Link: Copy link
Paradice,Paradice wrote: download/file.php?id=456&mode=view
That is not clearly appearing in the cipher. None of the "Evbjr name appears" appear clearly, without using the original code AND the solution, or without serious cajjiggering involved in getting the "solution". It is important that Gary Stewart is an unreliable source and shameless opportunist when it comes to making money off of the suffering and grief of others. Worse, he could have given loved-ones of Zodiac victims false hope that the murderer had been identified (fortunately, the claim is not believable enough to have caused such belief).
Does he endorse your numerology? I don't know of anyone else who thinks/plans things in a manner similar to your numbers game. It is the most compelling evidence against Best, but there is no way to know if your suppositions are correct or if Zodiac (or anyone other than you) thinks/thought this way.
First off you do know that turning words and or letters into numbers or vice versa is valid coding , you can invert etc so that part of your statement is incorrect. For starters Basic stuff .ZteveMcQueen wrote: Mike, there are a number of us who don't buy into your numerology. It isn't because we think you didn't add the numbers correctly. It's that many of us doubt the validity of your approach and the integrity of your efforts.
You're turning words into numbers, dates into numbers, then adding numbers to those numbers in order to produce a number that you believe is relevant to your suspect, Earl Van Best, Jr. Many of us don't think that's a valid way to research a crime and that the results would never be admitted at trial.
I believe you at best inconsistent and at worst deceptive and dishonest in the methods you use. For example, sometimes you use the regular (Gregorian calendar), but you will switch to the Zodiac calendar if necessary to get the result you want. Likewise, you will sum the numbers from dates differently, or add an arbitrary number in order to force a result. Those are not the methods of a person who is seeking objective truth.
Paradice , Happy 4thParadice wrote: If you are going to make broad, grandiose claims that you solved the case then at least get a couple of experts to back your claims. You should also get Stewart to endorse your claims. Even a few posters here who will back you and believe your work is not misguided/biased or intentionally slanted to frame Best would be something.
Since when is taking dates and adding numbers together to get the results you want valid coding? You have done nothing to show that Best believed these dates were important or used a similar system (or did any coding for that matter) or that he had some obsession with adding dates together to get certain numbers like 314 or 888. I don't know how it is that you KNOW all those numbers are so important to Best.