Lyndon Lafferty's The Zodiac Killer Cover Up

[FoolsGold Profile]

^^Absolutely fascinating! Thanks!

Somewhere on the bottom of Lake Berryessa, foundations and artifacts from the fifties and earlier lay under feet of mud and silt.

[DebS Profile Website]

A link to an article about Lafferty's gathering last night with a little information on his theory for those who are unfamilar with it.

Vallejo cop-turned-author believes Zodiac still lives - ContraCostaTimes.com
http://www.contracostatimes.com/news/ci_16489797

[para_owl Profile YIM]

A link to an article about Lafferty's gathering last night with a little information on his theory for those who are unfamilar with it.

Vallejo cop-turned-author believes Zodiac still lives - ContraCostaTimes.com
http://www.contracostatimes.com/news/ci_16489797

That's a nice summary, but I had to laugh when hearing that the "prevailing knowledge" is that ALA is Z.

It's an interesting conspiracy theory in a way, although it doesn't really make much sense when I think about it as a whole. First of all, I don't think a judge could cover up a series of lies. I think I would risk being divorced as opposed to losing my career and possibly my freedom.

Secondly, I completely disagree about the blackmailer in this type of scenario. If this really happened, the judge would be able to have this man arrested immediately and then he could limit who he has contact with. If the blackmailer had anything to do with the Z crimes, the judge would work with another prosecutor to have him arrested for those crimes as well. The blackmailer would be buried in a mountain of legal hearings, and I doubt any judge would grant him bail given such a complicated situation.

--Will.

[FoolsGold Profile]

He'll never solve the Zodiac mystery, but at least when he dies, he'll have a cool tombstone.

Something like:

Here Lies Lyndon Lafferty

Who liked to eat at Rafferty's

He Never Found That Zodiac Bloke

But He Had A Name Like A Good Joke.
_______________________________________
Anyway, in all seriousness, I'm not wasting any brain cells on this Zodiac cover-up crap. Enough already.

[Michael Butterfield Profile]

This is all part of this ridiculous "live and let live" attitude adopted by many in the Zodiac community which states that we should just welcome and embrace anyone with a Zodiac theory out of some perverted sense of getting along, and that exposing the fraud and fabrications of opportunists and snake-oil salesmen is a "personal attack." Lafferty's claims are laughable, and it's very telling that he's been welcomed and well-received by members of PlanetVoigt and morf's message board. Lafferty's premise is absurd and should read as such to any thinking person-- oops, there's your problem...

[para_owl Profile YIM]

This is all part of this ridiculous "live and let live" attitude adopted by many in the Zodiac community which states that we should just welcome and embrace anyone with a Zodiac theory out of some perverted sense of getting along, and that exposing the fraud and fabrications of opportunists and snake-oil salesmen is a "personal attack." Lafferty's claims are laughable, and it's very telling that he's been welcomed and well-received by members of PlanetVoigt and morf's message board. Lafferty's premise is absurd and should read as such to any thinking person-- oops, there's your problem...

I suppose I somewhat fall in to that category because I would like to see discussions and not arguments. However, I will expand on it. It's possible to say "____ is not credible, and here's why.." If Lafferty or someone like him wants to respond they have that oppurtunity. As someone said in another thread, we've seen a few that have their POI and usually they just end up making themselves look worse. If they want to deny or provide some sort of poor retort, then that is entirely on them. I know you have done the same with regards to Lyndon Lafferty before, so I know you're not just making an ad hominem attack.

I guess someone posting a link is sort of like giving them free advertising, but I think some people on this board would have found out about it anyway. I know I would because I use a website that recommends books based off previous purchases.

--Will.

[Michael Butterfield Profile]

Will, I am sorry if I left the impression that posting a link or talking about Lafferty was the same thing as endorsing or embracing him. I don't think that is fair. Of course, we want people to learn more about every theory and I think that you are simply trying to do just that. The problem comes from the people (mostly the crowd at PlanetVoigt and morf's site) who can't seem to tell the difference between examining a theory and welcoming the theorist. Yes, I've known about Lafferty's theory and claims for a long time so I don't fall in the same category as those who are new to this. The simple fact is that even a cursory look at Lafferty's claims proves that his entire theory is laughable, but people have to take the time to look at it to reach that conclusion.

It shouldn't be enough to just have a theory but that's about all it takes for many in the online community to embrace a person and say, "Hey, they're just trying to solve the case and it's unfair to criticize them." The standard should be higher-- a person should have a plausible theory in keeping with the facts, common sense, and logic, and that person should have SOME credible evidence to support their claims. Unfortunately, none of the theorists meet this standard, and, unfortunately, these theorists are embraced and even praised by people who claim that they care about this case. They don't seem to realize that these theorists want to be embraced and become part of their crowd and that they achieve their goal simply by getting the attention they desire and get from those in the online community. If people were actually required to justify their desire for attention and actually required to have a plausible and credible theory before seeking that attention, then no one would embrace these people, the payoff wouldn't exist, and you'd see a lot less of these guys with their theories and suspects. These opportunists know that they can find a home over at PlanetVoigt where people will help them sell their books and promote their websites without asking any tough questions. This is what is important, Will, and I don't think there's anything wrong with posting a link for those who are looking for more information-- it's just that this action should be accompanied by scrutiny of incredible claims (and claiming to have solved this case and having knowledge of a massive cover-up is a claim that demands scrutiny, whether the person making that claim is Lafferty, or Howard Davis, or anyone else). This is the only reason that people are still pretending that Tom Voigt, Howard Davis, Blaine Blaine, Sandy Betts and others are "researchers who are really trying to solve this case" when, in fact, they are opportunists and frauds who are just looking to exploit this case for their own benefit. People who are actually trying to solve this case and who actually care about this case wouldn't associate with these opportunists and frauds at all in the first place.

The world is basically divided into two separate and completely different groups of people: 1) The kind of person who looks at Robert Graysmith, Howard Davis, Blaine Blaine, Sandy Betts, Dennis Kaufman, Steve Hodel, Raymond Grant and others, and says, "Hey, that's not right, someone should expose the truth about these people and their claims," and, 2) The kind of person who looks at the same individuals and says, "Hey, someone should help these people with promotion and advertising!"

(and I don't think you fall into category #2, Will)

[Rocket Man Profile]

But...I thought revenge meant you got back at the one who messed with you? well If you say so, Larry, if you say so. Gees, where do these people come from...

[para_owl Profile YIM]

Will, I am sorry if I left the impression that posting a link or talking about Lafferty was the same thing as endorsing or embracing him. I don't think that is fair. Of course, we want people to learn more about every theory and I think that you are simply trying to do just that. The problem comes from the people (mostly the crowd at PlanetVoigt and morf's site) who can't seem to tell the difference between examining a theory and welcoming the theorist. Yes, I've known about Lafferty's theory and claims for a long time so I don't fall in the same category as those who are new to this. The simple fact is that even a cursory look at Lafferty's claims proves that his entire theory is laughable, but people have to take the time to look at it to reach that conclusion.

I'm assuming that this "new book" of his will rehash the same stories we've seen on youtube. I don't personally object to his book being talked about, but I expected someone to call it spam. I'd hate to think he has one more person buying his book because of some exposure on a website like this. Even if we trash talk it, then it's bound to create some interest. I'll wait to hear what others have to say about it, but even then I will have to see some scrap of truth before I consider reading it...and even then I will request it at my library so he doesn't profit off it.
May god help us all if his book is made in to a movie.

--Will.

[diablo Profile]

I fall into the 2nd category...... Well, only when it comes to Uncle Bubba's niece..... Hahahaha........ Sorry, but I needed a good Laugherty..... Yeah, I'm getting sick of all the tarded theories..... Cover up? Ugh.......... SERIOUSLY!!!!!!! NO COVER UP!!!!!! OSWALD KILLED KENNEDY ALONE, NO BOMBS WERE PLANTED DURING 9/11, AND THE ZODIAC'S IDENITITY IS UNKOWN!!!!!!!!! ........ AHHHHHH!!!!! ......