ARE THE 1990 AND 2001 CARDS ONE AUTHOR?

1/31/2025

1990 EUREKA CARD

It is practically impossible to look at the envelope of the December 1990 Eureka card from the standpoint of handwriting and determine whether this communication was mailed by the Zodiac Killer. The only way to significantly shift the needle on its authenticity or otherwise, is to compare it to other Zodiac communications, irrespective of whether these other communications have been authenticated or not. It is possible to compare two "questionable" Zodiac communications and make a case that both are genuine. It must be remembered that the January 10th 2001 Happy New Year card mailed by somebody claiming to be the Zodiac Killer was created without the knowledge of the 1990 Eureka card, because the Eureka card wasn't made public until 2007 (if different authors). .

The author of the 2001 card decided not to mimic any previous confirmed Zodiac communications (envelopes) that were publicly available to them, and opted to use the full newspaper address of "San Francisco Chronicle", never done previously in any Zodiac Killer communication widely accepted as genuine by the Zodiac community. However, it was done by the 1990 Eureka card author eleven years previously. The author of the 2001 card chose to use "901 Mission Street" on the envelope, never done previously by the Zodiac Killer. However, it was done by the 1990 Eureka card author. The author of the 2001 card chose to use the zip code of "94103" on the envelope, never done previously by the Zodiac Killer. However, it was done by the 1990 Eureka card author.

2001 card. Click to enlarge

The only two times a real or questioned Zodiac communication began by using the word "Editor" at the beginning of the envelope, followed by "San Francisco Chronicle" were in 1990 and 2007. Both of these communications used only one punctuation, in the form of a comma after "San Francisco" on the fourth line. These were the only two communications addressed to the San Francisco Chronicle and suggested as Zodiac Killer mailings, that were festive greeting cards. So we have two festive greeting cards, beginning by addressing the "Editor" of the newspaper, with the full newspaper title of "San Francisco Chronicle", "901 Mission Street", the zip code "94103" and only one punctuation in the form of a comma after "San Francisco", who were apparently two different authors that decided to use no mimicry of earlier Zodiac communications, yet managed to copy each other in all these instances. Yet they did opt to mimic the "y" style number "4" used by the Zodiac Killer in his confirmed communications. A very strange affair indeed.

However, the letter mailed on May 6th 1986, four years before the 1990 Eureka card (and not publicly released), also began by using "Editor" on the first line of the envelope, followed by the full address of "San Francisco Chronicle". In fact, the 1986 envelope began with "To the Editor", similar in fashion to the 2001 Happy New Year card that began with "Letters To The Editor". The 1986 letter can be connected to the 1987 letter, which can be connected to the July 31st 1969 letter to the Vallejo Times-Herald. The 1986, 1990 and 2007 mailings are the only communications publicly available now, all consecutive to one another, that all begin by using "Editor" on the first line of the address, followed by the full newspaper title of "San Francisco Chronicle".

The question we have to ask is this: Did two independent and separate hoaxers just happen to mimic each other in 1990 and 2007, but neither made any reasonable effort to imitate the previous communications of the Zodiac Killer? Was the author of the 1990 and 2007 communications the same hoaxer, who never made any reasonable effort to imitate the previous communications of the Zodiac Killer? Or was it the Zodiac Killer who authored both festive greetings cards, who placed no emphasis on attempting to imitate himself? A hoaxer of the Zodiac Killer, by his very nature, should want to imitate previous communications to convince the reader he is the real deal, but the actual Zodiac Killer has no such obligation because he is genuine article. In other words, a hoaxer of the Zodiac Killer communications, who fails to hoax properly, may not be a hoaxer.

Rubislaw32 link

1/31/2025 04:24:08 pm

Apart from the capital T's on the 2001 envelope, Richard, the envelopes are addressed ''close to'' identically.

Something that has always interested me, since the 2001 New Year card's ''official'' leak from the FBI, pre-Christmas 2018. The same time that the FBI published their files on Rev Billy Graham, incidentally :

The postal services have obviously processed the 2001 envelope, given the stamped wavy lines, top right. But why is it, then, that the postage stamp appears to be untouched and in pristine condition ?

I think the postage stamp was added by the FBI, to cover-up ''something''. Possibly, a cross-hairs symbol.

Richard

2/1/2025 12:13:15 am

I really couldn't speculate on anything hidden beneath the stamp Rubi, simply because there is no way to prove it or otherwise. I "question marked" the title of this article to offer a degree of impartiality, however, I have little doubt that one author mailed both of these communications. For those who believe that the 1990 card is Klingel, have to consider the 2001 card being from Klingel too. I have yet to see enough to convince me Klingel was the Zodiac Killer, but I tend to believe Zodiac is the author of both. With enough effort and hours, I suspect the authenticity of these two cards will one day be proved.

Rubislaw32 link

2/1/2025 02:30:22 am

Indeed, Richard - it will always be ''speculation'' if it has not been made apparent what lies behind something. And, this ''pristine'' postage stamp and the Halloween card pumpkin are cases in point. But, I do tend to think that, as the Zodiac is known to have done in the past, given away a clue on an envelope, that it was or might be from him.

Where does the ''Klingel theory'' really emanate from ? Just the photocopy of two keys & key ring torch - that's all. Though the ''Klingel-Cling-on's'' are entitled to their opinion.

I do believe that the Zodiac did actually drive up to Eureka from (probably) San Francisco - ''just'' so ''Eureka'' would appear as a postmark on the envelope. He liked motoring and visiting new places - a labour of love, if you will - with that ''Eureka bonus''.

Eureka was the first conceived name of the town that became ''Vallejo'', by early settlers.

EdEdwardsCiphers

2/4/2025 04:07:36 pm

The letter on the right (Red and labeled from 1990)

This letter is more traditional block lettering. Mostly.

What's missing are the odd T's from the first one. Also the F's in San Francisco are not malformed. Their Top bars are normal and are half the width of what the other letter has. Which is within normal typography.

Both F's in San Francisco are the same as well. The Candy Cane F makes its appearance though in CaliFornia.

Let me point out a few things:

1. Look at all the t's in the letter. The lower case ones.

Editor & Street all contain lower case t's.

Look very closely at these. A higher resolution image may prove my point more accurately but let me try to explain what I think may be going on.

These t's, their midbars are exactly half-height. With that last t in "street" being way below half-height.

Exactly half-height for a lower case t is too low. <<< look closely at that singular t I just typed. It is not half-height. It's about a third height, not half. Half-height is too low. This is oddly specific.

A half-heighted t like that is a specific choice, it looks more like a cross. You know, like a religious symbol?

2. The S's. Look closely at the the S's and how they are not rolling and curving. They stop and change direction. this is more clear at the bases of the strokes. They have almost a "v" type break as he makes the final strokes to the last part of the "S". Look closely. I believe this is deliberate. The entire shape of the S is weird also, it is almost shaped like a 5 and not an S. But look closely, the shapes are exacting, and exactly the same. They repeat their pattern.

3. The "F" in CaliFornia. The famous Candy Cane "F". I see this phrase repeated quite a bit. I never understood it, and people have come to almost subconsciously identify it as a hallmark of the Zodiac's writing. It does seem a bit iconic and emblematic.

This F stands apart from the San Francisco F which he uses here twice, and is normal and not written strangely.

I'll have more to say on what I believe the Candy Cane "F" is, but for now I'll try to call your attention to whenever you see this "Candy Cane F" -- to look very, very closely, not at the top -- the part that gives it it's name "The Candy Cane".

I would challenge you to almost look in the opposite direction at the tail of the letter. Look very, very, very closely at the bottom of this "F" every time you see it. You may notice that unlike this "F" that I write here, there is a slight flourish to these "F's" that serve as a sort of ill-sized "counterweight" to the top heavy "Candy Cane". Look at the bottom of this letter or what I believe it really is -- a type of "Homophone". See if you can pick up that it might not be an F at all but could be an allusion to something else possibly.

But yes, I do believe this "F" in California is one of those Candy Cane F's. I do believe he's sprinkled in items that may serve as "homophones" for a larger system that he carried with him in his head. A kind of "Code" or even "Codebook".

Why? Because he could, and because that's how he thought, and how he "practiced" what he did.

But that being said. No one knows. And I'm no expert. Just another rando on the internet with another idea that could just be cacamamie at best.

One day we might find out though. Won't that be something?

;-)

EdEdwardsCiphers

2/5/2025 08:55:20 am

This 2001 letter is interesting. I can't say I recall ever seeing it before. I love it.

Some things of note that stood out to me.

A theme of grievance, specifically against racial minorities seems to be present here. I've come across this before in a few of his writings. I'm always surprised that this does not come up more in Zodiac discussions but I suspect I know why. To me it speaks a lot to motive, as it's a recurring theme.

some of the f's in this note, have the characteristics I mentioned. The f in "of innocent" has a flourish at the bottom. Whereas the "f" in welfare does not. Instead this "f" (welfare) has an encirclement that loops back up, into what almost looks like a very small mini Zodiac Celtic Circle cross.

He's putting on a variety of the versions of the letter "F's" all throughout this note.

The "F" in S.F. is perfectly block lettered -- a choice.

"F"ault and "F"rom have the same incorrect form for their topbars. It extends too far to the left and creates an overhang. It's like a "T" with an added midbar. I mentioned he did that below.

He corrects the "F" in San Francisco and gives it a slight wave flourish. This is a delectable touch, and he obviously couldn't pass up. This small flourish is a designer's touch.

For anyone who's in the design field, you must know this flourish touch. There is literally a design tool in current modern day typography design tools that create this exact type of flourish.

This is what I mean when I say, no one understands what they are dealing with here. This is a person that appeared to be one way, an unthinking murderer who created ciphers. I would argue, he saw himself as much more. He thought of himself as not only smarter than everyone, he considered himself an artist. And he knew, no one had the mind and the breadth that he considered himself to have.

He not only had the left brained ability to think logically. He had the right brained ability to be playful, joyful, and artistic in a domain of which he felt he had total control. The page.

The entire letter has perfect spacing and what in typography is called "Leading", like the atomic element Lead. The entire page is composed, and if you look closely your eyes are being lead by the musicality of how the characters are spaced in a wavy pattern all the way down the page.

The line waves sometimes break upwards, and sometimes they break downwards. There is a sense of play here in terms of design that an average person would miss imo.

I dont' think someone with an eye for design is looking at Zodiac letters. Which is a pity. I imagine they would do a better job than I at communicating these things that I am still learning.

It's like a whole 'nother language that is being spoken, in plain sight, but missing from those who aren't necessarily trained to spot it.

Just my opinion of course as always. Anyone can look into a crystal ball and see a Rorschach test.

EdEdwardsCiphers

2/4/2025 03:40:45 pm

I'll hopefully have more (if I ever get around to it) to explain exactly why I would suspect that the letters are from the same person. It would have to do with a sort of "encryption" or "encipherment".

I'll offer an opinion by someone (namely me) that is not qualified or certified in cryptology. So you could say it's more like an opinion not unlike any opinion from a Joe Schmoe on the street.

That being said. I'll go in order from left to right with the first letter you have in the images.

Letter #1:

1. The first line that contains (Letters to the Editor)

The "L" in letters. The angle of writing the "L" is wrong. The "stroke" is not 12 o'clock to 6 o'clock. The stroke is more, and very slightly to the untrained eye would be missed -- 1 o'clock to 7 o'clock. The 2nd stroke is a standard bar, moving left to right as the regular base stroke anyone would write.

This gives the L more of the appearance of a "less than (<)" symbol and not an actual L. This could be nothing of course. Or it could be the subliminal proclivities of someone who is thinking and writing something else, and having those proclivities spill over into their normal writing.

2. All of the T's are immaculate in their Top bars. Look very closely. The stroke atop all of the T's are exactly atop and meet the midstroke at its apex even though the strokes themselves have slight flair. Even the up and down strokes of the "T's" themselves also have flair and are not rigid structures. They have a slight wave to them and in many cases repeat as a pattern to show that there is a pattern.

These Top bars also repeat exactly in this type of "flair". Look very closely. This becomes more important when you compare it to the other letter.

3. The "F's" are specifically incorrect. Look very closely. IF you see this F that I'm writing you should immediately note the difference. This is extremely subtle, but someone very, very, very familiar with calligraphy and writing, knew what they were doing here.

The Top bar of the F is wrong. It has the Top bar of a T and not an F. He does this twice for San Trancisco. He puts a mid bar down on the T to confuse you. Your brain interprets it as an F, even though your eyes can see that it's a T at the very top.

Someone is playing games here in the writing. It's a system, but if you're not looking closely at it , you will miss it.

The F is notable here, for its slight manipulation as I will hope to explain in other videos. Most know the F of the Zodiac as a "Candy Cane F" -- which I don't believe it is.

But why bring up the Candy Cane F, if it's not here?

Why? Because if my suspicion is correct, and if what I believe is correct about those Candy Cane F's, then he's just playing around with that Character, because it's close to another symbol that's he's very fond of and has taken to having liberties with, because it amuses him within the confines of a system that he's created.

A possible encryption scheme.

Rubislaw32 link

2/3/2025 02:23:21 pm

Beware of Zodiac scrapbook merchants bearing ill-will, on account of everything going wrong ? Now confronted with the prospect of having to eat their hat.

Richard Gaikowski sounds like a fascinating individual, who led a very productive life, and in an exciting time and place.

What has happened to him in death is sad, and a travesty of moral justice.

May he rest in peace for good, soon.

Richard

2/3/2025 04:45:56 pm

You are correct Ed & Rubi.

EdEdwardsCiphers

2/4/2025 08:17:05 am

Dearest Richard,

I came here because of the curation, and the wonderfully preserved and pruned garden of truth, light , and information that you provide here.

Never forget, the job of an EDitor is akin to a sculptor --to remove the excess, and deformities in what the world sees on the outside of a thing, in an attempt to reveal the perfection of the art that is hidden beneath, but hard to see.

Small voigt (That's what I call him) is someone who believes he's entitled to the story of "The Zodiac". That he should control the narrative, and because of that, he should control access.

He's assumed the role of Gatekeeper, even though he's an unqualified child. He should not assume.

Richard

2/4/2025 01:18:16 pm

Cheers Ed, your advice was correct.

EdEdwardsCiphers

2/4/2025 08:38:44 am

Alas dear Rubi,

I don't know much about this Gaikowski fellow. But what I do know, about how he became a suspect wreaks of a fall down a confirmation bias rabbit hole. Straight down into a sunken cost fallacy.

While I myself have a huge confirmation bias, I have facts and evidence on the face of my bias, that do in fact reinforce my belief. I'm also open about confirmation bias, and will expand on it in the future, where I have floundered in my belief and have had struggles with it. I believe that to be rare in this community of those who are 100% certain. Scientists are usually not certain, they deal in probabilities.

It's a whole other thing to sink a cost deep into a confirmation bias, as is what I believe had happened with GYKE. Itself a joke to horseshoe a name to fit a theory. Not a sign of a strong and capable mind.

If one is "performing" as an investigator, and meeting with nutty conspiracists in your spare time, and believing that makes you some kind of super sleuth instead of a goober, then that could be ego-shattering for a weak minded and insecure person. My thought is it would send them deeper into a rabbit hole with no footholds to climb out of.

And that's where I think a small voigt person lives. In a hole, possibly a mother's basement.

Rubislaw32 link

2/4/2025 09:32:46 am

There's just so little on Gaikowski to point to him being a worthy suspect, and may well have fulfilled alibi criteria with law enforcement, anyway.

Difficult to get away from ''the ex-boyfriend scorned'' in the shape of Blaine Blaine, who became a user of hard drugs.

Near the end of the FBI's Zodiac files, there are references (albeit redacted) to Blaine Blaine's attempts to incriminate Gaikowski. It just never washed with the cops.

It should have been the end of it - but then Voigt came along. A sucker born very minute ?

EdEdwardsCiphers

2/4/2025 04:38:30 pm

Dearest Rubi,

I'll use a turn of phrase that (Shakedog) has used, that spoke to me and resonated -- Narrative.

There are many narratives in the Zodiac case, but one story resonated with me like no other. You can guess which one it was, as I'm sure it won't be hard to.

This narrative of "GAIK" or "GYKE", just felt so amateurish to me. Many of the narratives around the suspects feel that way to me. That one about "Goldcatcher"??? I mean, I'm watching this stuff, and trying to follow it, and I'm like "How is this as riveting as watching Paul Blart Mall Cop"

It reeked of cosplay and impersonating a police officer. How one could not be ashamed of behaving like that to me is obscene.

This wasn't a sucker born every minute, this was a confused person who felt entitled to thinking that they were right and not understanding the ramifications of what they were doing if they were wrong. There are degrees of wrongness including being wrong, right up until you're right, and vice versa.

This was excess being rewarded and that person being rewarded for excess believing that they were right. Confirmation Bias in a full loop.

It will be too long to explain here, but that's why I mentioned -- I have had a panoply of life experiences that strangely align and allowed me to see what apparently many struggle to see. I've literally found out about a "condition" that even may explain why others may struggle to see what I believe I've found as something that is evident.

I might have a sort of "ability" that I never knew existed, and I believe someone else did too. And that person like to write letters.

But I'll tell that story on my channel another time.

Part of my journey was challenging myself along the way, to try to see if I had a bias, and if I could challenge it along the way (I had my moments).

Some may do well to check themselves periodically, as my teachers used to do when I was young. Sometimes you only deserve partial credit on a math assignment because you're arithmetic was wrong, even though you got the answer right by luck.

Rubislaw32 link

2/4/2025 04:54:27 pm

Look forward to seeing your stuff, when you are able to release it, EdEdwardsCiphers.

Richard Gaikowski was known to have a wicked sense of humour, which he tended to play on those that latched on to him, to the point of boring him. Many liked to hang with him, because he was considered a cool guy.

Unsurprising perhaps (?) - that a ''weak willed'' and sensitive Blaine Blaine started to believe some of Richard's tales.

EdEdwardsCiphers

2/4/2025 09:12:50 pm

Alas dear Rubi,

When will I release my stuff? Who knows? I've had to learn a few things which have been taking some time.

I've had to learn a lot about typography, and with it a bit about design, and design philosophy. Why? This is what I mean when I say, no one understands what they are dealing with. This is not a powered down mind like Kane would have been. It's not an abnormally named person like Jelly Belly Kvelly -- a ridiculous premise for anyone who's spent any time around any type of basic criminal.

One thing I will say about Greysmith, was when he stated that -- whomever was trying to send him stuff or even some of the stuff the Zodiac sent, spoke to him as someone who was possibly a cartoonist or aware of the art of drawing.

He wasn't far off.

I've not seen anyone really come at the comms of the Zodiac the way I have. Which to me seemed odd.

If you are trying to get into the mind of someone who created a cipher with cryptograms that used homophones. one of which is 4 hundred and 8 characters. And another that is 3 hundred and 40 characters.

That's a lot of handwriting. Painstaking writing. And that's just the writing, that's not even the planning. Those individual characters/homophones, one would have to really, really, enjoy the act of creating, and writing those characters. And they are exacting. They require a certain mindspace and reverence.

I've not seen anyone in the community take that approach.

So I've had to learn typography, and design. But what's interesting is, I was learning it from a website that was teaching it, without naming it.

The website was about the Black Dahlia. It was a convoluted mess to anyone trying to make sense of it, who could not see what the creator of the website was doing. Teaching anyone that could read and understand what it was actually trying to share, beneath it's message on it's face. A language of encryption. A novel encryption method. It would turn out to be the last gasp of a person that knew that everyone was too stupid to figure out it was him. So he literally left instructions.

That website was talking about points and dots on a page. Messages and how characters connected to each other. The website was speaking in a language. Of Typography. Spacing. The deliberation of enciphering a message.

I learned more about typography than I ever thought I would. And a learned a bit about design and design philosophy too.

I now have to learn a new software which is complicated. And the hope is once I get a good handle on this new software, I'll be able to showcase more easily what I think is happening.

It's hard to talk, and write and explain to people, the mental gymnastics, transformations and functions of a mind that thought in multiple dimensions, but was tuned into form, function, art and typography.

It's a completely different language and shows a right brained ability as well as a left brained adeptness.

Maybe I've found something, or perhaps I'm just another in a long line of kooks. It is very possible. I've been called worse.

If I'm right though, maybe I have time. Just about the only person that has come to some eerily similar conclusions as I have is ShakeDog. And what is weird is he was also following this same suspect, but he's coming at it from a different angle than I have. Which I respect and could interpret as a form of triangulation as a logical deduction method for him to arrive at the same conclusion that I have while working independently of me.

We both made the connection. Thule.

If he stays on that track, it may not be long before he like me, figures out why the Zodiac called himself that. He's made good connections, such as the possibility of why he may have briefly called himself Zodius -- his theory differs slightly from mine. But I'm confident of why he called himself that.

How did I finally figure it out? It was one of his victims. It was actually one of his victims that said it out loud for me. Imagine that. A victim, who does not know he was a victim, of a man who was a serial killer that is suspected of being the Zodiac Killer but no one believes is the Zodiac killer, NAMES him.

But he doesn't do it directly. This man names what the Zodiac was, even as he wears the zodiacs symbols right out in the open on his forearms . I shook my head in disbelief when I saw it, and heard him say it. I literally have the reel in my head but have to figure out how I will present it.

No other suspect has victims that name what the Zodiac was. It's a story that beggars belief.

We'll soon see if I'm that beggar not to be believed ;-)

Rubislaw32 link

2/5/2025 01:59:17 am

Well, good luck with that, and most sincerely.

From a mathematicians perspective, I would say that the only advantages they have is in the ability to plan - with probably greater options and ''tools'' at their disposal. Furthermore, that a computer is something that one should really consider putting aside.

Although it might sound patronizing, Cryptography is not considered, in its making of ciphers or cryptograms, a serious subject. Just a small part of a greater subject of ''Combinations and Permutations''.
But, decryption or ''cipher breaking'' would be considered a serious application, since the ''only'' goal of a groundbreaking mathematician is to uncover what was previously unseen. To ''reveal'' what always existed before. Nothing is ''invented '' by a mathematician if the logical proof can be agreed by one's peers.

The ''cipher breaker'' - the ''savage mathematician'' if you will. And, it should be noted that Don Harden, albeit revealing the most of the Zodiac's plain text and meaning - still ''only'' solved about 98.5 % of what was on offer. That, which the Zodiac aka concerned citizen, was to supply in his key sheet.

The difference ? The Zodiac had deployed 8 polyphones in his Z408, which tidied up some of the apparent spelling errors.

But, the SF Chronicle were right to go with a Harden offering, given the circumstances at the time - and received CA DOJ's backing, to publish. It was important to send a message back to the Zodiac ASAP: ''Is that the best you can do ?''.

EdEdwardsCiphers

2/5/2025 07:47:46 am

Dearest Rubi,

Thank you most wholeheartedly. I will need it. The way I view it, is if every Tom, Dick, and Harry can have a crazy sounding "SOLVE" to a Zodiac cipher -- Why can't I?

I intend no harm, and my theory, if not correct doesn't serve to obstruct, delay, or impede the investigation as I see it. At least that is not my intent.

I have no intent or desire of being an "insider" inside of evidence rooms, nor rubbing elbows with the "coppers"

As mentioned, the unfortunate part is, I'm not qualified in many respects to do any of this, so I wrestle with the challenge of how that sounds as someone who's found a "SOLVE" when experts have tried for decades now? I imagine this may have been an internal dialogue that the Hardens had. I have no idea.

I feel like a person that has pulled a sword from a stone and it's a bit overwhelming.

But alas, who knows, perhaps I'm going through some kind of "phase" or having some kind of "episode"? Who knows? Could it be worse than what I see some people put forward? I don't think so.

A savage mathematician??? I like it. ;-)

Johnny

2/5/2025 06:03:13 am

"If" he was a farmer ( and more then a hobby-farmer ), maybe someone with knowledge could squeeze out some information, about which days and times in a week he could be freer to do these kind of things.

EdEdwardsCiphers

2/5/2025 07:48:44 am

Hi Johnny?

Are you proposing another suspect who was a farmer? Do you have a name for this suspect?

Johnny

2/5/2025 10:36:51 am

Chester, Ed.

Comments are closed.

ARE THE 1990 AND 2001 CARDS ONE AUTHOR?

Archives