Message Board
Register  |   |   |  Calendar
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 4 of 38      Prev   1   2   3   4   5   6   7   Next   »
Profiler

Registered:
Posts: 153
Reply with quote  #46 
Who cares about Ricky80, no offense Ricky, I would like to know the real identity of Jimmy54.
Tamoose53

Registered:
Posts: 641
Reply with quote  #47 
no paranoia here sixtieschick...
My point is that he comes here without indentifying himself and then makes a report on handwriting analysis...He could be a 6th grader for all I know....just seems a little arrogant and pompous...and then of course he comes to the opposite conclusion than NB did...Surprise!

Sixtieschick, what seems to happen around here is this; there is a break in the case, positive news is announced pointing to Jack Tarrance as Zodiac, evidence confirmed, etc, etc, and as soon as that happens it seems like the nay sayers, the haters, mysterious fools,etc, come out of the wood work...We all come here to see this case solved but as soon as a couple steps closer are taken, no one wants to believe it. They criticize, name call, point fingers, hate,....it's really sort of a joke.......
AveryJ

Registered:
Posts: 122
Reply with quote  #48 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sixtieschick
No offense, but I doubt Ricky80 really cares if you or anyone else respects him. He has his opinions and conclusions, and has invited people to respond to his analysis. I don't see what good calling him out and insisting he reveal his name is going to do. Either his points make sense to you or they don't. Why is everyone so paranoid? Has it always been like this?


Some of the members here have blind faith that JT is Zodiac no matter what, with or without proof. Others are open that it could or may not be JT. Then there are the ones who try to disrupt the board.

Me, I'd rather be around those who are open to possibilities. Ricky80 made a number of valid points. There are more handwriting experts out there than Nanette Barto. Handwriting analysis is not a foregone conclusive fact, or Zodiac would have been identified decades ago. Even those who verified Z's hardwriting (Morrill, for example) many years ago could tell the difference. Nothing has changed with Z's handwriting (meaning nothing new to discover) and it is only one piece of the puzzle.
Ricky80

Registered:
Posts: 53
Reply with quote  #49 
Tamoose,

You just don't get it do you? It doesn't matter who I am. Look at the damn analysis, compare the two, form your own opinion. I don't know how much clearer I can be.

If you have found points in my analysis where I am wrong, then please, by all means, bring it up. Let's discuss it, see if you can convince me of the validity of your position.

You were the first person here to say "the proof is in the pudding". Yet in this case you don't want to even look at the pudding because it assaults your sense of what is correct.

I won't address anymore of your posts that do not speak to points in the analysis, as I am to the point of attacking your intelligence level with very simple four letter words in hopes that you will understand.

Is there anyone at all who would like to discuss the content of the two handwriting reports. Because I have a lot more than what I posted. I did not rely on a simple character construction spread sheet in my analysis. I made thousands of feature comparisons at the allograph and allograph combination levels. And I didn't mix in any graphology =).


Rick
BARman

Registered:
Posts: 255
Reply with quote  #50 
Ricky,

Are you saying that you are acting in an official capacity, as an accredited forensic handwriting examiner? Then, you also need to anti up with your identity, so your credentials can be verified.

Otherwise, you could be any amateur internet clown, who is not legally recognized in the field, and is only reworking NB's report for his own agenda/amusement.

If you want people to believe you are the expert you claim to be, its not asking too much that you also back up your claims with some credentials.

Are you currently employed, with which accredited agency and in what capacity?

Like I said, if you're asking us to put any consideration into your report, you also need to let us know the qualifications of the person we're supposed to consider as a legitimate "expert". You can not have one without the other. Especially considering the anonymity of the internet.

I'm sorry, but without credentials, any report you author bears no relevance .
dennislkaufman

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 558
Reply with quote  #51 
Ricky this is the first thing I look at, no need to go any further.


(From Nanette's report)
Box #9, cursive writing found on the envelope to Riverside K24, shows a disconnection from the ending letter d; this is consistent with all of Jack’s cursive writing.

(Ricky's response)
In fact it is completely inconsistent with Jack’s cursive d.

Ricky go take your bullshit somewhere else! That envelope Nanette is reffering to is completely consistant with Jack's cursive "d" are you blind or just a fuckin moron?! I get so sick of this bullshit!
jimmy54

Registered:
Posts: 143
Reply with quote  #52 
Profiler:
Quote:
Who cares about Ricky80, no offense Ricky, I would like to know the real identity of Jimmy54.


My name is Dirk Diggler.
Ricky80

Registered:
Posts: 53
Reply with quote  #53 
Barman,

I have not claimed to be acting in any official capacity. I have clearly stated on at least three occasions that I am NOT an accredited handwriting examiner, and I will add that Nanette Barto is also NOT an accredited handwriting examiner either. She has been qualified on one occasion that I could verify to testify as a questioned document examiner. There is a world of difference.

I made it clear that my experience comes from more than two decades of studying handwriting analysis. I will add that the research I chose to study comes from sources with much better pedigree than Mr. Baggett and Son's Handwriting University International. If it pleases you, I have studied the works of Bryan Found and Doug Rogers and others of the School of Biosciences at Latrobe University, as well as Sargur Srihari, Manivannan Arivazhagan, Harish Srinivasan, Catalin Tomai, Sangjik Lee, Bin Zhang, Matthew J. Beal, Karthik Bandi, Vivek Shah, and many many others at the Center of Excellence for Document Analysis and Recognition, in the Department of Computer Science and Engineering at the University of Buffalo.

But again, does it really matter? My analysis is either correct or it is not. If a strange dog tells me his ass tastes bad, the self evident nature of the opinion is enough for me to take him at his word even if I cannot determine his status as a court qualified taste tester.

I had hoped that the analysis would start some discussion. Unfortunately I seem to have given this crowd way too much credit. It seems anytime somebody pokes a hole in any theory or "evidence" here, they are drown out by calls for their identity.

I will stick around and hope that someone will want to discuss it, maybe even find some problems with it. But based on the comments so far, I won't hold my breath while I wait.

Rick

p.s. I am not Tom Voit, nor have I ever met the man, but it is curious that Tom is mentioned on this message board with equal frequency as Jack Tarrance is. Obsess much?
Ricky80

Registered:
Posts: 53
Reply with quote  #54 
Quote:
Originally Posted by dennislkaufman
Ricky this is the first thing I look at, no need to go any further.


(From Nanette's report)
Box #9, cursive writing found on the envelope to Riverside K24, shows a disconnection from the ending letter d; this is consistent with all of Jack’s cursive writing.

(Ricky's response)
In fact it is completely inconsistent with Jack’s cursive d.

Ricky go take your bullshit somewhere else! That envelope Nanette is reffering to is completely consistant with Jack's cursive "d" are you blind or just a fuckin moron?! I get so sick of this bullshit!


Mr. Kaufman,

Thank you for keeping the discourse both cordial and mature.

Why did you not post a complete quote. I describe exactly why it is not consistent. I describe the allograph construction of both cursive d's, and explain why they are different. This doesn't even mention the questioned authorship of the Riverside documents.

Calling me names is hardly a discussion of the analysis.

Rick
dennislkaufman

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 558
Reply with quote  #55 
Ricky you can say anything you want, instead why don't you look at the damn writting and stop with all the jibberish!
BARman

Registered:
Posts: 255
Reply with quote  #56 
I just find it really hard to believe that you would disagree with EVERYTHING in NB's report. Even when examiners disagree, surely some results will still be the same among them.

Sorry, I don't buy it.
BARman

Registered:
Posts: 255
Reply with quote  #57 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ricky80
Barman,

I have not claimed to be acting in any official capacity. I have clearly stated on at least three occasions that I am NOT an accredited handwriting examiner, and I will add that Nanette Barto is also NOT an accredited handwriting examiner either.



So, speaking only for yourself, because I don't believe NB gave you any permission to speak on her behalf, you are not qualified or legally recognized to make any official claims or reports, in favor or against, the handwriting?

From a legal standpoint, your opinion in such matters is no more valid than any other amateur's??? Is that a correct statement, yes or no?

Please don't misunderstand me, you have every right to your opinion, but to complete a report you are not qualified to handle and expect anybody to buy it at face value, seems a little outrageous (to me).

And, why the comment regarding TV? I don't recall mentioning anything about him. In fact, since you bring it up, aside from finding him a little too kooky for my personal taste, the man is a non issue to me.

Ricky80

Registered:
Posts: 53
Reply with quote  #58 
Quote:
Originally Posted by dennislkaufman
Ricky you can say anything you want, instead why don't you look at the damn writting and stop with all the jibberish!


Mr. Kaufman,

My point exactly. Look at the writing. That is what I have been asking you to do. But all I get is, cursed at and told my opinion is invalid because I won't post my real name to the board.

Barman,

You are quite right. When two examiners make honest examinations and submit honest opinions on the same set of documents, there will likely be some overlap. Unfortunately, this is not the case here.

Exactly right. I did not ask anyone to buy it at face value. I posted my work and my opinion and asked for discussion. How many times to I have to say that.

I am no more amateur than Nanette Barto. She is not accredited or certified by anyone, and therefore no more a professional document examiner than you are. Please get that straight. There are organizations and standards, she is certified by none.

Let me reiterate that Nanette Barto offered an opinion that Jack Tarrance was the author of every Zodiac document she used in her examination, including documents that have never been conclusively determined to be Zodiac documents (forget that she compared cursive to handwritten script without qualification and characters carved into wood as well). She made her conclusion statement with moral certainty. In doing all of this she has ignored accepted standards in document examination and expressed her conclusion outside the scope and usage accepted by ASTM E444-06 and E1658-04.

But I guess since she took an online course and has a web page she must be more believable than the guy who followed the standards set by both professional researchers and the legal system.

Rick


BARman

Registered:
Posts: 255
Reply with quote  #59 
Ricky,

Here's the difference...

Without a licensed instructor to qualify your studies, how do you even know if you would have received a passing grade?

Most everybody can read a book or sit through a lecture. It takes quite a bit more than that before they can be considered ANY kind of expert on the subject.
Ricky80

Registered:
Posts: 53
Reply with quote  #60 
Barman,

Are you actually trying to say that you consider the instruction Nanette Barto received via the unaccredited HUI, superior to self study?

I would remind you that the pioneers in the field of forensic handwriting analysis were ALL self taught.

The difference with my study, is that I studied some of those pioneers and the modern pioneers in the field that I mentioned. Barto studied the snake oil salesmen Kurt and Bart Baggett.

Rick

Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply


Create your own forum with Website Toolbox!