It’s a simple either/or question: either the marks on the Mikado review article were made by random machine error, or they were made intentionally. This question has a 50% chance of verifying newly discovered forensic evidence, which would be the first new evidence in over 50 years.

Think of that: A 50% chance that this is the first new evidence in 50 years.

Because if the marks are intentional, they were made by the Zodiac Killer.

I was in correspondence with someone who claimed they were “experienced” in amateur sleuthing and they thought a 50% chance was a BAD thing. I was incredulous. I mean, I know the public generally has a poor grasp of statistics (and most importantly, STATISTCAL SIGNIFICANCE) but this was worse than I had imagined.

So let me be clear, in a world of amorphous claims, people thinking a photo looks like a sketch, lining up coincidences, forcing letters into symbols, or noting what consumer products they may have purchased, or just the blizzard or fog of info, conjecture, and circus, I present a 50-50 question.

What’s more, it’s a question based on a physical object that can still be examined. Other researchers can examine the object, and posit their opinion of the binary, either/or preposition.

Let me re-state it again so there is no doubt: If the marks on this page, the blemishes that are on both columns of the Mikado review are intentional, then they were indeed made by the Zodiac Killer.

There are many reasons to think they are intentional, but the only person who would know to do this would be the killer. And if that is so, I know where he worked, and on what shift.

VIDEO: ALL OF THE ARTICLES ALIGNED: Were the Mikado marks made by the Zodiac?

Here is the Stanford Daily, October 31, 1969, Page 4