NO FRONT PASSENGER IN THE TAXICAB

2/22/2025

The Zodiac Killer rode in the front of Paul Stine's cab is once again doing the rounds, despite the evidence pointing completely the opposite way. This claim was instigated by individuals who believed there was some sort of connection between their suspect and Paul Stine. The police report below clearly demonstrates that the police believed the latent prints that showed traces of blood were from the killer. If the police believed the prints from the outside right front door handle were from the killer, they must have shown traces of blood. Which is why they were circled with a red pen. Traces of blood were present on the dividing panel between the outside driver side door and left rear passenger door, and on the outside front passenger door handle. This means that the Zodiac touched both of these surfaces with bloody hands.

A killer riding in the back of the taxicab upon shooting Paul Stine would have received some back spatter to his fingers. Even if he was wearing gloves, blood would have deposited onto the fingers of the gloves. Still holding the gun in say his right hand, he opens the right rear passenger door with his left hand (gloved or not) and exits the rear passenger door, pushing it shut with his left hand, arm, body or leg. The Zodiac Killer then puts the gun away and naturally opens the front right passenger door with his right hand, depositing blood from his hands or gloves onto the outside door handle. This is how blood got onto the outside front passenger door handle.

A killer riding in the front seat from the outset would have opened the front passenger door with clean hands (gloved or not). Therefore no blood would have been deposited on the door handle when the Zodiac Killer entered the taxicab. After shooting Paul Stine at the end of the journey and removing a section of Paul Stine's shirt, the Zodiac Killer would now have blood on both hands, whether wearing gloves or not.

He now has to use the inner front passenger door handle to exit the taxicab, thereby depositing blood onto the handle. But there is no mention of blood being found on the inner handle. If he used a handkerchief over bare hands to avoid putting bloody fingerprints on the inner door handle (which he wouldn't have done if he was wearing gloves), then how would he have deposited bloody fingerprints to the outside door handle when supposedly wiping it down using a handkerchief over his fingers? In wiping away his fingerprints deposited when entering the front passenger door, we would have to believe he accidentally deposited bloody fingerprints in a wiping motion through a handkerchief as he departed.. It simply isn't realistic.

However, if he had deposited bloody prints on the front passenger door handle when exiting the rear of the taxicab and entering the front, it is possible that when he finally exited the taxicab for the final time, he attempted to wipe the outside front passenger door handle but inadvertently left a small print behind (or he didn't wipe it down at all). If gloves were used throughout (which is unlikely), there was never any need for a front passenger Zodiac Killer to touch the outside front door handle when he exited.. You would just push the door shut. Also, a back seat passenger entering the front of the taxicab would have no need to close the front passenger door when removing a section of Paul Stine's shirt, and therefore wouldn't need to touch the inner passenger door handle to leave the taxicab, which is why no traces of blood were mentioned as being present on the inner handle. There is a scenario for a back seat passenger to leave bloody prints on the outside front passenger door handle, whether he wiped it down later or not. For a front seat passenger, there were two options. [1] Leave the taxicab and simply push the door shut, thereby leaving no blood on the outer handle, or [2] Place a handkerchief over your fingers and hand and wipe the outer handle to remove the bloodless prints deposited when entering the taxicab. Either way, recognizable fingerprints deposited with a bloody hand is impossible in the first scenario, and extremely unlikely in the second.

Johnny

2/22/2025 06:31:14 am

Agree completely. Maybe he shot when Stine slowed down a little but still had his hands on the steering?

This crime and Beryessa isn't any young and inexperienced individual? Could for example Chester be enough or are we looking at some military veteran that has experienced extreme things before?

One thing i don't like is that he couldn't finish his victims off. Maybe he worked in the military as some form of engineer, but wanted to exerience the real deal?

Wouldn't the sound in that car when the gun goes off be pretty high? Did he expect it? I don't think he was any expert with weapons? But still he did these brazen things, incredible!

Richard

2/22/2025 07:20:30 am

I don't believe there is anything to suggest the Zodiac was or had been in the military. There is no great marksmanship apparent at LHR and BRS, and the Wing Walkers could have been purchased outside of the military. It doesn't mean he didn't have any relationship with the military, but using this connection as another feather in a suspect's cap doesn't carry any weight. It's just like claiming a suspect is a strong candidate because their job involved Radians. Knowledge or skill that could have been obtained anywhere.

I am no expert on weaponry, but I imagine the sound inside the taxicab was very loud, unless a suppressor was used to diminish the effect, or the close contact wound reduxed the sound. A contact gunshot can significantly suppress the sound of a gunshot because the body tissue absorbs and muffles the expanding propellant gases, acting somewhat like a silencer by trapping them under the skin, thus reducing the audible noise of the shot. Could the Zodiac have used ear plugs? How long is a piece of string?

Johnny

2/22/2025 05:35:42 pm

My military combat ( or similar experiences ) angle wasnt based on his Vallejo crimes. Its based on Beryessa and the Stine murder. Maybe he was an accountant reading violent literature and from there on exploded to do these awful things? That is of course what im having a hard time with.... Perhaps his Vallejo crimes was enough to degrade his thoughts patterns enough though. Its just a possibility from my side that he has been in the military or similar, but his sloppy executions tells against it. His violence and that he dared to do it goes for it. But if i had to guess, no i dont believe him being close to any battlefield. Who would want him there?

EdEdwardsCiphers link

2/22/2025 07:23:32 pm

I don't have a military background.

This may be a nonsensical take then because of my lack of a military background. But I consider myself someone interested in strategy and game theory. I like puzzles, especially word puzzles with a twist.

I can envision scenarios where there are people in the military, possibly even special forces, that have tendencies similar to behaviors exhibited by the killer.

In fact, I would think, that it's almost as if, he didn't have an outlet available to him, where he could impose lawlessness and mete out what he viewed as justice, as Judge and Executioner. Like say one of our boys could have done during the Korean war.

Sort of like a pre-2000's PTSD or what they called "shellshocked" at the time. I wonder if that's a possibility?

But perhaps I'm not qualified? Perhaps it's good enough to have an opinion? Who knows?

T-T

2/25/2025 12:31:43 pm

He was in the Navy from 64-66 in San Francisco Bay —Treasure Island.
He was stationed at Japan
He met a Japanese girl there and she was his first love. She tragically died in 66 by some sort of explosion in Japan. Found out when he arrived to WA to see his mom.
He was to go to college, and ended up at Modesto college in 67.
He roomed with a heavier dude named Jason.
He was in high school plays and directed and produced a play.
His Mother British, Father an entertainer, gymnastics coach and?
Mikado? Yes.
1967 photo show very shiny shoes.
Dark brown hair, curly but could be manipulated to straight.
Size medium in clothes, 5’11 ish, White Man
Highly intelligent
Excellent grades
A loner, narcissistic and personality disorder
A drifter-no way to trace him up until 2000s. Off grid. Although travelled between San Fran Bay, Modesto and Washington state I’m pretty certain as a drug runner.
Hated cops,referring to as pigs
Hated society
Anti-government
Poe- yes, dabbled in his own poetry. Even has a pencil sketch of Poe but recreated with his blind eye looking to the side.
Martial Arts -yes

He is a dark soul who only really cared about the Japanese girl killed.
He was fascinated by the Asian culture
Drug dealer - yes. Jail in or around 2000.

Linguists-yes
Got his masters and PHD in linguistics in his 60s and became an instructor for… Riverside, CA in China into cancer wouldn’t allow.

EdEdwardsCiphers link

2/25/2025 05:08:53 pm

Sounds like we know where he was and who he was. We got 'I'm guys. Glad we can finally call off the search. :-(

EdEdwardsCiphers link

2/22/2025 11:06:14 am

I've long held the belief, that has some backing from science. At least from the science I've consumed passively from what passes as tv shows with scientists. That serial killers go through a gestation phase. They go through an entire development arc.

This is also one of the reasons I have a problem with the argument that some make, about "The canonical". This "framing" that shuts down all thinking about what the criminal could actually be, helps to exclude how to find him. It helps him by leaving a large criminal sized hole for him to leave the discussion undetected. It's a siren's song for whomever is making this argument as they falsely feel secure in a box of their own making. It's very EZ for such a mind to be manipulated by someone who thinks outside the box.

It's been a wonder to watch as some ponder how this serial killer miraculously appeared on the scene, then disappeared after killing 5 people. With some happily boxing him in between his "limited years of killing"

Psychology and science contradicts a lot of this thinking in my opinion.

Bundy and others for example, had significant developmental trauma in the forming of their identities as children. This is just where it starts.

Then you have the Golden Triad, that some in the psychology field hold up as the standard, and also as the red flag for a developing sociopath.

1.Bed-wetting
2.Killing of small animals
3.Starting of fires

That's the start of a problem for someone developing socially at a young age.

But you then have a slow progression from that base, once the killer gets a taste, and then starts into their full male teen years. Meaning, after they have killed small prey -- animals. They may graduate slowly through a progression of experiences that heighten their ability to commit serious murders. Usually later in life as mature adult males.

Take BTK for example. I won't elaborate on him as I don't like him. But you get the idea of what he was and his sadism tied up in his identity and things like control. His cross dressing for ex.

BTK if you look at just his killing phase, and not his development and progression, is interesting as a parallel tale. He initially targeted not only lone females, but made a point to target smaller individuals. I believe he targeted and attacked an entire family, however they were all smaller individuals than him. Control.

EarONS also did somethings similarly. Controlling of the scene, using plates on top of a restrained person to keep them quiet in one room, while he raped in another.

These were adult males, that understood that a male accompanying a female needs to be restrained and controlled first, to remove the most threatening to their ends.

(Apologies if I get EarONS and BTK confused)

My point here is, these predators have a logic and a development in terms of sociopathy. It's not magic, it's a repeatable pattern.

Zodiac restrained the males, or attempted to neutralize them first I believe.

What's interesting, is that as I mentioned, most don't take into account --because of a restriction of their own making (canonical 5) --, is if you look at similar instances, especially of those considered the "non-canonical" cases, one might see, they exhibit some of the same proclivities.

Domingoes/Edwards would be one. There are others, but you get the drift.

My opinion?

No this was not an inexperienced person doing this. This is someone that controlled the crime scene (planning/forethought/presence of mind). Which in my opinion shows a progression and a development. This person has been in situations where he's game planned these things out. Even practiced. Even completed.

So then that leaves -- How does one do that???

Rubislaw32 link

2/22/2025 11:29:33 am

Excellent synopsis, EdEdwardsCiphers.

The ''two biggees'' ? Where did it start, And why ?

I still believe the killing of humans started at Lake Herman Road.

The why ? Well, the Zodiac was already a hoaxer/purveyor of menace through letters. But, why resort to murder at that time ?

(I account for that at zodiackillermystery.freeforums.net )

An extortionist who elected to kill, as opposed to a killer who elected to extort.

EdEdwardsCiphers link

2/22/2025 07:44:25 pm

@Rubi,

I would think, the killing of humans started much earlier. Some studies I've come across, speak to the development of the type of behavior of the killer, as similar to what is described usually as a sociopath or a psychopath. These are not magical figures. They are logical, scientific, predictable patterns of behavior that form over time.

The point I'm making (I'll take to referring to it as "The Superman Paradox") is, a fully formed killer, does not swoop in and baffle a team of professional police and detectives, on his first try.

That is to say, something I've seen consistently in the community, is an affinity for -- this "Superman Paradox". It flies in the face of established behavioral science. It's more akin to childish thinking. Like a belief in a comic book hero, without something like a grounding in established science.

It's one of the reasons I feel, that becomes a good rebuttal for when many in the community ask why LE does not cooperate with them more.

This would be one of the basic reasons why.

It would eliminate many suspects right off the bat. They would be considered unserious.

The killer would have to have "training" and "practice". Meaning his behavior would have to move from full on planning, to some kind of testing of his capabilities in a more controlled environment, before he could feel comfortable "doing his thing" in a high stakes environment first.

He would have completed "lower stakes" sociopathic behaviors first. As practice. This would be what was meant when stating "Killing small animals" when younger. Like Jeffrey Dahmer did.

Not sure if I'm making clear sense. But as always, I'll hope at some point to be a bit more illustrative. It will take me some time though. I'm not a fully formed documentarian nor film maker. Skills take time to acquire

:-)

Rubislaw32 link

2/23/2025 12:01:48 am

You articulate very well, your position on this subject, EdEdwardsCipher. Just because our positions on the ''when'' differ, doesn't mean you are I are right or wrong on the general perception.

I think animals had been killed, and ''delinquency'' of some sort had occurred in the Zodiac's earlier years. But, I also believe that he was essentially ''loved''and cared about, by his parents and peripheral family.

I believe this both wider, and closer family, saw in him talents, although he had a tendency of occasionally ''derailing himself''. I just don't think the idea that he would turn out to be a killer, ever entered their heads.

Christmases and events like Halloween were special to him, because he associated these times, as when his wider family really tied in together, and he felt the extra warmth and attention, which may have been lacking somewhat, at other times of the year. Both his parents probably having to work, in order to give themselves a good standard of living.

The ''door-step kid'', who had to amuse himself for the most part.

EdEdwardsCiphers link

2/23/2025 07:16:40 am

@Rubi,

Tx for the compliment. I try to articulate. Sometimes I'm good, sometimes I'm not. I think it's important to try. I continue to try to articulate even in new ways and media, as I find some things do not translate well, even when written so. Which is why, like you, I have another, separate channel.

This is a good point to explain something. I find that "concepts" -- or as the philosopher once called "The theory of the forms", are hard for all to manipulate and handle properly. I myself have experienced this in other fora, when trying to explain certain things conceptually.

These concepts became a sort of shorthand to me, because I felt I saw the connections between them, and started to intuit them. I realized this ability was not shared by many even when I believed I was explaining step by step.

I slowly started to realize why people write books. Because to slowly tease out foundational concepts and go piece by piece, to help others see the whole puzzle requires something like a book. Especially when the oeuvre is something large enough. Like for ex. , a lifetime of killing.

As far as me being right, or you being right, I'll try to stay away from that type of talk, as I don't know anything for a fact because I wasn't there at any of the crime scenes. But what I do have are my faculties, and lucky for me, lucky for us all, we have access to artifacts left behind in the case.

Which brings up a point about evidence -- Things left behind? For what reason? Another tangent for concepts that I'll hope to explain later.

Every point you bring up, I have connections for. So whenever I'm reading a discussion about a suspect, I'm always looking for the points that connect. I know my connections, but I don't know yours.

It should be EZ enough to quickly connect a data point to any claim one would make here briefly, without going to a separate forum.

Animals may have been killed? Why? And When perhaps? And also how is that pertinent? Is that because I asked? Or is it because basic psychology helps to predict that? That should have been extant without prompting from me or anyone I would like to think no?

Christmasses and Halloween would have been important? Why? I'd be curious to hear this reasoning, because I have a strong case to make with even just those 2 points. I believe it's overarching actually.

I think it would span the lifetime of a suspect and not be particular to a "time frame" convenient to a killer persona ala a "Superman Paradox". But this is my belief. Would you be able to explain that briefly here?

What is meant by "turning into a killer not entering their heads"? How is that backed up by science or research? Or what? Is there a connection to parents behaving in this way that turns children into killers? There seems to be meat missing from the bones here.

His parents having to work is relevant to pushing someone over the mental threshold to kill someone how? I've often wondered about this concept from many in the community as well. There's not a lot to explain psychologically the mechanisms for pressuring the behavior of the unsub. I see this constantly in the community.

I find a lot of these statements questionable. But I also see a lot of this in the community as I mentioned. I question a lot of the rigor. But as I mentioned also, I'm a bit estranged from the community because I approach it very differently I believe.

It could be I'm just wrong. But I don't think so. It would mean I connected a lot of dots -- meaning, I have answers to all of those questions, but I never seem to get convincing ones when others make them. I should be careful here, as I might have just described myself as falling into a sunk cost fallacy myself. One of the traps I see many fall into. It's a hazard.

LOL. Perhaps I'm just dense. :-o

Rubislaw32 link

2/23/2025 10:42:58 am

You are certainly not ''dense'' EdEdwardsCiphers, and it is rare among internet posters to find someone so ''searching'' in their mind to find the truth. Having said this, there are many that still have something particular to offer - undiminished ''curiosity'' is always the key.

With the Zodiac, I just believe that he had had ''previous'' with death and suffering of animals - more than probably hunting birds and rabbits and the like. May only have been with an air rifle, before he was old enough to start playing around with real firearms.

Delinquency ? You may be right - a fire starter. I believe that the imaginery bomb as referred to in his Z32 solution, was an incendiary device that would light up Candlestick Park - like a Roman Candle.

Yes.

Rubislaw32 link

2/23/2025 11:03:30 am

I KEEP IT HEELED IN AT CANDLESTICK PARK

The ''magic'' ingredient ? Magnesium Nitrate.

Magnesium Nitrate: Mg(NO3)2.

I give too much away - is my trouble.

No stealing, now - enough LE agencies already have it. And one parliamentary judiciary committee.

So, there.

Rubislaw32 link

2/23/2025 12:15:59 pm

Naturally, others will have other ideas.

I would just add, on a philosophical level, that when one approaches a Zodiac ''problem'' - an ''obstacle'' to negotiate, as it were - one should bear in mind that the Zodiac offered truths, lies and red herrings.

It can be as important to establish the lies and red herrings - as it is the truths. Headlong into simply searching for the truth is not always a prudent approach.

The Zodiac wished you to play his games by his rules - then you might get lucky.

T-T

2/25/2025 08:30:10 pm

Sounds like we know where he was and who he was. We got 'I'm guys. Glad we can finally call off the search. :-(

Confused by this comment. HE has so many similarities to the Zodiac it’s intriguing.

EdEdwardsCiphers link

2/26/2025 11:14:51 am

Instead of being confused T.T. Try to add to the conversation.

You can start by not comparing anyone here that you don't know, to a serial killer that you've found, but instead of working with law enforcement or some such authority, professing that you found him on a message board.

This might not be the message board for that. There are others that may welcome that. Even provide you the attention you seek.

Here's a hint. It's the #1 site for zodiackiller info. You can even buy a book there and provide gold points to support the website.

You should try it. You would fit right in. Heck you may end up running the place. It's hard to know.

Also, I'll do you a favor. This will be the one and only time I'll refer to you, so as not to bring you any negative attention. And it will allow you the space to thoroughly make your case without interruption.

I'm sure myself, and law enforcement can't wait.

Sound good? ;-)

Johnny

2/22/2025 07:50:54 pm

He almost certainly did deviant things long before, Ed. I think he prowled a whole lot aswell.

EdEdwardsCiphers link

2/22/2025 08:26:36 pm

Good. I'm glad you have the work to prove it.

Perhaps he left clews that you've uncovered. It would be contributive if you provided that here.

Perhaps that would be a good focus.

JIbberjabber

2/22/2025 02:22:56 pm

Just read the chapter in Graysmith's "Shooting Zodiac" book and Toschi is explaining the crime to David Fincher and he says Zodiac was in the back of the cab. If Zodiac shot Stine before he could put the dome light on to ask for his fare, maybe that is the reason the dome light was infact on in the cab, because Zodiac had left either the rear and / or the front doors open or partially open as he transferred from the back of the cab to the front. Or did Zodiac put the dome light on after getting into the front seat? either way it is so strange to be man handling a dead body in a car with the dome light on at night. But Toschi definitely says Zodiac was sitting in the back of the cab.

Johnny

2/22/2025 04:59:14 pm

I agree with Rubi on this without reservation. This also leads towards Zodiac being very much familiar with Vallejo. A semi-thick-fat somewhat intellectually and strange male with a light coloured Impala.

Yes, and i think that Zodiac in his usual life didn't seem strange at all, but he would if we look deeper and if we follow his trajectory from childhood onwards.

EdEdwardsCiphers link

2/22/2025 07:12:26 pm

This I can understand. It's what I'm saying. A trajectory onwards.

T-T

2/26/2025 11:42:24 am

@ EdEdwardsCiphers I am trying to figure out why you are so rude. You have no idea how hard it is to post here. HE is my Dad. Yes, I have contacted the F B I through their website. But of course the must have 20,000 post about the Zodiac. That’s it.
I’m 54years old and a woman so please be kind. I have been left some freaking weirdness in a box (no other assets) that I can’t help but to relate to the Z.

But I feel I am not wanted here. So I don’t know what else to do.

EdEdwardsCiphers link

2/26/2025 03:35:48 pm

Hi. T.T. I said I would not respond to you, and you should take that opportunity to explain your case.

You did not do that.

Instead, you selectively sought out my posts and responded to my posts only, on a forum that is not mine. I can't imagine why.

Are you aware of how that appears?

I'll help you out. It appears one of 2 ways.

1. You are a troll
2. You are confused

This is not a forum for law enforcement. Nor is it for therapy for family issues or domestic abuse from a spouse. If you are confused, I wish you luck and godspeed and hope you get the care you need. I don't believe this forum provides for any of that.

If you are a troll. Please continue.

Johnny

2/22/2025 05:04:52 pm

And Ed and Jibby taking the other side on this one... It doesn' t matter because we will still look for both earlier crimes and writings anyway. I think he could very well have done serious crime before aswell, but you Jibby and Ed are very dogmatic about it and i certainly dont agree.

EdEdwardsCiphers link

2/22/2025 07:14:48 pm

I'm sorry you've labeled me very dogmatic. This I can't understand. I've never met you.

I'm sorry you don't agree. I'm not sure I'm clear on what you don't agree with.

That being said, you're welcome to your own opinion. I'm not sure you're welcome to labeling people though. That could be taken in the wrong spirit.

Not what I'm here for.

JIbberjabber

2/22/2025 11:40:31 pm

Well I am in the Zodiac-could-be-the-Black-Dahlia-Avenger camp and it doesn't come more dogmatic than that!!!

I often try to think like Zodiac or put myself in his shoes, which is silly really because maybe he was in a thought space no one else can ever reach BUT at the same time little things in this case interest me more than big things and he is only human, if he thinks something or decides on an action there surely has to be a reason,

My thoughts are how many first time killers would chose to kill a couple in the dark in December at a place with no artificial lighting. It just seems like it was a more challenging attack than it needed to be - for him, unless that was the point. The attack is thought to have happened between 11:10 - 11:20 PM so it would be dark, but it would have been dark at that time in summer too, so why did Zodiac not just commit LHR in Spring or Summer 1968 or 1969? also things like the bullet holes in the car that could be warning shots or shots to get them out of the vehicle, if Zodiac wanted them out of the vehicle why did he want them out - if the plan was to kill them all along why not kill them in the car? the horrible thought is he wanted them to run so he could shoot them running away in the dark with his light on his gun, ie he wanted some sort of unusual hunting challenge.

I just dont see a first time killer doing something so unusual with so many possible things that could go wrong, I agree with Johnny and all the other people who say a killer goes through a gestation phase or development phase etc but what was the last criminal thing people think Zodiac did as a non-killer to then cross into taking his first lives plural at LHR? he was prowling & peeping up until 19th December 1968 then he tapes a flashlight to a gun and decides to kill on the 20th............just seems too much of a jump to me.

I think there are more killings and the gestation and jump from non-murderer to murders happened further back.

If the attack happened in Summer say, or in a place with artificial lighting, or there was never any further attacks or letter writing etc I would say this could have been a first time killer who for some reason went fully in at the deep end on his first swim, but what followed into 1969,1970 etc (if the same person - which for now I think it was) seems part of something bigger and planned / learned etc because if Zodiac was a first time killer at LHR then he suddenly also becomes a very successful letter writer / taunter after only his second attack. why would someone who is only new to the world of killing take such a risk to start voluntarily sending evidence to the police & press etc

I could be wrong about everything but it just seems to me Zodiac is too fully formed by Dec 1968 - he is killing in unusual ways and succesfully, he knows how to play the press, there seems to be the possibility he has a dislike of the police (which is maybe baggage he has collected along the way?) , he is forensically aware, has a changing MO etc etc

Although whether that changing MO is by design or just how he thinks subconciously I dont know

I just feel there is experience in everything Zodiac does, as in he has done it before, he has learned what works for him. Although he is still a very reckless person for sure and I dont think he was in control of all aspects of all his crimes to the extent his superior ego thought he ws.

I think I have felt that way ever since I started reading about this case, I just feel it would be so unlikely a first time killer would pick such an unnecessarily challenging set of circumstances to kill in - when he could do exactly the same set of killings when it is warmer / lighter etc
but then when you read into the wider case and you see similarities to Gaviota Beach, the Swindles, Cheri-Jo-Bates, Ray Davis and all these other unsolved beach murders - it could be the same guy, some of the aspects of the MO agree. When you throw in communications then suddenly we have similar MO and similar signature behaviour and that is surely an order of magnitude less likely to be co-incidence again.

My opinion in summary:

Zodiac seemed an experienced guy when he approached that Rambler at gate 10 on Dec 1968 and I think he was looking for a challenge of some sort (not too hard though to kill unarmed innocent people when you are holding a gun on 2 teens - coward)

there are similar-ish crimes up and down California as far back as the 1940s all through to the 19681969 Canonical (and beyond) that could have been the places Zodiac gained his experience

plus the age allows for it, if Zodiac was in his early 40s as the Pelissetti report has it, and 35-45 as per the Fouke memo, then he has that prior decade or 2 to be alive frankly and old enough to have committed some of those crimes listed above.

Johnny

2/23/2025 12:57:00 am

This you have said before, Jibby, and i understood you meaning that his MO is all to complex to start with, without prior crimes, or even murders as you seem to suggest.

Sure, i can also live with that perhaps, meaning what you describe of him almost acting as a movie director seems very advanced to start with. But im not sure though. Its very hard to say i think, but because some of you seem pretty certain about him doing previous serious crimes, i need to give it a second thought aswell.

But you heard me aswell? I say a little the same thing as you and Ed, when i question his grotesque use of his knife, if without any previous experience that is. But i certainly arent certain of what he has done before, but i really don't think that his last two crimes suggest a newcomer, but on the other hand he shot people upclose 2 times before and perhaps did murders even before that, so who knows....

EdEdwardsCiphers link

2/23/2025 08:02:32 am

@Jibber,

Sorry to hear you're dogmatic. I would not label you as such, but c'est la vie en rose. ;-)

BDA --> Zodiac aligns with basic psychology and formation of a sociopath. That's my opinion. That timeline allows for the full rumination and developing of a mind to assess how they were successful at a very young age, and would account for such a person later in life, to "pop in" like if they were "Superman" to others who cannot understand this.

I have a concept I'm trying to demonstrate so that people may understand it better. It's similar to the "flatlanders" cartoon from the 60's or 70's for those who may be familiar with that.

The cartoon has to do with how those, who can't comprehend someone thinking above them in different dimensions, experience a "presence" as popping in and out of existence. These beings will be clueless as to what is happening. But someone with a mind that perceives things on higher membranes can see everything clearly when peering down on them, while they are completely unaware they are being watched, even manipulated. I know, it sounds weird, which is why my work is cut out for me ;-)

A first time killer, would not IMO be able to perform many of the behaviors that the killer did on all of the murders.
1. Controlling the scene (order of manipulation, males dominated first)
2. High degree of difficulty situations such as nighttime navigation, car routes and being spotted. Things requiring improvisation. (You can't improvise until you learn basics such as musical notes, composition, scales for ex.)
3. Heightened need for a challenge -- taunting. This requirement is not normal for any type of thrill seeking. This is life and death stakes and yet this person wants to ratchet up a manhunt for him to get the death penalty. This is not normal, psychologically speaking in my opinion. I'm not a professional however so this is less than hearsay.

The similar-ish crimes that precede "The Zodiac" have themes that connect, like dots, from crime to crime that I see. One doesn't have to believe it's the work of the same person to see, that there are similar themes that connect them. So, one can chose NOT to believe it's the same person, but still be left with "What is connecting them then?". It's possible it's some kind of societal effect etc. But it's also possible it's the same person. My opinion.

The timeline argument is also such a strong one. It's a problem I see in the community all the time. The suspects, simply aligned for time, marking for how old they thought he was at the time, and then tracking backwards and forwards in time, seems to be problematic for many.

Again, this is one of the frustrations I have with the community. Law enforcement will simply not take anyone seriously who doesn't seem to understand this basic thing.

This should be ironclad. It should be something that if you have a suspect should align perfectly. Meaning, his birth, his development for murder. Skills acquisition. How and when did he develop these skills? It should be convincing. I get frustrated with this quite a bit, because instead of good strong arguments, I get "Superman". I find it unserious.

Why won't the Zodiac just confess??? LOL. :-)

JIbberjabber

2/23/2025 03:23:37 am

I definitely hear you Johnny and we all know - there is no forensics that tie Zodiac to any crime prior to LHR or after PH so everything I think is just my speculation, and at the same time I do not even believe there is any forensics which tie all the so-called Zodiac "canonical" crimes together.

so lack of forensics to date need not necessarily close down any conversation of prior kills

In theory Zodiac could be America's most prolific serial killer, in reality I think he could only ever be tried for the Paul Stine crime (with what we know today at least)

One thing that I have been thinking about this weekend and Richard has mentioned it , Zodiac was initially about proving he was the killer and the person doing these acts ie LHR & BRS.

I am wondering why did he feel the need to have to prove that the person writing the letters was the person doing the killing. I am wondering if Zodiac the person (as opposed the persona) had maybe killed before and written taunting letters but NOT been believed??

I think the only crime that makes someone take notice of a taunting letter or phonecall is an unsolved murder - and also acts of terrorism but I dont believe Zodiac saw himself as a terrorist or at least not initiallly, he wanted to strike terror into people but I dont believe in this modern society a person is strictly labelled a terrorist unless they follow some ideology behind it, and Zodiac did not follow any ideology or at least he never made it clear.

He was not a terrorist by the modern day definition, but acts of terror are murder on a bigger scale, so he could be both and it would explain the letters.

He definitely tries harder at the start of his communication campaign to be seen as the true killer of Faraday & Jensen (and killer of Darlene Ferrin & attempted killer of Mike Mageau) then he seems to be less interested in doing so, maybe because the media narrative was proceeding on the assumption it was the same killer committing the canonical Zodiac crimes and even the police thought so ie setting up a task force, liasing with other supposed jurisdictions etc

Does make me think he might have had a period of non-believed taunting letters, but as I say I dont think anyone would give a random anonymous note any mind unless it was something as serious as murder.

is he trying to sell himself stronger in 1969 because maybe a previous time he sent a note to the police taking credit for an unsolved murder (in Oct 1966 perhaps) was not a convincing sale??

do you see the killer and / or letter writer in Riverside being a completely different person or persons to Zodiac of the bay area??
is it any part of the gestation period or is it just 2 (or more) completely different people??

Johnny

2/23/2025 04:02:00 am

He could definitely have killed before and felt betrayed about not getting any recognition. Killing is risky and takes planning, so i guess he was very disappointed...

But he could also have killed before and couldn't take credit for it because of possible evidence coming to light against him or if he felt embarassed by a killing he did.

I have always found it interesting that he didn't claim Lake Herman right away, and i have felt that he was such an egomaniac that he needed two hits before facing up to it, but what if he felt he was close to get arrested after the first crime, but later on felt that he got away with it.

If that's the case he might have been someone in or around the investigation of the Lake Herman road murders, or did he know that they was seeking the light coloured Impala? I would bet my money on the Impala and that he did all he could in the most discreet way to get the car away from his person.

No, i think they are all the same. I just have a hard time understanding the stabbing and the shooting inside the car, but i guess Zodiac really had become like that. I mean, he seemed crazy earlier on if he chased cars aswell, and what shall we say of the later version ( if him ) that attacked Isobel Watson. The strange thing is really that he got away. The person attacking Isobel seem very dangerous indeed.

Oh, ok you asked about Riverside. That one i have no clue about whatsoever. I have to trust you, Rick and others on that one. I would go for Isobel as very probable though. I mean, even the knife is involved in that one.

Johnny

2/23/2025 07:03:28 am

Just came to think about what Rick said about the Watson case. So maybe it isnt Zodiac after all.

EdEdwardsCiphers link

2/23/2025 08:20:49 am

@Jibber,

He very well could be the world's most prolific killer.

What if he simply did as he said he would. No longer broadcast his murders as murders. Instead they would be false accidents, slips, falls. He told people what he would do, and they still didn't believe him. Because perhaps, they couldn't understand him.

You know what I came across one time? Someone claiming that one of the easiest ways to get away with murder is by murdering a drug addict. You could murder them in so many different ways and be completely undetected. Interesting thought.

About the "proving" and the letters.

This is another concept I have to try to illustrate and show.

As a cryptographer -- meaning (graph -- "to write") and crypto -- meaning (secret). One of the features it provides is authentication. Proof, is a concept that continues today, and is deeply embedded in the understanding of private, secure communication. It proves you are, who you say you are. It's math, it's science, and it's deep concepts that connect to reality as we understand it.

Based on some of my experiences and learning, I've come to the conclusion that the Zodiac was engaging in "Public Key Cryptography"

My assumption would be that most who have studied this case would also be a bit well-read up on this subject and get a basic grasp of some of this concepts. I came to understand it because of my job.

It will be too much to explain it here, as I've mentioned before. But a good way to envision what I mean, is this phrase that I've seen used multiple times by some.

Hidden, in plain sight.

This in a nutshell explains the concept of "Public Key Cryptography"

I've come to the conclusion that this person, in all of his communications, was hiding something in plain sight. The pattern becomes clear as I mentioned, when you traverse back in time, and look at the evidence that is available to all, and not some. Which was by design in my opinion.

The letters. The writing. The signature. The Zodiac Sigil.

Johnny

2/22/2025 07:30:52 pm

It wasnt meant that way, Ed. I feel you trying to be open minded, and i respect that. The thing with me, is that i believe that people may sometimes get degenerated internally by choosing to do evil without any clear outward signs pointing towards it before its to late.

Zodiac was older and had a long life of personal misery before he became a killer. I believe the later a killer begins the more degenerated the crimes usually are.

But look! Myself i have hard time admitting he could stab people like he did, so maybe after all, its me that are not consequent about all this.

EdEdwardsCiphers link

2/22/2025 08:23:34 pm

Well, I'm not sure what it is exactly you are trying to say. I'm not sure labeling myself and Jibber is a good start. I can speak for myself, because I know what I know. I've done the work that I've done, and am extremely confident in my work.

As far as Jibber, they can speak for themselves. But I've seen nothing but stellar work from them, and a consistent record of contributing to the community, doing always additive work, never subtractive.

When you say "people degenerating internally when choosing to do evil" it strikes me as not exactly a sophisticated take on people's motives.

It's also problematic for me, as it seems to take a side as a view into someone's thinking, as opposed to a possibly more insightful clinical perspective.

What you may consider evil, someone else can not consider as. There's nuance.

Fentanyl can kill, but opioids help with pain relief. Mushrooms eaten in the wild can kill, but LSD is finding new life as a treatment for things like PTSD.

A Sociopath can murder you after shaking your hand and asking you "How you're doing". And afterwards, while you're bleeding out from a knife stuck sideways into your chest, so that it perforates your heart directly, they can leave you while greeting someone else walking by and say to that person "Miss, I think that person needs help".

Their brains work differently than normal people. I'm reminded of the courses that were offered in Psychology. There was regular Psych, and abnormal Psych.

Think Dory from finding Nemo.

Her brain simply resets. She's not stupid per se. She's not evil either. It's just how her brain works.

Some peoples brains are different.

As far as killing, and later in life, I've made that argument above. I don't believe a serious argument can be, nor has been made, that a fully formed killer swoops in and consistently evades and taunts a professional police force without a full period of gestation and development.

I've stated the reasons for my thinking. I've also stated why I believe the counterveiling type of thinking has fallen short.

Good luck to you in making your case.

Johnny

2/22/2025 08:55:10 pm

Its ok, Ed. Just be reminded of that im coming in peace and that i never tried labeling you or Jibby in any way. What i meant with "dogmatic" was just this one instance when you two saying that he almost certainly has killed before. ( Or am im wrong in this, please correct me ), and im more on the fence on that one, because i see no real reason in believing he has killed before.

I think you two and Druzer may be right in your opinion though, but you havent won me over as of yet.

Do you now see what i meant?

Yes, and with respect to the psychology of different individuals, i myself like you also believe that we are wired different, but i also believe small differences in wiring may cause much havoc, and i think we people most often are about the same. I see no real difference between these criminals and other persons. For me its more or less small individual details that for different reason leads an individual to do spectacular crimes.

Johnny

2/22/2025 09:05:57 pm

What you write about a fully formed killer i agree with, that it will not be the case. I believe Zodiac has been a deviant since childhood. Just a mean boy with evil pranks. But its really hard i think to say how much bad he really did in real life compared to his internal fantasies about it.

He could definitely have done very bad things, even murder i wouldn't exclude. And of course, just as you say, his deviant thought patterns evolved over a long time, since his childhood.

EdEdwardsCiphers link

2/23/2025 08:59:52 am

@Johnny,

That's good to know.

A few things:

Killing another human being is considered by some in the psych community as a certain threshold that is crossed mentally.

There are degrees of course, even legal ones. Premeditated, cold blood, manslaughter. Those are legal references. But I've come across descriptions speaking to mental health, as murdering someone being a mental threshold, that breaks when one has committed the act.

The mind is never the same. It's broken.

Logic would dictate, that something precedes this breaking. If it's a one time crime of passion thing, or temporary insanity, then that's one thing. And those crimes can be explained and even to some degree, understood. Take for example the case of Luigi Mangione.

It is a very different and depraved thing, a perversion of a mind, to wantonly kill for none of those reasons. This would be crossing the threshold willingly once, something that may break a lot of minds. But serial killing would be different from crossing the threshold, and possible going back to normalcy.

This would be a kind of living inside that dangerous space.

An analogy:

Niagara falls. Walking along the falls, the farthest upstream, the waters will not be rapidly moving. 2 people walking along the stream would be perfectly fine walking. If one person jumped into the stream, they may be safe, because they're so far upstream they could simply swim back to shore. That's the threshold in the analogy. You can cross it, but you can still go back.

If the 2 friends are further downstream though, and one of them jumps in. The waters swirling dangerously. The falls within sight. This is a threshold one friend would view as unrecoverable from. They would not cross it, as there would be no coming back from it.

The friend who jumped in would have been assumed to be dead, and long gone.

This second scenario is the Zodiac. Or anyone classified as a chain or serial killer. To cross that mental threshold and choose to be in such dangerous waters, one would have had to have something like a lifetime of diving expertise up onto that point to believe that you could survive in such tumult.

The trick, and the research then would be, to figure out, did this guy actually have a preponderance of not only deep sea diving, but whitewater rafting experience. Emergency training. Etc.

Funnily enough, this analogy reminds me of D.B.Cooper.

Oh also, I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I'm here to learn. Sir Richards site was ignored by me for a long time. Big mistake. A friend of mine who is an unsung Zodiac researcher finally convinced me to come here. They referred to it almost as "a source"

They were right.

Johnny

2/23/2025 04:11:34 pm

Both you Ed and Jibby makes a great case of the "complexity" of the Zodiacs behaviour and the need for him to evolve to get there.

This could definitely be a part of the crime i have missed. Could we say that its like building a house, and that Zodiac would have no possibility of knowing where to start, if he hadn't any previous experience of following a house draft?

But we also need to get reminded of what we ourselves are "reading into" the crimes afterwards. Maybe some things in the crimes seems more complex then it really was? I get reminded for example of the Gary Ridgway case. He was effective alright, but he got away because he attacked prostitutes and that he did it in a real simple way time after time.

EdEdwardsCiphers link

2/24/2025 07:58:33 am

@Johnny,

Yes. Building a house is another analogy, and works well for cases and arguments as they both require a sturdy foundation. Many lack this rigor. They lack a base. You need a base for anything to be built off of. It's like a key in a cipher that way.

Psychology as a science has volumes on how someone crosses this threshold of killing. It also speaks about these different kinds of minds that operate abnormally.

One of my favorite anecdotes about how these minds work, is what I refer to as a "disgust index" This is fascinating.

People can be tested as to their avulsion to certain things. Ranking them as normal or on some sort of spectrum of sociopathy. This is the analogy I mentioned earlier about being able to kill someone, have them bleeding out at your feet, and not having a reaction at all.

Another great summary of this is from the Hannibal Lecter scene, where it's explained that his pulse never raced while he murdered someone in cold blood and then possibly ate a part of the body.

This would be a psychopath.

Similar behavior as shooting someone in a cab. You would think the person would be full of adrenaline. When confronted by the police, a normal person would have tells -- being fidgety, sweaty, stuttering perhaps. A psychopath would not. They may even appear smooth, suave and glib. Which is a classic trait of psychopathy.

I see this argument of "maybe you're making this too complex" quite a bit sometimes. While it does have merit, I may even think I've seen some make cases where that appears to be the case. I try to control for that in what I was able to research.

For ex. There are things I've never mentioned about my suspect, because no one would ever believe me. People would literally not believe what I think I've found, because they can't envision what a mind like that could do. So I try to leave very small breadcrumbs, and ask probing questions. But no one is on the right track. But that's fine. That's how minds work. Which is a separate subject that interests me. But I digress.

This is why I mentioned previously, about understanding certain basic things. Like what Old Norse really is. What Thule is. No one is close, except for ShakeDog, who arrived at a similar connection point.

It's also why I've noted the lack of a strong indication of why anyone thinks he calls himself Zodiac. I had a suspicion of why that is, and then I found a youtube video of one of his victims. The victim explains what a "Zodiac" is. The victim, that no one believes is a victim because he lived, has the Zodiac's symbols tattooed all over him. While he mentions what a "Zodiac" is, no one will ever believe and understand, because most are blinded by a bias, and unfortunately can't be told that they've been fooled and swindled by a conman par excellence.

All of my points connect. So it isn't a matter of complexity at all, because everything connects, one to the other. However, as I explained in an earlier post, children can't perceive a peek-a-boo (object permanence) until their brains evolve and change their understanding of perception.

I see it clearly, because I believe I understand the narrative. Another way to say that, would be to say, I may have found a "key"

The comparison to Ridgeway, or any other serial killer is not accurate in my opinion. And this is an important point, because I can understand why some might fall into this trap.

This person is not like any other serial killer in history. Except perhaps for 'ole Jack who he was emulating for a long time.

Someone like Ridgeway, is of normal intelligence. Even Kaczynski, who some try to compare Zodiac to, is not like this person. Kaczynski was intelligent, but lacks the glibness that is a hallmark of a psychopath. Kaczynski had no sense of style nor depth. As I say it, he was left-brained. Zodiac demonstrates things, even if only in his ciphers, that show that something else is going on. Something artistic. Something more right brained.

I think actually it's this double-hemispherical capability that confounds most people in being able to see it. They can't perceive that someone would do the things this person would do.

Until we get some great breaks in the case -- the struggle continues.

Johnny

2/23/2025 03:43:42 pm

I agree with you on this one, Ed. I think the perpetrator feels he cant go to hell twice, so why not kill again? You describe it perfectly i think!

And it that sense, Yes it means something to actually cross the threshold and act on ones fantasies, but i also believe, Ed, that certain people on certain times has become so rotten inside that, that they seem "almost as fully formed the first time around".

EdEdwardsCiphers link

2/24/2025 08:32:39 am

@Johnny,

I'm not sure about going to hell twice, but if you're talking about going to paradice while having been fooled and manipulated by someone who interprets a "word", for those who cannot interpret it themselves -- then I would say, that's a great way to manipulate people. I might even be jealous of it.

The "threshold" I mentioned is not something that I made up for purposes of a message board. It's science. Which means many qualified people got together and rigorously debated it, pored over it, and agreed that it is an accurate representation of reality. These would be people that are more qualified than you or I and have spent the time to be good at it that we wouldn't have to.

Being "fully formed" as you state here, is the point I'm making about an argument having a good foundation.

Babies are not fully formed adults. They take time. What you might be describing is what some might refer to as magical thinking. Science is patterns over time. Intelligence is the ability to recognize patterns. A better or higher quality intelligence is better at recognizing patterns. A lower quality intelligence will struggle with recognizing patterns.

Just like babies take time to grow, Doctors know what to look for in babies to ensure they're hitting milestones of normalcy. As children grow, Dr's continue to monitor for this normalcy including behavioral tendencies.

There are repeatable tendencies to watch for. Sometimes they are so frequent, they get labeled. For ex. the Golden Triad of danger signs of psychopathy. These are patterns and not magic.

Superman does not exist in real life.

You're entitled to your opinion as I am to mine. You're also entitled to your beliefs, but it might be helpful to hear why others might not share your belief. There may be holes or blindspots and things you missed. It's why I stated, I'm here to learn. To see what I may have missed, and what makes sense. I miss a lot.

Some may have a different bar for the strength of an argument that is different from yours. Perhaps you could learn something too?

I know I have.

Johnny

2/24/2025 09:03:08 pm

You make your case clear and the framework you have could possibly pay off. Its a very clear and concise formula in that you seem to work much towards outer aspects of peoples lives. Thats good and maybe the only way forward.

Only one thing, Ed. I was quite unclear on what i meant with going to hell twice. I meant exactly what you yourself is writing about, namely, when a person has gone over the threshold its nothing more to hold him back anymore.

EdEdwardsCiphers link

2/25/2025 04:04:21 pm

@Johnny,

Tx for the kind words.

Perhaps a little more color on this threshold, and hell discussion, is required.

Going to hell, to me, would mean, that the person is aware that they are doing something wrong. I think in legal terms they refer to this as "consciousness of guilt". it's used in legal cases. Meaning, someone only does something realizing that they did something wrong. Their action would indicate guilt.

An example is something like the phenomena of -- school shooter/death by cop.

At several of these terrible school shootings, you'll find the assailants turn the gun on themselves.

One could surmise, that the perpetrator, after realizing what they have done, and the possible consequences, don't see any other way out. It's a dead end for them. So they end it themselves.

They've crossed a threshold in their mind, and they realize it. There's no going back. One could almost say that their mental health was suffering, which caused them to act out. Once they act out, they don't see any other way out of their predicament. That's almost how a normal brain --even if it's suffering, would act.

An abnormal brain, may react very differently was the point I was making. I alluded to things like disgust. A school shooter perhaps once they see what happens to bodies after they're blown apart, becomes essentially shellshocked like they were in combat.

An abnormal brain may not have that problem at all. Meaning, this theoretical threshold, does not exist for them. Where someone would think there's no way out, and end themselves. The sociopathic brain could not be disgusted by such a scene, and could simply try to escape. And eventually do it again.

So put another way, a normal brain crossing this threshold is in trouble and it will never be the same. Perhaps they end themselves.

An abnormal brain. One that for example scores high on toleration of disgust, is going to engage with that threshold very differently. They traverse it, and don't have a problem. They can in essence , live in that threshold.

I go on about this, because I don't see this understanding in the community a lot. I don't see many that understand this. It's why some put forth suspects that are ridiculous on their face.

Some of the suspects, if they're lucky, are criminals. This gives some, what they think is cover for what would pass as a suspect.

That would make sense if this were a normal criminal and these were normal crimes. That's the distinction that I see many struggle with. This is not a normal criminal. One can see that just with the pathology being similar to 'Ole Jack.

Hopefully that makes sense. I tend to be long winded. Yodda, yodda, maybe a book. I know. :-)

Johnny

2/24/2025 09:11:47 pm

I also understand that you need more confirmation of your thinking about all this, but i can only do my best to understand what your coming from! In the whole i think your system seems really great, but ofcourse it need something real substantial coming in to process aswell. But from my understanding you already found some pieces you need and have a theory of what have transpired in this case?

EdEdwardsCiphers link

2/25/2025 04:37:29 pm

@Johnny,

My opinion is all that I have. Everyone has one. I don't know for certain, as I'm not the killer, and I wasn't there. So these are only my opinions. Thoughts that I have to try to make sure make sense.

I have my biases. But all I can say is, I'm pretty confident in the work that I've done, and things that I've found, which no one as of yet has found. At least not many.

Every so often, as I mentioned ,I bump into other researchers that surprise me and come to the same conclusions that I have, that no one other than they or I have found. ShakeDog is one such person.

He surprised me once on a stream, when he said the word Thule. I had to ask him what he said because it was surprising. No one else had made that connection. These independent connection points help to reinforce for me, that I'm on the right track.

I've also mentioned 2 people on Reddit, working independently, have found and made 2 of the more impressive discoveries.

Because no one else is close though, and because these 2 researchers aren't aware of what they've found, and how they connect, they themselves in my opinion don't know what they've found. They won't make any further progress imo.

One has found a Zodiac Cipher. How do I know? Because what they found has all of the hallmarks of other ciphers I've found.

But where they've found only one. I've found many. What I've found, I found before bumping into them, that's how I've gotten additional confirmation I'm on the right track.

They would be confused as to what they've found, because they're looking at a suspect who will not create another cipher like the one they have found. Because he's not the Zodiac.

Another researcher, helped to confirm for me, the direction I was looking, when they found that a large preponderance of the Zodiac's "Misspellings" are not misspellings.

This researcher even themselves time limited the findings to the 15th and 16th century for the usage of the words, that you or I would think are misspellings but are repleat in literature at that time.

This confirmed for me one specific book that I believed I had connected him to. It has to do with partially why he may have named himself Zodius first. But for anyone taking this case seriously and understanding things like cryptography-- this is an almost seminal book. So it became obvious to me, that the book was a connection. The book is from the 15th century and is considered the founding of cryptography.

No one else has connected those dots.

But, who knows, perhaps I'm like a lot of the insufferable people that claims to have solved a cipher or found the Zodiac?

That would be sad :-(

Johnny

2/25/2025 07:33:55 pm

Ed! I have never seen you write this good as in your discussion about normal and abnormal brains. Its sublime writing in a way, and i have nothing to add to it.

I agree on it but i don' t think i could have put it this clearly as you did!

EdEdwardsCiphers link

2/26/2025 11:18:52 am

Thx? I guess? :-)

Johnny

2/25/2025 07:28:10 pm

You do right in follow what you believe in. It could be fully correct ofcourse, but if not, it could atleast shake out important details that others could start to work on.

EdEdwardsCiphers link

2/26/2025 11:30:33 am

We'll see @Johnny.

My goal, is to fully be able to express my thoughts. I've come to realize, what seems simple, and logical, and a complete narrative to me, does not come across and get received in the fashion I had hoped when I try to present them. This happens a lot in written forms for me when I try to explain.

It's one of the reasons I have a separate Youtube channel.

Some of the "concepts" I touch upon, I've noticed are not received with the intent that I set forth. But conceptual things may be hard for some to "visualize". So I've taken to try to help visualize them for other to see.

I mentioned that I came across this as a phenomena from Reddit. I'll hope to have this in one of my videos soon.

It has to do with visualization. It was alarming for me to realize what I was doing when I was doing it, and for others to not be able to do it. But apparently, I'm not alone in both experiencing this , and for others not to be able to. It's quite a thread on Reddit.

It's like the radio wave analogy I used earlier. Hamsters may not be aware that radio waves are all around them. To them they may be invisible. But they're still there, even though they can't see them.

It's funny you mention about details that others should work on. That's a thing that is a challenge for me. It's my hope for that very thing to happen.

As Sir Richard has done with his research work, finding themes that may be repeating (we spoke about pattern recognition and intelligence). I've found what I believe to be a Zodiac Cipher in another pretty famous case. Well several actually, but this one I feel like I have a good chance of presenting to the authorities.

I just have to flesh it out further. Like I said, I have my work cut out for me. But these are some of the reasons I'm confident and believe I know what I'm talking about.

We'll see if it's all for naught, and if a straitjacket awaits me instead ;-)

Wish me luck.

Comments are closed.

NO FRONT PASSENGER IN THE TAXICAB

Archives