaston) (dialup-209.245.225.172.dallas1.level3.net - 209.245.225.172) on Tuesday, October 31, 2000 - 08:03 am:

Take it for what you will.

Not only have I taken it for what I will, but I've taken it for what it truly is - an empirical confirmation of the work of a madman. Confirm the base and the rest must necessarily be true. This holds true only if the basic truths are founded on solid ground. It's time others become aware that there is no basis in fact for Penn's "radian" theory, and since you have stated no other theory than Penn's, your efforts are indeed an effort at reviving his demented and insubstantial conclusions. Face it, These are not your own theories you're putting forth here. They are Penn's theories, which have been proven to harm and destroy.

Your primary presentation neglected to give detail of your past and present involvement with Penn and his theories, and your minimal disclaimers never mentioned any contemplations or results in any direction. You simply restated and attempted to reconfirm a "theory" put forth by a very sick individual without any qualification of its beginnings or endings. You never stated for example, that this particular theory was instrumental in Penn's accusations against O'Hare, and while you demonstrate the knowledge that these accusations are false and misleading, you see no particular connection between the "theory" and the accusations. You are indeed much more detached from the subject than I am.

Since we're discussing levels of involvement and detachment, the mere examination of the "radian theory" without attachment by simple scientific principle to the preponderance of evidence presented by the Zodiac is another unique effort of detachment, one that has only occurred once, and that is in the mind of Gareth Penn, when he first discussed the "radian theory". This is the only time to my knowledge that all other information was thrown out the window and only lines on paper were conceived as ultimate and everlasting knowledge. You may not be a willing defender of Penn, you may not be a "Pennitant", but neither can you lead me to believe that you are only interested in the scientific and unadulterated truth. No one with such an interest would pursue your course of action with total disregard of the information at hand.

You say your post was intended to confirm the locations of crime scenes on a map, as you say (specifically on the Zodiac's map), but you didn't limit yourself to that, did you? Instead you speculate on a larger map. My proof of Penn as the Zodiac will only speculate on a larger map, since you've set the precedent of "moving up and out" in your research. You think Zodiac expected the police to be that smart? I don't think so.

You did indeed say "This analysis is not offered as a complete explanation of the Zodiac's map, or his radian suggestions.", a defense you now use as a disclaimer. But you also said " Rather, this analysis demonstrates that the "radian theory" is a plausible and credible interpretation of the material, despite minor discrepancies in measurements. I again laugh at "plausible" and "credible" in your argument. You continue with: Just as it is impossible to know that the Zodiac desired or intended such interpretations, it is equally impossible to prove that he did not., to which you must refer to my earlier responses.

So I'm to accept that you're anti-Penn but pro "radian", and because of this you've invested a great amount of time and effort in renewing interest in a theory that was generated by a criminal for the sole purpose if singling out an innocent individual in his lust for what?

You find it laughable that I label Gareth Penn a "known criminal"? Is society such these days that when we are faced with open acts of criminal conspiracy we laugh at them and shrug them off? Is it me who is not in touch with the reality of the situation, or is it you and only you that find my identification of Gareth Penn as a criminal a laughable accounting of the facts?

Standards, yes, let's discuss standards: Lastly, I should like to address your comment in which you said that you could prove anything by "YOUR standards." This seems to imply that there is something wrong with my standards, and I would beg to differ. I have made every effort to be thorough and objective to the best of my ability. In addressing the radian theory, I used dozens of references, consulted with cartographers, traveled to a map store and spoke with several people knowledgeable in map reading, conferred with Ed and Jake, and triple-checked all results. You may not like what I had to say, and you may wish I had addressed other issues, but the fact remains that I addressed the issue at hand, and offered an informed and thorough analysis on that issue. Therefore, I see nothing wrong with my "standards." I'm positive that you've conducted your research within your standards, and even double and triple checked your work within your standards. But what standard did you set for the validation of the research before you began the operation? What validators were necessary before you walked that path? None whatsoever, save a belief that Penn's Radian theory was correct. No scientifically measurable standard whatsoever. No compunction to establish a set of standards either, I'd wager. Outside the bounds of scientific investigation, a path you walk, I CAN PROVE ANYTHING. This makes your confirmatory observations a blessing on the surface, but a hell underneath the subterfuge you've created in the interest of what - to prove Penn's theory? Don't you realize that a corrupt study such as yours wastes precious and valuable resources, specifically the time and effort of those who would otherwise be working toward a real solution to this problem?

You're yelling at the wrong guy, and you're not even paying attention to the issues at hand. I suggest you go back, reread what I wrote, and pay extra-special attention this time....

Okay, so I've gone back and compared your first post to your explanations. What now? You've stated that your only purpose was to test the "radian" theory, without regard to any other information that might or might not have any real bearing on whether or not the "radian theory" has any real bearing on anything else. So I get your drift - you're telling me that you invested substantial quantities of time and effort into an enterprise in an attempt to prove or disprove a theory that you knew from the outset had no basis in fact. Well, it's your time and effort, Gregory, but from my seat your investigation and subsequent "explanation" have done little to endear your ideas to my heart. As you so clearly stated: Can YOU "read these comments", Sherlock? You have no legitimate issues at hand, so go back, reread what you wrote, and pay extra-special attention this time...despite all your protestations, you're still a Pennitant, and you've proven it by your own pronunciations.

By Gregorypraxas (Gregorypraxas) (spider-ta014.proxy.aol.com - 152.163.205.49) on Tuesday, October 31, 2000 - 10:49 am:

My God you are an imbecile.

I don't know why it is that you have decided to toss your brain out the window on this one, but I can only conclude that you have been driven so mad with your hatred of Penn that you are incapable of seeing what is actually happening here.

"...your efforts are indeed an effort at reviving his demented and insubstantial conclusions."

This is pure idiocy. My efforts were nothing more than an attempt to address the radian theory, which, in case you haven't noticed, HAS become separated from Penn and the rest of his work. This was not an attempt to revive his work, but rather to address the TWO issues I mentioned. This obviously simple truth seems lost on you, and that is not my fault.

"Your primary presentation neglected to give detail of your past and present involvement with Penn and his theories.."

That's right, Sherlock. Most of the people who post here know all about my feelings on Penn and his suspect, and since my post was neither about Penn nor O'Hare, I did not address those issues. See, this is where the paying attention part comes in....

"You never stated for example, that this particular theory was instrumental in Penn's accusations against O'Hare..."

What do you call this then? "Penn constructed an elaborate theory surrounding this discovery, and eventually declared that one Michael Henry O'Hare was the Zodiac. Articles for a Mensa journal led to Penn's book TIMES 17, and, some 20 years later, Penn continues to present complicated and convoluted mathematical analysis of the Zodiac's letters which he claims implicate O'Hare in the Zodiac's crimes." If that isn't acknowledging that the theory plays a part in accusing O'Hare, then I don't know what would satisfy you.

You wrote: "...you see no particular connection between the "theory" and the accusations."

The only connection between the theory and the accusations is in Penn's head. It's perfectly possible for *rational* people to discuss the theory OUTSIDE the context of Penn, his theories, and his suspect. I think that's why you are having difficulty here...

If the word "convoluted" didn't clue you in on how I feel about Penn's work, this should have: "As time passed, I believed that Penn's suspect was not the Zodiac, but that Penn had made a valuable contribution by discovering the radian." I'm sorry that you require that everything be spelled out for you in simple language that you can understand, but I thought that was pretty clear.

You wrote: "You may not be a willing defender of Penn, you may not be a "Pennitant", but neither can you lead me to believe that you are only interested in the scientific and unadulterated truth. No one with such an interest would pursue your course of action with total disregard of the information at hand."

Again, I think it is clear that you are not paying attention. I did not "disregard" the Zodiac's instructions. Rather, I addressed the theory that the crime scenes form a radian. I then attempted to address the issue of BRS not appearing on Z's map. I offered an explanation. That's it. Nothing more. What you choose to see is your business. I know what I wrote, and I think you're the only one who is flipped out enough on this subject to not see my post for what it is. That's your problem, not mine.

I am interested in the unadulterated truth. I am also interested in debating ideas, theories, etc. I am also interested in playing the devil's advocate at times, defending theories which I do not agree with but which I believe deserve scrutiny. A good example of this is the double standard the "Allen Accusers" use to dismiss other suspects. I have often stated that it is unfair to dismiss Ted Kaczynski and others on the basis of the very evidence which Allen's accusers regard as irrelevant when it comes to Allen. I don't believe Kaczynski is the Zodiac, but I think the issue needs to be addressed. When it comes to the radian theory, I addressed those issues which seemed to be consistently debated here -- where the scenes are, and if they form a radian. If I had set out to write a piece on the Zodiac's map and his instructions, it would have been a very different post. In that post, I would have dealt with the issues you raised. However, in this post, I was simply addressing those issues. I was not attempting to bring Penn's work back to life. They really are separate issues, but I think that you are so obsessed with Penn that you cannot see that simple fact for what it is.

"My proof of Penn as the Zodiac will only speculate on a larger map, since you've set the precedent of "moving up and out" in your research."

This is more moronic nonsense. Do what you will, the outcome will be the same. You just keep ranting and raving about Penn like you have been and pretty soon people will have difficulty telling you two apart....

"So I'm to accept that you're anti-Penn but pro "radian", and because of this you've invested a great amount of time and effort in renewing interest in a theory that was generated by a criminal for the sole purpose if singling out an innocent individual in his lust for what?"

You can accept whatever you want. The fact is that my position and opinions on Penn are well documented, and you seem to be one of the few who is ignorant of those facts. Again, this is not my fault. But, as for your other remarks, your ignorance speaks volumes.

Penn didn't create the theory to accuse O'Hare. If you knew much about his theories, and how they came about, you'd know that he came up with his radian theory long before he even became aware of O'Hare. In fact, his theory gained him some attention before he had heard of O'Hare. Think what you will of him, but, in all fairness, Penn doesn't think that O'Hare is innocent. You may view this as a sign of mental illness, and I won't argue, but the simple fact is that he does not run around knowingly accusing an innocent man. Like Graysmith, Hines and others (including a few people here who should know better), Penn thinks he's solved the case and that he knows the identity of the Zodiac. It's that simple. He may be wrong, he may be crazy. But let's not pretend that he has deliberately accused a man he knows to be innocent.

Again, I do find your use of the term "criminal" to be laughable. "Known criminals" are people with criminal records. Penn, to the best of my knowledge, has never committed any crime. You may view what he has done as a "crime", but, until he is convicted in a court of law, he is an innocent man. The fact that you choose to call him a criminal simply shows that you are a little too emotional about this (I mean, I call Graysmith all kinds of names, and, quite frankly, I think what he has done is " a crime" but I don't run around like an idiot calling him a "criminal". Call Penn an opportunist if you want, but criminal? Come on.). I know you think that Penn has harmed and destroyed, but, according to O'Hare himself, it's no big deal, and he doesn't lose any sleep over it. I'm not saying that we should ignore what Penn has done, but I think you are the one who is losing touch with reality, and I think you need to calm down, for Christ's sake...."criminal conspiracy"? Who is conspiring with Penn? Who? Me? Now THAT is laughable. THIS is what makes you sound like a crackpot, pal....

Your next paragraph cinches that diagnosis: "But what standard did you set for the validation of the research before you began the operation? What validators were necessary before you walked that path? None whatsoever, save a belief that Penn's Radian theory was correct. No scientifically measurable standard whatsoever. No compunction to establish a set of standards either, I'd wager. Outside the bounds of scientific investigation, a path you walk, I CAN PROVE ANYTHING. This makes your confirmatory observations a blessing on the surface, but a hell underneath the subterfuge you've created in the interest of what - to prove Penn's theory?"

Let's examine this hysterical rant. I stated that my intention was to accurately locate the crime scenes, and measure a radian. THAT WAS IT. I resolved to use the most accurate maps available, all the available information, and criticism and suggestions from people who disagreed with me. Your desire to drag the rest of Penn's work into this, or Penn himself, is merely an attempt to avoid the real issue of my post. I won't tell you to go read it again -- if you can't get it by now, there's no hope for you.

Just WHAT "scientifically measurable standard" would you suggest I employ in that endeavor? A yard stick? The metric system? You see, this is what makes you look crazy. I took several maps, found the scenes as accurately as possible, and measured them with a protractor. That's all there is to it. This did not require any "scientifically measurable standard". It required a map, a pen, a protractor, a brain, and some hands and eyeballs. I had all of those items at my disposal. What else do you think I needed?

Here's the most hilarious of your rants: "Don't you realize that a corrupt study such as yours wastes precious and valuable resources, specifically the time and effort of those who would otherwise be working toward a real solution to this problem?"

Are you nuts? What planet do you live on? Penn came up with this theory 20 years ago. Don't act like I plucked it out of a time capsule, dusted it off and presented it as if it were brand new. Whatever "damage" the theory may have done was over a long time ago. In fact, police don't take it seriously, and if you think my post will change that fact then I don't know what to tell you. And your statement that my study is "corrupt" is only further proof that YOU JUST DON'T GET IT. There was nothing corrupt about my post. You don't like what I said, and you disagree. That doesn't mean it was corrupt. I stuck to the facts (regarding THIS theory) and my map reading and measurements were made with great care and concern for the truth.

As for your ridiculous notion that my post "wastes precious and valuable resources", I can only say that you have now crossed the line into the land of the certifiably insane. Do you REALLY believe that ANYTHING I write can have that much of an effect on anything or anyone? If so, you ARE nuts. The simple fact is that NO ONE (save a few poor bastards such as Tom, myself and some others) is really attempting to find a solution to this case, and nothing I write could possibly deter or detour anyone who was seriously interested in the trying to solve this case. In fact, reading some of the things I have written (especially about Penn and his theories) could save someone a lot of time if they were trying to learn more about those issues. The idea that I am somehow preventing or obstructing those who are trying to solve this case is not only absurd, but reveals that you are willing to distort the truth in order to attack me. Isn't that a bit like what you have accused Penn of doing?

"...you're telling me that you invested substantial quantities of time and effort into an enterprise in an attempt to prove or disprove a theory that you knew from the outset had no basis in fact."

First of all, I think it is about time that someone called you on this one. You say the that this theory has no basis in fact? How can you say that with any certainty? Can you tell me, beyond any doubt, that a radian formed by these scenes cannot possibly be part of Zodiac's intentions? Can't you even admit that you don't know what his intentions were? I mean, of course, he said do this and that, but were it that simple, someone would have figured it out by now. No, the fact is that you cannot state with any certainty that the theory has no basis in fact anymore than you can prove that it has nothing to do with the Zodiac's plan. He said that the code and map pertained to "radians & #inches along the radians." He placed a crossed circle on Mt. Diablo. Even though there is obviously more to this than just a radian angle, you cannot say that a radian angle has nothing to do with it anymore than I can prove it does. Just admit that and you'll be much happier. You might even stop frothing at the mouth long enough to admit that you are really raving like a maniac here....

At the "outset", I knew that the radian theory was the subject of great debate, and that two issues were usually at the heart of the discussions here and on Tom's previous board. Those issues (again for the brain-dead) were: where the crime scenes were on a map, and if they formed a radian. Again (for the brain-dead), I confined my post to these issues. I chose to address the issue of the BRS scene not appearing on the map because it was suggested that I do so, and I thought someone would bring it up here anyway. I don't know why you have such difficulty understanding this. Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that your anger has overwhelmed your ability to think.

"...despite all your protestations, you're still a Pennitant, and you've proven it by your own pronunciations. "

Again, I repeat: If you really believe the above statement to be true, you ARE an imbecile, you don't know what you are talking about and you haven't been paying attention. Better luck next time.

By Ed N. (Edn) (spider-ntc-td074.proxy.aol.com - 198.81.17.184) on Tuesday, October 31, 2000 - 10:51 am:

Glen wrote:

What I need right now is for somebody to give me two pieces of information:

1. What is Gareth Penn's middle name?

2. Did Gareth Penn ever live in the bay area, and if so, where?

I'd bet a month's pay that with reasonable mathematical certainty, I can demonstrate that Gareth XXX Penn is the name that is hidden in the 13 character cipher. I can also prove by YOUR standards of accuracy that Gareth Penn, (no matter where he lived in the USA during that time) lived in a location that fell directly within the scope of a radian and is therefore the Zodiac Killer. Anyone willing to take me up on this? I certainly don't have to worry about magnetic north, or finding a bomb, or even EXACT representations of radians. Inches along radians is moot, so that doesn't matter either. And I don't even have to decipher the "Where's the Bomb Cipher", only closely approximate 13 characters to Penn's (10 characters without a middle name) monicker.

Any takers? Anybody at all? Just give me the information, I'll prove to you how criminal Penn really is! And I've increased the difficulty of my task far beyond Penn's stretch by adding more to my problem than simply contemplating the word "radian".


I don't know his middle name (yet), but I know it starts with S. And yes, Penn did in fact live in Napa from the 1970's through the early 1980's. About half a mile from where I now live (shudder). Kinda weird, huh?

By Gregorypraxas (Gregorypraxas) (spider-ta014.proxy.aol.com - 152.163.205.49) on Tuesday, October 31, 2000 - 10:54 am:

Ed,

I know Penn's middle name, but I'm not about to give it to some crackpot.

:)

By Tom Voigt (Tomvoigt) (ac80015a.ipt.aol.com - 172.128.1.90) on Tuesday, October 31, 2000 - 11:04 am:

Ed isn't a crackpot!!!
lol

By Gregorypraxas (Gregorypraxas) (spider-ta026.proxy.aol.com - 152.163.205.21) on Tuesday, October 31, 2000 - 11:13 am:

Oh, come on now, Tom - You know I wasn't talking about Ed. I know Ed isn't a crackpot. He's a Trekkie. And, yes, there IS a difference... :)

By Tom Voigt (Tomvoigt) (ip003.portland.quik.com - 209.213.133.3) on Tuesday, October 31, 2000 - 02:03 pm:

In keeping with their huge screw-ups, the radian discovery was mishandled by VPD.
Click here to read the report.

By Hurley (Hurley) (spider-tf021.proxy.aol.com - 152.163.197.181) on Tuesday, October 31, 2000 - 03:05 pm:

Gregory,

You have proved what I have been trying to only in astrological terms but I couldn't locate the golf course on any map I have either.

You have drawn a circle with an X in the center and I say you drew an astrological chart.

By Jake (Jake) (spider-th061.proxy.aol.com - 152.163.213.71) on Tuesday, October 31, 2000 - 03:57 pm:

Tom wrote:
"Click here to read the report."

BWAAAAAAhahahahaha!

--Jake

By Jake (Jake) (spider-th061.proxy.aol.com - 152.163.213.71) on Tuesday, October 31, 2000 - 04:08 pm:

It used to be that you either loved Penn or hated him; I think these days it's more a case of hating him or really not liking him. Gregory hardly sounds like the full-blown Penn-itent (Glen, I coined that phrase, and I'm suing) that used to irritate everyone like a flap of skin on the roof of your mouth, such as yours truly a few years ago.

Glen and I have had this one out several times before, and having made my point I'm not getting caught up in it again. Regardless, I still think it's irrational to get so worked up and to close one's mind so quickly just at the mention of Penn's name, especially when Penn the man has so little to do with the radian, which requires no additional hypothesizing, cryptanalysis, or Ivy League suspects. It's a geometric form that anyone can measure. You either believe that it was intentionally created, or write it off as coincidence, and that's the bottom line. Why so many people fly off the handle about it is a mystery to me.

--Jake
http://members.aol.com/Jakewark/index.html
"This is the Zodiac Speaking..."

By Gregorypraxas (Gregorypraxas) (spider-ta027.proxy.aol.com - 152.163.205.22) on Tuesday, October 31, 2000 - 04:27 pm:

Hurley wrote: "Gregory, You have proved what I have been trying to only in astrological terms but I couldn't locate the golf course on any map I have either. You have drawn a circle with an X in the center and I say you drew an astrological chart."

I'm not sure what you mean by this. I never drew a cirlce with an X at the center, but I am assuming you mean a crossed-circle. Still, I don't understand what you are getting at here. If you mean an astrological chart over Mt. Diablo,I did think of that, and I believe someone else has explored that theory, although I am not aware of the results.

It should be noted that the scene of the Ferrin/Mageau shooting is NOT at the Blue Rock Springs golf course. The scene is actually across the street at the parking lot of the Blue Rock Springs Park. Like so many others, Graysmith got the locations of all of the Zodiac crime scenes wrong (save the scene of the Stine murder).

By Ed N. (Edn) (spider-ntc-ta031.proxy.aol.com - 198.81.16.31) on Tuesday, October 31, 2000 - 07:30 pm:

Tom: Clem Bartling looks like someone I work with! And went to school with... and lived down the street from... hmm, those Neanderthal types are everywhere!!!

Jake: I don't hate Penn, just what he stands for. I don't much care for his arrogance either, especially since he has nothing to be arrogant or conceited about! Judging from the tripe he has written over the last 18 years, I wonder how that clown even got into Mensa. Now I'm wondering... was he even in Mensa? Or did he get that wrong too???

By Ed N. (Edn) (spider-wi083.proxy.aol.com - 205.188.197.58) on Tuesday, October 31, 2000 - 10:40 pm:

Gregory wrote:

It should be noted that the scene of the Ferrin/Mageau shooting is NOT at the Blue Rock Springs golf course. The scene is actually across the street at the parking lot of the Blue Rock Springs Park.

Not to mention that the entire area there was renovated some ten years ago. It apparently doesn't look anything like it did back in 1969. It took a while for me to figure out exactly where Ed Rust was standing when he described the BRS attack in the TLC segment, because it seems that the entrance to the parking lot that Ferrin and Mageau drove through is long gone and there's no access to Columbus Parkway from that side of the parking lot.

I've mentioned before that it's also a stone's throw from the duck/goose pond and sulphur spring. There's that water thingie again...

By Oscar (Oscar) (pool0340.cvx5-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net - 209.178.153.85) on Wednesday, November 01, 2000 - 12:01 am:

Dear Tom,
Thank you, thank you, thank you! I have been looking for my 'love child' for many years now, but you found him! The last time I saw Clem, he was a bonny lad and twee.
The VPD goofed worse than you think. Donna Lass was the waitress that day in the Coronado Inn.
It's nice to see that you do have a sense of humor.
Oscar.
p.s. Can't we all just get along?

By Hurley (Hurley) (spider-te041.proxy.aol.com - 152.163.195.191) on Wednesday, November 01, 2000 - 08:11 am:

Hi Gregory,

Yes, I was talking about drawing an astrological chart over Mt. Diablo.

I need to look at a map to grasp what your speaking of. Thanks.

By Hurley (Hurley) (spider-te074.proxy.aol.com - 152.163.195.209) on Wednesday, November 01, 2000 - 03:19 pm:

Oh, by the way, my map doesn't have the streets in San Francisco listed either, just major ones and points of interests....basically I have a big map of nothing!

I'm just curious too. I also read in Graysmith's book that Mt. Diablo was used by the military to find longitude and latitude at sea.

Can I assume that on it somewhere is one of those little brass markers from the Army Corps of Engineers stating N-S-E-W and it's exact longitude and latitude?

By Jake (Jake) (spider-wd083.proxy.aol.com - 205.188.193.188) on Wednesday, November 01, 2000 - 03:40 pm:

ED N wrote:
"Jake: I don't hate Penn, just what he stands for. I don't much care for his arrogance either, especially since he has nothing to be arrogant or conceited about! Judging from the tripe he has written over the last 18 years, I wonder how that clown even got into Mensa. Now I'm wondering... was he even in Mensa? Or did he get that wrong too???"

"Hate" is a pretty strong word, and I do hereby retract it from my post double-plus quick, and I admit that you and Glen shied away from it a month or so back. Shame on me.

As to how he got into Mensa, I don't think there's any argument that GP is a smart guy; it's just a shame how he's wasted it trying to make up for that PhD thesis he never wrote.

--Jake
http://members.aol.com/Jakewark/index.html
"This is the Zodiac Speaking..."

By Jake (Jake) (spider-wd083.proxy.aol.com - 205.188.193.188) on Wednesday, November 01, 2000 - 03:44 pm:

Hurley wrote:
"I'm just curious too. I also read in Graysmith's book that Mt. Diablo was used by the military to find longitude and latitude at sea."

I think it was used to plot the local geography, too -- on some of the USGS maps, lines extending due North/South and due East/West are shown radiating out from the summit. They're called the Mount Diablo Baselines.

"Can I assume that on it somewhere is one of those little brass markers from the Army Corps of Engineers stating N-S-E-W and it's exact longitude and latitude?"

Probably, though I've never been there. It's noted on the USGS maps as Vertical Angle Benchmark 3849, but Penn names a lot of Benchmarks that I have checked out, and they don't have any such marker.

--Jake
http://members.aol.com/Jakewark/index.html
"This is the Zodiac Speaking..."

By Ed N. (Edn) (spider-wc071.proxy.aol.com - 205.188.193.51) on Wednesday, November 01, 2000 - 04:43 pm:

Mt D is not too far away... perhaps one day I can check it out from the summit and see what the benchmark actually says. I flew over it a few weeks back when I went to Florida, but I didn't have my binoculars to check out the benchmark from our altitude. LOL

By Curt Rowlett (Curt) (63.174.33.229) on Thursday, November 02, 2000 - 03:22 pm:

To By Gregorypraxas (Gregorypraxas) re: "CHASING THE RADIAN: X Marks the Spot"

Let me know if you would consider letting me publish your "X Marks the Spot" radian theory on my website, I think it is brilliant. (I would really like to use it as another supplement to the Zodiac story that I have there).

There are e-mail links throughout the site, please contact me if you are agreeable to this idea.

Thanks,

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

By Hurley (Hurley) (spider-tk061.proxy.aol.com - 152.163.206.201) on Saturday, November 04, 2000 - 11:30 am:

OK, call me thick but I followed the instructions above, now what does it mean?

gracias

By Glen Claston (Glenclaston) (dialup-209.245.226.38.dallas1.level3.net - 209.245.226.38) on Wednesday, November 08, 2000 - 03:48 am:

Hey Ed N.,
I crashed my mini-main and had to go back here to reenter your e-mail address into my system. It's truly a wonder what can happen when you start a war and drop out, now isn't it?

The cipher section turned into a forum for re-runs of weapons discussions and egos, and Gregory has correctly labeled me an 'embecile', to which I add the distinction 'extraordinaire'. If you're going to be anything, be the best there is at it, and I'm an extraordinarily adept embecile, don't you agree?

I share a common bond with Penn, being that we were both members of Mensa. All one had to have in 1976-1985 to join this group was a 'heavily weighted' IQ test score of 135 or higher, and a strong desire to drink the town dry. It was absolutely abhorrent to go to meeting after meeting only to discuss junk-bond and junk-stock deals and argue over our choice of favorite beers and wines. "Here, try this - you'll see my point". I'd have to admit that I did learn a lot about wines, and a little bit about Greek cuisine. Mensa is not the intellectual experience you read about in its brochures, indeed. I discovered that people are human no matter what their level of cognizance and recall.

I am an embecile and I deserve the title simply because I've ignored a primary human ability to take a single isolated coincidence out of its much greater context and build a belief system around that one isolated anomaly. It got us Buddha, and Jesus didn't ignore that when he repeated Buddha's words some 500 years later. If it worked for Buddha and Christ, why not Gareth Penn? If I were truly intelligent I would have seen that coming, which clearly earns me the title of 'embecile'.

When I answer an e-mail or critique a statement, I still can't get over the habit of taking the elements of the statements most literally, which typically leads me to dispute, simply because most people do not know precisely what they write. I forget that to the undisciplined thinker it is no major feat to disjoint one fact from the other and treat it to an independent and disconnected 'flash of brilliance'. These are not scientists nor disciplined thinkers. These are people who hold up one abservation as champion without regard to a compendium of related facts that must logically have some bearing on the problem.

I applaud Greg on his wonderful discovery - that there is enough uncertainty in observation between the perceived experts in this field to warrant a claim that a TRUE RADIAN (+ or - two degrees of course) actually exists, extended BEYOND the map in question, disregarding the INSTRUCTIONS and the INTENTIONS in question, without knowing the content of the CIPHER in question, to keep a Gareth Penn belief alive.

I also applaud Gregory's ability to weed out this singular anomaly from the thousands of more mathematically complex statements Penn makes and build it into the 'fact' he presents as his crisp and clear understanding of "The Radian Theory", devoid of its twisted origins and dark intentions. Gregory's ability to latch onto something so isolated and logically diverse from the facts is a real credit to the human thought process.

I not only bow to Gregory, I bow out, as my preferred method of thinking has become an analogy and a misnomer on this site. My attempt to popularize the cipher and attract professionals to the problem is now a useless pursuit. Greg can now solve the problem and feel secure in his solution because of the overwhelming accolades from the gallery - and he solves it without logic, without scientific discipline, even without the cipher involved. Impressive.

But as even this embecile will point out, Greg did give the minimal disclaimer for his research and hard work - that disclaimer saying that he focused on one singular Penn anomaly taken totally out of context of the larger Penn work, disregarding any and all Penn 'facts' that might have had an influential bearing on his research, as well as any real facts and evidenciary specimens that should have had major bearing on his research.

He argues that we who do not rely on his disclaimer as proof of scientific endeavor should be duly chastised - never mind the fact he disclaims EVERYTHING, including the VALIDITY of his own study. Greg points out that he had only one goal in mind - to test a figment of Penn's imagination - and should we question his premise or fail to rely on his disclaimer we draw suspect attention to our own motives. So we are to draw meaning from Greg's research at a single level and nothing more, even though he defends his research as so much more, as demonstrated in his claim that "The radian theory is alive and well!". Given the scope and intent of Greg's disclaimer, I of course drew undue and appropriately negative attention to my motives by motioning toward his claim that there was a healthy radian theory. Greg corrected my stupidity by pointing out that he had no intention of defending the radian or the radian theory, even though "The Radian Theory Is Alive And Well'.

I'm an embecile. I mistook his time, effort, and proclamation to mean that Greg actually had a point to make, but he has since corrected my enthusiasm by correctly pointing out that "The Radian Theory Is Alive And Well" simply because he wants it to be, and for no other reasonable excuse.

Without the inclusion of critically pertinent information, such as the application of magnetic north to the radian equation, the inclusion of points of interest only present on the map in question, an explanation for the 3-6-9-0 "watchface" of the circle around Mt. Diablo, the intended intersection of radians with a possible bomb location, or the decipherment of the accompanying cipher - without troubling to correlate even one of these pieces of information to the suspected radian in question - Greg has "brilliantly" deduced that "The Radian Theory Is Alive And Well!"

With all the tools and magic I have at my command, Greg has done far more than I could ever do. I can do many great things with my magic, but nothing I have in my bag of tricks could have ever revived the "Radian Theory". It's time I took my bag of tricks elsewhere.

By Glen Claston (Glenclaston) (dialup-209.245.226.38.dallas1.level3.net - 209.245.226.38) on Wednesday, November 08, 2000 - 03:58 am:

Not wanting to be accused of putting words in one's mouth, I state honestly that I can find no occurrence of Greg saying "Alive and Well". He does however say that

'the "radian theory" is a plausible and credible interpretation of the material'

and also states: "this analysis of the Zodiac's map and the relevant scenes proves that this theory is by no means invalidated."

If you don't read "Alive And Well" in these statements, I apologize for the paraphrase.

By Hurley (Hurley) (spider-wb083.proxy.aol.com - 205.188.192.188) on Wednesday, November 08, 2000 - 07:31 am:

Hellooooo, so what does the Radian Theory prove? Just the location for Zodiac's bomb? If it's any kind of a clue, the cipher about the bomb has the astrological symbol for north in it. Graysmith incorrectly referred to it as the astrological symbol for Libra.

By Gregorypraxas (Gregorypraxas) (spider-wb033.proxy.aol.com - 205.188.192.163) on Wednesday, November 08, 2000 - 09:36 am:

Glen,

If you can't see that it is perfectly possible for the radian to have been intended, AND be part of the solution USING the Zodiac's instructions, I cannot help you there. It doesn't require any labored or twisted thought process, nor does it have anything to do with Penn.

Penn noticed this possible correlation between the crime scenes and the radian. The fact that he chose to exaggerate, distort and misuse the information is completely irrelevant to this discussion and my examination. I never said that PENN's THEORY about the radian had any credence or support. In fact, I think it is clear that the overwhelming majority of Penn's theories, including those connected to HIS radian theory have been destroyed.

I said that the theory that the Zodiac intended to construct such a radian was by no means invalidated. I further stated that this radian, if, in fact, it was intended, may only serve as part of the larger solution intended in the zodiac's instructions. I never said that I had "solved" the entire Zodiac map/code mystery, Glen. Can't you at least try to pay attention?

If you can prove that that this radian theory (and NOT Penn's) cannot possibly have any relation to, part of, or connection to the Zodiac's instructions, and that such a theory cannot be used in keeping with those instructions, I will happily bow to your superior intellect and scientific methods. However, until then, I don't see how anyone who claims to be rational and objective can outright dismiss something so simple which might lead to a possible solution.

If the radians are meant to assist in the location of the bomb, then a radian found on that map might serve as a reference point, or an indication of where other radians where to fall on the map. This radian might also relate to information contained in the coded message, and could also assist in the further cracking of the rest of the code. There are many perfectly plausible possibilities here, all of them perfectly in keeping with the Zodiac's instructions.

Radians, which are often measured in degrees in surveying and navigation, and inches, which are often measured with a ruler or other device, and a coded message are to assist in the identification of a geographical location ON A MAP. If you can explain how the radian theory cannot possibly fit in this scenario, or is somehow so contradictory as to be excluded by the instructions, please do so.

Otherwise, all I have heard from you is a lot of whining about Penn, a lot of rhetoric about scientific method and a lot of nonsense about how I am not addressing the issues when you have consistently failed to support a single statement you have made about me, my examination of this theory, or the arguments I have presented.

So, I challenge you -- prove that I don't know what I am talking about, or shut up. That, after all, IS the scientific method. I put forth my theory, backed up my arguments with the facts, used a great deal of logic, did the research to support my conclusions and offered my results for review by my "peers."

Can you?

PS: I did have a point. After reading your laughable attempts to obscure the issues with your ravings about Penn, etc, I think it is clear just whereabouts on your person your "point" is located....and, for someone who hates Penn so much, you sure sound just like him....

By Jake (Jake) (spider-wi053.proxy.aol.com - 205.188.197.43) on Wednesday, November 08, 2000 - 04:09 pm:

Glen,

Would you still be making such a fuss over this if Penn had never written a book? That is to say, if some newbie to the Board dropped in and mentioned that the angle between BRS and Presidio Heights looked like a radian, and maybe that was significant since Z used the term, would you still launch into a thousand-word post on how this kid was delusional and terminally wrong?

--Jake
http://members.aol.com/Jakewark/index.html
"This is the Zodiac Speaking..."

By Jake (Jake) (spider-tj032.proxy.aol.com - 152.163.213.187) on Wednesday, November 08, 2000 - 07:39 pm:

Hurley wrote:
"Hellooooo, so what does the Radian Theory prove? Just the location for Zodiac's bomb?"

Well, it's still just a theory, so it doesn't really prove anything yet. If Z could perhaps post a message here describing his intentions, I'm sure we would all feel a lot more comfortable about it. If he could tell us which direction Cecelia Shepard's feet were pointed or what kind of pants Hartnell was wearing, that would be great, too.

And if the theory was to be confirmed, it still wouldn't mean anything except that Z was in fact more calculating than many of us give him credit for. Not smarter, or better educated, necessarily -- just more thoughtful about the long-term, rather than thinking from kill to kill. I don't believe that Z ever planted a bomb, so I don't think that the radian will help anyone find it, but it may be a clue to something. Hell, I don't know. I have more important things to worry about, like stocking my underground bunker for the next four years.

--Jake
http://members.aol.com/Jakewark/index.html
"This is the Zodiac Speaking..."

By Oscar (Oscar) (pool0916.cvx5-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net - 209.178.155.151) on Wednesday, November 08, 2000 - 08:11 pm:

Jake,
Listen sweetheart, the term "newbie" was first used on this board by yours truly. Rest assured, I have consulted my marginally reputable attorney concerning this matter. I will be suing your a*s off, as this egregious theft shall not go unpunished. Cease and desist at once or feel the wrath of the weiner!
Has anyone ever noticed that, if you turn the radian lines sideways, it looks like a large W! Maybe he was trying to call himself Wodiak. This would tie in nicely with Sandy's belief in Kane, as he would be incapable of getting out a single word without drooling all over his bib (but he'd be okay to sell real estate). Food for thought, eh?
Oscar the Raw.
p.s. Penn in 2004. Do the math!

By Gregorypraxas (Gregorypraxas) (spider-wb053.proxy.aol.com - 205.188.192.173) on Wednesday, November 08, 2000 - 08:34 pm:

The term "newbie" has been part of Usenet slang for years now, Oscar. However, if you could make a case that they stole it from you...

...I smell litigation.

By Ed N. (Edn) (spider-ntc-tc061.proxy.aol.com - 198.81.17.46) on Wednesday, November 08, 2000 - 09:26 pm:

I think everyone knows my position on the whole radian thingie: that Z never intended what Penn thought he did, and that the angle is not one radian, but that it does coincidentally measure slightly more than one radian.

What I'd love to know, and I don't think anyone has even bothered to attempt to explain this, but WHY did Z choose BRS as one of the three points to mark out his radian??? That is, assuming that that's what he intended in the first place. Since he "started collecting slaves for his afterlife" at LHR, logically, IF the rest of Z's explanation for the map, code et. al. was nothing more than a ruse to confuse those poor old cops and everyone else (except Penn, with his brain the size of a planet, of course), then the starting point of the radian should be at the place Z started killing, ie, LHR.

Now remember, I don't dispute that the BRS/Mt D/PH angle approximates one radian, but why BRS (that isn't even on the map) and not LHR (which is)?

Now, am I being too logical here?

P.S. Unfortunately, my sarcastic remark directed at a certain Mensan will probably go unnoticed by said Mensan. Too bad. I have lots more where that came from, though...

By Hurley (Hurley) (spider-tp083.proxy.aol.com - 152.163.204.213) on Wednesday, November 08, 2000 - 10:49 pm:

Hi Jake! Thanks for clearing that up.

Why do I have the feeling we are all sitting in a giant pumpkin patch waiting for the Great Pumpkin to "rise up out of the pumpkin patch......"?

By Gregorypraxas (Gregorypraxas) (spider-wb082.proxy.aol.com - 205.188.192.187) on Wednesday, November 08, 2000 - 11:44 pm:

Ed,

I won't claim to have the answers to your questions, but I will offer this speculation, at the risk of being seized upon by yet another ravenous Pennatic.

If you use a blue felt-tip pen to make lines similar in width to those made by Zodiac on the map, you will find that the BRS does approximate a radian. The margin for error allows the location of the LH scene to be approximately one to one and a half-degrees east from BRS. These lines are, of course, estimates. However, it should be remembered that even the Zodiac himself would have to estimate.

If the Zodiac was using a larger map to locate the scenes himself, and then submitted the smaller map for police to use, he may not have even measured the angle on that map. He may have assumed that his (possible) intentions would have been discovered once the areas in question were examined. A larger map may also have shown Lake Berryessa (which, in technical terms would fall outside the ecliptic, but that is another issue).

The use of the apparently blunted pen, and the differences between the two maps -- let alone the inaccuracies of a Zodiac who was also only estimating -- may have led the Zodiac to believe that the BRS scene fell at approximately 57, and the LH scene at 58 degrees. It may have appeared that this would effectively mark the distance between 57 and 58 degrees. If the Zodiac was working on the larger map to measure these locations, it may have, indeed, appeared to be true. If so, this might explain what you deem to be an inconsistency, namely, that the BRS is not the first murder scene and, for some reason, it should be the first scene to form a radian yet is not. Your points seem based on the assumption that the radian only serves one purpose -- a radian -- and that the scenes must be used in a certain order. I see no reason to support such assumptions, as it is more than possible that there are many different reasons why the killer would not adhere to your rules, and that much of this may have reason, meaning or method known only to himself. I'm not saying you aren't making valid points, I just don't see where there is any evidence supporting any theory concerning the order in which the scenes should be used, or what correlation they may have to the dates of the murders, etc.

You wrote: "...IF the rest of Z's explanation for the map, code et. al. was nothing more than a ruse to confuse those poor old cops and everyone else..."

I never said that the rest of the explanation was a ruse. I said that it is perfectly possible that such a radian was either a part of or a clue to the larger solution, and, to date, I have not heard any argument to refute such a possibility.

I would like to take issue with your use of the word "coincidentally" regarding the measurement of the radian. First, I think it is important to pay attention to the fact that the Zodiac was obviously using a blunted pen, and perhaps even a larger map, to make his determinations. It is not a coincidence that the lines approximate a radian, it is a fact. Whether or not this is a coincidence can only be determined once the actual intentions of the Zodiac are known. Without such information, you are simply assuming it is the product of coincidence. Second, the map features the Bay area. It features an area which spans the bulk of the radian. The Zodiac drew a crossed circle on Mt. Diablo. He said that the "Mt. Diablo code concerns radians and #inches along the radians." He stated that the code and the map, AND, the radians and the inches, were to be used to find a location on that map.

Using the map to locate Mt. Diablo and the crimes scenes, to the best of ones ability, and using a pen similar to that of the Zodiac to measure these scenes approximates a radian.

If you can explain to me why this should be ruled as little more than coincidence, and why it cannot possibly have anything to do with the instructions or larger solution, I would be happy to concede the issue. I am genuinely interested.

Thanks :)

By Ed N. (Edn) (spider-ntc-td073.proxy.aol.com - 198.81.17.183) on Thursday, November 09, 2000 - 12:55 am:

Gregory...

I know we disagree on this... and I think we will agree to continue disagreeing! LOL... what I'm trying to make sense of is that yes, the BRS/Mt D/PH angle does in fact approximate one radian (a fact I've never denied, BTW), but, everything about it is just mere speculation. I understand your theory (and the larger radian theory as well, of course), but now that I think about it, it is based on the assumptions that Z:

1) Intended to construct a radian using those three points in the first place;

2) May have used a larger map and transferred his calculations to a smaller map;

3) May have used a blunt felt-tipped pen on both maps;

4) Didn't particularly care in what order his crimes occurred relative to the plotting of his radian;

5) Assumed that the cops would divine what he really intended;

6) Assumed that they would use a larger map to plot out his radian once correctly divined;

7) Assumed they would know what to do with it.

That's an awful lot of assumptions. Now, assuming that Z really had intended to plot out a radian using the aforementioned crime scenes, those assumptions certainly are valid, because they do explain the variables. However, just what do you do with one radian that links some of the crime scenes but not others? And has no apparent connection to his instructions to use the map and code to find his buried bomb, other than the fact that it approximates one radian, the singular of the term he used in his hint about what the code contained.

You wrote:

If the Zodiac was working on the larger map to measure these locations, it may have, indeed, appeared to be true. If so, this might explain what you deem to be an inconsistency, namely, that the BRS is not the first murder scene and, for some reason, it should be the first scene to form a radian yet is not. Your points seem based on the assumption that the radian only serves one purpose -- a radian -- and that the scenes must be used in a certain order. I see no reason to support such assumptions, as it is more than possible that there are many different reasons why the killer would not adhere to your rules, and that much of this may have reason, meaning or method known only to himself. I'm not saying you aren't making valid points, I just don't see where there is any evidence supporting any theory concerning the order in which the scenes should be used, or what correlation they may have to the dates of the murders, etc.

The one thing I keep coming back to is Z's own words from his seven-page diatribe (Zodiac, p. 126):
To prove that I am the Zodiac, Ask the Vallejo cop about my electric gunsight which I used to start my collecting of slaves. (italics mine)

Granted, he doesn't mention plotting a radian from that point, but he indicates he started something at LHR. Collecting slaves. Seems like a logical place to start something else, perhaps plotting a radian, if that's what he really wanted to do. The terminus of the radian is where he ended his crimes, so why end with the end but start at the beginning with the second crime scene?

The only reason I can think of as to why BRS is essential to this theory is that it works (sort of).

Anyway, I'm kinda wiped out here, and it probably shows in my ramblings in this post... lol. Oh, well... I need to give this more thought during the day when I'm awake...

By Gregorypraxas (Gregorypraxas) (spider-wb064.proxy.aol.com - 205.188.192.179) on Thursday, November 09, 2000 - 01:49 am:

1) I think some of these assumptions are supported by the facts, much more so than your arguments. For instance, the map is obviously an insert map. It is not marked. If the map relates to the code, and the Zodiac is using that map and a radian to make the code which is to lead to a location, then he would need to locate that spot and measure the radians on that map. Since he used a blue felt-tip pen to mark just about everything, including the map and the code, it would a relatively good guess that he, himself, used such a pen on such a map in such a manner. There's no real stretch there -- think about it. If the code is a real code containing real information about a real location depicted on a real map, then the Zodiac had to work it all out himself on a map, using radians and most likely his favorite pen. Since the map he sent shows no such markings, it is safe to say he must have used another map. And since the map he sent was an inset map, it is a good guess that he used the larger map it accompanied. It is also quite possible, and, I would say more than likely, that he never "transferred" his calculations to the smaller map at all, and simply applied the crossed-circle, relying on his work on the larger map.

2) The theory that a radian is intended is an assumption, but that assumption carries a lot more weight than the assumption that it was not. Zodiac said the map had to do with radians and inches. As far as I can see, the only way to measure inches along radians on that map is to locate radians on that map first and then the inches along them. A radian formed by three scenes relevant in the Zodiac case -- especially one where the Zodiac strayed so far from his prior territory and M.O. -- may be very relevant in locating the rest of the radians, and, by proxy, the location in question. The idea that the radian is meaningless is supported by little more than a "Nuh-Uh." Let's be honest about that.

3) It is not a theory that the Zodiac used a felt-tip pen on the Mt. Diablo map that he sent. It is also clear that the lines he made were thicker than those of a new and sharp pen, and are more like those of a blunted pen that has been used for some time, or a pen that is being pressed hard against the paper. The lines on the map are thick, and that is the thickness of the lines I used in my examination. If the Zodiac used the same pen, or pressed just as hard, then his lines would be similar.

4) You say that this radian "has no apparent connection to his instructions to use the map and code to find his buried bomb" other than Zodiac's hint. I think that this assumption ignores the mountain of evidence that the Zodiac seems to have intended that radians be placed on the map, measured in inches, and used to determine a location. It isn't a stretch to at least consider that a radian formed by relevant scenes on that map, and might assist in carrying out the Zodiac's instructions, let alone be a part of those instructions. I am not trying to be insulting here, but I think that this is a no-brainer, and that most of the resistance against even the possibility of such meaning is the residual effect of the "Penn Burn." Just because we have only found one radian does not mean it cannot relate to the radians (plural) that Zodiac described.

5) I think it is safe to say that the Zodiac at least indicated that he hoped the cops would divine what he intended. I never said that they were supposed to do so by finding this radian first. Indeed, I believe he intended that the code be solved, and this radian would be found in the course of following his instructions. And I never said that I assumed that police would use a larger map. I said it was a good guess that they would, and I would gamble that they at least located the scenes on such a map at one time; if not in the pursuit of the map's solutions, most certainly at some time in the course of their investigation. It may not be necessary to use the other maps. Perhaps the Zodiac's map was all they would need. We do not know. But I think it is safe to say that, if they were using the Zodiac's map, and noted the relation of LH to the Stine scene, and measured that distance to be anywhere near 58 or 59 degrees, they would be smart enough to figure out that the BRS scene was just west of LH, and anything in that direction would be less than 58 or 59 degrees.

6) I never said that the Zodiac didn't particularly care what order the crimes occurred in the construction of his radian. What I said was, you are assuming that there is a right order and a wrong order. I am saying we don't know the order -- only he does. What we do know is this: The first scene falls at approx. 58 degrees, the second at 57, moving counterclockwise. The third was a stabbing during daylight -- completely outside his territory and M.O. The fourth occurred at the 0 point, moving counterclockwise still, and although it, too, was different in many ways, it was a shooting in a parked car, just like the first two crimes. Therefore, the radian is constructed, literally, BY GUN. The Zodiac referred to his crimes BY GUN, BY KNIFE, BY FIRE, and BY ROPE -- and ON a structure representing a cross no less.