Post by Admin Horan on Feb 12, 2018 12:27:11 GMT -6
EKH: Well, for one thing, it's obvious BS. Don't take my word for it: tape an old pencel (yes, he spelled that word correctly. Google it) flashlight with an old fashioned incandescent bulb to the barrel of a .22 target pistol (or any other gun) and pull the trigger. See all that darkness? That's what happens when you knock an incandescent filament with a hammer.
AAAAAAAAAaaaaaaaand, if the pieces of Stine's shirt "prove" he is "The Zodiac," then why remind people of the "electric gunsight?"
Speaking of BS, grab a shovel and head out to your favorite patch of road (even gravel road) and start digging. See what I mean? It's really, really hard to dug up a road even with a backhoe. Also, about now, you'll notice the large fellow with the official looking hat and the gun on his hip asking what the hell you think you're doing digging up his road. In other words, HOW was "Zodiac" supposed to dig a hole big enough for a bus bomb WITHOUT ANYONE NOTICING? He couldn't.
What's funny is, that "school bus sniper" threat WAS credible. Veeerrrrry credible. But then, he drops that, at switches to this blatantly IN-credible threat. Funny.
I think you're right Professor Horan. But this strikes me as odd. Was it mentioned simply to connect the letters, to prove it was the same letter writer? Was the 2nd letter published in the newspapers (can't seem to find the article if it was)?
According to some reports I saw, the police believed it to be a JC Higgins model 80. I was thinking that the action of the slide would be impeded by the added weight of a flashlight causing it to jam easily and/or the jolt of the slide action would surly off center a sighted light rather quickly. But interestingly enough, when I looked at the pistol, the slide only covers slightly less than half the barrel so you could THEORETICALLY tape a light on it. Is the kick from a 22 strong enough to damage an attached flashlight's incandescent bulb ... maybe. They probably were way more fragile back in the day. I've had a bit of experience with pistols and a 22 isn't very powerful, there is almost no recoil at all. Believe it or not I might actually try it an see what happens. But what really makes me think you're right about it being total BS is, if memory serves me correctly and it's been a while since I owned a little pencil flashlight, they simply don't throw enough light, especially an old incandescent bulb. Looking at the modern mini maglite's that still have incandescent bulbs, they only throw 2 lumens. That's pretty sad. I think my phone screen might be brighter. And I don't know if a person would have really NEEDED a flashlight during the attack at Lake Herman Road. Who knows? The whole concept seems bizarre to mention and cite as proof. BUT, something did catch my eye doing some research on flashlights.....
I'm sure it's meaningless, and a waste of time. But I went on the wild goose chase anyway to maybe find the history of the symbol for Peak Beam Intensity (Candela) and looked at vintage flashlight boxes and old advertisements for flashlights searching for something similar but to no avail. They don't even seem to mention the beam strength of flashlights anywhere, a different era. Perhaps a military man would have known more. I know it wasn't even worth mentioning but I thought I would anyway for the snickers. No stone left unturned.
Post by Admin Horan on Feb 19, 2018 16:58:41 GMT -6
No, actually, this is VERY good research. Police sort of assumed it was a Higgins or Sears target pistol (very, very popular.) And yes, that pistol LOVES to jam, unless you are an experienced shooter.
PS It really is spelled "pencel." As in, "pencel-shaped fish" like a minnow or sardine. It's French for "pennant-shaped."
Snook not only owned a sporting goods store where he sold "pencel" lures to fisherman, Snook itself is a name from the Brittany coast/Dover area where they spell paradise "paradice."
And "cerous" is NOT curious "misspelled." Cerous oxalate is a chemical with many fascinating uses. 1. For polishing rocks and gems (Snook was a rockhound and fossil collector); 2. prior to the invention of Dramamine, it was used a seasickness/airsickness cure; 3. invisible ink. Which Snook used as a pre-OSS commando in the Pacific.
Oh I'm very much up to speed Professor Horan. Got the books and listened to every podcast you've been on, even the now missing Generation Why Zodiac debate, so I'm on board with probably everything you've said publicly. Not butt-kissing here. I just don't want you to feel like you have to constantly repeat yourself, I'm sure it can be a grind.
I understand that the costume used at Lake Berryessa was likely inspired by an article circa 1946'ish about a peeping tom that was kept posted on the wall of a newspaper Hal Snook would later come to work at. Is it possible for you to post this article?
Post by Admin Horan on Feb 22, 2018 8:04:04 GMT -6
Rats. I was reeeaaallly hoping someone could prove me wrong--then I could claim I had found the "Zodiac Killer."
I have that article somewhere. It's about a young man who was stalking women in the East Bay area in the 1940s. After Snook graduated from San Jose State University with a degree in Journalism in 1949 (no kidding--he was a very remarkable man) he took over two defunct small-town newspapers in in far northern rural California. A clipping from the ... uh...Okaland Tribune, maybe? Fairfield Republic? ...anyway...was pinned to the wall of one of those newspapers. I have it somewhere...
Tom Voigt has it on his site somewhere, too.
PS hold on to your hat: two of the biggest discoveries in this "case" are forthcoming. 1. The key, and perhaps even the "solution," to the 340; 2. The identity of the person to whom the 340 was "addressed." 3. on my list of two: the REASON for it all.
That would be awesome if you would be willing to find and post it. Would love to see it.
You forgot to mention one of your discoveries you've yet to announce. 4. On your list of two, The lone source for the symbols used in the cipher. That too has captured my attention just as much as the other three announcements yet to come.
It's the little things.
But I am very interested to learn how it seems the letters might have started off trying to draw public attention to an informant getting away with murder/Napa Valley police corruption -to- being used for an alibi -to- Washington and Cherry Street -to- a message for a famous former college roommate in the CIA -to- best selling book and feature film -to- ....where ever else it might lead. In the beginning, I heard nothing but praise for Hal Snook, but lately it looks as though cracks were starting to form. Were you right about some of it, all of it? Does the real answer even make sense??
Were the first letters written by a lone person with the best of intentions only to have their small hoax balloon out of their control and have it all hijacked by a sensationalist newspaper? You can't really call the authorities on someone for stealing your hoax, unless you do. How would the hoaxers know the Paul Stine case wouldn't be solved with an arrest and conviction? Would that not have ended the hoax definitively? But with that letter they "bet the farm" so to speak. Why gamble it all on this one? Or were they hoping it would be solved (I guess crimes being pinned on a scapegoat are not unheard of)? An open and shut case so everyone could quietly walk away...is San Francisco PD really THAT terrible?? Hmmmmmm I'm a bit stumped Professor Horan. I could go and on.
Was YOUR father the Zodiac? haha
For the moment I know those to all be rhetorical questions. I understand part of the reason you're waiting to reveal new findings is due to a possible second season of show on the "History" Channel, oh how the mighty have fallen, so the teasing will eventually come to an end.
I realize you can't answer too many questions at the moment, but after looking at some other serial murders that happened prior to the Zodiac case I've come to a couple of conclusions. All given that the letters were a hoax. I'll keep posting in case others wish to discuss...
-They were written to newspapers to shine a light on police corruption
-They actually perpetuated that corruption by giving an informant an alibi, perhaps written to the newspapers (with help of an insider? and sensationally to guarantee coverage) instead of the police because it would have been illegal to do so (odd given what was to follow). This suggests that one of the hoaxers was only willing to go so far. OR that the first option is more likely. But exploring this second option for a moment....
Maybe the case against the two guys arrested in front of the informant's house wasn't going to work out as a "set up" so another alibi was constructed, thus the letters. Maybe there were too many cops that thought the letters were a hoax, thus enter the Lake Berryessa attack, to solidify the "Zodiac letter alibi" and they even threw in a "Zodiac" costume for good measure. Now he was "real." But why not mention that attack in the letters? Were they not all in it together? Were some of the investigators actually a little too close to finding the real killer (one of the corrupt) so the "Zodiac" try's to distance himself? Maybe THAT didn't work out either and the corrupt had to double down, again, and since Napa had become too hot they send the "Zodiac" away, south to San Fran. And maybe he also took credit for other things to really throw investigators off.
How the 340 fits in, I'm not really sure. That one really interests me. Ten symbols appear in the exact same spot on both letters. That could just be a coincidence. I have heard Professor Horan suggest that the number of characters alone or the date it was mailed could be what's most significant about the 340. Maybe that's somehow a key to reading a meaning to the cipher. Maybe the number of victims he claims or number of underlines under "Thing" or weird dots on the exclamation points on the dripping pen card mean something, maybe they don't.
One of the earlier cases I've been looking at has been the Texarkana Moonlight Murders. In that case, the attacker wore a hood to disguise himself, there seems to be SOME debate about that but since Mary Larey was near him the longest I'm going to go with her, but Zodiac wore a hood even though he intended to kill the people that could identify him. Why? Was the suspect's description what made the made the case against Mr. Pocket Pistol fall apart, hence the need for a costume? Was one of the victims intended to live to tell the tale. Or was it simply so that anyone else on the lake couldn't identify him? Interestingly, both the Phantom Killer and the "Zodiac" had firearms but chose not to use them to ensure success. Why? It is because they can be matched through ballistics and/or costly to dispose of/replace? One of my thoughts on the Texarkana Moonlight Murders is one of the victims was probably a "trace victim" meaning that the killer could be linked to them. So, in an effort to conceal this more victims are added to the mix to muddy that connection. Can this be applied to one of the "Zodiac" victims? Was perhaps one of the victims of the "Zodiac" able to be traced back all the way the chain of corruption and the link had to be concealed in a similar fashion? If that were so, I'd be betting on the Blue Rock Springs Park attack since that's the genesis. Was the corrupt circle similar to the informant's circle, one fall we all fall, -you have to do some of the "Zodiac" work too- kinda thing? Heck, what about Jack the Ripper, is one of the Whitechapel victims a "trace victim" to the Ripper himself and everyone else collateral damage?
Did they do it all because they HAD to, to protect themselves?
These are the questions I one day hope to have answers for.
Here's an interesting bit of information provided by "Zodiac" himself; he states that the victims of Lake Herman Road were his first. Is this proof that none of the previous murders (Riverside) were his ?
It has been discussed before by Professor Horan, but I wanted to show why it is entirely plausible that the source of the " goof, " oddly not mentioned in the Oct 13th letter, could and likely was the LE conference held in San Francisco. " Zodiac " couldn't write a letter the next day after the conference as it would have been too obvious what the source was. I wonder why he mentions this " goof " at all. He already proved he was who said he was. Why mention it further ? In the press, it looks as though police already believed there was a serial killer, but did they really ??
Post by Admin Horan on Feb 22, 2019 8:11:20 GMT -6
You know what? I think you nailed it--"Zodiac" found out about Fouke and Zelms at the October 20th interdepartmental "Zodiac" conference. We know that reporters were strictly banned from that conference, so even if the author of the letters was a reporter, he still HAD to get that information from someone at the conference.
"To prove I am the Zodiac" indeed. First of all, why not include another little piece of the shirt? So, that's not the reason. Maybe it's another "insider's" clue about the conference. Is that what he's proving? "I [the Zodiac] was at the conference!"
Did "someone" at the conference have a theory about an "electric gunsight?" A Vallejo cop? Did they bring up what I brought up, that taping a pencel (not "pencil." Google it) flashlight to a Model 80 pistol couldn't have worked?
It's pretty obvious that LE lost interest in "Zodiac" after this November 9 letter/340 greeting card. I originally suggested that some person(s) at the conference had figured out it was all a hoax. Maybe he TOLD them it was a hoax. Maybe this letter "proves" it.
And AGAIN, after this letter, "he" NEVER again writes ANY letters with ANY real information about ANY real crimes, EVER again.
A couple of people who claim to have been friends with Snook told me that he dropped a thousand "hints" that he [Snook] WAS "Zodiac." One of them told me that some of Snook's friends thought Snook meant that he (and a couple of other people) were actually killing people [and that a Napa woman was murdered to protect their secret,] but others told me that they thought Snook meant he had created a hoax. "He was such a vain and sarcastic wiseguy..." A retired SF cop told me that "everybody knew it was a couple of cops from Napa."
As the years went by, Snook would reminisce about various cases he had handled. When he retired, he said his favorite case was the Lynda Kanes murder. He NEVER, EVER talked about the Shepard murder. He was NOT interviewed for the mini-doc as part of Fischer's movie. His name was NOT mentioned in Graysmith's book, and even though Graysmith claimed to have interviewed not only Narlow and other Napa detectives, AND Dennis Land [an interview he plagiarized from a newspaper clipping] G NEVER claimed to have even met Snook, let alone interviewed him.
And Snook's family will NOT talk about him.
"When a man lies, he murders some part of the world." —Paul Gerhardt