Ack! Yet Another Radian Theory! Message Board: Theories: Ack! Yet Another Radian Theory!

By Roger Redding (Roger_Redding) ( - on Thursday, June 28, 2001 - 10:39 pm:

This idea occurred, to me, really, while I was shaving one day. It assumes that Z a) miswrote slightly b) knew a bit of complex analysis (CA). Most of you are probably familiar with the concept of imaginary numbers - often represented as the square root of negative numbers. The square of -1 is called "i", and other imaginary numbers are represented as multiples of i. A complex number has both a real part and and an imaginary part, and can be written as x +yi, i.e. 3 + 4i

For reasons, I won't go into here, it makes sense to think of the imaginary number line running at right angles to the real number line. This gives you your standard Cartesian coordinate system, with, say, the real number line as the x-axis and the imaginary line as the y-axis. Now a complex number can be represented as a point on the x-y plane - i.e. (3,4). However, there is another way to represent the same point - by the distance between the point and the origin (the intersection of the axes, or (0,0)) and the angle between the positive x axis and a line connect the point with the origin, i.e (5, 0.295pi). (By the way, the angle is almost always expressed in radians, and commonly as a multiple or fraction of pi).

The first first number in the last pair can be considered the RADIUS of a circle centered at (0,0). Therefore, a complex number can be represented by RADIANS and distance along the RADIUS. This is almost what Z said the Mt Diablo code gave, except he said "radian" instead of "radius". So the assumption is that he mis-wrote.

What could this mean? One possiblity is that the code, if de-cyiphered would yield a number pair; one number would be the "radius" i.e. distance from some origin point, say summit of Mt Diablo, while the other would be the measurement of an angle in radians, wrt respect to some fixed axis (magnetic north?) And this would give us a point where we might find something interesting, in Gareth Penn's phrase.

Or not??


By Sylvie (Sylvie14) ( - on Thursday, June 28, 2001 - 11:19 pm:

Wow, now that was amazing!! Are any of you guys sober enough to figure that out that one.
TK eat your heart out.

By Ed N (Ed_N) ( - on Thursday, June 28, 2001 - 11:29 pm:

I already suggested something very similar, yet exceedingly less complex, some time back...

By Spencer (Spencer) ( - on Thursday, June 28, 2001 - 11:55 pm:

I'm having flashbacks to calculus, and I don't like it.


By Zoe Glass (Zoe_Glass) ( - on Friday, June 29, 2001 - 01:49 am:

radian = an imaginary line around an area of radiate particles

By Douglas Oswell (Dowland) ( - on Friday, June 29, 2001 - 03:56 pm:

Sylvie, you obviously haven't read "Boundary Functions," by Kaczynski. I think he has nothing to fear from Roger.

By Sylvie (Sylvie14) ( - on Friday, June 29, 2001 - 10:08 pm:

I know, I was just kidding. As one who thinks Algebra is medieval torture treatment, I am always impressed by Mathematical prowess. Summa cum laude in History, but I could not pass a geometry class to save my life.
Therefore, I actually have no idea what Roger said but it sounded cool.

By Douglas Oswell (Dowland) ( - on Friday, June 29, 2001 - 11:04 pm:

I don't find it farfetched either. And this code thing is precisely where Kaczynski would have shone. I've been dying to find out exactly how his mathematical code (the one in which he kept parts of his journals) was encrypted, but so far I haven't a clue.

By Bill Bratton (Willy) ( - on Saturday, June 30, 2001 - 01:15 am:

Roger is describing a system known as "VECTORS". This is an alternate method of defining a point in space (alternate to the cartesian coordinate system). It applies to any description of a point location, and does not require the use of imaginary numbers (this has complicated Rogers description).

To try to explain the difference between the two systems in layman's terms, assume we are at one corner (say the NW corner) of a square city block with the length of each side of the block being one mile. If we wanted to describe how to get to the farthest corner (katycorner) on the same block, you can do it two ways. In the CARTESIAN system, one might say "go east one mile and then go south one mile (ie: the "x", "y" coordinates). In the VECTOR system one gives the instructions "as the crow flies", as if you were travelling there in a single straight line. This instruction would be "go 1.44 miles in a direction 45 degrees to the south east" (degrees relative to the east-west street that we stand on). Here the descriptors are an angle and a distance. Note that degrees and radians are simple conversions, like quarts to gallons. Either method takes you to the same point.

When Z says the solution involves radians and distance along a radian, he is undoubtedly talking vectors.

Note on his Phillips 66 map that the top of the hand drawn Z cross has an arrowhead on it. Vectors are pictorially represented by an arrow...that is...a straight line, with a simple "V" arrowhead on one end. He has used this on the map.

Curiously, he uses clock face numbers (3,6,9) to identify three cardinal points. He isn't using degrees, or radians.

I don't believe that the associated cipher is long enough to actually "use" the vector system though. Not enough symbols to identify an angle, a distance, and then say where to look. An angle and a distance would only give you a huge area remaining to be searched. If he meant us to use it that way, and be able to actually pinpoint a bomb location, it would need to include more info such as "behind the gas station on 3rd street". There isn't enough code for this.

I feel that the intent was to take us to the word "VECTOR" itself, and that "word" has some significance to a town name, or a place name that directly moves you to the immediate area where (supposedly) the bomb is. The short code would then pinpoint a landmark to search at. I think the key was to find the word "vector" and not to actually use it in a math/mapping sense.

This is simply my thinking at this time. Comments welcomed.

By Zoe Glass (Zoe_Glass) ( - on Saturday, June 30, 2001 - 08:03 am:

radiate particles occur spontaneously with implosion.

By Zoe Glass (Zoe_Glass) ( - on Sunday, July 01, 2001 - 08:46 am:

Roger, are you suggesting (time) as an undefined varible?

By The Fife (Thefife) ( - on Tuesday, July 10, 2001 - 02:15 pm:


Perhaps because I am a physicist, a polar co-ordinate system is the only thing that came to mine what I read his instructions. Yes, he had to have mispoken himself in a small detail, but hardly in the sense of it.

I have no doubt that Z was giving a polar co-ordinate.

Tom F

By Eduard (Eduard) ( - on Wednesday, July 11, 2001 - 06:11 am:

Maybe Z. didn't use straight lines but a maths formula like that of a parabole?

"The Zodiac-Batman Connection"