Zodiackillersite.com

All I can say is, Good Luck Foreigner.I don't have any issues with you, so feel free to come back anytime.

morf13 wrote:All I can say is, Good Luck Foreigner.I don't have any issues with you, so feel free to come back anytime.

Thanks Morf

my two cents is to be careful with this ross stuff as it sometimes borders the libelous. we know the rcc librarians thought ross might have killed bates. we know le was aware of this. we know ross had mental issues. that certainly makes him a much better suspect for bates than someone randomly picked out of a yearbook because they wore glasses, however it doesn't prove much about riverside or bates. on top of that, you guys are going way off the rails trying to make him the zodiac. we don't know for sure that zodiac = bates' killer. we don't know that ross matches the descriptions of zodiac (please let's not start hashing this again, we can agree to disagree on the finer points). we don't know that ross was anywhere around any of the killings. we CAN find that stuff out, which is what i think morf is trying to do. we can talk to people who knew him, we can search for biographical information about his whereabouts. we can try to find better picture of him during 1969-1970.

we can do a lot of stuff, however some of the stuff that's going on worries me along the same lines that the foreigner spoke of above. we are dragging a dead person's name into the mix of a series of unsolved murders. that should not be taken lightly. we've seen it done to lots of other people on lots of other online forums (ala, gaikowski, et al). if ross is zodiac then two other forums have ruined the lives and reputations of ala, gaikowski and others. if ross isn't zodiac then we're doing the same to his legacy and his family. not everyone on here is being as careful as morf to specifically say "i don't know if he's z but i'm trying to gather information". i'd hate to see this healthy vibrant forum turned into another one of those pet suspect forums that turn off everyone except a few zealots.

just my opinion.

I've always felt that there are enough actual FACTS to go on in this case without driving a spike up some innocent person's arse.

The ENTIRE "POI" aspect - 'Lets' dig up his entire life!" - has always turned me off. I suppose it is why I stick to the ciphers, the known letters, and such.

They can't ALL be Zodiac. Most likely, none of them are/were. And I have no interest in being part of a "ghoul-squad" digging up details of the dead. That's just my opinion.

-glurk

I never thought I'd see TF go like this.

I was a little peeved when the Ross Pros and Cons felt like it was just supposed to be Pros. I do think objectivity went a little skewed on that thread.

Since the Ross thread proper apparently has enough discussion to warrant over 100 pages, I don't think making subtopics to streamline counts as making the site "All about Ross", and I certainly don't see anyone trying to discourage posters from talking about other subjects.

As far as dragging names thru the mud, most of these names are already out there in the public. Ross is just one more. He can't be libeled or defamed as he is deceased. We likely will not solve this case on one of these forums or sites about Z, but we definitely won't if we can not zero in on Suspects.

As far as the Ross stuff, here's what irritates me. People that think Ross may be Z, are taking part in posts on the Ross thread discussing clues, and finding more ways to investigate him,and all the while, People that clearly doubt Ross is a Suspect, continue to post doubts about him. Again, maybe it's just me, but if I don't think a Suspect is Z, I simply do not post in a thread about the Suspect, as I personally feel it's a waste of my time, which is why you don't see me ever posting in several Suspect threads. But hey, that's just me. Whether or not somebody thinks Ross is a good Z Suspect or not, I could care less, it won't sway me from my research. Same goes for any other Suspect I am researching.

I can't and won't apologize because Ross is getting a lot of interest or attention. People will post about what they are interested in and what is a hot topic. I can't control that, and just because Ross is of great interest now,and generating Buzz, that doesn't mean that this site has become a 'site about Ross'. Last I looked, there are lots of Suspect threads for people to look thru and post in. If you don't think Ross is a viable Suspect, then that's your right, feel free to find a Suspect you like.

glurk wrote:I've always felt that there are enough actual FACTS to go on in this case without driving a spike up some innocent person's arse.

The ENTIRE "POI" aspect - 'Lets' dig up his entire life!" - has always turned me off. I suppose it is why I stick to the ciphers, the known letters, and such.

They can't ALL be Zodiac. Most likely, none of them are/were. And I have no interest in being part of a "ghoul-squad" digging up details of the dead. That's just my opinion.

-glurk

I agree with this.

It's hard to find the right balance on a board like this, though. I can understand that people get carried away. It's possible for anyone with an Internet connection to dig up all sorts of personal information these days, and most never stop to think about what they're actually doing. I'm guilty of this myself, I'm sure.

The POI focus – if we can call it that – of boards like this one, is pretty much inevitable at this stage, though. Most people who now take an active interest in the case seem to do so from some kind of POI angle or other. Very few remain focused on the evidence itself. The ciphers are an excellent case in point: How many are trying to solve the 340 without having some – usually horribly unlikely - “suspect” in mind?

You see new members both here and at TV's board who seemingly think “having a POI” is some sort of prerequisite. “I don't have a POI – yet. Still torn between Gyke and Darlene Ferrin's evil twin.” It's almost a popularity contest in some cases. And people who are new to the case can easily get the impression that there is actually something to these “suspects” who have been promoted at different times, as though they were an official part of the case, on par with the evidence.

There are thousands of names that can be dug up and scrutinized. Doing so makes very little sense, however, unless there is something there – something which stands out clearly and warrants further research. Then we might legitimately do some prying, in a respectful and careful manner. Most names people come up with are not in the above category, though. There is nothing compelling about them whatsoever. The only possible reason for bothering with them at all is the principle that no stone should be left unturned. I'm not sure I believe in that principle, actually. Not when you can't go about turning those stones without violating someone's privacy – or memory.

Oh well – it's not all bad, I guess. I actually do believe – unlike some – that a widespread interest in the case is a good thing. The price to pay for that – is unsavory nonsense, lots of it, unfortunately.

morf13 wrote:People that think Ross may be Z, are taking part in posts on the Ross thread discussing clues, and finding more ways to investigate him,and all the while, People that clearly doubt Ross is a Suspect, continue to post doubts about him. Again, maybe it's just me, but if I don't think a Suspect is Z, I simply do not post in a thread about the Suspect, as I personally feel it's a waste of my time, which is why you don't see me ever posting in several Suspect threads.

that sounds dangerously like "i don't want to hear from anyone who doesn't agree". maybe that's not how you meant it but i think that's what riled up the foreigner as well. part of what keeps the checks and balances of a board like this is precisely that those who don't agree feel the right to chime in and say so. i personally don't think it's a waste of time to evaluate someone's theories, including suspects, and help make them stronger by pointing out flaws. in fact, over the past year that's one of the main things i really like about this messageboard. if you don't accept the criticism then you end up with a lot of one-sided theories that are weakened by the fact that those who disagree don't post in those threads. just my 2 cents, i'm not trying to make things worse, etc.

morf13 wrote:As far as the Ross stuff, here's what irritates me. People that think Ross may be Z, are taking part in posts on the Ross thread discussing clues, and finding more ways to investigate him,and all the while, People that clearly doubt Ross is a Suspect, continue to post doubts about him.

If people just say “nah, don't think it was him” over and over again, then tell them to stop or get banned. You have the authority to do that – and it would be legitimate in my opinion.

But saying that people can go elsewhere and post about a suspect they like is not going to accomplish anything good. It shouldn't be about liking a suspect on a scale from one to ten. Ultimately, it should be about dissecting both the evidence itself and our various interpretations of this evidence. If the latter is illogical, if the focus is wrong, if you put an unreasonable amount of emphasis on B and far too little on A – then I have to say so.

And then you can retort: I'm wrong, I've missed the point, I'm not looking at the full picture. And so we move on – hopefully getting a better understanding of both the evidence and the POI in question. If I refrain from making those – critical – comments, and just stick to posting about what I like (in which case I'd never post, because I don't really like any of the proposed suspects), then what? Well, in my particular case there would no great loss – but if ALL of the “naysayers” refrained from making a nuisance of themselves, would that really be beneficial to the progress of the Ross investigation/research?