Zodiac Letters 2 1969 08 04 Vol. 1. Debut letter tone and writing for print

 

Zodiac Letters 2_1969_08_04 vol_1_Debut letter tone and writing for print

1.                       Introduction

This opening volume frames the August 4, 1969, so-called Debut Letter, as a media event engineered for narrative control. Using a CHS (Contextual–Holistic–Systemic) approach, these following empirical finds will be demonstrated and discussed over a number of articles:

  • Analysis of tone and content: the narrative controller as his own playwright director
  • Self-reference of geometry of letter: “3 to 6 in. across” à a validation of Soze’s analysis for the July 31, 1969, letters (“Writing for print”)
  • Rhythmic pacing of “linguistic outliers.”

Outliers occur at ~15-16-word intervals from word 41 to ~340, then stop. Linear fit

  • Edge-zone emptiness.

Zero outliers in 1–40 and 341–414 → mid-band concentration.

  • 63-word glyph-free buffer.

First 63 words contain no glyph tokens (“+”, “X@”); this is a “word-count ambiguity–free” zone.

  • Z408 echo in prose length.

Removing six “+” glyphs from the 414-word body yields 408 lexical words, matching Z408’s 408 symbols.

  • Z340 alignment (length & symbol logic).

Last outlier: 340Z340 total length; 63-word clean start ↔ 63 original Z340 symbols.

  • 74 ↔ 74 structural mirror.

Re-tokenizing Z340 plaintext EVERYONE → EVERY ONE, WASN’T → WAS NT yields a 74-word mid-band, matching the Debut Letter’s 74-word edge emptiness (1–40 + 341–414).

Interpretive synthesis

  • The Debut Letter is numerically staged: a 63-word clean buffer, a ~15-word beat through ~340, and a silent tail.
  • Page geometry (“3 to 6 in. across”) is self-referential: 2.95’’ το 6.33’’—the phrase doubles as a layout cue.
  • Prose inherits cipher metrics: 408 (cleaned word count) ↔ Z408; 63/340 cues ↔ Z340.
  • Psycholinguistic profile: compositor-like planner—numerically orderly, media-aware, performative; orthography used as self-branding (deliberate deviance, not inability).

A CHS-assessment is that the Debut Letter behaves like a designed bridge between Z408 and Z340—its prose carries cipher metrics in rhythm, layout, and counts. This materially strengthens the hypothesis that the writer composed under numeric and typographic constraints, not at random.

In this volume we examine the letter transcript, tone and “aprox 3 to 6 in. across” attributes.

2.                       Letter scan and transcript

The transcript of the letter is as follows:

Dear Editor

This is the Zodiac speaking.

In answer to your asking for more details about the good times I have had in Vallejo, I shall be very happy to supply even more material. By the way, are the police haveing a good time with the code? If not, tell them to cheer up; when they do crack it they will have me.

On the 4th of July:

I did not open the car door, The window was rolled down all ready. The boy was origionaly sitting in the front seat when I began fireing. When I fired the first shot at his head, he leaped backwards at the same time thus spoiling my aim. He end-ed up on the back seat then the floor in back thashing out very violently with his legs; thats how I shot him in the knee. I did not leave the cene of the killing with squealling tires + raceing engine as described in the Vallejo paper,. I drove away quite slowly so as not to draw attention to my car.

The man who told the police that my car was brown was a negro about 40 – 45 rather shabbly dressed. I was at this phone booth haveing some fun with the Vallejo cops when he was walking by. When I hung the phone up the dam X@ thing beganto ring + that drew his attention to me + my car.

Last Christmass

In that epasode the police were wondering as to how I could shoot + hit my victoms in the dark. They did not openly state this, but implied this by say ing it was a well lit night + I could see the silowets on the horizon. Bull Shit that area is srounded by high hills + trees. What I did was tape a small pencel flash light to the barrel of my gun. If you notice, in the centar of the beam of light if you aim it at a wall or celling you will see a black or darck spot in the center of the circle of light aprox 3 to 6 in. across. When taped to a gun barrel, the bullet will strike exactly in the center of the black dot in the light. All I had to do was spray them as if it was a water hose; there was no need to use the gun sights. I was not happy to see that I did not get front page cover-age.

{CROSSHAIR}

NO ADDRESS

A ruler and writing on a piece of paper

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

 

Figure 1. The three scanned pages of the Debut letter from ZodiacKiller.com (courtesy of Tom Voigt) [1]-[3]

 

 

 

3.                       Tone and appearance: a focused analysis

This section features a focused, page-informed analysis of the tone, handwriting, and appearance of the Zodiac’s August 4, 1969 “debut” letter. My observations are visual/linguistic, not a forensic handwriting opinion.

Self-branding and performance

The opening salutation—“Dear Editor … This is the Zodiac speaking”—introduces a self-conscious, media-aware persona. The author writes as a performer addressing an audience, mixing flippant courtesy with calculated menace. His voice alternates between a smug playfulness (“tell them to cheer up”) and crude provocation (“Bull Shit”), revealing a speaker intent on commanding attention rather than merely communicating information.

Throughout the letter the killer asserts dominance over the official narrative by supplying scene-specific minutiae—precise movements of victims, the improvised flashlight-aiming technique, and corrections of earlier press reports (“I did not leave the cene … with squealling tires”). This posture of factual superiority constructs a pedantic narrator who seeks to instruct, correct, and dominate police and journalists alike.

Punctuation is irregular: stray commas and periods, an occasional casual semicolon. Misspellings are systematic—haveing, origionaly, fireing, squealling, raceing, shabbly, epasode, victoms, silowets, srounded, pencel, celling, darck—forming a consistent orthographic pattern rather than random error.

All three pages show photocopy artifacts such as background smudging and tonal mottling. FBI documentation identifies the stock as Woolworth’s Fifth Avenue.

Page 1

A narrow top margin and uneven left margin create a dense block of text. The phrase “Dear Editor” introduces the first appearance of “This is the Zodiac speaking.” Heavy pressure produces saturated strokes and minor feathering.

Page 2

Capitalized words (“Last Christmass”) serve as mid-page emphasis resembling a heading. The description of the pay-phone witness includes a hand-drawn mark within the line (“dam X@ thing”), illustrating the writer’s tendency to embed graphic symbols in text.

Page 3

The upper two-thirds contain the flashlight-aiming explanation; below it appears the crosshair emblem followed by large capitals NO ADDRESS. The final line is executed in heavier, more deliberate strokes than the body text—possibly an editorial annotation, though equally consistent with an intentional closing flourish by the killer.

 

 

4.                       The authoritarian performance: the killer as a controller of narrative

Phrases such as “On the 4th of July:” and “Last Christmass” act as pseudo-headings, giving the letter a quasi-report format that reinforces the author’s claim to authority.
Word spacing tightens near the right margin, and occasional mid-word compression suggests rapid writing or pressure shifts. Line spacing is minimal, producing small collisions between descenders and ascenders on adjacent lines.

The encircled-cross emblem varies slightly in proportion and line weight but retains the same underlying geometry—a not-quite-circular ring with horizontal and vertical bars extending past the circumference—serving as the writer’s visual signature.

Across tone, handwriting, and layout, the Debut Letter projects a meticulously staged performance: a confident self-presentation underwritten by deliberate stylistic irregularities. The document’s combination of theatrical diction, patterned misspelling, and visual idiosyncrasy supports the view of a killer-writer who constructs identity as spectacle—both taunting and instructing his audience through form as much as through content.

5.                       Aprox 3 to 6 in across

There are three “code-like” inferences in the Debut letter: two numerical and one glyph-based. It is my intent to make a case study for the “decoding” of all three, each with its own content and purpose.

In this volume, I address the “aprox 3 to 6 in. across”.

Within the Debut Letter (August 4 1969), the writer includes the phrase “aprox 3 to 6 in. across” while describing the diameter of the crossed-circle symbol (“pencel”).
At this moment, let us not focus on the linguistic outliers present.

When the physical layout of the letter is measured from the surviving photographic and photocopy evidence, the following spatial regularities emerge, as shown in Table 1 and depicted in the three scanned pages shown in Figure 2.

Thus, the horizontal footprint of the letter’s text block is 3 to 6 inches across, precisely matching the phrase embedded in the narrative.

 

A close-up of a letter

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

Figure 2. The three scanned pages of the Debut letter from ZodiacKiller.com (courtesy of Tom Voigt) in high resolution, edited to provide a relative ruler for the horizontal text frame (left-to-right max span with approximating calculus) [4]-[6]

 

 

 

 

Table 1. Inch measurements (span across left and right text edge) for the three pages of the Debut letter (source: Tom Voigt-published photograph evidence)

Metric

Left text edge (relative position of ruler)

Right-most text edge (relative position of ruler)

Measured span (approx. calc.)

Page 1

1 inch (relative ruler mark)

Ends at 7.25 inches (relative ruler mark)

6.25 inches across

Page 2

0.875 inch (relative ruler mark)

Ends at 7.375 inches (relative ruler mark) (excess of last two rows; 7.35 inches if excluded or averaged)

6.5 inches across (max span approx.)

Page 3

0.75 inch (relative ruler mark)

Ends at 7 inches (relative ruler mark)

6.25 inches across

Shortest message line (“Dear Editor”)

1 inch (relative ruler mark)

Ends at 3.6 inches (approx.)

2.6 inches across

Shortest in-text line (“Last Christmass”)

1 inch (relative ruler mark)

Ends at 4.25 inch (relative ruler mark)

3.25 inches across

Average shortest span (mean low-end)

 

2.95 inches across

Average max span (mean end-to-end text span)

 

6.33 inches across

 

 

The numerical description “aprox 3 to 6 in. across” operates on two simultaneous levels:

  1. Literal reference — it superficially describes the physical diameter of the crosshair symbol.
  2. Meta-spatial self-reference — the same measure defines the letter’s own text frame: a 1-inch left margin, six inches of written field, and individual line clusters ranging from roughly three to six inches in width.

This dual meaning implies that the writer was self-conscious of page geometry—a hallmark of deliberate composition rather than hurried confession. By embedding his layout dimensions in the prose, he effectively encodes the page itself as part of the message.

Behavioral and Psycholinguistic Significance

The precision of margins and the mirrored numerical cue suggest a writer accustomed to measured work—someone who plans spacing and proportionality, perhaps from drafting, printing, or clerical backgrounds. The page becomes a designed object, not a casual sheet of correspondence.

Inserting a measurement that secretly describes the page’s own dimensions demonstrates meta-awareness and an aesthetic of hidden order. This aligns with the broader rhythmic regularity already observed in the linguistic outliers (≈15-word intervals). Both indicate a drive to impose mathematical coherence on form and content.

“3 to 6” also forms a micro-range within a longer metric sequence that later culminates in “340”—suggesting that numerical intervals, spatial units, and cipher lengths were mentally linked in the offender’s compositional process. The page literally embodies his numeric thinking.

The “3 to 6 in. across” phrase is best understood as a self-referential metric: the writer embeds his page geometry into his prose. This act unites the textual, spatial, and symbolic layers of the Debut Letter and reinforces a profile of a meticulous, numerically oriented offender who conceptualized writing as design—an engineer of words, margins, and meaning alike.

6.                       Soze’s contribution “Writing for Print”: Typesetting as Method — and How It Reinforces “aprox 3 to 6 in. across”

Soze’s core find

In “Writing for Print” [7], Soze argues that the July 31, 1969, letters were composed for newspaper reproduction, with the writer consciously imitating column layout and typesetting decisions. Soze, ever the meticulous and highly observant researcher, demonstrates this by: (a) setting up mock broadsheet columns (≈1.83″ width) and (b) showing how the Zodiac’s deliberate spacing, letter-size shifts, and “errors” operate like a compositor’s tools—adjusting line breaks and visual justification rather than reflecting illiteracy.

Key points from Soze’s article:

  • The three July 31 letters read like adjacent newspaper columns; the author likely “did the work for the papers” by structuring text to drop straight into columnar print.
  • Broadsheet context: Chronicle ≈ 8 columns; Times-Herald ≈ 6; common column width ≈ 11 picas / 1.83″. Soze then mocks up the letters in Times-style fonts to compare flow.
  • “Errors” (e.g., Christmass, paterned, cruse, Fry) are shown as spacing interventions: extra letters, removed letters, bolding, up-/down-sizing, and widened letter/word gaps to force desired line breaks—exactly how a typesetter manipulates white space in a composing stick.
  • Soze’s article walks through historic hand composition → Linotype/Monotype practice to show how wedge/blank spacing and character widths control the end of each line.

How this dovetails with the “aprox 3 to 6 in. across” finding

My measurement shows the Debut Letter is physically framed as a 6-inch-wide text field (a mean high-end “max text span” of ≈ 6.3’’ neatly converging to 6’’ if page-2 outliers are absorbed via averaging), with the shortest internal lines (a mean low-end of “Dear Editor” and “Last Christmass”) running ≈ 3″—i.e., the letter’s body consistently sits “ aprox 3 to 6 in. across.” The phrase “aprox 3 to 6 in. across” is therefore self-referential: it purports to describe the symbol but also encodes the page’s own writing span.

Soze’s analysis gives us the mechanism behind that self-reference:

  • If the writer is thinking like a compositor, he is managing line length and white-space consciously. My measured 3–6″ span is exactly the kind of target band a typesetter-mind would maintain to keep lines visually stable—whether in a mock column (Soze’s broadsheet lens) or in a letter-sized page (my margin-to-margin layout).
  • Soze’s demonstration that the author adds/removes letters and widens/tightens spacing to control where words fall on a line aligns with my observation that the letter behaves like designed typography—and that the phrase “aprox 3 to 6 in. across” is effectively a layout annotation baked into the prose.

Integrative conclusion

Soze’s typesetting model shows that the Zodiac’s July 31 letters were engineered for print geometry—with spelling and spacing used as tools to hit visual targets line-by-line. This independently supports my Debut letter result: the phrase “aprox 3 to 6 in. across” is not only a symbol measurement but a self-referential cue to the page’s 3–6″ writing band, confirming a writer who composes as a compositor—a designer of margins and rhythm as much as words.

 

7.                       The linguistic outliers – Aprox and Pencel: en route to vol. 2

The density of involved work in all areas of the finds presented in the first page of this volume dictates a segmentation of the analytical presentation into multiple articles that will span the entirety of what the Debut letter has to offer as relates to the killer’s semiotics and the technical instrumentation he employed to conceal a pace and a mechanism to this writing.

At this point, I will provide the epilogue to this first volume by giving a glimpse into what is to come on vol. 2: the linguistic outliers.

Aprox

Beginning with the “aprox” found in the “3 to 6 in. across” phrase I discussed, at first it seems to be a miss-spelling of “approx.” in proper English. However, a search [8] identifies “aprox” as Lexicon-proper in Portuguese: an abbreviation of aproximadamente, the Portuguese adverb for approximately [9].

Aside from the killer’s manipulative cross-lingual technique, there are practical issues connected to this outlier since the person who found the victims’ bodies at Lake Herman Road was a member of a Portuguese-originating family, and more specifically from the Azores islands. In fact, both the analytical research that me and fellow researcher GorillaTrain have conducted demonstrates a high density of Azores/Portuguese immigrants into the broader “ranch area” historically associated with the region of the first canonical murder.

Pencel

The second linguistic outlier associated with the inches measurement is “pencel”: the very object of description as the circle with the black dot in the center: the notorious “flash light”.

From Geoffrey Chaucer’s Troilus and Criseyde: Book V [10], the text reads:

And after this the storie telleth us

That she hym yaf the fair e baye stede,

The which he ones wan of Troilus;

And ek a broche (and that was litel nede)

That Troilus was, she yaf this Diomede.

And ek, the bet from sorwe him to releve,

She made hym were a pencel of hire sleve.

 

In [11] we can trace the historical definition of “pencel”:


pencel (plural pencels)

  1. (now historical) A small pennon; a little bannerflag, or streamer. [from 13th c.] 
  2. (obsolete) A lady's favour or token as worn by a knight. [15th–16th c.]
  3. (rare, obsolete) A knight carrying a pennon.

Historical references are provided [11]:

    • 1483Richard III, “(letter to Piers Courteis)”, in Letters of the Kings of England[1], published 1846, page 153:

[…] forty trumpet banners of sarsenet; seven hundred and forty pensills; three hundred and fifty pensills of tarter; four standards of sarsenet with boars; […]

    • 1786, Francis Grose, A Treatise on Ancient Armour and Weapons, page 47:

Lances were ornamented with a banderole near the point, which gave them a handsome appearance, these were also called pencells.

    • 1833, "T. S.", Letter to the Editor, Hugh James Rose, Samuel Roffey Maitland (editors), The British Magazine and Monthly Register of Religious and Ecclesiastical Information, Volume 4, page 20:

The preceding extracts shew that, in some instances, each of the Judas torches was ornamented with three pencels, or little banners, fixed upon as many small spears; […] .

    • 2003, D. Vance Smith, Arts of Possession: The Middle English Household Imaginarypage 181:

A "pencel" is a small banner usually assigned to squires, […] But Launfal's characteristically ingenious use of the pencel makes it an object that participates in two distinct systems of registration: the fine, small object that is the sign of amorous devotion in a chivalric context and the somewhat ambiguous index of armigerous status.

    • 2011, Thomas Penn, Winter King, Penguin, published 2012, page 86:

Inside Worcester Cathedral, the coffin was transferred to its hearse, a vast, storeyed, wooden structure, painted black and adorned with heraldic escutcheons, badged pennants or ‘pencels’, silk standards of St George, banners of the royal arms of England and Spain, and of Arthur's various titles, from Wales to Ponthieu in Normandy.

 

Chaucer provides an interesting co-existence of "pencel" and "ek". For my notes in the importance of "MAN" and "EK" from a runic perspective on the Z13 please read [12].

Chaucer’s phrase is also included in the book "Astronomical Lore in Chaucer" by Florence M. Grimm [13].

Florence M. Grimm’s 1919 monograph Astronomical Lore in Chaucer remains a foundational study in medieval cosmological symbolism and linguistic astronomy. Originally published as part of the University of Nebraska Studies in Language, Literature and Criticism, the work examines how Geoffrey Chaucer employed the sky—not merely as poetic ornament, but as a structured system of knowledge. Grimm situates Chaucer within the late-medieval worldview, when astronomia and astrologia were not distinct disciplines but two facets of the same intellectual enterprise: the physical observation of the heavens intertwined with the interpretation of celestial influence.

The study unfolds systematically. Its opening chapters, “Astronomy in the Middle Ages” and “Chaucer’s Scientific Knowledge,” outline how Chaucer’s understanding of planetary motion, zodiacal timing, and calendar reckoning was both practical and literate. Grimm argues that Chaucer’s astronomical precision—seen in works like A Treatise on the Astrolabe, The Knight’s Tale, and Troilus and Criseyde—demonstrates a writer conversant with technical detail rather than an author repeating inherited allegory.

Subsequent sections on “Chaucer’s Cosmology” and “Astrological Lore” catalogue specific references to planets, signs, and celestial spheres, showing how the poet embedded cosmological mechanics into his narrative rhythm. Chaucer’s cosmos, Grimm concludes, is not a metaphorical backdrop but a textual architecture calibrated on Ptolemaic principles.

What makes Grimm’s work enduringly relevant to modern semiotic or cryptologic studies—including analyses such as the Zodiac letters—is her insistence that symbolic and astronomical structures can coexist as dual codes: literal description and esoteric commentary operating in the same textual space. Her view anticipates later structuralist approaches to hidden systems of meaning, where numeric rhythm, lexical repetition, and celestial reference merge into deliberate authorial patterning. In this sense, Astronomical Lore in Chaucer provides a valuable precedent for reading historical texts—whether medieval poetry or twentieth-century ciphered correspondence—as organized linguistic fields governed by internal cosmologies of order and intent.

And thus – onwards to Volume 2: the linguistic outliers.

 

 

SDS

October 9, 2025

References

[1] https://www.zodiackiller.com/ZLetter1.html.
[2]
https://www.zodiackiller.com/ZLetter2.html.
[3]
https://www.zodiackiller.com/ZLetter3.html.
[4]
https://zodiackiller.com/DOZ1HR.html

[5] https://zodiackiller.com/DOZ2HR.html

[6] https://zodiackiller.com/DOZ3HR.html

[7] https://zodiackillerletters.blogspot.com/2025/05/writing-for-print.html

[8] https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/aprox.

[9]  Dicionario da Real Academia Galega (in Galician), A Coruña: Royal Galician Academy, 2012–2025

[10] https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/43939/troilus-and-criseyde-book-v

[11] https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/pencel

[12] https://zodiacresearch.blogspot.com/2025/07/canonical-cipher-3-z13-vol2-runic-and.html

[13]https://www.amazon.co.uk/Astronomical-Chaucer-Florence-Marie-Grimm/dp/102326093X.

 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Commentary vol. 1: The Joost Name and the Cartography of Power

About this blog

Canonical cipher 3: Z13 vol.1. Entropy based solution of Z13