Zodiackillersite.com

Paul_Averly wrote:Here are a few

Susie wrote:Personally speaking I don't think there is a solution to the cypher. I think there's a message in it but I also think that there is not a real key. I think that zodiac got his ego hurt by the first one being solved so quickly that he decided that although there is a message and it no one will be able to break it.

There are plenty of valid solutions to this cipher, here are a couple:
http://zodiackillerciphers.com/wiki/ind ... _Solutions

But with a lack of data (only 13 symbols) even valid solutions cannot be proven definitive.

There is a difference between possibilities and a definite solution. There's only one right answer and until someone is proven to be Z we will never know. My point is he easily could have just listed as many symbols as there are letters. That doesn't mean the symbols actually match up.

Susie wrote:

glurk wrote:

Paul_Averly wrote:A while back we were talking about "forced solutions."
...and this is a great example of one of those.

I agree. I wasn't even going to post on this at all. Some solutions may have some merit and are worthy of further discussion. This is not one.
-glurk

Welcome bigdoug and I'm sorry for the initial response you received, such as the two above. There are a lot of theories on these sites that I don't agree with; however rather than being a jerk about it I try to be respectful of other people's thoughts. Responses like these are why so many people are afraid to post on sites. There are people who have a lot more knowledge about the case and have been spending years on it, but newsflash no one has solve the case. So rather than being disrespectful to other people who are making attempts maybe you should explain to them why you don't think their theories are accurate. There is nothing wrong with disagreeing about people's theories but there is something wrong with being rude. If you feel that strongly that a theory is far off then maybe you should just keep your mouth shut rather than discouraging people from making attempts.

Susie-

This is actually a bit insulting, and I think you mistake my forthright honesty as rudeness. I wasn't actually going to post on this topic, as I said, but Morf specified me by name and wanted to hear my opinion. So I gave it honestly.

I've been working on the Z ciphers since mid-2006 or so, and have written a freely available computer cipher solver, and done quite a lot of other work as well. I'd like to at least hope that I know a bit about this stuff. And in my experience, I find that if you "pussyfoot around" on these things and try to avoid "hurt feelings" it does a disservice to everyone. It's a sort of dishonesty by omission.

Do you have any idea how many bad solutions have come up in the last nine years? And how much time it would take to do a full analysis and explanation of them all? It would be a full-time job. I'd like to see the 340 and the other ciphers solved as much as (maybe more than) anyone, but I'd also like to see people quit making the same mistakes over and over (and over again.)

If I were to write an essay, story, novel, whatever and give it to a friend to review, I wouldn't want to be mollycoddled. I'd want an honest opinion, even if it were brutal. It's how we all learn and improve.

Stick around the Z case a few years, you will see. The language becomes more direct, and the skin grows a bit thicker. But it's a good thing.

-glurk

"Susie-

This is actually a bit insulting, and I think you mistake my forthright honesty as rudeness. I wasn't actually going to post on this topic, as I said, but Morf specified me by name and wanted to hear my opinion. So I gave it honestly.

I've been working on the Z ciphers since mid-2006 or so, and have written a freely available computer cipher solver, and done quite a lot of other work as well. I'd like to at least hope that I know a bit about this stuff. And in my experience, I find that if you "pussyfoot around" on these things and try to avoid "hurt feelings" it does a disservice to everyone. It's a sort of dishonesty by omission.

Do you have any idea how many bad solutions have come up in the last nine years? And how much time it would take to do a full analysis and explanation of them all? It would be a full-time job. I'd like to see the 340 and the other ciphers solved as much as (maybe more than) anyone, but I'd also like to see people quit making the same mistakes over and over (and over again.)

If I were to write an essay, story, novel, whatever and give it to a friend to review, I wouldn't want to be mollycoddled. I'd want an honest opinion, even if it were brutal. It's how we all learn and improve.

Stick around the Z case a few years, you will see. The language becomes more direct, and the skin grows a bit thicker. But it's a good thing.

-glurk"




There is a difference between honesty and rudeness. You also shouldn't assume I need to "stick around" a few years considering you know nothing about me. I have been researching the case for close to 10 years. I find nothing wrong with honesty and trust me my skin is thick enough, but to state someone's comment is not "worthy of further discuss" is just pointless and is as if you are stating others thoughts are not worth it. Maybe your skin isn't as thick as you think.

Susie wrote:There is a difference between honesty and rudeness. You also shouldn't assume I need to "stick around" a few years considering you know nothing about me. I have been researching the case for close to 10 years. I find nothing wrong with honesty and trust me my skin is thick enough, but to state someone's comment is not "worthy of further discuss" is just pointless and is as if you are stating others thoughts are not worth it. Maybe your skin isn't as thick as you think.

But I didn't say that the comment was "not worthy of further discuss" [sic]. What I said - quoting myself:

glurk wrote: I wasn't even going to post on this at all. Some solutions may have some merit and are worthy of further discussion. This is not one.

What I said - very clearly - is that the cipher "solution" as presented had no merit and was not worthy of further discussion. And I will say it again, if I must. The cipher solution as presented is of no merit and unworthy of serious discussion. It exhibits the same problems that are seen time and again, "extreme anagramming" as AK calls it, polyalphabet use, and it is unconfirmable.

Do you really think that my 26 word post - made honestly - is "rude?"

My skin is thick enough. You can try nailing me to a cross, if you'd like. The nails will probably break.

-glurk

Oh dear, fiddle-de-dee, what can the matter be ..... lavatory?

And thus died my rap career.

Right. Everyone ... "Wind yer necks in". At the end of the day when the cookie crumbles a duck is just duck no matter which way you butter it. No purpose is served by becoming emotionally vested in any aspects of this case. Least of all this specific area. It's present - critique. That's how it's always been. If there is an issue of anyone being 'rude' we (the mods) will decide that and act accordingly so that you fine folks are able to continue your work relatively stress free.

This case has enough inherent drama of its own. Please refrain from adding to it.