Message Board
Sign up  |   |   |  Calendar
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 7 of 38     «   Prev   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   Next   »
jon55

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 575
Reply with quote  #91 
What I took for age 89 earlier must be 29 going by the dates what do you make of the 2 in 29.....lol
__________________
Roll Tide
AveryJ

Registered:
Posts: 122
Reply with quote  #92 
In the document ricky posted, I noted:

1. All five examples of the cursive "a" were either on the far left (as in Dad) and far right (as in age). Nowhere in the middle of the document was the "a" in a cursive style.

2. The "8" is written differently in the first sentence (age 89) - like an "o" on top of each other, whereas Tarrance writes his "8" in the one-stroke method.

These were noted by me with very little review.

jon, the difference in ages dependent on their birthdates probably means two different things. "Mom" was healthy at 62, but "Dad" died in a tractor accident in 1942. If "Dad" had lived, he'd be 89 at the time those notes were written. Just a guess. In other words, the writer may have different reasons for writing those ages and it had nothing to do with the birthdates. Looks like "Mom" and "Dad" married in 1927, which would have made "Mom" 15 (1912) and "Dad" 18 (1909).
jon55

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 575
Reply with quote  #93 
This is rather long but there is a serious flaw to this argument this is copied from Crimeshadows news.com.......written mostly by Chris Yarbrough with a few quotes by Nanette Barto........................................................................
I (CY)wrote: I do not see how you can come to the conclusion that the 2000 letter, attributes below, depicts different (original) handwriting, when it is obviously a lower resolution copy. Both images depict the same letter, but by very different means. There has been no tracing. you don’t see the "dots" on the earlier image because it is a grayscale photocopy saved in a low quality file format. On the other hand, the newer image is a color scan, scanned digitally, and saved in a high quality file format.

Consider that the earlier image is:

591×836 px for a total of 494,076 pixels. Its a Compuserve GIF image of 149kb, bit depth = 8 and a 72×72 PPI

You are comparing the above letter, quite unfairly, to the high resolution scan that is now available:

1000×1417 px for a total of 1,417,000 pixels. It is a JPEG image of 611 kb, and a bit depth of 24, which, as most anyone knows, is a higher quality image. The PPI is 250×250

A JPEG image saves with little perceptible loss in image quality. A GIF image is severely limited by the 8 bit depth, which limits the colors that it is able to display. As I have pointed out in earlier communications, this is sometimes quite noticeable along angles and curves, where you seem to be finding what you believe to be "alterations."

Once again, the irregularities you are seeing are due to the limitations of a lower pixel resolution. By refusing to acknowledge that fact, you are making an unfair comparison, and depreciating your talent as a document examiner. The differences between tangible paper documents and computerized, digital images are immense, and those variables should be taken into serious consideration before presenting your findings. Nowhere in your findings have you taken into consideration the digital aspects of the letter images.

Barto responded by informing me that she can’t explain what I see.

She writes: It is a b/w scan u sent me. It is not due to low pixel resolution. The FBI can see it I’m surprised u can’t.

Does she not realize that there are even more color limitations within a black and white image? I don’t think so. it seems that she is implying that because the image is not in color, color limitations are irrelevant –an elementary mistake. So, you see how difficult this has been. The futility of using logic in trying to reason has become all to real.

end quote from Crimeshadows

Ok my point of contention is I find it hard to believe that Chris has hi-res scans of the original letter........in other words.....if these are hi-res scans of low-res scans the low-res would be better this is because if you copy something in 32 colors and then scan it in say 16 million colors.......you do not get your original colors back the computer just makes them up.........if it is a good graphics program it may come close this is because the program looks at each shade and layers it according to the rules laid out by the program......in other words its not going to go straight from red to blue but will shade into the transition and it will not be the original document.........once you have copied at a certain resolution you will never get more out of it than is already there also if z wrote in b/w then a b/w scan would be the best because nothing would be added.

imo.......This is Chris trying to cloud the issue when he obviously knows better I have no idea why........Chris will you please tell me why?

Ricky........you are falling into the same trap.......down south we call this "arguing out of both sides of your mouth" if you want a big word for it "obfuscating"........you tell me the "a" has not been changed.......you tell me this is a straw man created by SC and then..........you lecture me on artifacts........you send me to an article all about low-res and hi-res........I do know what an artifact is by the way I just have not ever seen one change a shape in the way that "a" was and I certainly still do not believe you have answered any of my 3 questions in any way.......you changed the argument on the first one and then ignored the other 2 also you signed on while ago and I am a bit confused that you did not at least tell me whether or not I understood what you were getting at. I am confused that a man who put some much work into a very detailed impressive report would not even leave a line or two and Ill get back with you.
Anyways maybe you will have time tomorrow.


__________________
Roll Tide
jon55

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 575
Reply with quote  #94 
Quote:
Originally Posted by AveryJ
In the document ricky posted, I noted:

1. All five examples of the cursive "a" were either on the far left (as in Dad) and far right (as in age). Nowhere in the middle of the document was the "a" in a cursive style.

2. The "8" is written differently in the first sentence (age 89) - like an "o" on top of each other, whereas Tarrance writes his "8" in the one-stroke method.

These were noted by me with very little review.

jon, the difference in ages dependent on their birthdates probably means two different things. "Mom" was healthy at 62, but "Dad" died in a tractor accident in 1942. If "Dad" had lived, he'd be 89 at the time those notes were written. Just a guess. In other words, the writer may have different reasons for writing those ages and it had nothing to do with the birthdates. Looks like "Mom" and "Dad" married in 1927, which would have made "Mom" 15 (1912) and "Dad" 18 (1909).


Didnt see you there Avery yall keep sneakin in while Im a typin.....lol
As I noted above I think the author that wrote 89 really wrote 29 he just really screwed up that 2 or else it has been altered ..........hehe just kidding
Anyways it is a very strange document for several reasons I just cant see 2 ppl doing that in that way.
And I am not sure from your post which way you see it or if you are just noting the differences and withholding your opinion.
I am sticking with one person using more than one style I do the same thing only not as radical as that and I dont think I have ever done it in so orderly of way.......I just switch back and forth on a whim sometimes even starting in print and ending in cursive.......but I dont ever remember writing in one style on the borders and in another in the middle.......but I do think that is just what Jack did here.

__________________
Roll Tide
jon55

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 575
Reply with quote  #95 
Also look at all the variation in the "d's".......look at the second line "reprinted" when he comes out of the n he starts fading into cursive the "nted" is almost cursive and now look at the third line where it has (married in 1927) look how different the d in married is.
Second to last line "died December" the "ed" in died is almost cursive and look at that "d" it has a tail.....do you see another one like it on the whole document. and the "de" in december.....leaning towards cursive again.......maybe I am a handwriting expert after all........lol

__________________
Roll Tide
Ricky80

Registered:
Posts: 53
Reply with quote  #96 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jon55
quote by Ricky80 as shown in his post above "A close look at the bowls of both the supposedly altered and unaltered characters, shows that they are constructed identically, and in the Zodiac method."

Well done you have proved Dennis point for him........he was not saying that this document was altered he was saying that Jack wrote part of it in the zodiac method just as you so succinctly stated yourself..........just in your case you assume a different author.


Jon,

I did not mean to confuse you. When I am discussing character constructions I am not referring to the linked document, but to actual Zodiac authored documents. Which are all consistent over close to 400 examples, 0 (zero), none, not one single lower case "a" is constructed in the manner that Jack Tarrance uses when he prints. Let me reiterate that number: ZERO.

Kaufman's initial assertion was simply that the "a" may have been altered in the Zodiac documents. And it seems a year ago he even accepted that it very well might be a product of copying the document.

As evidence of this, Dennis presented examples of poorly reproduced Zodiac documents (scans of photos of copies), that included artifacts that he interpreted as a hook on a single a. Nevermind all of the other artifacts on the document as well as all the other lower case a's where no artifact is present.

That assertion later evolved to Tom Voit et. al. conspired to photoshop the hooks off the lower case a's in the Zodiac documents to cover up the truth.

To support this new evolution of the "a-hole" conspiracy, Dennis tries to show that Jack disguised his lower case "a" when he was writing Zodiac documents, but forgot sometimes and wrote it in his normal style.

That is when we are presented this document that talks about Jack Tarrance's parents which he claims is written entirely by a single author. Even if that were true, which I do not believe, the fact remains that the Zodiac style "a" does not occur in the printing, only in the cursive writing.

To believe this claim, we are forced to believe that Jack not only forgot and used his Jack "a" in Zodiac documents (no proof exists of this), but he also "forgot" and used a Zodiac "a" in a personal document about his parents and siblings. Never mind those are all in cursive, and have very pronounced serif, as opposed to verifiable Zodiac lower case "a" that has a very conservative serif because the exit stroke follows the right edge of the bowl down, while the typical cursive Jack a exit stroke diverges immediately from the bowl to form the serif.

I don't see occurence of both types of a in a confirmed Zodiac document anywhere Jon. Please clarify.

Rick


Ricky80

Registered:
Posts: 53
Reply with quote  #97 
Jon,

Tell you what. You grab the images you believe show this "shape change" and post them in the body of your text here.

1. How would an artifact.....resizing....overpixilating..etc.......change the shape of a letter?

I explained the artifact portion, the resizing, overpixilating etc would not change the letter. Like I said, that portion of your question was a straw man that Barto set up to try to prove her point, by knocking it over.

2. Why were all the other letters left relatively unscathed by the processes that changed the letter "a" ?

The other letters are not left unscathed. In fact there are numerous other artifacts of both addition and omission on the documents in question, and the process that causes them is discussed in Chris's post.

3. Do you have access to higher quality scans or even originals?

Everyone has access to higher quality scans, they are the ones that Barto claims are fakes. In reality they are just higher quality color scans of the originals.

All an inconvenient truth that Mr. Kaufman ignores, because some of those are a result of SFPD sharing them with Vallejo PD in 2007, well after the supposed 2001 start of the "a-hole" conspiracy.

Rick
jon55

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 575
Reply with quote  #98 
It looks like the same "a" to me Ricky and apperently to you as well since you referred to it as "Zodiac style" but perhaps that was a freudian slip of the tounge as it were.
But more to the point of your query when Jack was writing as z he was trying to obscure his style and an obvious way to do this is to print in cursive I can do it and it does look different.
Also I feel sure that when writing as z it was a very plodding affair trying to phrase each thing just right and disguising the writing at the same time............now to bed for me........goodnight

__________________
Roll Tide
jon55

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 575
Reply with quote  #99 
tommorrow Ricky
__________________
Roll Tide
jon55

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 575
Reply with quote  #100 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ricky80
Jon,

Tell you what. You grab the images you believe show this "shape change" and post them in the body of your text here.

1. How would an artifact.....resizing....overpixilating..etc.......change the shape of a letter?

I explained the artifact portion, the resizing, overpixilating etc would not change the letter. Like I said, that portion of your question was a straw man that Barto set up to try to prove her point, by knocking it over.

2. Why were all the other letters left relatively unscathed by the processes that changed the letter "a" ?

The other letters are not left unscathed. In fact there are numerous other artifacts of both addition and omission on the documents in question, and the process that causes them is discussed in Chris's post.
3. Do you have access to higher quality scans or even originals?

Everyone has access to higher quality scans, they are the ones that Barto claims are fakes. In reality they are just higher quality color scans of the originals.

All an inconvenient truth that Mr. Kaufman ignores, because some of those are a result of SFPD sharing them with Vallejo PD in 2007, well after the supposed 2001 start of the "a-hole" conspiracy.

Rick


make you a deal Ricky........I have not uploaded anyting to the net in 10 years or more but tomorrow night I will learn and upload the changed "a's" if you will please upload the other characters that have changes

goin to bed.......no kidding this time

__________________
Roll Tide
Ricky80

Registered:
Posts: 53
Reply with quote  #101 
Jon,

It was no slip, I was just simplifying the references. The fact that Jack's cursive lower case a is similar to the Zodiac lower case printed a is a non starter. The lower case a is one of the least discriminative characters possible. Now if his capital G was even close, then we wouldn't be having this discussion, but that isn't the case.

Printing in cursive. Interesting idea, but why would he pick only two letters? More to the point, when Zodiac was clearly disguising his handwriting, he is most certainly not printing cursive characters, though toward the end of his letters when he appears to grow impatient I can accept that the lower case d appears to be a cursive style construction, but again it seems to be the only one.

Sure thing on uploading examples, but I will have to know what documents you plan to use so I can use the same ones.

Rick
Tamoose53

Registered:
Posts: 641
Reply with quote  #102 
Could the expression ""Over analyzing" be appropriate here?? I think if you stare at something long enough you can pretty much see what you want to see....Dennis says his Step Dad wrote the entire page, and Ricky is saying 2 authors if I'm reading your post correctly.....I would think DK has the inside track on that...Does that come into your consideration, your analysis??

Maybe this is exactly why it's so hard(for you)to nail this handwriting to Jack T, maybe he is a rarity in that he does not follow the typical protocol of handwriting...not sure if that makes sense; in other words, JT's handwriting is just unusually difficult to analyize. Just a thought...

For someone like me, (say what you want)I simply look at the comparisons of Z vs JT, look at the data NB put together, and I see too many similarities to come away with any other conclusion other than JT was the author of all Z letters. Add to that the other suspects and their handwriting compared to Z's, JT is closest of any. Even before the NB analysis came forth, I saw many of the same things she brought into focus, she just brought out many more and made them easier to see...

The "N's" in JT's/Zodiacs handwriting are so unique and so so similar, the slant at which they both seem to write, so similar, the dotting of the I's above the letter next to the I,...the tail of the g's, and there are others as well. I also have to agree with Jon about the a's, not sure how they would "appear" to have such a drastic change if they hadn't been changed...I think the appearance in the comparisons say it all, the are definitely different, not sure there is any other way to slice it..
AveryJ

Registered:
Posts: 122
Reply with quote  #103 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jon55

Didnt see you there Avery yall keep sneakin in while Im a typin.....lol
As I noted above I think the author that wrote 89 really wrote 29 he just really screwed up that 2 or else it has been altered ..........hehe just kidding
Anyways it is a very strange document for several reasons I just cant see 2 ppl doing that in that way.
And I am not sure from your post which way you see it or if you are just noting the differences and withholding your opinion.I am sticking with one person using more than one style I do the same thing only not as radical as that and I dont think I have ever done it in so orderly of way.......I just switch back and forth on a whim sometimes even starting in print and ending in cursive.......but I dont ever remember writing in one style on the borders and in another in the middle.......but I do think that is just what Jack did here.


Hey, jon, I don't have an opinion, just noted a couple of things that jumped out after a very long day. Believe me, I'm more confused than ever with all of these handwriting discussions!

AJ
catseye

Registered:
Posts: 1,509
Reply with quote  #104 
Ricky80, who are you and what are your credentials to argue your points on the handwriting issues about? At least with Sweethcheeks, she identified herself as Nanette Barto with her credentials known and verifiable online. Without your credentials known in this field, it is useless to argue your points and your long winded posts clog the thread. You could have just taken a crash course in analyzing the handwriting, anybody can do that. I stand with Dennis L Kaufman, and yes, I side with Jon55, and Tamoose53 and those who are just trying to see through the BS and discuss/follow Dennis Z related cases without claiming to be certain specified experts in a field that could be used in court which would affect these Z cases either plaintiff sides or defense sides. I checked the CY 6/22/09 "artifacts" link and it seems to me to be a desperate attempt to discredit what is happening with the FBI, etc. BUT this was before the 6/27/09 article that was toned down in negativity, IMO. Lastly, at least with Chris Yarbrough, we can look him up, too.
__________________
Kaufman Solved Zodiac Killer 2010, FBI Agrees w/ Barto reports 2010. Cases will close 2011 & ciphers/letters decodings will lock the doors!
Ricky80

Registered:
Posts: 53
Reply with quote  #105 
Quote:
Originally Posted by catseye
Ricky80, I am a dumb ass who didn't bother to read any of your responses to the twenty other posts questioning your credentials. In fact I am quite illiterate, and like to see my name on every thread.


There I fixed it for you.

Rick
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply


Create your own forum with Website Toolbox!