Ted Kaczynski is NOT a Big Fan of Doug Oswell

Ted Kaczynski is NOT a Big Fan of Doug Oswell

Postby akwilks on Fri Aug 19, 2011 5:15 pm

MORF: Sorry if this is posted someplace already...Seagull found this. It is a letter written by Ted K about his alleged involvement (or lack thereof)in the z case. Its for sale AK :D

http://www.ghoulslikeus.com/Theodore-Ka ... ad_details

AK WILKS: Great find, Morf! Thanks. Sorry, $450 is a weekend in Vegas for me. Not money to buy something from a serial killer.

Doug Oswell is the one who wrote that letter to Ted - Ted calls him "kook". Ha ha, sensitive much, Ted?

Congrats, Doug, you made it to Ted's hate list. You are in the company of some very good thinkers, like Dr. Gerlernter, Nobel Prize winning DNA scientist and free thinker Kary Mullis and several dozen other top thinkers, professors and scientists.

Ted doesn't really "DENY" being Zodiac, though it is implied by the "kook" label for Doug. Ted is now apparently a big fan of the authorities, he claims "law enforcement concluded I was not the Zodiac." In the past he complained that law enforcement is a "joke".

Ted also never "DENIED" being the Tylenol Murderer, he said he never "possessed potassium cyanide".

Ted appears to be saying that Allen was the Zodiac. That is his defense, rather than provide an alibi!

Would love to know what the rest of the letter says - is he asking someone to buy him the book by the "kook"? Also known as "The Unabomber and The Zodiac" by Douglas Oswell?

Kaczynski claims law enforcement concluded he was not Zodiac.jpg
Kaczynski claims law enforcement concluded he was not Zodiac.jpg (78.47 KiB) Viewed 5071 times
akwilks
 
Posts: 1109
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 2:06 am

Re: Ted Kaczynski is NOT a Big Fan of Doug Oswell

Postby AweShucks on Fri Aug 19, 2011 8:44 pm

If this was priced a little cheaper I'd be tempted to buy and have it tested for DNA.....
AweShucks
 
Posts: 91
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2009 9:15 pm

Re: Ted Kaczynski is NOT a Big Fan of Doug Oswell

Postby Doug on Fri Aug 19, 2011 8:44 pm

AK, that's hilarious! At the very least it shows that he got my letter. Now why, if he's so concerned about being accused of the Zodiac crimes, didn't he alibi himself? Heaven knows there are plenty of documents, or people who could corroborate an alibi. And where does he get the "kook" appellation from? My letter was stated very rationally and did not accused him of being the Zodiac. As the letter (dated 2001) states:

There is an advantage to you in this. The entire world is aware that you have risked your life to disprove the notion that the Unabomber’s actions were not philosophically motivated, but simply the result of a deviant or warped psychology. I must frankly tell you that the postulated linkage between Zodiac and the Unabomber has grown and persisted in the past five years. Indeed, it shows signs of strengthening in the years to come. I fear that if this theory is not thoroughly refuted, posterity will know the Unabomber not for his principled stand against technology, but for his similarity to a sick and sordid criminal who murdered minor children to assuage his sexual frustrations and shore up a foundering ego. The Zodiac Killer is widely known as “America’s Jack the Ripper.” The Unabomber is fast becoming the “favorite suspect" in a mystery that, because it remains unsolved, will endure for many years to come. You alone can divest him of that distinction.


Now that's really kooky, isn't it? In fact, Kaczynski's words in this letter display the same offhanded, casual tone with which he dismisses the Tylenol case. It's the same tone with which he dismissed the very credible (in my opinion) allegations made by Chris Waites that he tortured Waites's dogs to death. The trouble is, it's not very like Kaczynski, the rationalist who has an advanced line of argumentation for everything he wishes to contest. Kaczynski, the mathematician, for whom hard, real-world proofs are everything. If he had an alibi, why didn't he offer it? Especially when, as I made it clear to him in my letter of 2001, the world would come to associate him with something that he professed he would rather die than have attributed to him, namely, the appellation of a "sicko?"
Doug
Site Admin
 
Posts: 187
Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2008 12:00 am
Location: United States

Re: Ted Kaczynski is NOT a Big Fan of Doug Oswell

Postby Doug on Fri Aug 19, 2011 8:51 pm

This was postmarked 2005, so the "book" if it's the one by "the kook" would have been "Dr. Zodiac," by me and Mike Rusconi. It might also have been Graysmith's book, assuming he wanted to "bone up" on the case. I wonder, though, why this would have been bugging him in 2005, when I sent the letter in 2001? Could it have had something to do with the forthcoming movie? I'm not sure that the movie was even public knowledge in 2005.
Doug
Site Admin
 
Posts: 187
Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2008 12:00 am
Location: United States

Re: Ted Kaczynski is NOT a Big Fan of Doug Oswell

Postby linda on Sat Aug 20, 2011 5:48 am

Great find! How in the world did you find it?
linda
 
Posts: 98
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2009 3:31 am

Re: Ted Kaczynski is NOT a Big Fan of Doug Oswell

Postby KITE on Sat Aug 20, 2011 10:11 am

In this letter Kaczynski writes: (A FEW YEARS BACK some kook wrote to me claiming I was Zodiac)
In a 7/24/70 Zodiac letter:......(...that I gave a rather interesting ride for a coupple of howers one evening A FEW MONTHS BACK that ended in my burning her car where I found them)
Isn't it also true that in both cases A FEW meant roughly four?
KITE
 
Posts: 717
Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2008 5:30 pm
Location: The Bright Light In A Cold Case Night

Re: Ted Kaczynski is NOT a Big Fan of Doug Oswell

Postby linda on Sat Aug 20, 2011 1:19 pm

I was trying to read the address on the envelope... It looks like first name was William... (Sawyer, maybe)... Location was New York? Anyone able to interpret anything else?
linda
 
Posts: 98
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2009 3:31 am

Re: Ted Kaczynski is NOT a Big Fan of Doug Oswell

Postby akwilks on Mon Aug 22, 2011 3:51 pm

Doug wrote:AK, that's hilarious! At the very least it shows that he got my letter. Now why, if he's so concerned about being accused of the Zodiac crimes, didn't he alibi himself? Heaven knows there are plenty of documents, or people who could corroborate an alibi. And where does he get the "kook" appellation from? My letter was stated very rationally and did not accused him of being the Zodiac. As the letter (dated 2001) states:

There is an advantage to you in this. The entire world is aware that you have risked your life to disprove the notion that the Unabomber’s actions were not philosophically motivated, but simply the result of a deviant or warped psychology. I must frankly tell you that the postulated linkage between Zodiac and the Unabomber has grown and persisted in the past five years. Indeed, it shows signs of strengthening in the years to come. I fear that if this theory is not thoroughly refuted, posterity will know the Unabomber not for his principled stand against technology, but for his similarity to a sick and sordid criminal who murdered minor children to assuage his sexual frustrations and shore up a foundering ego. The Zodiac Killer is widely known as “America’s Jack the Ripper.” The Unabomber is fast becoming the “favorite suspect" in a mystery that, because it remains unsolved, will endure for many years to come. You alone can divest him of that distinction.


Now that's really kooky, isn't it? In fact, Kaczynski's words in this letter display the same offhanded, casual tone with which he dismisses the Tylenol case. It's the same tone with which he dismissed the very credible (in my opinion) allegations made by Chris Waites that he tortured Waites's dogs to death. The trouble is, it's not very like Kaczynski, the rationalist who has an advanced line of argumentation for everything he wishes to contest. Kaczynski, the mathematician, for whom hard, real-world proofs are everything. If he had an alibi, why didn't he offer it? Especially when, as I made it clear to him in my letter of 2001, the world would come to associate him with something that he professed he would rather die than have attributed to him, namely, the appellation of a "sicko?"


Excellent points Doug.

Ted wrote a multi page letter to his mother, some thirty years after the fact, concerning an incident in which she yelled at him for having a messy room as a boy. He used references to psychological studies and other facts and pointed out she should have accepted boys will be somewhat messy, and quoted scientific studies on how emotional abuse can stunt physical growth.

He has also written multiple page letters to those who question a point in his manifesto, even on a minor issue!

The point is, Ted will respond to trivial matters with a full batch of evdience and arguments, yet someone asks him about being the psychopath Zodiac and he dismisses it with the casual one liner "Law enforcement authorities concluded I was not the Zodiac."

LINDA I can't read anything else on the envelope. Perhaps you could write to the owner saying we as a group or individuals within the group may be interested in buying it, and can we please have the full text of the letter?

Looking at this next response from KITE, remember that the letter from Oswell was sent in 2001, with Kaczynski's letter mentioning it dated 2005, also remember that Kathleen Johns was abducted and escaped in MARCH 1970 or 3/22/70, with Zodiac writing about it in JULY 1970 on 7/24/70.

KITE: In this letter Kaczynski writes: (A FEW YEARS BACK some kook wrote to me claiming I was Zodiac)

In a 7/24/70 Zodiac letter:......(...that I gave a rather interesting ride for a coupple of howers one evening A FEW MONTHS BACK that ended in my burning her car where I found them)

Isn't it also true that in both cases A FEW meant roughly four?

AK WILKS: Yes it does appear that Kaczynski uses a "A FEW YEARS BACK" to mean FOUR years, and Zodiac used the identical phrase "A FEW MONTHS BACK" to also mean FOUR months.
akwilks
 
Posts: 1109
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 2:06 am

Re: Ted Kaczynski is NOT a Big Fan of Doug Oswell

Postby KITE on Thu Sep 01, 2011 8:16 am

It's interesting to note that there is a mention of a LIST in both comparison writings to go along with A FEW MONTHS/YEARS BACK
Kaczynski: A FEW YEARS BACK some kook wrote to me claiming I was Zodiac; he provided a LIST of dates and challenged me....
Zodiac 7/24/70: So I now have a little LIST, starting with the woeman + her baby that I gave a rather intersting ride for a coupple of howers one evening A FEW MONTHS BACK that ended in......
KITE
 
Posts: 717
Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2008 5:30 pm
Location: The Bright Light In A Cold Case Night

Re: Ted Kaczynski is NOT a Big Fan of Doug Oswell

Postby Doug on Thu Sep 01, 2011 7:38 pm

I'm not sure if this is germaine, but there is a tendency most people have, when speaking of a "next" occasion, such as "next week," next Thanksgiving, etc., to mean the occasion following the upcoming one. For instance, if it's November of 2011, and I say "next Christmas," I'm referring, not to Christmas of 2011, but Christmas of 2012. If it's Sunday and I say "next Monday," what I mean is the Monday occurring the week after tomorrow. Now, both Zodiac and Kaczynski use "next" to indicate the actual next occasion. In the summer of 1970 Zodiac says of his bomb, "But now school is out for the summer ... you have until next Fall to dig it up." Obviously he means the Fall covering the next time school is in session, i.e., Fall of 1970. Similarly Kaczynski, writing to his brother, says he'd like to send him a dog collar as a present "next Christmas," meaning, not Christmas of next year, but the Christmas coming up.
Doug
Site Admin
 
Posts: 187
Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2008 12:00 am
Location: United States

Next

Return to The Zodiac Case

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron