Signature Analysis -- Donald Trump

[usmbguest5318]

By now, most folks have seen Trump's signature. It's been likened to lie-detector graphs, seismograph output, EKG results. Humorous as such comparisons be, they are little more than that. But what have graphologists to say about Trump's signature?

Well, this:

• Jan 2017 -- From Australia's news.com.au:
  • Michelle Dresbold, a graduate of the United States Secret Service’s Advanced Document Examination training program:
    • Trump’s signature has “absolutely no curves, only angles” meaning a lack of empathy or a soft nature. “Curves in handwriting show softness, nurturing and a maternal nature. Angles show a writer who is feeling angry, determined, fearful, competitive or challenged."
    • "When a script is completely devoid of curves, the writer lacks empathy and craves power, prestige and admiration."
      
    • “Besides the bigheadedness that shows in this script there is something else that is rather oversized — the ‘p’ in ‘Trump’. This large phallic symbol shouts, ‘Me … big hunk of man’.”
  • Tracey Trussell, of the British Institute of Graphologists:
    
    • “His signature transmits wild ambition, dynamism, bravery and fearlessness. He’s hungry for power and has both determination and stubbornness in spades.”
      
    • Trussell said that while the signature also indicated he is protective, especially of his family, the new president wasn’t much of a listener.
      
    • The long tall letters also indicate “he’s not quite as inflexible potentially as people think.”
• Feb 2017 -- From the Boston Globe
  • Sheila Lowe, a Ventura, Calif., handwriting analyst with more than 40 years of experience:
    
    • “It’s closed, it’s not open, it’s not soft at all and it looks like Himmler’s.”
      
      
      
      
      
      [Apparently, graphologists would say Trump is less like Hitler and more like Himmler. So, if you're one of those Trump-as-Hitleresque folks, you may want to shift to Himmleresque analogies and allegories. LOL]
      
      
    • “Handwriting changes over time in people who grow and change. . . . It’s like a road map of who you were. Trump’s handwriting has remained largely consistent for the last 20 years. He’s the same person he was all those years ago — an empty narcissist.”
      
    • “There’s absolutely no softness in his signature, it’s just mean and tough and rigid, and there is no room for anybody else. He’s not interested in anyone else’s opinion. It’s like a big fence -- a wall -- and he hides behind it. He’s afraid of being seen.”

Now, you'll notice that I placed this thread in the Garage subforum. I did because I don't particularly ascribe to graphologically driven personality prediction or analysis as being a rigorous enough discipline that one can credibly cite its findings in support of any specific assertions. I think at most, it's plausible that changes in one's signature/handwriting can indicate changes in one's personality, but I'm not at all convinced that graphology can accurately describe the nature and extent of the changes.

So, while I find graphologists' personality/psychological pronouncements entertaining, that's all I find them to be. This thread is thus created solely for entertainment value.

 

[Vastator]

By now, most folks have seen Trump's signature. It's been likened to lie-detector graphs, seismograph output, EKG results. Humorous as such comparisons be, they are little more than that. But what have graphologists to say about Trump's signature?

Well, this:

• Jan 2017 -- From Australia's news.com.au:
  • Michelle Dresbold, a graduate of the United States Secret Service’s Advanced Document Examination training program:
    • Trump’s signature has “absolutely no curves, only angles” meaning a lack of empathy or a soft nature. “Curves in handwriting show softness, nurturing and a maternal nature. Angles show a writer who is feeling angry, determined, fearful, competitive or challenged."
    • "When a script is completely devoid of curves, the writer lacks empathy and craves power, prestige and admiration."
      
    • “Besides the bigheadedness that shows in this script there is something else that is rather oversized — the ‘p’ in ‘Trump’. This large phallic symbol shouts, ‘Me … big hunk of man’.”
  • Tracey Trussell, of the British Institute of Graphologists:
    • “His signature transmits wild ambition, dynamism, bravery and fearlessness. He’s hungry for power and has both determination and stubbornness in spades.”
      
    • Trussell said that while the signature also indicated he is protective, especially of his family, the new president wasn’t much of a listener.
      
    • The long tall letters also indicate “he’s not quite as inflexible potentially as people think.”
• Feb 2017 -- From the Boston Globe
  • Sheila Lowe, a Ventura, Calif., handwriting analyst with more than 40 years of experience:
    • “It’s closed, it’s not open, it’s not soft at all and it looks like Himmler’s.”
      
      
      
      
      
      [Apparently, graphologists would say Trump is less like Hitler and more like Himmler. So, if you're one of those Trump-as-Hitleresque folks, you may want to shift to Himmleresque analogies and allegories. LOL]
      
      
    • “Handwriting changes over time in people who grow and change. . . . It’s like a road map of who you were. Trump’s handwriting has remained largely consistent for the last 20 years. He’s the same person he was all those years ago — an empty narcissist.”
      
    • “There’s absolutely no softness in his signature, it’s just mean and tough and rigid, and there is no room for anybody else. He’s not interested in anyone else’s opinion. It’s like a big fence -- a wall -- and he hides behind it. He’s afraid of being seen.”

Now, you'll notice that I placed this thread in the Garage subforum. I did because I don't particularly ascribe to graphologically driven personality prediction or analysis as being a rigorous enough discipline that one can credibly cite its findings in support of any specific assertions. I think at most, it's plausible that changes in one's signature/handwriting can indicate changes in one's personality, but I'm not at all convinced that graphology can accurately describe the nature and extent of the changes.

So, while I find graphologists' personality/psychological pronouncements entertaining, that's all I find them to be. This thread is thus created solely for entertainment value.

Shiiit! 4 out of 5 of my own signatures don't match... What a crock.

 

[usmbguest5318]

By now, most folks have seen Trump's signature. It's been likened to lie-detector graphs, seismograph output, EKG results. Humorous as such comparisons be, they are little more than that. But what have graphologists to say about Trump's signature?

Well, this:

• Jan 2017 -- From Australia's news.com.au:
  • Michelle Dresbold, a graduate of the United States Secret Service’s Advanced Document Examination training program:
    • Trump’s signature has “absolutely no curves, only angles” meaning a lack of empathy or a soft nature. “Curves in handwriting show softness, nurturing and a maternal nature. Angles show a writer who is feeling angry, determined, fearful, competitive or challenged."
    • "When a script is completely devoid of curves, the writer lacks empathy and craves power, prestige and admiration."
      
    • “Besides the bigheadedness that shows in this script there is something else that is rather oversized — the ‘p’ in ‘Trump’. This large phallic symbol shouts, ‘Me … big hunk of man’.”
  • Tracey Trussell, of the British Institute of Graphologists:
    • “His signature transmits wild ambition, dynamism, bravery and fearlessness. He’s hungry for power and has both determination and stubbornness in spades.”
      
    • Trussell said that while the signature also indicated he is protective, especially of his family, the new president wasn’t much of a listener.
      
    • The long tall letters also indicate “he’s not quite as inflexible potentially as people think.”
• Feb 2017 -- From the Boston Globe
  • Sheila Lowe, a Ventura, Calif., handwriting analyst with more than 40 years of experience:
    • “It’s closed, it’s not open, it’s not soft at all and it looks like Himmler’s.”
      
      
      
      
      
      [Apparently, graphologists would say Trump is less like Hitler and more like Himmler. So, if you're one of those Trump-as-Hitleresque folks, you may want to shift to Himmleresque analogies and allegories. LOL]
      
      
    • “Handwriting changes over time in people who grow and change. . . . It’s like a road map of who you were. Trump’s handwriting has remained largely consistent for the last 20 years. He’s the same person he was all those years ago — an empty narcissist.”
      
    • “There’s absolutely no softness in his signature, it’s just mean and tough and rigid, and there is no room for anybody else. He’s not interested in anyone else’s opinion. It’s like a big fence -- a wall -- and he hides behind it. He’s afraid of being seen.”

Now, you'll notice that I placed this thread in the Garage subforum. I did because I don't particularly ascribe to graphologically driven personality prediction or analysis as being a rigorous enough discipline that one can credibly cite its findings in support of any specific assertions. I think at most, it's plausible that changes in one's signature/handwriting can indicate changes in one's personality, but I'm not at all convinced that graphology can accurately describe the nature and extent of the changes.

So, while I find graphologists' personality/psychological pronouncements entertaining, that's all I find them to be. This thread is thus created solely for entertainment value.

Shiiit! 4 out of 5 of my own signatures don't match... What a crock.

Don't match what?

 

[Vastator]

By now, most folks have seen Trump's signature. It's been likened to lie-detector graphs, seismograph output, EKG results. Humorous as such comparisons be, they are little more than that. But what have graphologists to say about Trump's signature?

Well, this:

• Jan 2017 -- From Australia's news.com.au:
  • Michelle Dresbold, a graduate of the United States Secret Service’s Advanced Document Examination training program:
    • Trump’s signature has “absolutely no curves, only angles” meaning a lack of empathy or a soft nature. “Curves in handwriting show softness, nurturing and a maternal nature. Angles show a writer who is feeling angry, determined, fearful, competitive or challenged."
    • "When a script is completely devoid of curves, the writer lacks empathy and craves power, prestige and admiration."
      
    • “Besides the bigheadedness that shows in this script there is something else that is rather oversized — the ‘p’ in ‘Trump’. This large phallic symbol shouts, ‘Me … big hunk of man’.”
  • Tracey Trussell, of the British Institute of Graphologists:
    • “His signature transmits wild ambition, dynamism, bravery and fearlessness. He’s hungry for power and has both determination and stubbornness in spades.”
      
    • Trussell said that while the signature also indicated he is protective, especially of his family, the new president wasn’t much of a listener.
      
    • The long tall letters also indicate “he’s not quite as inflexible potentially as people think.”
• Feb 2017 -- From the Boston Globe
  • Sheila Lowe, a Ventura, Calif., handwriting analyst with more than 40 years of experience:
    • “It’s closed, it’s not open, it’s not soft at all and it looks like Himmler’s.”
      
      
      
      
      
      [Apparently, graphologists would say Trump is less like Hitler and more like Himmler. So, if you're one of those Trump-as-Hitleresque folks, you may want to shift to Himmleresque analogies and allegories. LOL]
      
      
    • “Handwriting changes over time in people who grow and change. . . . It’s like a road map of who you were. Trump’s handwriting has remained largely consistent for the last 20 years. He’s the same person he was all those years ago — an empty narcissist.”
      
    • “There’s absolutely no softness in his signature, it’s just mean and tough and rigid, and there is no room for anybody else. He’s not interested in anyone else’s opinion. It’s like a big fence -- a wall -- and he hides behind it. He’s afraid of being seen.”

Now, you'll notice that I placed this thread in the Garage subforum. I did because I don't particularly ascribe to graphologically driven personality prediction or analysis as being a rigorous enough discipline that one can credibly cite its findings in support of any specific assertions. I think at most, it's plausible that changes in one's signature/handwriting can indicate changes in one's personality, but I'm not at all convinced that graphology can accurately describe the nature and extent of the changes.

So, while I find graphologists' personality/psychological pronouncements entertaining, that's all I find them to be. This thread is thus created solely for entertainment value.

Shiiit! 4 out of 5 of my own signatures don't match... What a crock.

Don't match what?

Each other...

 

[usmbguest5318]

By now, most folks have seen Trump's signature. It's been likened to lie-detector graphs, seismograph output, EKG results. Humorous as such comparisons be, they are little more than that. But what have graphologists to say about Trump's signature?

Well, this:

• Jan 2017 -- From Australia's news.com.au:
  • Michelle Dresbold, a graduate of the United States Secret Service’s Advanced Document Examination training program:
    • Trump’s signature has “absolutely no curves, only angles” meaning a lack of empathy or a soft nature. “Curves in handwriting show softness, nurturing and a maternal nature. Angles show a writer who is feeling angry, determined, fearful, competitive or challenged."
    • "When a script is completely devoid of curves, the writer lacks empathy and craves power, prestige and admiration."
      
    • “Besides the bigheadedness that shows in this script there is something else that is rather oversized — the ‘p’ in ‘Trump’. This large phallic symbol shouts, ‘Me … big hunk of man’.”
  • Tracey Trussell, of the British Institute of Graphologists:
    • “His signature transmits wild ambition, dynamism, bravery and fearlessness. He’s hungry for power and has both determination and stubbornness in spades.”
      
    • Trussell said that while the signature also indicated he is protective, especially of his family, the new president wasn’t much of a listener.
      
    • The long tall letters also indicate “he’s not quite as inflexible potentially as people think.”
• Feb 2017 -- From the Boston Globe
  • Sheila Lowe, a Ventura, Calif., handwriting analyst with more than 40 years of experience:
    • “It’s closed, it’s not open, it’s not soft at all and it looks like Himmler’s.”
      
      
      
      
      
      [Apparently, graphologists would say Trump is less like Hitler and more like Himmler. So, if you're one of those Trump-as-Hitleresque folks, you may want to shift to Himmleresque analogies and allegories. LOL]
      
      
    • “Handwriting changes over time in people who grow and change. . . . It’s like a road map of who you were. Trump’s handwriting has remained largely consistent for the last 20 years. He’s the same person he was all those years ago — an empty narcissist.”
      
    • “There’s absolutely no softness in his signature, it’s just mean and tough and rigid, and there is no room for anybody else. He’s not interested in anyone else’s opinion. It’s like a big fence -- a wall -- and he hides behind it. He’s afraid of being seen.”

Now, you'll notice that I placed this thread in the Garage subforum. I did because I don't particularly ascribe to graphologically driven personality prediction or analysis as being a rigorous enough discipline that one can credibly cite its findings in support of any specific assertions. I think at most, it's plausible that changes in one's signature/handwriting can indicate changes in one's personality, but I'm not at all convinced that graphology can accurately describe the nature and extent of the changes.

So, while I find graphologists' personality/psychological pronouncements entertaining, that's all I find them to be. This thread is thus created solely for entertainment value.

Shiiit! 4 out of 5 of my own signatures don't match... What a crock.

Don't match what?

Each other...

Ah...TY for clarifying.

 

[Picaro]

We used a far older and more established science, reading bird entrails and waving a tree branch around, than graphology; the entrails say graphologists are idiots and anybody who runs around citing them need to be institutionalized before they harm themselves and others.

 

[Bleipriester]

By now, most folks have seen Trump's signature. It's been likened to lie-detector graphs, seismograph output, EKG results. Humorous as such comparisons be, they are little more than that. But what have graphologists to say about Trump's signature?

Well, this:

• Jan 2017 -- From Australia's news.com.au:
  • Michelle Dresbold, a graduate of the United States Secret Service’s Advanced Document Examination training program:
    • Trump’s signature has “absolutely no curves, only angles” meaning a lack of empathy or a soft nature. “Curves in handwriting show softness, nurturing and a maternal nature. Angles show a writer who is feeling angry, determined, fearful, competitive or challenged."
    • "When a script is completely devoid of curves, the writer lacks empathy and craves power, prestige and admiration."
      
    • “Besides the bigheadedness that shows in this script there is something else that is rather oversized — the ‘p’ in ‘Trump’. This large phallic symbol shouts, ‘Me … big hunk of man’.”
  • Tracey Trussell, of the British Institute of Graphologists:
    • “His signature transmits wild ambition, dynamism, bravery and fearlessness. He’s hungry for power and has both determination and stubbornness in spades.”
      
    • Trussell said that while the signature also indicated he is protective, especially of his family, the new president wasn’t much of a listener.
      
    • The long tall letters also indicate “he’s not quite as inflexible potentially as people think.”
• Feb 2017 -- From the Boston Globe
  • Sheila Lowe, a Ventura, Calif., handwriting analyst with more than 40 years of experience:
    • “It’s closed, it’s not open, it’s not soft at all and it looks like Himmler’s.”
      
      
      
      
      
      [Apparently, graphologists would say Trump is less like Hitler and more like Himmler. So, if you're one of those Trump-as-Hitleresque folks, you may want to shift to Himmleresque analogies and allegories. LOL]
      
      
    • “Handwriting changes over time in people who grow and change. . . . It’s like a road map of who you were. Trump’s handwriting has remained largely consistent for the last 20 years. He’s the same person he was all those years ago — an empty narcissist.”
      
    • “There’s absolutely no softness in his signature, it’s just mean and tough and rigid, and there is no room for anybody else. He’s not interested in anyone else’s opinion. It’s like a big fence -- a wall -- and he hides behind it. He’s afraid of being seen.”

Now, you'll notice that I placed this thread in the Garage subforum. I did because I don't particularly ascribe to graphologically driven personality prediction or analysis as being a rigorous enough discipline that one can credibly cite its findings in support of any specific assertions. I think at most, it's plausible that changes in one's signature/handwriting can indicate changes in one's personality, but I'm not at all convinced that graphology can accurately describe the nature and extent of the changes.

So, while I find graphologists' personality/psychological pronouncements entertaining, that's all I find them to be. This thread is thus created solely for entertainment value.

lol

The only thing one can extract from his signature is that he might just don´t know his name or how to write it. And it is not comparable to Himmler´s. Himmler´s features just as many "m" as his name includes, two, while there could be up to four in Trump´s (if we know in advance they are supposed to be letters).

 

[toobfreak]

So, while I find graphologists' personality/psychological pronouncements entertaining, that's all I find them to be. This thread is thus created solely for entertainment value.

And entertainment is all it is. Graphology is a junk "science," more akin to palm reading and tarot cards. Graphology is based on letter formations and not the individual strokes themselves and is not scientifically proven through clinical testing. The graphologist might read into your writing the sex of the writer or that he/she is happily married, etc., which is entirely impossible to tell such things from writing alone. Graphology is a GENERIC term for handwriting analysis which includes ALL systems, including the scientific ones. No science was used in any of the above "experts."

True, scientific handwriting analysis can determine such things as the mental processes of the writer, their drives, integrity, basic emotions, imagination, fears and defenses, and both basic and evaluated personality traits which combine to form their social image, as well as aptitudes and talents. From that you can predict traits and tendencies but NOT specific actions.

I know these people you list above and they should keep to their entertainment columns for Sunday housewives. What they state is pure rubbish spewed out there for political value (bias), and to sell newspapers. Himmler's writing is only superficially similar to the untrained eye, which means either they are full of it, or deliberately misleading others. If you want to know a little truth about what the discussed stroke structures really mean:

Trump’s signature has “absolutely no curves, only angles” meaning a lack of empathy or a soft nature. “Curves in handwriting show softness, nurturing and a maternal nature. Angles show a writer who is feeling angry, determined, fearful, competitive or challenged.

BULLSHIT. The angles point to a keen analytical mind which investigates and explores. Curves can show fluidity of thought up to a very yielding nature depending on degree. Neither have anything to do with maturity. What we can say here with good certainty though is that Trump does tend to be rigid and inflexible, and not easily changed.

"When a script is completely devoid of curves, the writer lacks empathy and craves power, prestige and admiration."

MORE BULLSHIT. Angular writing tends towards the keen thinker, an aid of determination and willpower. The heavy strokes suggest a sensual personality, one with a deeply lasting emotional memory with strong likes and dislikes. No connection to "craving power, prestige or admiration." These must be evaluated from many other complex relationships.

“Besides the bigheadedness that shows in this script there is something else that is rather oversized — the ‘p’ in ‘Trump’. This large phallic symbol shouts, ‘Me … big hunk of man’.”

TOTAL CROCK OF RUBBISH. If these people really wrote this crap, they ought to be sued then fired from their jobs. The p in Trump supports his exploratory mind to find things out for himself rather than merely accept the word of others, as well, as a need for physical action which supports a defiant nature. Trump is a man who cannot stand still and needs to constantly be moving and involved. Michelle is an idiot with a flair for sensationalism to sell her columns of rubbish to gullible readers.

“His signature transmits wild ambition, dynamism, bravery and fearlessness. He’s hungry for power and has both determination and stubbornness in spades.”

Slightly better in that the writing has drive, and force of will to see things through.

The long tall letters also indicate “he’s not quite as inflexible potentially as people think.”

Actually, more likely Trump sees the big picture, and the rather laterally compressed writing suggests a person afraid of change. Actually, if any of the quoted individuals above were really worth half what they claim, they would be the first to tell you that you cannot tell a great deal from a signature alone. Signatures often differ from one's normal writing and before one can draw global conclusions, you really need a larger sampling of writing----- a paragraph, a page, or several, preferably written over different times. But Trump's writing has many extraordinary and positive factors as well as some reductive ones; the fact that these three people say NOTHING of his positive qualities while making up a bunch of crap about him being akin to one of Hitler's men, power mad and all, pretty much says everything about where the quality of their "reports" are, and where they belong---- a trash can.

 

[Lewdog]

Ok your logic still doesn't make sense to put it in the Garage forum.

What does Trump's signature have to do with vehicles?

 

[usmbguest5318]

By now, most folks have seen Trump's signature. It's been likened to lie-detector graphs, seismograph output, EKG results. Humorous as such comparisons be, they are little more than that. But what have graphologists to say about Trump's signature?

Well, this:

• Jan 2017 -- From Australia's news.com.au:
  • Michelle Dresbold, a graduate of the United States Secret Service’s Advanced Document Examination training program:
    • Trump’s signature has “absolutely no curves, only angles” meaning a lack of empathy or a soft nature. “Curves in handwriting show softness, nurturing and a maternal nature. Angles show a writer who is feeling angry, determined, fearful, competitive or challenged."
    • "When a script is completely devoid of curves, the writer lacks empathy and craves power, prestige and admiration."
      
    • “Besides the bigheadedness that shows in this script there is something else that is rather oversized — the ‘p’ in ‘Trump’. This large phallic symbol shouts, ‘Me … big hunk of man’.”
  • Tracey Trussell, of the British Institute of Graphologists:
    • “His signature transmits wild ambition, dynamism, bravery and fearlessness. He’s hungry for power and has both determination and stubbornness in spades.”
      
    • Trussell said that while the signature also indicated he is protective, especially of his family, the new president wasn’t much of a listener.
      
    • The long tall letters also indicate “he’s not quite as inflexible potentially as people think.”
• Feb 2017 -- From the Boston Globe
  • Sheila Lowe, a Ventura, Calif., handwriting analyst with more than 40 years of experience:
    • “It’s closed, it’s not open, it’s not soft at all and it looks like Himmler’s.”
      
      
      
      
      
      [Apparently, graphologists would say Trump is less like Hitler and more like Himmler. So, if you're one of those Trump-as-Hitleresque folks, you may want to shift to Himmleresque analogies and allegories. LOL]
      
      
    • “Handwriting changes over time in people who grow and change. . . . It’s like a road map of who you were. Trump’s handwriting has remained largely consistent for the last 20 years. He’s the same person he was all those years ago — an empty narcissist.”
      
    • “There’s absolutely no softness in his signature, it’s just mean and tough and rigid, and there is no room for anybody else. He’s not interested in anyone else’s opinion. It’s like a big fence -- a wall -- and he hides behind it. He’s afraid of being seen.”

Now, you'll notice that I placed this thread in the Garage subforum. I did because I don't particularly ascribe to graphologically driven personality prediction or analysis as being a rigorous enough discipline that one can credibly cite its findings in support of any specific assertions. I think at most, it's plausible that changes in one's signature/handwriting can indicate changes in one's personality, but I'm not at all convinced that graphology can accurately describe the nature and extent of the changes.

So, while I find graphologists' personality/psychological pronouncements entertaining, that's all I find them to be. This thread is thus created solely for entertainment value.

lol

The only thing one can extract from his signature is that he might just don´t know his name or how to write it. And it is not comparable to Himmler´s. Himmler´s features just as many "m" as his name includes, two, while there could be up to four in Trump´s (if we know in advance they are supposed to be letters).

I have to agree with you in one way: there's nothing in Trump's sig that looks like any letter that has curves. By my reckoning, it's a series of undotted eyes.

 

[usmbguest5318]

So, while I find graphologists' personality/psychological pronouncements entertaining, that's all I find them to be. This thread is thus created solely for entertainment value.

And entertainment is all it is. Graphology is a junk "science," more akin to palm reading and tarot cards. Graphology is based on letter formations and not the individual strokes themselves and is not scientifically proven through clinical testing. The graphologist might read into your writing the sex of the writer or that he/she is happily married, etc., which is entirely impossible to tell such things from writing alone. Graphology is a GENERIC term for handwriting analysis which includes ALL systems, including the scientific ones. No science was used in any of the above "experts."

True, scientific handwriting analysis can determine such things as the mental processes of the writer, their drives, integrity, basic emotions, imagination, fears and defenses, and both basic and evaluated personality traits which combine to form their social image, as well as aptitudes and talents. From that you can predict traits and tendencies but NOT specific actions.

I know these people you list above and they should keep to their entertainment columns for Sunday housewives. What they state is pure rubbish spewed out there for political value (bias), and to sell newspapers. Himmler's writing is only superficially similar to the untrained eye, which means either they are full of it, or deliberately misleading others. If you want to know a little truth about what the discussed stroke structures really mean:

Trump’s signature has “absolutely no curves, only angles” meaning a lack of empathy or a soft nature. “Curves in handwriting show softness, nurturing and a maternal nature. Angles show a writer who is feeling angry, determined, fearful, competitive or challenged.

BULLSHIT. The angles point to a keen analytical mind which investigates and explores. Curves can show fluidity of thought up to a very yielding nature depending on degree. Neither have anything to do with maturity. What we can say here with good certainty though is that Trump does tend to be rigid and inflexible, and not easily changed.

"When a script is completely devoid of curves, the writer lacks empathy and craves power, prestige and admiration."

MORE BULLSHIT. Angular writing tends towards the keen thinker, an aid of determination and willpower. The heavy strokes suggest a sensual personality, one with a deeply lasting emotional memory with strong likes and dislikes. No connection to "craving power, prestige or admiration." These must be evaluated from many other complex relationships.

“Besides the bigheadedness that shows in this script there is something else that is rather oversized — the ‘p’ in ‘Trump’. This large phallic symbol shouts, ‘Me … big hunk of man’.”

TOTAL CROCK OF RUBBISH. If these people really wrote this crap, they ought to be sued then fired from their jobs. The p in Trump supports his exploratory mind to find things out for himself rather than merely accept the word of others, as well, as a need for physical action which supports a defiant nature. Trump is a man who cannot stand still and needs to constantly be moving and involved. Michelle is an idiot with a flair for sensationalism to sell her columns of rubbish to gullible readers.

“His signature transmits wild ambition, dynamism, bravery and fearlessness. He’s hungry for power and has both determination and stubbornness in spades.”

Slightly better in that the writing has drive, and force of will to see things through.

The long tall letters also indicate “he’s not quite as inflexible potentially as people think.”

Actually, more likely Trump sees the big picture, and the rather laterally compressed writing suggests a person afraid of change. Actually, if any of the quoted individuals above were really worth half what they claim, they would be the first to tell you that you cannot tell a great deal from a signature alone. Signatures often differ from one's normal writing and before one can draw global conclusions, you really need a larger sampling of writing----- a paragraph, a page, or several, preferably written over different times. But Trump's writing has many extraordinary and positive factors as well as some reductive ones; the fact that these three people say NOTHING of his positive qualities while making up a bunch of crap about him being akin to one of Hitler's men, power mad and all, pretty much says everything about where the quality of their "reports" are, and where they belong---- a trash can.

And entertainment is all it is.

Rrriight....that is what I wrote in my OP....

I find graphologists' personality/psychological pronouncements entertaining, that's all I find them to be. This thread is thus created solely for entertainment value.

I also attested to what strikes me as the dubious nature of graphology.

I don't particularly ascribe to graphologically driven personality prediction or analysis as being a rigorous enough discipline that one can credibly cite its findings in support of any specific assertions.

Did you seriously post all that other stuff to illustrate the fervency with which you agree with me? I write what folks here consider long posts, but I don't do that just to say "I agree with you." LOL And folks have the nerve to call me verbose. LOL

Mind you, I'd almost understand your posting the content you did were you refuting another member's claims or expressed belief, but the only person you quoted is me. "Almost" because it appears the only source for your remarks is you; thus as slim be the credibility of graphologists, slimmer still are your direct refutations of their pronouncements. Put another way, I don't particularly or at all, really, put credence in what graphologists have to say about folks' personalities, but your analysis and conclusions of the same nature are, insofar as you presumably are not a graphologist, even less credible. That, frankly, is hard to achieve given that I hold graphology/graphologists' pronouncements in such low regard to begin with.

 

[hjmick]

Now, you'll notice that I placed this thread in the Garage subforum. I did because I don't particularly ascribe to graphologically driven personality prediction or analysis as being a rigorous enough discipline that one can credibly cite its findings in support of any specific assertions.

Riiight... Then why bother?

I think at most, it's plausible that changes in one's signature/handwriting can indicate changes in one's personality, but I'm not at all convinced that graphology can accurately describe the nature and extent of the changes.

Riiight... Then why bother?

So, while I find graphologists' personality/psychological pronouncements entertaining, that's all I find them to be. This thread is thus created solely for entertainment value.

Riiight... Then why bother?


I await with great anticipation your thread on phrenologists' thoughts about the shape and size of Trump's head...

 

[toobfreak]

...that is what I wrote....I also attested to what strikes me .....Did you seriously post all that other stuff to illustrate the fervency with which you agree with me? I write what folks here consider ....but the only person you quoted is me..

WOW. What a horse's ass. Now I understand why you love Obama so much! You and him have one thing in common . . . . you both only think about and talk about and see everything in relation to yourselves. While you had essentially NOTHING to say on the matter of the topic, you took my every comment as only agreeing with you? You didn't even read what I wrote! And while I specifically quoted and addressed the three "experts" in question no less than FIVE times, in BOLD PRINT, you still only saw that I quoted you? Did I even quote you once?

I took the trouble to embellish your otherwise nowhere thread partly to give it a little substance with both some real critiquing of the topic, as well as to partly try to dispel much of the rubbish that leads many people like you to wrongly think there is nothing to scientific handwriting analysis out of self-interest, all the while giving the reader a little insight into the real Donald Trump, freely, thinking others might find the enlightenment illuminating, and while you haven't a CLUE who I am or what I really do in life, have the audacity to think you can judge my credibility? Yet you will turn right around and paste some crap from some hack partisan website.

WOW. I guess now we know why you can count the actual, quality, regular substantive posters on this forum on one hand. And two of those five people are moderators.

 

[usmbguest5318]

...that is what I wrote....I also attested to what strikes me .....Did you seriously post all that other stuff to illustrate the fervency with which you agree with me? I write what folks here consider ....but the only person you quoted is me..

WOW. What a horse's ass. Now I understand why you love Obama so much! You and him have one thing in common . . . . you both only think about and talk about and see everything in relation to yourselves. While you had essentially NOTHING to say on the matter of the topic, you took my every comment as only agreeing with you? You didn't even read what I wrote! And while I specifically quoted and addressed the three "experts" in question no less than FIVE times, in BOLD PRINT, you still only saw that I quoted you? Did I even quote you once?

I took the trouble to embellish your otherwise nowhere thread partly to give it a little substance with both some real critiquing of the topic, as well as to partly try to dispel much of the rubbish that leads many people like you to wrongly think there is nothing to scientific handwriting analysis out of self-interest, all the while giving the reader a little insight into the real Donald Trump, freely, thinking others might find the enlightenment illuminating, and while you haven't a CLUE who I am or what I really do in life, have the audacity to think you can judge my credibility? Yet you will turn right around and paste some crap from some hack partisan website.

WOW. I guess now we know why you can count the actual, quality, regular substantive posters on this forum on one hand. And two of those five people are moderators.

I took the trouble to embellish your otherwise nowhere thread

I took the trouble to embellish your otherwise nowhere thread partly to give it a little substance with both some real critiquing of the topic, as well as to partly try to dispel much of the rubbish that leads many people like you to wrongly think there is nothing to scientific handwriting analysis out of self-interest

I took the trouble to embellish your otherwise nowhere thread

Notwithstanding the "otherwise nowhere thread" remark, I was about to apologize to you for misconstruing your intent and purposes....

No science was used in any of the above "experts."...If you want to know a little truth about what the discussed stroke structures really mean...[You follow that remark with nothing other than what appears to be your own pronouncements on what may be inferred from handwriting, and specifically Trump's.]

...Then I read the above passage, and chose not to because the above passage makes clear that you consider as non-expert individuals such as Michelle Dresbold, who is a graduate of the United States Secret Service’s Advanced Document Examination training program (click on the link in the OP), or Tracey Trussell, or Sheila Lowe, who is President of the American Handwriting Foundation, and yet you've provided no input from anyone whom readers might construe as more credible on the matter. Are you a published (scientific/forensic or otherwise) and/or world renowned handwriting analyst, or a certified forensic document examiner, and thereby qualified to contest/refute their assessments?

Did I even quote you once?

As a matter of fact, you did. Your post begins with a quote of my remarks. It's in the green box that has the label "Xelor said."

 

[miketx]

Another nothing burger.

 

[toobfreak]

...Then I read the above passage, and chose not to because the above passage makes clear that you consider as non-expert individuals such as Michelle Dresbold, who is a graduate of the United States Secret Service’s Advanced Document Examination training program (click on the link in the OP), or Tracey Trussell, or Sheila Lowe, who is President of the American Handwriting Foundation, and yet you've provided no input from anyone whom readers might construe as more credible on the matter. Are you a published (scientific/forensic or otherwise) and/or world renowned handwriting analyst, or a certified forensic document examiner, and thereby qualified to contest/refute their assessments?

Look, if you believe everything you read on the web, that is your problem. You yourself said that you took this stuff tongue in cheek, then turn around and expound these people's irrefutable credentials? If the Secret Service is coming up with the kind of half-baked CRAP that was concluded about Trump here, then WE ARE ALL IN TROUBLE. For one thing, you and the link you included confuses / mixes graphology with FDE (forensic document examination). FDE is serious stuff NOT to be confused with graphology. These are two entirely different fields. The FBI teaches FDE to its agents (a few, not all) as a 2 year apprenticeship which itself has limited scope of usefulness before they are allowed to work independently in the field, and field agents only assist other agencies or private cases after they RETIRE and are frequently still found wanting in training and skill and are often proven wrong in court as a result. Being a graphologist is a SERIOUS liability to your credibility as a FDE.

I don't know the lady who was in England but am long familiar with the other two. I wouldn't give you 2¢ for any of the published articles I've read by either of them over the years, have refuted a couple by Dresbold that came my way via local paper, and strongly disagree with the statements you quoted from them. Like I said, graphology is for the most part, BUNK, you can get a room full of them together and they cannot even agree among themselves with the many "systems" that are out there. I know many document examiners including the fellow who tested Obama's certificate of live birth for authenticity plus a number of credible scientific handwriting experts, and count the two women you included here as among the most crass, commercial, mainstream hacks that can be found. Which is why their names are well known. The type of stuff exemplified in your original post may be the kind of "Enquirer" garbage that makes them a living, gives them "a name" and keeps readers reading the scandal column, but it is also the reason why graphology has lost all institutional support as a credible science. And yes, I am a professional in the field of handwriting and document forensics and the next time I am on a conference bridge with about 30 of the nation's top experts in the field as I often am, I will pass on this stuff to my mentor, she could probably use a good laugh.

 

[usmbguest5318]

...Then I read the above passage, and chose not to because the above passage makes clear that you consider as non-expert individuals such as Michelle Dresbold, who is a graduate of the United States Secret Service’s Advanced Document Examination training program (click on the link in the OP), or Tracey Trussell, or Sheila Lowe, who is President of the American Handwriting Foundation, and yet you've provided no input from anyone whom readers might construe as more credible on the matter. Are you a published (scientific/forensic or otherwise) and/or world renowned handwriting analyst, or a certified forensic document examiner, and thereby qualified to contest/refute their assessments?

Look, if you believe everything you read on the web, that is your problem. You yourself said that you took this stuff tongue in cheek, then turn around and expound these people's irrefutable credentials? If the Secret Service is coming up with the kind of half-baked CRAP that was concluded about Trump here, then WE ARE ALL IN TROUBLE. For one thing, you and the link you included confuses / mixes graphology with FDE (forensic document examination). FDE is serious stuff NOT to be confused with graphology. These are two entirely different fields. The FBI teaches FDE to its agents (a few, not all) as a 2 year apprenticeship which itself has limited scope of usefulness before they are allowed to work independently in the field, and field agents only assist other agencies or private cases after they RETIRE and are frequently still found wanting in training and skill and are often proven wrong in court as a result. Being a graphologist is a SERIOUS liability to your credibility as a FDE.

I don't know the fellow who was in England but am long familiar with the two ladies. I wouldn't give you 2¢ for any of the published articles I've read by either of them over the years, have refuted a couple by Dresbold that came my way via local paper, and strongly disagree with the statements you quoted from them. Like I said, graphology is for the most part, BUNK, you can get a room full of them together and they cannot even agree among themselves with the many "systems" that are out there. I know many document examiners including the fellow who tested Obama's certificate of live birth for authenticity plus a number of credible scientific handwriting experts, and count the two women you included here as among the most crass, commercial, mainstream hacks that can be found. Which is why their names are well known. The type of stuff exemplified in your original post may be the kind of "Enquirer" garbage that makes them a living, gives them "a name" and keeps readers reading the scandal column, but it is also the reason why graphology has lost all institutional support as a credible science. And yes, I am a professional in the field of handwriting and document forensics and the next time I am on a conference bridge with about 30 of the nation's top experts in the field as I often am, I will pass on this stuff to my mentor, she could probably use a good laugh.

You yourself said that you took this stuff tongue in cheek, then turn around and expound these people's irrefutable credentials?

I do take it as tongue in cheek.

My remark about credentials is solely because you endeavored to pontificate in refutation of remarks made by people who are as expert on the matter as one can be. It's one thing to take a matter as tongue in cheek; however, if another doesn't, it's becomes incumbent on them, when making their pronouncements about it, to do so with a high degree of credibility. You obviously don't take the matter as tongue in cheek:

I took the trouble to ... partly try to dispel much of the rubbish that leads many people like you to wrongly think there is nothing to scientific handwriting analysis

Insofar as you don't, you bear the onus of having to be credible. That you do is why I asked you the question I did about your credentials as a handwriting analyst. If you tell me that you are, for example, a certified forensic document examiner or that you are a member in good standing with the American Handwriting Foundation or that you graduated from the United States Secret Service’s Advanced Document Examination training program or have some other objectively understood graphological analysis credentials, I am willing to count your pronouncements as legitimate alternative interpretations from those made by the individuals I cited in my OP.

That said, my thinking of something as tongue in cheek doesn't mean that the standards of cogent discourse are for such a matter suspended when discussing them. To wit, while I am dubious about the rigor and validity of handwriting analysis pronouncements made by the experts I cited and thus give them little credence, inasmuch as you't not attested to being a handwriting expert, I give no credence to your handwriting analysis pronouncements in refutation of those made by experts in that discipline.

 

[Muhammed]

My signature has evolved to make it more difficult to forge.

 

[toobfreak]

in refutation of remarks made by people who are as expert on the matter as one can be.

Look, I didn't mean to come back to this now and haven't the time, but before signing off I'll just say that the three people you cite from the article are no where near what I would consider "as expert on the matter as one can be!" How did you determine that? Because THEY make the claim so? Look, I actually just a bit ago for the first time read the entire original article and when I have the chance, I will pick it apart for all the lies, distortions, nonsense and contradictions it contains. But not tonight.

I asked you the question I did about your credentials as a handwriting analyst. If you tell me that you are, for example, a certified forensic document examiner.....

You're doing it again, you are confusing graphology with legitimate forensic science. But yes, I am board certified and meet all SWGDOC requirements. By the way, the ABFDE does NOT set the standard for what a Certified Examiner is, that is only THEIR standard to be a member of THEIR organization. As an aside, another organization called SAFE Home - SAFE Forensics has trademarked the term you quote so technically, ABFDE is in trademark violation.

inasmuch as you't not attested to being a handwriting expert, I give no credence to your handwriting analysis pronouncements in refutation of those made by experts in that discipline.

THANKS! You just made my life much easier! Despite the fact that I AM a handwriting expert, one of the most rigorous and careful in the world, published in the field, have said as much, have passed hundreds of proficiency tests and could tear apart and was prepared to dissect the News.com.au article as the sham it is piece by piece top to bottom in a way that any reader could follow and see for themselves the many inconsistencies and errors, maintain that handwriting analysis can be VERY accurate when done scientifically, just that what these three women put out on the public arena is NOT scientific nor accurate (read: garbage), and in fact, wrote up a small analysis of my own on Donald Trump's signature RIGHT HERE on USMB some months ago (you should have read it), and have already invested at least as much detail on the man as I would normally get paid $160 for just for the elucidation of this thread so that readers would have a chance to get some real insight into Trump for a change away from all the horsecrap normally thrown about here and not the politically and personally-biased garbage put forth in that article, and for that effort have not even so much as gotten a "thanks" for my contribution, but mostly just insults, all the while dancing a tightrope in not violating my privacy and personal life on this forum by giving away any personally identifiable information and especially, not compromising or harming my professional credibility as a private examiner with all of this "graphology" nonsense, you've just talked me out of wasting any further time on the matter which probably no one would read anyway, just as few people have shown interest in this thread as they showed little/no interest in my original comments months back (vicious unsupported propaganda is so much more enjoyable to read than facts, aren't they) because, when push comes to shove, you, like all too many people on this board, while you TALK a good game apparently haven't the perceptiveness to know when someone speaks with an intuitive ring of truth, and since only a fool would put their name, address, website, professional affiliations and such out in public on a social forum such as this full of weirdos and idiots just to certify that they do indeed have DIRECT authority as a source of info on a given matter, you have shown again why NO ONE QUOTES THEMSELVES HERE as having firsthand knowledge and expertise in any topic, lest they merely get disbelieved and ridiculed, so the USMB shall as always carry forward on endless tedious topics of flailing, wild propaganda with hyperlinks to Breitbart, Fox and New York Times as the indispensable citing "authorities." After all, they are world renown publications with degrees in journalism! They MUST be telling the truth!

 

[usmbguest5318]

in refutation of remarks made by people who are as expert on the matter as one can be.

Look, I didn't mean to come back to this now and haven't the time, but before signing off I'll just say that the three people you cite from the article are no where near what I would consider "as expert on the matter as one can be!" How did you determine that? Because THEY make the claim so? Look, I actually just a bit ago for the first time read the entire original article and when I have the chance, I will pick it apart for all the lies, distortions, nonsense and contradictions it contains. But not tonight.

I asked you the question I did about your credentials as a handwriting analyst. If you tell me that you are, for example, a certified forensic document examiner.....

You're doing it again, you are confusing graphology with legitimate forensic science. But yes, I am board certified and meet all SWGDOC requirements. By the way, the ABFDE does NOT set the standard for what a Certified Examiner is, that is only THEIR standard to be a member of THEIR organization. As an aside, another organization called SAFE Home - SAFE Forensics has trademarked the term you quote so technically, ABFDE is in trademark violation.

inasmuch as you't not attested to being a handwriting expert, I give no credence to your handwriting analysis pronouncements in refutation of those made by experts in that discipline.

THANKS! You just made my life much easier! Despite the fact that I AM a handwriting expert, one of the most rigorous and careful in the world, published in the field, have said as much, have passed hundreds of proficiency tests and could tear apart and was prepared to dissect the News.com.au article as the sham it is piece by piece top to bottom in a way that any reader could follow and see for themselves the many inconsistencies and errors, maintain that handwriting analysis can be VERY accurate when done scientifically, just that what these three women put out on the public arena is NOT scientific nor accurate (read: garbage), and in fact, wrote up a small analysis of my own on Donald Trump's signature RIGHT HERE on USMB some months ago (you should have read it), and have already invested at least as much detail on the man as I would normally get paid $160 for just for the elucidation of this thread so that readers would have a chance to get some real insight into Trump for a change away from all the horsecrap normally thrown about here and not the politically and personally-biased garbage put forth in that article, and for that effort have not even so much as gotten a "thanks" for my contribution, but mostly just insults, all the while dancing a tightrope in not violating my privacy and personal life on this forum by giving away any personally identifiable information and especially, not compromising or harming my professional credibility as a private examiner with all of this "graphology" nonsense, you've just talked me out of wasting any further time on the matter which probably no one would read anyway, just as few people have shown interest in this thread as they showed little/no interest in my original comments months back (vicious unsupported propaganda is so much more enjoyable to read than facts, aren't they) because, when push comes to shove, you, like all too many people on this board, while you TALK a good game apparently haven't the perceptiveness to know when someone speaks with an intuitive ring of truth, and since only a fool would put their name, address, website, professional affiliations and such out in public on a social forum such as this full of weirdos and idiots just to certify that they do indeed have DIRECT authority as a source of info on a given matter, you have shown again why NO ONE QUOTES THEMSELVES HERE as having firsthand knowledge and expertise in any topic, lest they merely get disbelieved and ridiculed, so the USMB shall as always carry forward on endless tedious topics of flailing, wild propaganda with hyperlinks to Breitbart, Fox and New York Times as the indispensable citing "authorities." After all, they are world renown publications with degrees in journalism! They MUST be telling the truth!

You're doing it again, you are confusing graphology with legitimate forensic science.

Actually, I'm not, nor have I. I created a thread about graphological assessments of Trump's signature, not to discuss forensic handwriting analysis of his signature. In my OP are found the following remarks:

But what have graphologists to say about Trump's signature?

you'll notice that I placed this thread in the Garage subforum. I did because I don't particularly ascribe to graphologically driven personality prediction or analysis as being a rigorous enough discipline that one can credibly cite its findings in support of any specific assertions.

it's plausible that changes in one's signature/handwriting can indicate changes in one's personality, but I'm not at all convinced that graphology can accurately describe the nature and extent of the changes.

while I find graphologists' personality/psychological pronouncements entertaining, that's all I find them to be. This thread is thus created solely for entertainment value.

Insofar as you are among "the most rigorous and careful [handwriting analysts] in the world, published in the field," I'd think you'd understand and realize the contextual difference between the nature of discussion I posted in my OP and that of forensic handwriting analysis and therefore not explicitly impute to my remarks something that was never part of of them. You recognized that I posted this thread as a tongue in cheek discussion, yet you've accused me of conflating two things, one of which I never explicitly or implicity referenced. Hell, you wrote:

Graphology is a junk "science," more akin to palm reading and tarot cards.

Graphology is the only term I used to describe the nature of the findings I included in my OP. There is no basis for you or anyone else to have inferred that I wrote "graphology" (or forms of it) meaning it to be synonymous with "forensic handwriting analysis." Furthermore, why you bothered to inform me (you did quote me, despite having asserted that you did not, thereby directing your remarks specifically to me, regardless of others' being able to read them) that graphology is "junk science" when one with but the most meager reading comprehension skills would infer from my having explicitly stated this thread is for entertainment purposes that I was already aware of that, is beyond me. Might it be because while you are expert at analyzing handwriting, you're subpar at comprehending the words and sentences others write?

I was quite clear in expressing my intent/expectation that this be nothing more than an entertainment thread. It is, thus, you, with your imputation of it having anything to do with forensic handwriting analysis, who is confused, and what you're confused about it the topic of the thread/my OP.