Zodiackillersite.com

Thanks all, I will post the pertinent links etc this week

the fact that nitwits like Horan can still get airtime, press whatever, just goes to show how much of a fu@#en circus the zodiac case has become..just one of the many little side effects from the birth of the internet IMO..

Paul_Averly wrote:He can't just discredit everything, can he?

Uh, yes. Prove anything though? Uh, no.

glurk wrote:Horan has a slightly arrogant and condescending attitude in the same way that the Grand Canyon is a small crack in the sidewalk.
-glurk

It will be interersting to hear if he holds it together on radio, won't it?

Kirkham68 wrote:the fact that nitwits like Horan can still get airtime, press whatever, just goes to show how much of a fu@#en circus the zodiac case has become..just one of the many little side effects from the birth of the internet IMO..

As is this post, IMO. Miaow!

Mike - not sure why you're bothering, but have a good time. Chin up, watch out for his left.

Mr lowe wrote:Mark Twain — 'Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference.'

That is one of my favorite quotes. I use it all the time. I always attributed it to my mother, who used to say it to me. Now I see it's from Mark Twain. I should have realized it was too profound and eloquent to be something my mother made up. Anyway, it is most fitting in this thread. Still, I hope Morf does a great job in exposing Horan for the fool he is. If there's anyone on here who can, it's Morf.

Best of luck on the show, morf!

Looking forward to hearing more about this.

I think Horan will attempt to overwhelm you with the facts of the case, pointing out unexplained events in the case narrative that his theories attempt to account for. Conspiracy theories tend to follow this pattern (i.e., the conspiracy theorist fills every gap with his theory). Assuming his theories don't hold up, then your job will be to show that his explanation is not the only possible one.

If you argue with him on his level, you will be forced to present and justify alternate explanations for all the "holes" in the Zodiac narrative. This is how I end up approaching most claims of solutions to the ciphers: Generally speaking, the would-be solver has presented a solution but ignores the many others that also reasonably fit using the same approach. Horan's theory can probably also be categorized this way, since there may be multiple rational explanations for each piece of evidence he highlights. But an idea about the Zodiac case is only truly useful if it is shown to be the *only* rational explanation (i.e., the Hardens' key to the 408 is the only rational solution.) Otherwise, the idea can only be as good as all the others. If all Horan can do is show that his idea is as good as any of the others, then he hasn't proven anything.

This is a scientific approach. An idea only holds weight if it survives the tests. But even so, many people don't care about that. I once listened to a debate between astronomer Phil Plait and entertainer Joe Rogan. They debated over whether or not the moon landing was hoaxed. Rogan presented all the supposed "gaps" in the narrative and physical evidence on the moon landing, and Plait attempted to address them all. While Plait had the force of reality and evidence on his side, Rogan was much more aggressive and effective at pushing his message across because of his long experience as a broadcaster and stand up comedian. He also injected a lot of emotion into the topic, which listeners latch onto very readily. Be careful to not get too emotional when engaging with Horan. But then again, maybe the right kind of emotion makes listeners change their minds.

It's going to be tedious work and I don't envy you for it.

That's an excellent point D. That puts you in hot water because the guy who is presenting BS is using facts to back it up. You can't argue with those facts, because you agree with them but you also look less credible because you were beaten to the punch and can't use the facts as your own argument, you just have to make up your own idea about an alternative scenario... and then you get two guys who are arguing hypothetical speculation and each one is equally valid even though one is totally bonkers.

You got it sort of easy Oranchak because no one can argue against math, but it's hard to argue with conspiracies because the less evidence there is the more it proves the effectiveness of the conspiracy to the theorist.

Let's hope that Morf get's the first interview.

Destroy this kook.

duckking2001 wrote:You got it sort of easy Oranchak because no one can argue against math

You'd be surprised. People are pretty stubborn.

Good points D.

I also think he will use things Robert Graysmith wrote as evidence for a cover up. This is based on his blog that make absolutely no sense. But that is the gist I get from it.

Won't really matter because Morf has and knows the FBI and police reports. Would be impossible for Graysmith to have authored and or altered those.