Zodiackillersite.com

morf13 wrote:

smithy wrote:Listening to it now. There are 33 letters in the alphabet? Who knew? (I'm still listening.)

Meh. The law-abiding and public-spirited Snook and/or Power wrote to Cheri-Jo Bates father Joe saying "Bates had to die there will be more"...?

I snickered when he mentioned the 33 letters in the alphabet, not sure if you could hear me in the background.

I think he was referring to mixed-case letters. I.e., considering uppercase AND lowercase letters as separate handwriting comparisons.

doranchak wrote:

glurk wrote:If anyone makes any sense of Horan's "theory" please let me know as well. He even said in the interview - rather directly - that his "theory" is subject to change as new facts come to light.

Nice admission by him, IMO.

-glurk

Not defending Horan, but replace "theory" with "hypothesis", and you have a reasonably scientific approach. But only if the (ever-changing) hypothesis is testable.

New facts should change explanatory models. Hopefully for the better. But Horan paints himself into a corner unless he can remove doubt from his explanation.

exactly. it's worth thinking outside of the box any time a crime hasn't been solved in over four decades, however you have to be wary of fitting pieces to a theory instead of letting the pieces build the theory. in horan's case there's just way too much "i'm not sure how that fits in but this other thing is really suspicious".

masootz wrote:

doranchak wrote:

glurk wrote:If anyone makes any sense of Horan's "theory" please let me know as well. He even said in the interview - rather directly - that his "theory" is subject to change as new facts come to light.

Nice admission by him, IMO.

-glurk

Not defending Horan, but replace "theory" with "hypothesis", and you have a reasonably scientific approach. But only if the (ever-changing) hypothesis is testable.

New facts should change explanatory models. Hopefully for the better. But Horan paints himself into a corner unless he can remove doubt from his explanation.

exactly. it's worth thinking outside of the box any time a crime hasn't been solved in over four decades, however you have to be wary of fitting pieces to a theory instead of letting the pieces build the theory. in horan's case there's just way too much "i'm not sure how that fits in but this other thing is really suspicious".

The thing is, Horan did not present a "hypothesis." Instead, he has published two books - yes, there are two now - and he plans another, apparently, and has presented them as fact. Here's a link:

http://www.amazon.com/s?ie=UTF8&page=1& ... ry%20Horan

-glurk

I've been trying to digest his argument from that radio show, and I quickly get lost in his manic, speculative reasoning. He keeps saying he can prove it all in court. And I keep picturing morf's and the host's eyes glazing over.

doranchak wrote:I've been trying to digest his argument from that radio show, and I quickly get lost in his manic, speculative reasoning. He keeps saying he can prove it all in court. And I keep picturing morf's and the host's eyes glazing over.

"I can prove it in court"- only, he can't, LOL

I still have it on pause about halfway through. I just find myself zoning off...

If everything changes as new information is found out (in the beginning Paul Avery got a piece of shirt via Horan at ZK.com via the movie Zodiac, Herb Caen got a piece of shirt if I recall correctly--via Horan)...then it will probably change again.

This is my concern. When comments get made by people as a fact of the case when they clearly are not. Some people are basing their conclusions off of bogus information.

Tahoe27 wrote:I still have it on pause about halfway through. I just find myself zoning off...

If everything changes as new information is found out (in the beginning Paul Avery got a piece of shirt via Horan at ZK.com via the movie Zodiac, Herb Caen got a piece of shirt if I recall correctly--via Horan)...then it will probably change again.

This is my concern. When comments get made by people as a fact of the case when they clearly are not. Some people are basing their conclusions off of bogus information.

That's the issue, he got too much of his 'facts' from the movie. When he told me that 3 piece of shirt were mailed by Z, I knew about the one to the Chron & one to Belli, and I called him out on it expecting for him to say Avery got one too.

A little over halfway in. Really like being able to hear you elaborate your points in speech rather than text. No disrespect to anyone, but I find Horan talks way too much and 100% of what he says is completely pulled out of nowhere. Silly, silly argument and I really can't believe how hard he backs it.

I had to stop listening half way through. It wasn't just Horan's wild speculation and his disregard for facts, but his inability to finish a sentence or a thought, before going off on a bunch of different tangents. He reminded me of the Fred Armisen character, Nicholas Fehn, from Weekend Update.

Just out of curiousity, was Brian Hartnell ever brought up in the discussion? Because he is proof positive that there was a killer out there identifying as Zodiac.