Zodiackillersite.com

"My main concern is verification. How can this be done if he anagrammed?"

My honest opinion? It can't. Not a snowball's chance in hell that any independent solves will reflect your "solution." Too many possibilities and not enough solvers.

Sorry to sound pessimistic or dismissive, but I fail to understand how this is any different from countless other forced solutions. Go ahead and post your "solution." I promise I won't be "biased" by your methodology. Also, I don't recall Richard G ever referred to as "Rick" by anyone.

Daishi45: "The ONLY way I can see is that enough people have to decode it and get the same message INDEPENDENTLY of each other. There is no other way. If I give my solution it'll bias the solve and independent verification becomes impossible...."

Well that makes no sense. The Hardens gave their solution and it was verified. If you have in fact correctly solved the 340 it can be verified in terms of the main body of the non-anagrammed solution. The anagram parts are always subject to different interpretations and are pretty well impossible to verify as the one correct solution, as up2 notes above. Any one anagram has dozens of possible correct solutions, several anagrams have hundreds of possibilities. If all or most of your solution is anagrams, then you have no solution. The parts of your solution that are non-anagram should be posted by you, and the people here can collectively analyze your work. If you have indeed solved even part of the 340 that can be verified.

I posted my code work here, and through criticism from others I dropped parts like wide anagrams and other mistakes and it made my overall code work sharper. In regards to a code I though I found in the Tylenol case, getting other points of view here from glurk, doranchak and others led me to realize that my work was mostly in error. When I had sent in my info on that case with the code work it was ignored by the FBI. After the benefit of criticism and discussion, I dropped the incorrect code work and resent my info on Ted K, geography and other evidence to the FBI, and they took it seriously enough to ask Ted for a DNA sample, an event that made headlines. All thanks to some tough criticism and analysis from people on this board.

And yes he only ever called himself Richard or "Dick" "Gaik". Never, not once, "Rick" or "Gyke".

You have the publicly available emails for the FBI, CAL DOJ & SFPD. If you are not going to show us your work go ahead and send it to them. If you post it here in the Cipher section or the members only Suspect section (ask Morf first but I am sure he will OK) then you will get the benefit of experienced members looking at your work. If after analysis I feel your work has merit I will give you the personal email of the FBI Code Unit Chief who I have been in communication with.

If you are not going to post a substantial part of your proposed 340 and map solutions, how can we help you? And why did you join here?

Hi, all

Thanks for the input, I'll definately consider it. I have to stick to my guns on the independent solves, only if multiple independent solves are found (that say basically the same thing) can the 340 be verified. As for the X Marks the Spot and Rick Gyke, I am not accusing anyone of anything, just stating what is actually there and just one interpretation as it relates to the Zodiac case. And too I'll stick to my guns that the creator of the 340 put MNS in the last line right before his name as THE clue to get started on the solve. Since no one picked up on it, he had to write it out a few months later to hopefully get people thinking and looking. Still no one figured it and I suspect he may have moved on after that. But I find I'll stay with my solve and continue studying the possible imbedded 'snake path' that I now see. Perhaps the REAL message is there... If anyone wants to follow my template of the solved lines and attempt to assign solves for the unknowns, as I did, they are more than welcome. You have to go with your gut on if it feels right and if it clicks. The best guide for a solver is their gut. One troubling aspect of the entire Zodiac case is that in everything about it there is no way to get a 100% lock on ANYthing. There is always at least a .01% unsurety somewhere that never allows for a complete lock.....
Too I feel the Zodiac knew that the first thing people were going to do was to try a decode to the 408 decode and he had fun with that, and even set traps. This is why RG's decode is so downright bizarre and forced. Zodiac never wrote that way and how it's even considered as the right path has always made me wonder. Oh, and too, I find Z also used a type of shorthand in the 340, he actually omits letters, no doubt as a frequency foil. If the letters are not there, they cannot be analysed and a crack by frequecy reps is not possible. He also purposely misspells words by either adding and/or subtracting letters (like in 'fireing' and spelling liar as 'lier'). My solve was done completely independent of RG's, I never even really looked closely at it, my gut said it was a trap, and I approached my solve with no biases whatsoever. I merely decoded as I went along with no preconceived notions and went where it lead me. And 'Averlly' is that nightmare mess at the start of line 5, anagrammed, preceeded by the end of line 4's 'lapu' (Paul). "See to fat lier + Paul Averlly. And too, I feel he writes 'of' as 'uv' and similar tricks. It's apparent when contexted in the message, but again, makes decode a lot tougher. I've already given all here all the unanagrammed parts of the message that I've found. It's up to the reader to decide whether it's the proper solve or not. Zodiac's 'game' here was the anagramming and if it can never be verified, then it can never be officially solved. I'm just curious as to what it says! Cheers!

Daishi45 wrote:Zodiac's 'game' here was the anagramming and if it can never be verified, then it can never be officially solved. I'm just curious as to what it says! Cheers!

This is the problem though. Or at least the problem as I've experienced it and (maybe) understand it lol. it's not just a case that it can't be verified if we get into anagraming. We can't even be sure if it says what we think it says or what we see is actually the solution until we get a solution that can be verified. Never mind getting into anagraming.

And ... is it anagraming? Or did he jumble it? Let's say he anagramed it. Well then he would surely have anagramed the whole thing, yes? In that case he would have or should have tried to stick to some sort of rule. i.e not moving words out of sequence because he would have known that would make it virtually unsolvable. I'm thinking of today though with our wonderful computing power. I'm not even sure an anagramed h.sub cipher would have been even viable back then. Could it have been decoded to the correct anagramed state?

It's become apparent that it's not a straight forward h.sub. He did something to it. As to what exactly we are still trying to discover but we have to hope that it wasn't something that makes it un-solveable. There is something about it that makes the anagraming thing a real temptation. Believe me, I've found words and partial sentences and more in this thing approaching it as an h.sub and some of them are so compelling that you would think there must, MUST, be something to it. There isn't. I wanted there to be. Who wouldn't but the reality is that the damn thing in its present state will feed us combinations of jumbled words and phrases and readable words and phrases from now until the end of time and each one more alluring than the last.

Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe one of these attempts will crack it. We haven't seen it yet though. What we have seen is Einstein's definition of insanity being played out. "doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." Here's one of my last attempts at insanity. I haven't posted this before. I ran it by some 'uninsanes' because reality was starting to get through even my thick skull.

It's compelling...ish. Even has some minor anagraming. Doesn't amount to a hill of beans and rightly so.



So it's not that we're being dismissive or elitist. It's that we've not only seen similar approaches in the past, we've also tried them and 'believed' in them ...for a while.

Hi, Traveller1st

Nice reply, Thanks! Very good info there, I like it. Yes, perhaps ol' 'criminal mastermind' went and made the 340 SO hard to decode he defeated his own purpose of having it read! Maybe it is even just 'bussy work' and doesn't say a thing. Perhaps it is unverifiable. Personally, the whole reason I got into the ciphers was to try and see if he mentions Donna Lass, I live out here near Tahoe and took her disappearance kinda personal. That's the whole main reason. Then I got into tracking clues and having a blast, so I stuck with it. And I don't feel if he did anagram he would have to anagram it all. He had to let it be know he was playing 'the game' and then end with a clear, readable taunt, I feel. I further feel he HAD to have dropped clues to the crack after he saw no one could crack it. For me, it was all about finding his clues and appying them as I read he meant them to be perceived....good luck and STAY WITH IT!