Gareth Penn

"Them not defending themselves could just as likely mean that they love the notoriety of being associated with Zodiac. Shades of Leigh Allen." Nachtsider

If you believe O'Hare's Washington Monthly article, he doesn't love the notoriety.

"Or that they think most amateur Zodiac researchers are all harmless loonies and their accusations are not worth getting upset over. Shades of Richard Gaik and Blaine perhaps?" Quagmire

What's harmless about having to sell your house and move to the other side of the country, because Harvard's given you an ultimatum to sue the accuser or leave?

Speaking of ultimatums, with all due respect to the posters who just want to weigh in with what their gut is telling them, as of right now I'm no longer responding to non-specific questions/comments. If posters want to air their general take on what's being said, that's fine, but I'm not going to answer a question with my own detailed analysis, and then have people respond with a shrug and call it even. If you want me to respond, ask me something specific. Otherwise, we're just spinning our wheels.

Ray.....Hi
Would you please explain what you mean by "all zodiac letters contain an undertext"?

Ray Grant wrote:

I have zero interest in The Minuteman thread, but obviously other people do, and I think that's how you differentiate among POIs on a board like this.

Why? I'm not angry with you, so please don't take these words as written in that emotion. But it not only insults my intelligence that you think so little of my research or judgment, it insults the collective intelligence of the people on this board, whom you admit are following the thread. For me, the sentence above is an exemplar of the biggest problem (and there are others, but this isn't the place to discuss them) with the "Penn" and "O'Hare" types: they zero in on their guy and don't pay attention to anyone else. Have you "digitized" other suspects to rule them out? Your method would probably work to prove anyone was Z. But that's neither here nor there.

How in the world could you have "zero interest" in Troy Houghton as a suspect? Based on what? I've provided over 50 items of compelling circumstantial evidence. That's why there are so many people following the thread. There were just as many following the thread on the Tom V. site. That's why he kicked me out of the joint: jealousy. No one was paying attention to his POI, Gaik, anymore. The people on this board are not gullible and certainly not stupid. Is that what you think? Everyone that pays attention to the TH thread is just gullible, stupid, easily mislead? Look, the folks on this board are by and large the ones who would not tolerate or be force-fed Gaik as a suspect. They looked at it and said: nope, he's not Z and Tom V.'s case is nonsense. If the TH thread were nonsense, no one here would be following it.

Okay, I'd like to hear why you have "zero interest" in the Minutemen thread? You're going to be awfully surprised when you find out TH was Z.

By the way, since you're big on cryptology and ciphers, I can play that game too. The difference is, I actually solve the ciphers. (and my solutions make sense). Here's my solution to the first 7 lines of the 340. All the characters are in there. The periods were my guide regarding how long the sentences are. I'm sorry to say, but Z was not a genius, at least, not based on his cipher work. He just played with characters, turning some on their side and some upside down. That's about it. No digitizing. Tell me what's wrong with this.

we need to nip this in the bud, and keep Troy H stuff in the Troy H thread, and the GRANT/OHARE/PENN stuff here. I didnt see Ray come over to the Troy H thread and say:

" How could you not be interested in troy as a suspect" & "I've provided over 50 items of compelling circumstantial evidence"

Not taking sides here, but please keep stuff where it belongs. I personally dont have any real interest in Penn/Ohare or Troy H as viable Z suspects, but I do applaud both of your efforts and research. Just keep things where they belong. THANKS

"I didnt see Ray come over to the Troy H thread and say:

'How could you not be interested in troy as a suspect" & "I've provided over 50 items of compelling circumstantial evidence'"

No. He says it on this thread.

I don't understand the myopic view here. I don't understand how a suspect can be a POI based on far-out cryptology when there are far simpler and better solutions to the ciphers. Theories must be compared against other theories and judged against 'Okham's Razor" standards to see which is better. But fine. My first mistake was to care.

"The other reason activity has died down here is that morf13 seemed to be about to make this topic its own thread (you'll see his announcement at the top of this page or the previous one), but hasn't, as yet. I do think that the board should probably follow what's posted and viewed, as a general rule. In other words, if you have about 5,000 views of Gareth Penn, and only two posts on Mike Rodelli's Mr. X (as much as I respect Mike R), maybe you want to switch them as thread/topic? I have zero interest in The Minuteman thread, but obviously other people do, and I think that's how you differentiate among POIs on a board like this."

That's the entire paragraph that you quoted only the last line from.

If you go back and read it again, you'll notice that it's an argument IN FAVOR of The Minuteman thread.

The Gareth Penn thread has the most views of any POI thread on the board; The Minuteman is second. TK, though it has more posts than the other two, is a distant third in viewing interest.

What I'm saying in that paragraph is that the threads/topics should be listed/ranked by popularity on the board. In other words, Gareth Penn, Troy Houghton, and Ted K should all have their own topics, because they've obviously earned that by the interest they've managed to get from the board members. Conversely, topics like ALA, Rick Marshall, and Mr. X should probably be reduced to single threads. Again, I have nothing but respect for Mike Rodelli, I consider him as bright a person as there is on this board . . . but Mr. X hasn't justified his topic status with interest from members. I think the listing of POIs should reflect what the interest on the board is.

As far as the Troy Houghton thread being in COMPETITION with the Gareth Penn thread . . . why am I the person to talk to about that? I wasn't even a member of this board when the GP thread was begun, even though my name is mentioned on the very first page, in the very first post, in the very first sentence, way back in March. My interest in the case is pretty much restricted to the Penn/O'Hare angle, and I haven't even clicked on the other board subjects. How does that insult the intelligence of all those other posters?

It's in the nature of a case like this that people are going to have their own POIs, even those who haven't written books about them. As Mike Rodelli said to me a couple months ago, when you discuss someone else's POI, it's like a prosecutor arguing with a defense attorney; it just gets old after a while.

I sent copies of my book to all 96 faculty members at The JFK School when Michael O'Hare was still teaching at Harvard in 1990. I sent copies of a pamphlet, The Zodiac Killer Lives!--In Brookline, to everyone living within a three-block radius of his house on Abbottsford Road in 1991. I sent copies of my book to the faculty and administration at Cal-Berkeley in 1994 when Michael O'Hare was a lecturer there (he still is, by the way). Plus I have a website devoted to my theory about the case. In other words, I think it's fair to say I'm as committed to my POI as anyone is.

I haven't, to my knowledge, commented on anyone else's POI, other than to say that I don't have any interest in him. I have my hands full with the Penn/O'Hare angle, and I'm not expecting that to change anytime soon.

If someone else turns out to be the Zodiac, obviously I was wrong.

"I don't understand the myopic view here. I don't understand how a suspect can be a POI based on far-out cryptology when there are far simpler and better solutions to the ciphers. Theories must be compared against other theories and judged against 'Okham's Razor" standards to see which is better. But fine. My first mistake was to care."

How is Alphabet Substitution "far-out cryptology"? It's true that I occasionally use Morse code (still not far-out) and binary math (the most-commonly used system for computation is base-two, not base-ten) and Morse/binary (where dash becomes 1 and dot becomes 0, still pretty simple).

Occam's Razor doesn't mean that the simplest solution is always the best. It means that the solution that makes the FEWEST NEW ASSUMPTIONS is USUALLY the best, ALL OTHER THINGS BEING EQUAL . . . and it's not a scientific principle anyway.

Rand
IMO
Morf was right and he is just trying to keep the peace. You could have made your objection in two sentences or less. It was the detail and length of your objection that made it over the top.

Ray
IMO
Morf handled things for you there was no reason for you to respond.
This whole thing is a perfect example of how we all get off track.
If you have suggestions on how to organize the site I think it would be prudent to do so either in PM or on a more appropriate thread. BTW I think your suggestion is an excellent one.

I had a specific question for you Ray.....I realize it may be hard to explain but would you please at least attempt to describe what you meant by "all zodiac letters contain an undertext"?

Nachtsider wrote:

I dunno, Ray. Them not defending themselves could just as likely mean that they love the notoriety of being associated with Zodiac. Shades of Leigh Allen.

Quagmire wrote:

Or that they think most amateur Zodiac researchers are all harmless loonies and their accusations are not worth getting upset over. Shades of Richard Gaik and Blaine perhaps?

Listen to the 1987 Anthony Hilder interview, marked Penn/O'Hare Radio Show at Mike Butterfield's site.

http://zodiackillerfacts.com/Zodiac%20Radio.htm

Though you have to listen carefully, a confrontation with O'Hare starts on the section entitled Ambushing the Suspect. It goes on from there for well over an hour, beginning and ending with Mr. Penn.

http://www.zodiackillerfacts.com/AUDIO%20FILES/X%20-%20Penn%20OHare%20and%20Hilder%20on%20Radio%20Pt%203%20Remastered%20OHARE%202.mp3

(Caution -- the mp3 hangs up a bit about 3/4 of the way in).

I had only read a transcript of this interview before. Hearing it for the first time was quite eye-opening.

Jon55 wrote:

Rand
IMO
Morf was right and he is just trying to keep the peace. You could have made your objection in two sentences or less. It was the detail and length of your objection that made it over the top.

Ray
IMO
Morf handled things for you there was no reason for you to respond.
This whole thing is a perfect example of how we all get off track.
If you have suggestions on how to organize the site I think it would be prudent to do so either in PM or on a more appropriate thread. BTW I think your suggestion is an excellent one.

I had a specific question for you Ray.....I realize it may be hard to explain but would you please at least attempt to describe what you meant by "all zodiac letters contain an undertext"?

I appreciate that JON55, and you are right. Each suspect/POI will have their own section and if people want to post, they will- if they think its worth while. If they have no interest in it, they wont post. Its as simple as that.

The bottom line is that people that have a strong POI or suspect, will look at the Z case with 'blinders' on....and that's the truth. They think they are right.

For example, I think I am right about my POI, I am 90% sure in my own mind. AK thinks TedK is Z, RAND thinks Troy H is Z, and Ray thinks Penn/Ohare is Z (i think). Its human nature that if you believe you are right, and have spent countless hours on your suspect,you skew all of your findings and clues to fit your suspect. Thats the simple truth.

ALL OF US, should keep an open mind, because the simple truth is, WE ALL HAVE circumstantial cases for our suspects, no matter how strong we think the case is. I have seen a bunch of posts where people produce handwriting that looks nothing like Zodiac's, and say things like "look my suspects writing matches".

All in all, if you dont think Penn / Ohare is viable as a suspect, you SHOULD bring up your questions and doubts in this thread, but you SHOULDNT hijack any threads to post why your POI is better.

I agree, Morf. That's all I was asking for: an open mind. I obviously read material on this thread and the others as well. I don't think I have blinders on. You said: "Well he doesn't go on your thread and say..." True. But I'd rather be disagreed with and debated than ignored. Wouldn't you? But I have no beef with Ray. He's entitled to look at whichever threads he likes. I think it's a mistake to ignore others' research. That's all.

rand wrote:

I agree, Morf. That's all I was asking for: an open mind. I obviously read material on this thread and the others as well. I don't think I have blinders on. You said: "Well he doesn't go on your thread and say..." True. But I'd rather be disagreed with and debated than ignored. Wouldn't you? But I have no beef with Ray. He's entitled to look at whichever threads he likes. I think it's a mistake to ignore others' research. That's all.

I dont think you are being "ignored" Rand, I really dont. I just think Troy is Z in your mind, but most people here dont think it is likely that he is. You cant force them to like Troy as a suspect.
Look at AK, he has done tireless, exhaustive work (just like you) on his suspect, but a large majority of posts on his suspect are from himself. But he doesnt go into other topics and state why his suspect should get more attention.

You sent me a PM asking me about my POI, and I would stack mine up against yours anytime. Many people know who my POI is, but alot of people dont agree with me I am sure. But my feelings arent hurt. You will need a thicker skin when presenting a suspect, and be ready to defend any criticism of him.

So lets get this back on track and to the Grant/Penn/Ohare topic.

In the interest of getting back on track I am going to ask my question a third time Ray but first let me say I am reading your book with alot of interest I am on the fourth chapter and if time permits I will read a couple more today.

I dont agree that since noone has sued you that means something............there is no accounting for what people will or will not do.

I also dont trust the math..........You are using three different systems to prove your point this gives you alot of variables to work with.

But still the very fact that I am still reading shows that I find alot of your ideas very interesting and you are doing a fine job of presenting them. I never took GP as a suspect seriously but you may change my mind about that yet. Please bear with me I have not had time to read this whole thread as I have focused on your book.........not to mention the other threads on other boards. So if some of my questions have been asked before just point me to where you answered them the first time.

My question.

Again.

I realize it may be hard to explain but would you please at least attempt to describe what you meant by "all zodiac letters contain an undertext"?

I received and sent some more questions from a couple posters off to Penn.
This it the Email I received today.

I’ll get back to you soon about your recent e-mails. In the meantime, I have added a new puzzle to gz4216. It consists of a single word: DINOSAUR. Solvers need to pay attention to the number of letters to it.

Gareth

Hi Jon55,

Mike Martin asked me for some background on Gareth Penn letters a month or more ago and I still haven't got back to him, but I will eventually. I'm in the middle of about a half-dozen things right now, but I'll try to address your question briefly (though not as comprehensively as I could if I were downloading scans, for example).

All (real) Zodiac letters contain an undertext.

The Toschi Letter of April 1978 doesn't contain an undertext. This is because the person who composed that letter (probably Dave Toschi himself, if you believe SFPD) DIDN'T KNOW that the Zodiac documents contained undertexts.

By undertexts I mean that the surface text of the document has been manipulated so that a message appears underneath when you convert it to Morse code. I usually call this "digitizing a document", but it's really just converting it to Morse code and then searching for redivided strings of words/phrases.

How does one manipulate a document that way? One way to do it is by misspelling common words, which allows you to create words/phrases underneath. If you're restricted to using standard English, it's much more difficult to pull off a hidden message, because the longer the message is, the less likely you'll be able to find correctly-spelled words on top that will conform to the configuration underneath. In other words, the reason the Zodiac misspells words has nothing to do with his intelligence or lack thereof. It has to do with his need to include secret messages underneath the text.

Let's try doing this using your own handle.

Jon55

We'll write this as "JON FIFTY-FIVE" just to give us more to work with, okay?

We'll use digital Morse code, but we could just as easily use the dots and dashes of regular Morse code, since we're converting letters to letters. But numerals are easier to work with, so we're using 1 for dash and 0 for dot.

J O N F I F T Y F I V E
0111 111 10 0010 00 0010 1 1011 0010 00 0001 0

Okay? All we've done here is convert your handle to Morse code.

01111111000100000101101100100000010

Now, let’s convert your handle to something else!

01111111000100000101101100100000010

Your handle contains the name TOM V, which could, for example, stand for Tom Voigt of Zodiackiller.com, whom I just emailed before posting on the board here:

01 1 111 11 0001 00000101101100100000010
T O M V

It’s just the same sequence of Morse digits, redivided so that it spells something else.

The first thing that strikes you, when you’re playing around with digits like this, is that IT’S REALLY HARD TO DO! In other words, constructing an undertext that makes any sort of sense from just a random sample (like your handle) is REALLY DIFFICULT!

Let’s proceed by looking at the actual chances of a string like that showing up WITHOUT anyone manipulating it:

1 111 11 0001
T O M V

TOM V consists of ten Morse digits. Which means, on average, that particular string will show up once every 2 to the 10th times, or once every 1,024 tries.

But JON FIFTY-FIVE is only 35 digits long, which means there will be 26 strings of 10 digits in that sequence, starting from left-to-right; so the odds are 26/1024, or about 2%.

Does that mean someone manipulated your handle to get TOM V underneath?

No. If we got TOM VOIGT under your handle, that would be a lot more convincing, because then you’d have a much longer string (19 digits), and the string would actually be a full name. So you have to be careful about what you read as intentional.

The word EASTER appears within the names of both David Faraday and Darlene Ferrin. The string is 11 digits long, so it’ll show up once every 2 to the 11th times, or every 2,048 attempts, and neither name is long enough to make it likely (David’s is 34 digits, Darlene’s is 31 digits). Each EASTER will appear about 1% of the time by chance in those names, and the likelihood of both Vallejo drivers having that word in their names is 1/100 times 1/100, or about 1 in 10,000.

That’s mathematically accurate, but remember that you could probably find a string within each name that made some sort of sense, and thus appeared to be intentional. Finding the same string within both names is a lot less likely. Finding a string which is a reference to Dante’s Inferno, which is paraphrased by The Desk Poem, and is the finished product of the poem (because the poet comes up out of Hell on Easter Sunday), doesn’t seem particularly likely to me. In other words, David and Darlene look pre-selected as victims, because both their names contained that word, and because other things about them suggest that they were paired (both were drivers at a Zodiac murder scene in Vallejo, both were shot at or through the passenger side door, the initials of both were D-F, both were located on a line extending from BM 3849 at Mt. Diablo, and so on).

Also, when the Zodiac recounts details of the Vallejo crime scenes in consecutive letters, he switches the sequence—it’s chronological in the July 31st letters, but then backwards in the August 7th letter—suggesting that the crimes are interchangeable.

I’ve been talking about names and handles here, but the same thing applies to the Zodiac letters. For instance, both The Confession Letter and The Cryptogram contain the phrase THREE FATES. The undertexts of Zodiac documents contain a lot of mythological references, and this is one example.

T H R E E F A T E S
1 0000 010 0 0 0010 01 1 0 000

THREE FATES is a 21-digit string, so it’ll show up once in 2 to the 21st attempts, or every 2,097,152 possible 21-digit strings. The entire Zodiac output is about 40,000 digits, so we’re looking at 40,000/2,097,152, or about 2% of the time. The Zodiac would have had to have written 50 times as many letters to make it likely.

But the string shows up TWICE, which means it’s 1/50 times 1/50, or less than 4 times in 10,000. Again, to make that likely, the Zodiac would have had to have written 2500 times as many letters as he did.

Keep in mind, we’re choosing which string to look for, which knocks the odds down considerably . . . but when you see one mythological reference after another showing up under the Zodiac documents, even someone who’s not particularly math-oriented will begin to get the idea.

I mentioned Dante’s Inferno because that poem is the Zodiac’s touchstone, and it’s largely mythological. Dante’s last name was ALIGHIERI. That name, converted to Morse code, is a 23-digit string, which means it will show up once every 8+ million digits. It occurs twice in the Zodiac’s Mikado letter of July 25, 1970 (which is 3,000 digits long). After a while, these coincidences do start to pile up, and they become difficult to shrug off on any grounds, especially mathematically.

In short, there’s just no doubt that the Zodiac letters contain undertexts. He was sending messages—making mythological allusions for the most part—in every letter he sent. And when you look for the same things in randomly-selected documents, they’re just not there; you keep hitting the SEARCH button and nothing turns up.

Which is why I say that if people knew more about the Zodiac documents, they’d think differently about the case itself.

Well, I hope this post at least addresses the issue.

Ray Grant

Thanks Ray..........that was a really good response.........and BTW I have finished everything you have posted on your page to date...........you are very easy to read and to understand.
Still chewing things over to see how much of it I will buy.
I see you have been talking about undertext all along but I dont think you called it that specfically before. To tell the truth I was hoping it was a graphic thing which is where IMO my strength is.
Sorry this is so short but it is late and I was on my way to bed when I saw your response...........I will prob have more later...........and I will keep reading the book.

http://gz4216.blogspot.com/ Just keeping Penn's Blog here for peepz to read.

This was rather funny I thought, from Mr. Penn:

Q = Have you ever posted on a Zodiac forum under a pseudonym?

Penn = No. Back in 2002, I believe, I received an invitation from Tom Voigt, who operates a Zodiac website, to make a presentation on it. The invitation was immediately followed by his remark that nobody would agree with anything I said. He offered it without seeing a syllable of what I might have to say. It seemed rather like saying “Here’s a gin and tonic. By the way, I just peed in it.” I therefore declined the offer.

“Here’s a gin and tonic. By the way, I just peed in it.”

A Gin Whizz.

Penn wrote a pretty funny article on building his dome home in Napa. It's on the 'net somewhere.

Domebuilder’s Blues
by George Oakes

Buckminster Fuller didn’t invent the geodesic dome. The first guy who stitched together a soccer ball did. Soccer balls are made up of the same configuration of hexagons and pentagons. Just take a soccer ball and cut it in half — in your mind’s eye, anyway — and you’ve got the basic design. As a matter of fact, the plutonium core of a nuclear weapon is put together exactly the same way. What Fuller did was to patent a panelized assembly. Each panel is a triangle made with 2 x 4 sides (struts), parallel studs within the triangle, and plywood skin on the outside. When bolted together, 60 of these panels make a dome.

To build a dome, you invite a bunch of friends and relatives who aren’t fast enough on the draw to think of an excuse for not pitching in, lay in a load of food and a keg of beer, and you sling up this kit, using a 3-stage, 15-foot scaffolding and 9/16" ratchet wrenches.

At 7 a.m., there’s nothing there but a foundation. By 7 p.m. or so, there is a 22-foot-high plywood-covered dome standing there, looking for all the world like an alien spaceship landed. One of my neighbors on Green Valley Road went hunting Friday evening. We put up our kit on Saturday, and when he came home Sunday afternoon he the called the sheriff’s department to report that UFO’s were coming down in Napa.

That’s as far as you get with the dome kit: a plywood shell. It looks like an enormous accomplishment, but it is really only about one percent of the finished house. The dome will not support anything but itself, so if you want a loft or second floor, you have to build another house inside the one you just built. You also have to learn how to deal with non-standard angles. I had to move the kitchen range three feet because the oven door, it turned out, was going to get stuck in an acute angle. It looked a lot simpler on the floor plan.

The floor plan is nearly circular. Anyway you slice it up, you come out with wedge-shaped corners somewhere. And if you make one room larger, the floor space has to come out of some other room. You can’t just make the house larger. There are places you can’t put windows in downstairs, because you can’t pierce the lower parts of the dome without weakening it. In all the brochures, they stress that once you have the dome built, you can put anything you like in it. In fact, you’re operating under a number of restrictions imposed by the shape.

Somewhere along the line, you also discover that contractors like working on domes the way they like having double pneumonia. At first, you think it’s because they are reactionary or else mentally retarded. Later, you realize it’s because they can tell just by looking at the job approximately how much labor it’s going to consume. They can also tell just by looking at you that you don’t have enough money to make it worth their while. If you do manage to wangle a bid out of a contractor, he’ll make it astronomical, on the theory that it will either: a) scare you off; or b) assure him of a profit if you accept it. Contractors who have worked on dome houses all swear that they’ll never do another. I’ve heard that from a roofer, from a sheet rocker, and from a local electrical contracting company. Eventually, the only people who will take work on domes are the folks who sold you your dome kit. And my butt is black and blue from self-inflicted kickings for having had anything to do with my suppliers.

George Oakes 1981
http://www.shelterpub.com/_shelter/domebuilder%27s_blues.html

Ray - you mention that both Darlene and David had the word "Easter" in a morse code version of their name. So are you saying that Zodiac chose his victims by design based on a random word appearing in their names?

I see the sense of having secret messages encoded in his letters but wouldn't it be far fetched for a serial killer to "digitize" a series of kids' names (kids who seem to be unknown to him and who have no particular link to him) to find a nonsensical word and then happen to find them both in lovers lanes late at night and shoot them and their partners? I'm guessing he would have had to have known of Darlene Ferrin and followed her at night for some months until the opportunity arose to kill her. If he was this dedicated and this indeed was his design, then do Stine, Shepard, etc have the same links?

How would Z know that Shepard and Hartnell were going to LB, much less know when and where at LB? How could someone believe that the number of stabbings at LB (which Penn got wrong, btw) has something to do with the killer's mother's birthday? That's compelling evidence? How could intelligent people believe this kind of tortured logic? It just never ceases to amaze me.

He wouldn't....But, what he WOULD know, is that it was a popular picnicking spot for couples, just like he knew about the lover's lane type spots, just like he knew he would find a cabbie near the theatres...

For all we know, he had already been to Lake B. on several occasions, with no luck finding victim(s)...or the victim "type" he was after...

With Z, finding the victim was all about "hanging out" in the area where he knew a certain "type" of victim would be, rather than going after specific people, I think...

I buy that. But it has nothing to do with the names of the victims.

Thanks for digging up that dome home article Azazel. It shows a more "neighbor next door" side of Penn. Not that Zodiac was never a next door neighbor. It would be interesting to hear, if Z is ever captured, what they would say in those common "next door neighbor" TV news interviews.

Exactly!!!!!!! The names of the victims are irrelevant, of course! There is a good chance Z never even knew what they were, as evidenced by him using descriptors like "the kids" or "teenagers" or "the girl" or "the boy" or "the cabbie" to describe his victims...

By irrelevant, I mean that he did not know their names or his victims beforehand, not that the victims themselves are irrelevant, which or course they are not....