Zodiackillersite.com

Seagull wrote:

Paul_Averly wrote: So no, I'm not wrong. I used the word negative to simplify, but should have said "some form of camera film."

No, you were wrong. You used the word negative because you didn't know what you were talking about until you were pressed by me to source your statements. It was at that point that you looked up the photographic process at newspapers.

Great, just nit pick a minor wording on my part to avoid the fact that Tahoe totally denies that Graysmith might have access to all the Zodiac letters from his job at the chronicle. Also denying the idea that he might have forged the 1978 letter. Is it that much of a stretch?

Do you give up?

So Graysmith could have of forged the letter? Great I win!

Isn't it annoying though, how I just continue to state my position, thus killing the thread? Seems to happen a lot around here, but usually not by me.

Quit acting like a 5 year old. Of course Graysmith could have forged it. I never said he couldn't.

You had to fabricate an entire scenario Paul_A. You even went as far to say Graysmith was the Chronicle's photographer of Zodiac letters. A complete assumption on your part. Even Graysmith never acknowledged that and we all know...he would have.

You have to continue to bring me into every single post when all I did was challenge your theory, one which went from you making up Graysmith's employment duties to him working in the same building where they did that stuff.

And you get huffy with me? It's beyond ridiculous.

NEXT...

I often encounter this line of reasoning when I analyze claims of "solutions" to the ciphers. Here's an example:

Solver: I found the name of my suspect by rearranging the letters in the cryptogram.
Me: But when I do the same thing, I can find thousands of other names.
Solver: But it's still possible mine is right. Prove to me that it's wrong!

The solver's final statement is indeed true. But it accomplishes nothing, because there is no evidence that it is the correct selection among the thousands of possibilities.

Paul Averly, just because something is possible doesn't mean it's automatically true. The burden of proof is on you to support your claims with evidence. Don't try to shift that burden to Tahoe and others. Please refer to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot

Most of the letters and cryptograms from Zodiac were reproduced in dozens of newspapers, magazines and for police agencies involved in the case, giving thousands of persons access to Zodiac's printing style.

S-F Chronicle 8-3-78

(Thanks to Seagull for posting this in another thread).

This is a key point.

Unless one can demonstrate that the '78 fake contains printing characteristics that were NOT reproduced as described above, then the list of possible suspects is actually pretty long.

The same article makes it clear that the “Zodiac buff” was an established phenomenon as early as 1978.

I cannot prove that the Tooth Fairy does not exist. Or Bigfoot, or Nessie, or the Abominable Snowman.
Therefore, lacking proof of nonexistence, they must all exist.

Sigh,

-glurk

glurk wrote:I cannot prove that the Tooth Fairy does not exist. Or Bigfoot, or Nessie, or the Abominable Snowman.
Therefore, lacking proof of nonexistence, they must all exist.

I don't know about the rest of that crap, but I have indeed received money under my pillow for my teefs.

doranchak wrote:I often encounter this line of reasoning when I analyze claims of "solutions" to the ciphers. Here's an example:

Solver: I found the name of my suspect by rearranging the letters in the cryptogram.
Me: But when I do the same thing, I can find thousands of other names.
Solver: But it's still possible mine is right. Prove to me that it's wrong!

It's more like this:
Member: Here is some evidence that support a theory.
Tahoe: That can't be true because I don't believe it.
Member: Here is more evidence that supports the theory.
Tahoe: Then it's even more untrue because I don't believe it.
Member: Then what about simple logic.
Tahoe: I choose not to believe logic, so it can't be true.
Tahoe: But Tom V said X so that must be true.

Then the thread dies because the poster gives up. Eventually this entire site will be a ghost town with only a few mods shooting down any new ideas.

The Graysmith theory is a hell of a lot more logical than the sad attempt to link Maupin to the forgery.

Paul_Averly wrote:

doranchak wrote:I often encounter this line of reasoning when I analyze claims of "solutions" to the ciphers. Here's an example:

Solver: I found the name of my suspect by rearranging the letters in the cryptogram.
Me: But when I do the same thing, I can find thousands of other names.
Solver: But it's still possible mine is right. Prove to me that it's wrong!

It's more like this:
Member: Here is some evidence that support a theory.
Tahoe: That can't be true because I don't believe it.
Member: Here is more evidence that supports the theory.
Tahoe: Then it's even more untrue because I don't believe it.
Member: Then what about simple logic.
Tahoe: I choose not to believe logic, so it can't be true.
Tahoe: But Tom V said X so that must be true.

Then the thread dies because the poster gives up. Eventually this entire site will be a ghost town with only a few mods shooting down any new ideas.

The Graysmith theory is a hell of a lot more logical than the sad attempt to link Maupin to the forgery.

Excuse me, but...

It seems to be happening more and more, of late, that forum members who question the specifics or validity of theories are being subject to rudeness, mocking or pejorative labelling (as skeptics, naysayers, etc.). Tahoe, in particular... Which is quite astounding, given her case-knowledge, long established good-standing in the Z community, and reasonable, friendly and rational countenance.

Anyone who takes umbrage to reasoned and sometimes robust rebuttal, please consider... You may live to rue the day when your theories are NOT put to the test by unbiased, knowledgeable and trustworthy persons. That'll be the day you find you've ended up in a cloud-cuckoo-land forum.

We should all thank our lucky stars that people such as Tahoe, Seagull and Norse can even be bothered to put many of the theories and opinions on here to the test.

But rudeness, and labelling? And making people feel uncomfortable about posting counter-arguments? That's not good.