Message Board
Sign up  |   |   |  Calendar
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 8 of 38     «   Prev   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   Next   »
Ricky80

Registered:
Posts: 53
Reply with quote  #106 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tamoose53
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..


1) DK has a vested interest, so anything he says has to be viewed with skepticism. That isn't an indictment or an accusation, it is just how an investigation has to be carried out. So, no there is no over-analyzing going on, I just choose not to accept Dennis' word for that only Jack wrote on that note, when my observations tell me at least one other person potentially added to the document. And I am even willing to qualify that with potentially, since the assertion is contested.

2) Jack Tarrance's printing and cursive script are very different from each other. The script is rather non-descriptive, but his printing is quite unique. Most importantly, they are unusually consistent throughout a large set of documents produced over a relatively large span of time. Therfore, no, I do not believe your assertion that Jack's handwriting is any more difficult to analyze than any other author's.

3) Describe these detailed similarities that you see and/or how my analysis is wrong. For someone like you, apparently it is easy to see how Barto is correct, so please provide examples. This analysis isn't about anyone other than Jack Tarrance, comparisons of other suspects are irrelevant. That is like say that because I look more like Ted Kennedy than Ron Artest does, that I am more likely to be Ted Kennedy.

4) The upper case N's are far from unique and there is a very distinct difference between Jack and Zodiac. Tarrance had a pronounced convex shape to the first two strokes in his N, where Zodiac's entry stroke varied between slight convex to straight to slightly concave, but his second stroke was consistently concave across the entire bulk of the Zodiac documents. Dotting the I to look like a trailing diacritic is extremely common. I don't have a hard statistic but my guess is, that more than 50% of all writers do so. All it represents is a natural flow of the pen from the end of the lower case i construction to the entry of the following character. The lower case g is not, as you claim, similar at all. I addressed it in my post, so won't waste space here saying the same thing again, but feel free to go back to that post and review my explanation.

Rick
jon55

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 575
Reply with quote  #107 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ricky80
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ricky80
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


and I fixed it for you.

that was kinda low class seeing as how she called you no names and just stated her opinion.....if you cannot let these things pass we will never finish this discussion....if you have not noticed the M/B was setup to prove JT = z and is why most of us are here.......I do think that skeptisim is a good thing.....this opinion is not held with everyone and you will just have to deal with it and if you deal with it in the manner above I will feel compelled to point out to you why I feel that is unacceptable and very sneaky as well.

__________________
Roll Tide
jon55

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 575
Reply with quote  #108 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ricky80


1) DK has a vested interest, so anything he says has to be viewed with skepticism. That isn't an indictment or an accusation, it is just how an investigation has to be carried out. So, no there is no over-analyzing going on, I just choose not to accept Dennis' word for that only Jack wrote on that note, when my observations tell me at least one other person potentially added to the document. And I am even willing to qualify that with potentially, since the assertion is contested.

2) Jack Tarrance's printing and cursive script are very different from each other. The script is rather non-descriptive, but his printing is quite unique. Most importantly, they are unusually consistent throughout a large set of documents produced over a relatively large span of time. Therfore, no, I do not believe your assertion that Jack's handwriting is any more difficult to analyze than any other author's.

3) Describe these detailed similarities that you see and/or how my analysis is wrong. For someone like you, apparently it is easy to see how Barto is correct, so please provide examples. This analysis isn't about anyone other than Jack Tarrance, comparisons of other suspects are irrelevant. That is like say that because I look more like Ted Kennedy than Ron Artest does, that I am more likely to be Ted Kennedy.

4) The upper case N's are far from unique and there is a very distinct difference between Jack and Zodiac. Tarrance had a pronounced convex shape to the first two strokes in his N, where Zodiac's entry stroke varied between slight convex to straight to slightly concave, but his second stroke was consistently concave across the entire bulk of the Zodiac documents. Dotting the I to look like a trailing diacritic is extremely common. I don't have a hard statistic but my guess is, that more than 50% of all writers do so. All it represents is a natural flow of the pen from the end of the lower case i construction to the entry of the following character. The lower case g is not, as you claim, similar at all. I addressed it in my post, so won't waste space here saying the same thing again, but feel free to go back to that post and review my explanation.

Rick


1. You may have a vested interest as well and even if you dont that is beside the point.........anything viewed on a webpage much less a M/B should be viewed with a healthy amount of skeptisim.

2. All of Jacks handwriting has alot and I mean alot of variation....Tamoose point is valid.......how valid I do not know since as I have said before I am no expert in this field.

3. Not everyone wants to go over line by line every block of handwriting just because his level of dedication is not the same as yours does not mean he cannot state an opinion........in other words if you want to set the rules get your own M/B.

4. You are just wrong about this........dont know what else I can say......just look at them side by side.....they are very similar.......so similar its spooky.

__________________
Roll Tide
Ricky80

Registered:
Posts: 53
Reply with quote  #109 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jon55


1. You may have a vested interest as well and even if you dont that is beside the point.........anything viewed on a webpage much less a M/B should be viewed with a healthy amount of skeptisim.

2. All of Jacks handwriting has alot and I mean alot of variation....Tamoose point is valid.......how valid I do not know since as I have said before I am no expert in this field.

3. Not everyone wants to go over line by line every block of handwriting just because his level of dedication is not the same as yours does not mean he cannot state an opinion........in other words if you want to set the rules get your own M/B.

4. You are just wrong about this........dont know what else I can say......just look at them side by side.....they are very similar.......so similar its spooky.


1) I am not selling books and videos.

2) Can you support this statement? Because I can support just the opposite.

3) I don't follow. I did not say that Tamoose was not entitled to his opinion. I simply noted that I did not agree and described why I thought his line of reasoning was invalid. That is not setting message board rules, that is setting the rules of the argument.

However, if a person is not willing to put in the time to weigh the merit of the analysis, their opinion is rather useless.

4) Again, please support this. Describe the construction in your own words to show us all just how spooky similar they are. Otherwise your response to my argument remains "Nuh-uh!", and I hardly find that acceptable in a discussion with an obviously intelligent fellow like yourself.

Rick

p.s. My response to catseye is certainly juvenile, but I have seen people try to reason with this person only to be attacked over and over with nonsense. I will make no apologies for it.
jon55

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 575
Reply with quote  #110 
well crap the upload thing is not working and my isp is acting wierd Ricky I will try to upload you something later concering what was discussed last night.

1. Again that is beside the point.......I have no idea what motives you may have anyway and you must have some just as I do......I admit mine is mostly just to be "right"....lol.........altho I hope I am also here to see a little justice in this case..........I know it is late but better some justice than none........and besides the point is that these are opinions on a web page.......plz take them all with skeptisim.

2. ummmmmm look at the handwriting I noted a few things about the document you posted last night that might point you in the right direction.

3. He made the point that his was an untrained eye but you are right you did not say he couldnt have an opinion.......on a side note Ron Artest was never suspected of being Ted so you are comparing apples to oranges there but your point was valid.........just a bad analogy in my opinion. This was my long way of conceding that point.

4. For one thing I dont have the terminology to describe the shapes of the letters but I do not see why it is neccisary.......if I show you two identical oranges and ask you what makes them look alike will you write a ten page report or just laugh at me?.........Jack and z writing is not identical but it is very similar and maybe I will give a try at being more detailed as my time permits.


__________________
Roll Tide
catseye

Registered:
Posts: 1,509
Reply with quote  #111 
Ricky80, well, you got another response out of me. I still agree with BARman, Tamoose53 in the respects of their points as well as mine: Pony up your credentials or your "analysis" is invalid. Also, if you are so bright as you claim to be, have you noticed this is a message board when you're writing out your novel lengthe posts? Thanks for letting me see some of your true colors with your alteration of your own post that added my name to it to make it look like I responded in that middle school manner. It's summertime, so, schools out, so, I guess we will see alot of Ricky80? Geessse, Dennis, your poor guy having to deal with such people in this MB these past couple of years.
__________________
Kaufman Solved Zodiac Killer 2010, FBI Agrees w/ Barto reports 2010. Cases will close 2011 & ciphers/letters decodings will lock the doors!
dennislkaufman

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 558
Reply with quote  #112 
Ricky80, has to remain anonymous because he would hate for everyone to find out that he is the clown that said Deborah Perez wrote some of the Zodiac letters.

I got a couple of questions for you Mr. Baggot,

#1 Are you honestly lame enough to believe a seven year old wrote the Belli letter, or are you purposely promoting a lie?

#2 Someone my neigbor knows is in jail for forging checks, and she wanted to know how much extra you would charge to say her four year old daughter wrote them?
Ricky80

Registered:
Posts: 53
Reply with quote  #113 
Quote:
Originally Posted by catseye
Ricky80, well, you got another response out of me. I still agree with BARman, Tamoose53 in the respects of their points as well as mine: Pony up your credentials or your "analysis" is invalid. Also, if you are so bright as you claim to be, have you noticed this is a message board when you're writing out your novel lengthe posts? Thanks for letting me see some of your true colors with your alteration of your own post that added my name to it to make it look like I responded in that middle school manner. It's summertime, so, schools out, so, I guess we will see alot of Ricky80? Geessse, Dennis, your poor guy having to deal with such people in this MB these past couple of years.


Catseye,

Your argument smacks of "nya-nya". How many times do I have to say that I am not a "certified" document examiner. I have placed my credential out there as a person who has studied the subject for over two decades, and why I feel that my studies have prepared me just as well, if not more so than the person who offered the original opinion.

So stop asking that. If you feel that this makes the analysis invalid, great. But if that is the case, why do you feel the need to chime in when the discussion has actually turned to Jon and I actually addressing differing points of view in the two analysis?

I am sorry that you suffer from internet induced attention deficit disorder, but when I post, I like to make myself very clear and address all of the points. If the idiot-box produced mush you call a brain cannot cope with that, please just skip over my posts.

Rick

p.s. I will be in Oakland tomorrow at noon. ZOMG there I go again altering my posts, I must be part of the "a-hole" conspiracy to hide Bill Armstrong and the hooks from Jack's a. You really are a nut bag.
Ricky80

Registered:
Posts: 53
Reply with quote  #114 
Quote:
Originally Posted by dennislkaufman
Ricky80, has to remain anonymous because he would hate for everyone to find out that he is the clown that said Deborah Perez wrote some of the Zodiac letters.

I got a couple of questions for you Mr. Baggot,

#1 Are you honestly lame enough to believe a seven year old wrote the Belli letter, or are you purposely promoting a lie?

#2 Someone my neigbor knows is in jail for forging checks, and she wanted to know how much extra you would charge to say her four year old daughter wrote them?


Dennis,

#1 I am not Bart Baggett. Kurt and Bart Baggett have done more damage to the cause of getting questioned document examination and handwriting analysis accepted as real forensic science than anyone can imagine.

#2 You bash Baggett but you stand behind Barto's analysis. I will give you a little hint: They are both hired guns. I guarantee Barto learned more about how to convince a judge / jury of her "expertise" than she actually learned about analyzing handwriting.

#3 Pop by the Oakland airport tomorrow at about 11:30, I will be coming in to town on a SWA flight from San Diego. I will personally hand you a copy of my report with my name printed on the cover sheet. To let me know who you are, have a sign like limo drivers do that says "Ricky Ricardo".

Rick
Tamoose53

Registered:
Posts: 641
Reply with quote  #115 
I don't agree with you Ricky...I think now it's to the point of the "beating a dead horse" syndrome...This can be argued and analyzed by you forever here and I don't think you're going to change minds or convince anyone that you're analysis is correct...maybe you do have some valid points, but honestly, at a MB dedicated to help solve a crime where MOST people here think JT is the Zodiac Killer, you're kinda barkin up the wrong tree... Yes, differing points of view are absolutely necessary, debating is healthy and constructive, but the more I think about how persistant you've been and continue to be, how you have been here for weeks now trying to disprove/discredit Nanette Barto's findings and prove you are more qualified then she, smells of hoax. Doesn't make sense Ricky... You won't identify yourself, you can't tell us how you know the FBI has not accepted NB findings as accurate...have you called the FBI and tried to solicite your opinion, your analysis?? Have they called you?? Has Dennis Kaufman called on you for your assistance??? I believe you are here to do one thing and one thing only; discredit and dispute NB's conclusion that JT was/is the author of the Zodiac letters...If her findings hadn't been accepted by the FBI we would have found that out by by now....Sorry Ricky, I'm still not buying what you're trying to sell....
Ricky80

Registered:
Posts: 53
Reply with quote  #116 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tamoose53
I don't agree with you Ricky...I think now it's to the point of the "beating a dead horse" syndrome...This can be argued and analyzed by you forever here and I don't think you're going to change minds or convince anyone that you're analysis is correct...maybe you do have some valid points, but honestly, at a MB dedicated to help solve a crime where MOST people here think JT is the Zodiac Killer, you're kinda barkin up the wrong tree... Yes, differing points of view are absolutely necessary, debating is healthy and constructive, but the more I think about how persistant you've been and continue to be, how you have been here for weeks now trying to disprove/discredit Nanette Barto's findings and prove you are more qualified then she, smells of hoax. Doesn't make sense Ricky... You won't identify yourself, you can't tell us how you know the FBI has not accepted NB findings as accurate...have you called the FBI and tried to solicite your opinion, your analysis?? Have they called you?? Has Dennis Kaufman called on you for your assistance??? I believe you are here to do one thing and one thing only; discredit and dispute NB's conclusion that JT was/is the author of the Zodiac letters...If her findings hadn't been accepted by the FBI we would have found that out by by now....Sorry Ricky, I'm still not buying what you're trying to sell....


Sure Tamoose, FBI would have made an official announcement just like all of the other official announcements they have made concerning evidence provided by Dennis and Nannette.

Oh shit, that is right, they have not made any announcements, all you have is Dennis' word on that.

Ever heard of FOIA?

Rick
TE

Registered:
Posts: 143
Reply with quote  #117 
This is like watching a rope un-ravel.
How much more info can be promised before there is anything actually divulged?
I hope you take R80 up on the meeting DK - he is calling your bluff, so put your money where your mouth is or keep believing in Barto and her $14 degree
Tamoose53

Registered:
Posts: 641
Reply with quote  #118 
OK Ricky, so YOU called the FBI to get information about this case specifically?? And they just opened up "the book" and shared everything with you??....Did they tell you that Dennis Kaufman is full of crap?? Did they tell you that NB's findings aren't certified or cannot be verified as accurate?? Did they say they will not accept or proclaim NB's work as official evidence?? Did they turn over evidence to you because you are Ricky80???

It literally sounds like you have more info about this case than Dennis does....amazing....

I personally would recommend to Dennis NOT to meet you Ricky80 in an airport or anywhere else...Why should Dennis meet some STRANGER who can't or won't identify himself?? Ricky Ricardo??!?! Come on Lucy, really, GET REAL....What your basically saying to Dennis is: Hey, meet me at the airport, look for a "Ricky Ricardo" sign, and I'll give you the "real" scoop!! You, my friend Ricky80, have some extremely large Cojones!! Why Ricky, do you expect everyone to just fawn all over you and the info you spew forward??

I, myself, me, speaking only for me, will take the analysis NB handed forth with her "$14.00 degree" and stand firm with that until I'm told otherwise by someone or some agency that identifies itself, rather than accepting yours Ricky, no offense....I think if you want to be taken seriously you need to #1 identify yourself and show us YOUR credentials, and #2 hand over your info to the FBI and let us know where that stands, until then I still say your spinnin your wheels here Ricky my man...
Rocker

Registered:
Posts: 156
Reply with quote  #119 
Ricky80,

Just a quick question or comment......

Tomorrow is July 4th. What's a Southern California boy (evidently) coming to No. California for? It just so happens to be the 40th anniversary of D Ferrin's murder in Vallejo and the site of TV's Task Force meeting (on the 4th or 5th). Any plans on attending the big event???

Rocker
Ricky80

Registered:
Posts: 53
Reply with quote  #120 
Rocker,

I lived in San Francisco for some time in the 80s and early 90s, I still have many friends there. I have been invited to the task force meeting, but may not have time, as I am flying east early on the 6th.

Tamoose,

You should probably take reading comprehension course. I didn't tell him to look for a Ricky Ricardo sign you twit, I told him to come with one so I would recognize him more easily.

Not sure why he should be afraid to come get a personal copy of my report. Hell he could bring his FBI contacts with him, that should be good for some laughs.

It is funny that you scream for my identity and credential, and then when I offer them to Dennis, you pipe up saying Dennis should not take the opportunity. Tell me what he should be afraid of in a busy airport in the middle of the day on one of the busiest travel days of the year?

I don't expect people to fawn over me, all I expect is open minded discussion; something I have found in real short supply here. Nor have I ever expected anyone to accept my analysis and opinion as gospel truths. In fact I presented them and asked for discussion and only Jon has actually made any attempt at that.

Rick
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply


Create your own forum with Website Toolbox!