Message Board
Register  |   |   |  Calendar
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 5 of 38     «   Prev   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   Next   »
BARman

Registered:
Posts: 255
Reply with quote  #61 
Don't change the subject.

We're not discussing NB's qualifications, we're discussing yours.

We're not discussing the validity of NB's report, we're discussing the validity of yours.

Bait and switch doesn't work on me. Why do you answer a question with another question, when a simple yes or no will do?

BARman

Registered:
Posts: 255
Reply with quote  #62 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ricky80


The difference with my study, is that I studied some of those pioneers and the modern pioneers in the field that I mentioned.



I can go along with the on the job training angle.

Are you now or have you ever been employed in this field, yes or no?

If yes, please name the agency/agencies and how long you were employed in this capacity.

That's all I'm asking here.

Without that, all we've been able to establish, so far, is that you know how to read a book. If that's all it takes, any one of us is just as qualified as you are.

You've been stepping on your own dick all over this thread. You do realize that, right?
Ricky80

Registered:
Posts: 53
Reply with quote  #63 
First and foremost, the subject was supposed to be a discussion of the handwriting, not a discussion of anybody's qualifications.
You are the one who made the switch.

If you want to address specifics of the analysis, I am happy to do that. This will be the last time I will address this.

You have made it clear that if my qualifications are not at least equal to Nanette Barto's, then you consider my work invalid. So how am I changing the subject? I have admitted that I do not have a certificate of completion from HIU like Nannette. I also pointed out that HIU is a joke and has done nothing but damage the case for acceptance of forensic handwriting and document examination both academically and legally.

But I am done, telling you the same thing over and over, you are starting so appear as dense as Tamoose. I sincerely hope you never have to rely on one of these CrackerJack Box licensed snake oil salesmen that you seem to put so much faith in.

Rick
BARman

Registered:
Posts: 255
Reply with quote  #64 
In order to discuss your results, first I need to qualify your experience in these matters. What interest would I have discussing a moot point?

I wouldn't go to a barber for a medical evaluation, would I? No matter how many medical journals that barber may have studied, sorry.

I'm not saying your results aren't interesting, they are. But, from an amateur standpoint, they are exactly that, amateur. Not that everybody else here isn't in the same boat, including myself. However, discussing and examining theories or tracking evidence is a lot different than refuting a report that has already been validated by one qualified forensic examiner, and more importantly, the FBI.

I really don't think any of us here have any business saying we are more qualified than the FBI in these matters, do you? On what grounds?

Like I said, when it comes down to it, it's a moot point to even discuss such things with somebody who is not recognized in the field. At least for me it is . Others are free to do as they please, of course. But, my questions on this subject have all been answered well enough (thank you, BTW), I have no desire to pursue it any further.

Here's a thought...

How about putting your efforts here into something that might benefit the investigation, instead of trying to tear it down???

jimmy54

Registered:
Posts: 143
Reply with quote  #65 
Quote:
You've been stepping on your own dick all over this thread.

Ricky, you lucky bugger.
Tamoose53

Registered:
Posts: 641
Reply with quote  #66 
Ricky80 your an arrogant sucker aren't you?! You won't insult my intelligence with four letter words, you'll just confirm to me that you need a serious humbling!

Now do us a favor Ricky 80,
please gather up all your crap,
put it in a paper sack and call it a wrap.

I don't wanna read one more line of your shit,
please pack it all up
& the road outa here you must hit!

Leave now Ricky,
take your tools and go,
the Zodiac is almost solved,
you cocky mo fo :)

Don't forget your paper bag
with all your "word" stuff,
it's been nice knowin ya
but I'm callin your bluff....









BARman

Registered:
Posts: 255
Reply with quote  #67 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmy54
Quote:
You've been stepping on your own dick all over this thread.

Ricky, you lucky bugger.


LOL!!! =)
jon55

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 575
Reply with quote  #68 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ricky80


As for the "a". Your point assumes that the "a" actually changed. It did not. It has nothing to do with resizing, that argument was a straw man that Ms. Barto created. The apparent change to the lower case "a" comes from artifacts left by older reproduction methods. Don't you wonder why the difference only shows up in some of them and not all? It is because none of them was altered. There is some pretty good OCR software out there that breaks individual characters down to 1024bit feature vectors. They provide pretty convincing proof that the "a" has not been altered.

Rick


There is no way in the letters I have seen that this is an artifact the "a" has completly changed its shape it is sloped on top in one and bell shaped in the other....."Don't you wonder why the difference only shows up in some of them and not all? ".....this is the whole crux of the argument.......it has not been changed in the old copys and has been changed in the new ones........an artifact can obscure, smudge, hide part of the "a" but not erase a line and draw it in a different place. And again.......why only the "a's".......?



Quote:
Originally Posted by Ricky80


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.

In fact it is completely inconsistent with Jack’s cursive d. The Jack exemplars provided all start the d with a downward stroke, suggesting that the author lifted the pen to start the d similar to a printed d construction rather than cursive. The Riverside exemplar, not a definitive Zodiac document in my opinion, begins with an upward stroke suggesting a writer who lifted the pen but continued a normal “i” to “d” cursive stroke.


The "d" looks remarkable similar to Jacks "d" to me.
Qualifications: 2 eyeballs 1 brain.
All I got on that they either look alike or not to me.

__________________
Roll Tide
Ricky80

Registered:
Posts: 53
Reply with quote  #69 
Nobody, least of all the FBI, has validated Nanette Barto's opinion. This is just one more of the unfounded claims of FBI confirmation that has surfaced on this board. Completely unfounded, most likely fabricated, yet thrown around by you folks as if gospel. Bullshit claims of FBI concurrence have done more harm to this investigation than anything and there are two main culprits here. Go ahead and give us another cloak and dagger response, it is expected.

Barman. I posted my experience in general terms in the original handwriting threads. My experience came during just over 2 decades working for the United States Navy. I was not a handwriting expert, but was asked on occasion to offer opinions concerning questioned documents in a non-judicial setting. I am now employed by a private research company and under contract to a different government agency.

I did not attempt to tear down this investigation. In fact my opinion made clear that the handwriting did not exclude Jack Tarrance as the Zodiac Killer, only that there was no conclusive match. But it is obvious that none of you want to discuss reality, you are content with accepting Nanette Barto's very amateurish analysis and opinion based on her rather shaky qualifications. Good luck with that.

Jon, I don't know what more to tell you. The documents Barto and Kaufman use to show these alterations are all third generation or worse reproductions. The only crime in this conspiracy theory appears to be Barto and Kaufman libeling as many people as possible.

Tamoose, it is really hard to address a lack wit like you. You have hitched your wagon to Barto and soon will find that she is a sinking stone and not a shooting star. Your rather less than inspiring attempts at poetry are interesting in a 3rd grade drop out sort of way, keep trying, and replace the drool cup a little more often.

If anyone has any interest in actual discussion, go ahead and PM me, since this thread has been hi-jacked by those interested in burying any opinion not in line with Barto's.

Rick
BARman

Registered:
Posts: 255
Reply with quote  #70 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ricky80


I am now employed by a private research company and under contract to a different government agency.



OPORD Analytical?
Ricky80

Registered:
Posts: 53
Reply with quote  #71 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BARman

OPORD Analytical?


I couldn't let this one go.

Hell no. Chris Farmer is a bigger detriment to the Zodiac investigation than Nanette Barto, and a bigger bag of wind than you believe me to be. Farmer is most definitely not what he claims to be.

Rick

Skeptic

Registered:
Posts: 58
Reply with quote  #72 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ricky80
Nobody, least of all the FBI, has validated Nanette Barto's opinion. This is just one more of the unfounded claims of FBI confirmation that has surfaced on this board. Completely unfounded, most likely fabricated, yet thrown around by you folks as if gospel. Bullshit claims of FBI concurrence have done more harm to this investigation than anything and there are two main culprits here. Go ahead and give us another cloak and dagger response, it is expected.



Rick,

I have no idea what the FBI has or has not confirmed. However, if you are not connected to this case and just an interested private party, how can you state with any kind of certainty what the FBI has validated especially without backing it up? This seems to be a case of the pot calling the kettle black.
BARman

Registered:
Posts: 255
Reply with quote  #73 
Ricky,

Even if I might disagree, I do respect your opinion.

Thanks for clarifying and answering some of my questions.

What do you think of the FBI confirming NB's results? Aren't they pretty much the top of the LE hierarchy in matters like this?

Don't you also think, Dennis wouldn't put claims out there, with the FBI's name on them, if there was no basis for it? Wouldn't that be counter productive to the investigation, for both parties? So far, even if it takes a little while, eventually the FBI does confirm what Dennis stated they would. Past behavior being the best indication of future behavior...

We will see.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ricky80


Farmer is most definitely not what he claims to be



A genius? I always wondered about that. LOL!
sixtieschick

Registered:
Posts: 246
Reply with quote  #74 
Tamoose, than you for your replay to my post. What you say makes sense. One thing I do have to comment on though: If people do come in here and disagree with various points, theories, etc., isn't that necessary in a way? If a theory or piece of evidence is good, shouldn't it be able to stand up under scrutiny, or alternate theories? If we all agreed all the time, I think we might get lazy or complacent.
Tamoose53

Registered:
Posts: 641
Reply with quote  #75 
Sixtieschick, I agree, there will be disagreements, different views, etc, and that is good, but the problem here is that people don't come here to rationally discuss the issues...seems like many, (i'm not saying all) but many come here and think they have the inside track on everything...I got very frustrated and disillusioned with the attacks on NB...nobody is perfect but the attacks towards her were personal and malicious, really uncalled for..the funny thing,(despite what ricky80 says)the FBI has accepted NB analysis and are using that in there investigation...How can you dispute that?? Eh Ricky??
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply


Create your own forum with Website Toolbox!