The Bounty

General Zodiac Discussion
Random Zodiac subjects galore
Discussion not belonging in other topics should be posted here

Soze
Old Newbie
Joined: 10 Oct 2010, 14:58

15 Dec 2010, 17:27 #61

timetoresearchz wrote:Soze,Good spot!Let's not forget the oft disputed 10/5/70 card which says, ""What is the price tag now?" I think Z wanted a reward and the bigger ("price tag'-"...how much money...") the better as far as the amount of the reward. For him it must have been an ego boost.One does wonder why there wasn't a large reward though. Puzzling.
Forgetting the 10/5/70 card was exactly what I did and had to go back and look it up. Setting aside Bates, the bulk of the communications from the Zodiac was hand written. July 69: His communications begin with “Dear Editor” and he calls himself a murderer or killer depending upon the letter being read. He ends it with his crosshair symbol.August 69: His communications still begin with “Dear Editor” but, by this point, he is now calling himself the Zodiac. He still ends it with the crosshair symbol.(Would like to know what occurred between the 7/31/69 letter and the 8/4/69 letter to give rise to the name Zodiac)October 69: He no longer uses the term “Dear Editor”, calls himself the Zodiac and ends the letter with the crosshair symbol.Communications from the Zodiac, October 69 to the end of 1971, follow the October 69 layout shown above. The only differences that I recall at present are the cards he sent in. The writing style of these cards (excluding the 10/5/70 card) are exactly alike – they don’t show him addressing himself as the Zodiac but are still hand written and continues to show him using his crosshair symbol. The 10/5/70 card, on the other hand, is typed word. He addresses the editor, includes his name and the crosshair symbol. Seems a bit out of character. But, if you look at all communications that may or may not be the Zodiac from 1974 to 1978, all of it is out of character. I lean towards the 10/5/70 card being a fake but don’t lean far enough over that I can’t be entertained with the possibility that the card is genuine. If the Zodiac was referencing the Benicia Herald’s article of Jan/69, then I see the comment by the Zodiac as a clue to his location rather than him caring much about the price on his head. As he said, he was “mildly cerous”. Outside of that, if you take into account that many believe he was media driven, wouldn’t you think that he would have played the “price tag” card to its fullest? He had plenty of opportunity to write about it aside from the 10/5/70 card that’s still up for debate.Soze
Reply

timetoresearchz
DOJ
Joined: 04 Mar 2008, 01:06

15 Dec 2010, 18:49 #62

Soze,Z didn't kill as far as we know for a reward,but he is the one that brought the subject up at least once!There are other things that commend the 10/5/70 card as a Z,but we see how wise Tom is by placing any discussion of it and other disputed Z productions under 'Unconfirmed Zodiac Letters.'Z seems to have been toying with using a moniker since the 1966/7 period. Ryan's site "Zodiac Vortex" under "News " shows indentations in the 1967 Notes which display three forms of spelling Zodiac,but they or any of them were ever used then as we know except for the stylized Z that Sherwood Morrill said was a Z.So a possible hint as to a future moniker or Zodiac.In 1966 he typed "By________" I think just using murderer or killer in the 7/31/69 Three did not sit well with his ego and symbolic mindset so he finally decided to use Zodiac for whatever personal reasons which have been speculated to death and life on sites.We know Zodiac equated his symbol of the cross/circle as being the name Zodiac as we see in the button letter.Same for Z (rarely) on the Halloween card with an even newer symbol version too. Since Cheri Jo was killed Halloween Eve the card itself could be at least partially harking back to her murder as well as the use of the Z on the '67 Notes.He later,or after 3/13/71;3/22/71(no one had to forge this card to get Z to write or manifest that was done already to the LA Times!) I think changed his mind based on whatever he was going through or his own thinking (this will always be the missing gap for proving why he did this-without that info from Z we don't know) about how to announce and /or sign himself; the 1974 series shows his thinking changed again and we see, yours truley-Me(upper case M) ;a friend; Red Phantom; A citizen-like "a friend" or used the indefinte article a).The best and safest territory is that he had more than a passing interest in astrology hence, the moniker,but this is,of course very debatable. We need Z to tell us! But waiting for this is like leaving your porchlight on for Jimmy Hoffa!
Reply