Signature Analysis -- Donald Trump

[usmbguest5318]

Off Topic:

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!

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.

To be honest, it's my understanding that no organization other than ASTM International is the one that promulgates, among other things, broadly accepted standards pertaining to nature, extent and limitations of forensic handwriting analysis. Reading their standards, one finds this:​

• Standard Guide for Scope of Work of Forensic Document Examiners. (See also: Handwriting Examination: Meeting the Challenges of Science and the Law)

Reading that document, I see the scope of what forensic handwriting analysts do and can opine upon is as follows:

The forensic document examiner makes scientific examinations, comparisons, and analyses of documents in order to:

• establish genuineness or non-genuineness, or to expose forgery, or to reveal alterations, additions, or deletions,
• identify or eliminate persons as the source of handwriting,
• identify or eliminate the source of typewriting or other impression, marks, or relative evidence, and
• write reports or give testimony, when needed, to aid the users of the examiner’s services in understanding the examiner’s findings.

In that scope I see nothing having to do with forensically using handwriting as a basis for inferring any sort of personality/psychological traits a writer may or may not have. Perhaps there is a different standards document that allows auguring for a writer having "this or that" personality trait due to his/her handwriting having some discrete or assemblage of characteristics. If so, by all means, insofar as you are "one of the most rigorous and careful [handwriting analysts] in the world [and are] published in the field," provide a link to it, or upload it. I'd be happy to read it.​

 

[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!

Despite the fact that I AM a handwriting expert, ....and have said as much

Where? On Proxima Centauri b?

• Search Results for Query: handwriting | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
• Search Results for Query: signature | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Above are the only instances I can on USMB find of your even using the words "handwriting" or "signature."

 

[toobfreak]

<snip>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." <snip>In that scope I see nothing having to do with forensically using handwriting as a basis for inferring any sort of personality/psychological traits a writer may or may not have.

You know Xelor, you TALK a lot, and go out of your way to give others the impression of a well-bred intellectual, but you seldom say much and you repeatedly skip over key points. Mostly diversionary tactics. Here you had a golden opportunity to really LEARN something, but instead, you've changed the topic away from Trump and his signature to me and a couple of investigative disciplines you know less than nothing about. You obsess over minutiae and tedium---- if you don't already work at some government agency or bureaucracy, you OUGHT TO because I can see you would be good at taking a $10,000 project of 6 weeks and turning into a $260,000 project taking 5 years.

You say so many things that are just PLAIN WRONG and off at a tangent that it would be impossible to address them all. Why would you think ASTM would describe graphology when graphology (a generic term covering all aspects of handwriting analysis and usually taken to mean that aimed towards divulging personality) is not even officially recognized as a science discipline? Why would you post on a topic you have no belief in the efficacy of then turn around and defend those whom are published for practicing it? And why would you think a person who actually steps forward to say they know the subject matter intimately and can shed some light on it to dispel some of the bogus claims which makes it seem so discredited and offer some clinically-derived facts about both the practice and what it says about the President, a person who has already breached the subject on this board on at least 2 or 3 other occasions, despite your failed search, and assume they are doing all this just making it up? Maybe you think I just need the attention of one or two strangers?

I wanted to get on a conference bridge last night to ask my teacher, one of the most noted people in the nation on FDE who also knows graphology what she thought about Michele Dresbold, whether there really is a Secret Service Advanced Training Program (which means Dresbold once worked for the Secret Service), and why a person capable of making $200-$300 and more an hour doing professional legal work is instead spending most of her time out stumping to sell a book? A book which flies in the face of forensic examination and which dabbling in will be the first thing an opposing attorney will attack you on to discredit you on your qualifications as an expert forensic examiner.

But I don't sleep well and am going into the hospital in a few days to have surgery and fell asleep after dinner, but when I get the chance, I do want to ask about these things! Because I've never read a thing written by Dresbold that wasn't absolute rubbish. If I find anything out I'll let you know.

But here you actually had a golden opportunity to create perhaps one of the all-time most important threads ever, and you blew it. For all of your supposed intellect, you missed so many obvious golden opportunities to dissect the claims of your article, not to mention the thousands of hours spent obsessing over Trump-this and Trump-that on this board with mostly spin and explore some hard facts about the guy to really know how the man ticks? Instead, a quickly dropped thread of barely 20 posts in an obscure corner of USMB. But I will leave you this: yesterday I took the trouble to capture a couple of pictures out of some old training manuals on the subject from an organization actually licensed to give accreditation in scientific handwriting analysis and just wanted to contrast this:

Now consider what Dresbold and the article say:

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

Not one word in there about mental processes, comprehension or analytical thinking! In fact, not a single kind word about Trump. The entire point of the article was to drum up business for these people and to sell cheesy books that some housewives will buy.

But what I found most disappointing was your apparent lack of observation or disinterest in the fact that THE VERY FIRST THING SAID in the material you quote is that there are “absolutely no curves, only angles”. This from one of the TOP experts, trained through and through by the Secret Service no less, so I took the trouble to capture a couple of the signatures used to point out one small fact:

TRUMP'S WRITING IS FULL OF CURVED STROKES!

And I was being very generous in not picking others because they were less than rigid, ruler straight. But I assure you, all those in red and some of the others are CURVED STROKES, and the first thing Dresbold decreed in her pronouncements was that there was absolutely no curves, only angles. Curiously, some of the most brilliant and gifted people who have ever lived, write with no curves, only angles. And none of them are Nazi criminals.

Likewise with Clinton's signature at the bottom of the article, but that is another story. The entire diatribe on Hillary was based on only ONE THING: the SLANT of her writing! And mostly positive comments derived from it. Curiously, her and Trump's slant are very similar. Yet one is a remarkable personality, the other a misogynistic egotistical power maniac. Is it any wonder why people think true handwriting analysis is a load of bilge? And yet these people are challenged on their claims so little. Oh well, you never really cared enough about the topic to really find out, its a wonder you posted the article in the first place. OH WAIT! Of course---- ---- it was a total slam on Trump. Had it had any positive angle to it about Trump, it never would have earned your notice.

 

[usmbguest5318]

<snip>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." <snip>In that scope I see nothing having to do with forensically using handwriting as a basis for inferring any sort of personality/psychological traits a writer may or may not have.

You know Xelor, you TALK a lot, and go out of your way to give others the impression of a well-bred intellectual, but you seldom say much and you repeatedly skip over key points. Mostly diversionary tactics. Here you had a golden opportunity to really LEARN something, but instead, you've changed the topic away from Trump and his signature to me and a couple of investigative disciplines you know less than nothing about. You obsess over minutiae and tedium---- if you don't already work at some government agency or bureaucracy, you OUGHT TO because I can see you would be good at taking a $10,000 project of 6 weeks and turning into a $260,000 project taking 5 years.

You say so many things that are just PLAIN WRONG and off at a tangent that it would be impossible to address them all. Why would you think ASTM would describe graphology when graphology (a generic term covering all aspects of handwriting analysis and usually taken to mean that aimed towards divulging personality) is not even officially recognized as a science discipline? Why would you post on a topic you have no belief in the efficacy of then turn around and defend those whom are published for practicing it? And why would you think a person who actually steps forward to say they know the subject matter intimately and can shed some light on it to dispel some of the bogus claims which makes it seem so discredited and offer some clinically-derived facts about both the practice and what it says about the President, a person who has already breached the subject on this board on at least 2 or 3 other occasions, despite your failed search, and assume they are doing all this just making it up? Maybe you think I just need the attention of one or two strangers?

I wanted to get on a conference bridge last night to ask my teacher, one of the most noted people in the nation on FDE who also knows graphology what she thought about Michele Dresbold, whether there really is a Secret Service Advanced Training Program (which means Dresbold once worked for the Secret Service), and why a person capable of making $200-$300 and more an hour doing professional legal work is instead spending most of her time out stumping to sell a book? A book which flies in the face of forensic examination and which dabbling in will be the first thing an opposing attorney will attack you on to discredit you on your qualifications as an expert forensic examiner.

But I don't sleep well and am going into the hospital in a few days to have surgery and fell asleep after dinner, but when I get the chance, I do want to ask about these things! Because I've never read a thing written by Dresbold that wasn't absolute rubbish. If I find anything out I'll let you know.

But here you actually had a golden opportunity to create perhaps one of the all-time most important threads ever, and you blew it. For all of your supposed intellect, you missed so many obvious golden opportunities to dissect the claims of your article, not to mention the thousands of hours spent obsessing over Trump-this and Trump-that on this board with mostly spin and explore some hard facts about the guy to really know how the man ticks? Instead, a quickly dropped thread of barely 20 posts in an obscure corner of USMB. But I will leave you this: yesterday I took the trouble to capture a couple of pictures out of some old training manuals on the subject from an organization actually licensed to give accreditation in scientific handwriting analysis and just wanted to contrast this:

View attachment 174057
View attachment 174055 View attachment 174056

Now consider what Dresbold and the article say:

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

Not one word in there about mental processes, comprehension or analytical thinking! In fact, not a single kind word about Trump. The entire point of the article was to drum up business for these people and to sell cheesy books that some housewives will buy.

But what I found most disappointing was your apparent lack of observation or disinterest in the fact that THE VERY FIRST THING SAID in the material you quote is that there are “absolutely no curves, only angles”. This from one of the TOP experts, trained through and through by the Secret Service no less, so I took the trouble to capture a couple of the signatures used to point out one small fact:

TRUMP'S WRITING IS FULL OF CURVED STROKES!

View attachment 174059 View attachment 174060

And I was being very generous in not picking others because they were less than rigid, ruler straight. But I assure you, all those in red and some of the others are CURVED STROKES, and the first thing Dresbold decreed in her pronouncements was that there was absolutely no curves, only angles. Curiously, some of the most brilliant and gifted people who have ever lived, write with no curves, only angles. And none of them are Nazi criminals.

Likewise with Clinton's signature at the bottom of the article, but that is another story. The entire diatribe on Hillary was based on only ONE THING: the SLANT of her writing! And mostly positive comments derived from it. Curiously, her and Trump's slant are very similar. Yet one is a remarkable personality, the other a misogynistic egotistical power maniac. Is it any wonder why people think true handwriting analysis is a load of bilge? And yet these people are challenged on their claims so little. Oh well, you never really cared enough about the topic to really find out, its a wonder you posted the article in the first place. OH WAIT! Of course---- ---- it was a total slam on Trump. Had it had any positive angle to it about Trump, it never would have earned your notice.

I took the trouble to capture a couple of pictures out of some old training manuals on the subject

Author(s) and titles, please.

an organization actually licensed to give accreditation in scientific handwriting analysis

Organization names, please.

• Organization that gives the accreditation.
• Organization that licenses the accrediting organization to give the accreditations it gives.

 

[toobfreak]

<snip>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." <snip>In that scope I see nothing having to do with forensically using handwriting as a basis for inferring any sort of personality/psychological traits a writer may or may not have.

You know Xelor, you TALK a lot, and go out of your way to give others the impression of a well-bred intellectual, but you seldom say much and you repeatedly skip over key points. Mostly diversionary tactics. Here you had a golden opportunity to really LEARN something, but instead, you've changed the topic away from Trump and his signature to me and a couple of investigative disciplines you know less than nothing about. You obsess over minutiae and tedium---- if you don't already work at some government agency or bureaucracy, you OUGHT TO because I can see you would be good at taking a $10,000 project of 6 weeks and turning into a $260,000 project taking 5 years.

You say so many things that are just PLAIN WRONG and off at a tangent that it would be impossible to address them all. Why would you think ASTM would describe graphology when graphology (a generic term covering all aspects of handwriting analysis and usually taken to mean that aimed towards divulging personality) is not even officially recognized as a science discipline? Why would you post on a topic you have no belief in the efficacy of then turn around and defend those whom are published for practicing it? And why would you think a person who actually steps forward to say they know the subject matter intimately and can shed some light on it to dispel some of the bogus claims which makes it seem so discredited and offer some clinically-derived facts about both the practice and what it says about the President, a person who has already breached the subject on this board on at least 2 or 3 other occasions, despite your failed search, and assume they are doing all this just making it up? Maybe you think I just need the attention of one or two strangers?

I wanted to get on a conference bridge last night to ask my teacher, one of the most noted people in the nation on FDE who also knows graphology what she thought about Michele Dresbold, whether there really is a Secret Service Advanced Training Program (which means Dresbold once worked for the Secret Service), and why a person capable of making $200-$300 and more an hour doing professional legal work is instead spending most of her time out stumping to sell a book? A book which flies in the face of forensic examination and which dabbling in will be the first thing an opposing attorney will attack you on to discredit you on your qualifications as an expert forensic examiner.

But I don't sleep well and am going into the hospital in a few days to have surgery and fell asleep after dinner, but when I get the chance, I do want to ask about these things! Because I've never read a thing written by Dresbold that wasn't absolute rubbish. If I find anything out I'll let you know.

But here you actually had a golden opportunity to create perhaps one of the all-time most important threads ever, and you blew it. For all of your supposed intellect, you missed so many obvious golden opportunities to dissect the claims of your article, not to mention the thousands of hours spent obsessing over Trump-this and Trump-that on this board with mostly spin and explore some hard facts about the guy to really know how the man ticks? Instead, a quickly dropped thread of barely 20 posts in an obscure corner of USMB. But I will leave you this: yesterday I took the trouble to capture a couple of pictures out of some old training manuals on the subject from an organization actually licensed to give accreditation in scientific handwriting analysis and just wanted to contrast this:

View attachment 174057
View attachment 174055 View attachment 174056

Now consider what Dresbold and the article say:

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

Not one word in there about mental processes, comprehension or analytical thinking! In fact, not a single kind word about Trump. The entire point of the article was to drum up business for these people and to sell cheesy books that some housewives will buy.

But what I found most disappointing was your apparent lack of observation or disinterest in the fact that THE VERY FIRST THING SAID in the material you quote is that there are “absolutely no curves, only angles”. This from one of the TOP experts, trained through and through by the Secret Service no less, so I took the trouble to capture a couple of the signatures used to point out one small fact:

TRUMP'S WRITING IS FULL OF CURVED STROKES!

View attachment 174059 View attachment 174060

And I was being very generous in not picking others because they were less than rigid, ruler straight. But I assure you, all those in red and some of the others are CURVED STROKES, and the first thing Dresbold decreed in her pronouncements was that there was absolutely no curves, only angles. Curiously, some of the most brilliant and gifted people who have ever lived, write with no curves, only angles. And none of them are Nazi criminals.

Likewise with Clinton's signature at the bottom of the article, but that is another story. The entire diatribe on Hillary was based on only ONE THING: the SLANT of her writing! And mostly positive comments derived from it. Curiously, her and Trump's slant are very similar. Yet one is a remarkable personality, the other a misogynistic egotistical power maniac. Is it any wonder why people think true handwriting analysis is a load of bilge? And yet these people are challenged on their claims so little. Oh well, you never really cared enough about the topic to really find out, its a wonder you posted the article in the first place. OH WAIT! Of course---- ---- it was a total slam on Trump. Had it had any positive angle to it about Trump, it never would have earned your notice.

I took the trouble to capture a couple of pictures out of some old training manuals on the subject

Author(s) and titles, please.

an organization actually licensed to give accreditation in scientific handwriting analysis

Organization names, please.

• Organization that gives the accreditation.
• Organization that licenses the accrediting organization to give the accreditations it gives.

Maybe you'd like the book's ISBN numbers? Gee, and here I thought you would still be fixated on my claim that I've stated myself to be a handwriting expert here in the past! Maybe I lied----- I'm pretty sure I've talked about Trump's signature and personality at least twice here (before this) and at least once or twice about Obama's documents (really too bad you don't follow my posts more regularly!), so I'll tell you what----- if you are so sure I'm a liar and a fraud (of course, making claims on a social forum doesn't prove a lot but it sure would be odd for a guy to repeat such an unlikely claim over a long period of time though no one (but you) ever took much notice or cared), and me making it up, and EVEN THOUGH I've sprinkled a few things here and there in my posts on this thread that only a forensic document expert would know, you apparently didn't catch them, so I'll make you this ONE LAST OFFER:

We will get a moderator (I choose Westwall, he seems very solid) and you give him your credit card number and permission to charge $500 to your card to be donated as a one time donation in support of USMB, and I will give him one of the posts I've made. If he doesn't agree I clearly stated myself as a handwriting expert here in the past, and specifically talking about Trump, then he deletes your card, no harm, no foul, but if he agrees that I've spoken authoritatively on this matter before, then you contribute the $500 to USMB. And he can then let you see the post I sent him.

When you are ready, let me know and contact Westwall and see if he'll agree to it as well. Maybe we can make it a public thread, so that all on the forum can follow along and see the outcome! It is a win-win for all: If I lose, you keep your money and I get embarrassed. But if you lose, you still get to do something real nice for the board that I'm sure will go a long way to helping things out and get kudos from all for being such a nice chap.

 

[usmbguest5318]

<snip>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." <snip>In that scope I see nothing having to do with forensically using handwriting as a basis for inferring any sort of personality/psychological traits a writer may or may not have.

You know Xelor, you TALK a lot, and go out of your way to give others the impression of a well-bred intellectual, but you seldom say much and you repeatedly skip over key points. Mostly diversionary tactics. Here you had a golden opportunity to really LEARN something, but instead, you've changed the topic away from Trump and his signature to me and a couple of investigative disciplines you know less than nothing about. You obsess over minutiae and tedium---- if you don't already work at some government agency or bureaucracy, you OUGHT TO because I can see you would be good at taking a $10,000 project of 6 weeks and turning into a $260,000 project taking 5 years.

You say so many things that are just PLAIN WRONG and off at a tangent that it would be impossible to address them all. Why would you think ASTM would describe graphology when graphology (a generic term covering all aspects of handwriting analysis and usually taken to mean that aimed towards divulging personality) is not even officially recognized as a science discipline? Why would you post on a topic you have no belief in the efficacy of then turn around and defend those whom are published for practicing it? And why would you think a person who actually steps forward to say they know the subject matter intimately and can shed some light on it to dispel some of the bogus claims which makes it seem so discredited and offer some clinically-derived facts about both the practice and what it says about the President, a person who has already breached the subject on this board on at least 2 or 3 other occasions, despite your failed search, and assume they are doing all this just making it up? Maybe you think I just need the attention of one or two strangers?

I wanted to get on a conference bridge last night to ask my teacher, one of the most noted people in the nation on FDE who also knows graphology what she thought about Michele Dresbold, whether there really is a Secret Service Advanced Training Program (which means Dresbold once worked for the Secret Service), and why a person capable of making $200-$300 and more an hour doing professional legal work is instead spending most of her time out stumping to sell a book? A book which flies in the face of forensic examination and which dabbling in will be the first thing an opposing attorney will attack you on to discredit you on your qualifications as an expert forensic examiner.

But I don't sleep well and am going into the hospital in a few days to have surgery and fell asleep after dinner, but when I get the chance, I do want to ask about these things! Because I've never read a thing written by Dresbold that wasn't absolute rubbish. If I find anything out I'll let you know.

But here you actually had a golden opportunity to create perhaps one of the all-time most important threads ever, and you blew it. For all of your supposed intellect, you missed so many obvious golden opportunities to dissect the claims of your article, not to mention the thousands of hours spent obsessing over Trump-this and Trump-that on this board with mostly spin and explore some hard facts about the guy to really know how the man ticks? Instead, a quickly dropped thread of barely 20 posts in an obscure corner of USMB. But I will leave you this: yesterday I took the trouble to capture a couple of pictures out of some old training manuals on the subject from an organization actually licensed to give accreditation in scientific handwriting analysis and just wanted to contrast this:

View attachment 174057
View attachment 174055 View attachment 174056

Now consider what Dresbold and the article say:

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

Not one word in there about mental processes, comprehension or analytical thinking! In fact, not a single kind word about Trump. The entire point of the article was to drum up business for these people and to sell cheesy books that some housewives will buy.

But what I found most disappointing was your apparent lack of observation or disinterest in the fact that THE VERY FIRST THING SAID in the material you quote is that there are “absolutely no curves, only angles”. This from one of the TOP experts, trained through and through by the Secret Service no less, so I took the trouble to capture a couple of the signatures used to point out one small fact:

TRUMP'S WRITING IS FULL OF CURVED STROKES!

View attachment 174059 View attachment 174060

And I was being very generous in not picking others because they were less than rigid, ruler straight. But I assure you, all those in red and some of the others are CURVED STROKES, and the first thing Dresbold decreed in her pronouncements was that there was absolutely no curves, only angles. Curiously, some of the most brilliant and gifted people who have ever lived, write with no curves, only angles. And none of them are Nazi criminals.

Likewise with Clinton's signature at the bottom of the article, but that is another story. The entire diatribe on Hillary was based on only ONE THING: the SLANT of her writing! And mostly positive comments derived from it. Curiously, her and Trump's slant are very similar. Yet one is a remarkable personality, the other a misogynistic egotistical power maniac. Is it any wonder why people think true handwriting analysis is a load of bilge? And yet these people are challenged on their claims so little. Oh well, you never really cared enough about the topic to really find out, its a wonder you posted the article in the first place. OH WAIT! Of course---- ---- it was a total slam on Trump. Had it had any positive angle to it about Trump, it never would have earned your notice.

I took the trouble to capture a couple of pictures out of some old training manuals on the subject

Author(s) and titles, please.

an organization actually licensed to give accreditation in scientific handwriting analysis

Organization names, please.

• Organization that gives the accreditation.
• Organization that licenses the accrediting organization to give the accreditations it gives.

Maybe you'd like the book's ISBN numbers? Gee, and here I thought you would still be fixated on my claim that I've stated myself to be a handwriting expert here in the past! Maybe I lied----- I'm pretty sure I've talked about Trump's signature and personality at least twice here (before this) and at least once or twice about Obama's documents (really too bad you don't follow my posts more regularly!), so I'll tell you what----- if you are so sure I'm a liar and a fraud (of course, making claims on a social forum doesn't prove a lot but it sure would be odd for a guy to repeat such an unlikely claim over a long period of time though no one (but you) ever took much notice or cared), and me making it up, and EVEN THOUGH I've sprinkled a few things here and there in my posts on this thread that only a forensic document expert would know, you apparently didn't catch them, so I'll make you this ONE LAST OFFER:

We will get a moderator (I choose Westwall, he seems very solid) and you give him your credit card number and permission to charge $500 to your card to be donated as a one time donation in support of USMB, and I will give him one of the posts I've made. If he doesn't agree I clearly stated myself as a handwriting expert here in the past, and specifically talking about Trump, then he deletes your card, no harm, no foul, but if he agrees that I've spoken authoritatively on this matter before, then you contribute the $500 to USMB. And he can then let you see the post I sent him.

When you are ready, let me know and contact Westwall and see if he'll agree to it as well. Maybe we can make it a public thread, so that all on the forum can follow along and see the outcome! It is a win-win for all: If I lose, you keep your money and I get embarrassed. But if you lose, you still get to do something real nice for the board that I'm sure will go a long way to helping things out and get kudos from all for being such a nice chap.

Maybe you'd like the book's ISBN numbers?

Nope, I didn't ask for it, so no, I particularly want that an ISBN number; however, if that's all you've got, I'll take it for it's a unique identifier of a given publication. All I asked for, however, is the author and tile of the documents from which you made the photographs. You can photograph the title page of the manuals if you want -- I don't care whether you do that or simply type the author's name(s) and manual titles -- so long as the author and title are clearly readable.

I took the trouble to capture a couple of pictures out of some old training manuals on the subject

Author(s) and titles, please.

As goes the accreditation information I requested, you're the one who claimed to be a handwriting analysts and you're the one who wrote:

an organization actually licensed to give accreditation in scientific handwriting analysis

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

I would think that the names of the organization are known off the top of your head.

rganization names, please.

• Organization that gives the accreditation.
• Organization that licenses the accrediting organization to give the accreditations it gives.

 

[toobfreak]

You can photograph the title page of the manuals if you want -- I don't care whether you do that or simply type the author's name(s) and manual titles -- so long as the author and title are clearly readable. As goes the accreditation information I requested.

Maybe you'd like them autographed and gift boxed as well?

I would think that the names of the organization are known off the top of your head.

I should hope so, I have been friends with many of the people behind those publications and have helped to further the state of their art. It's all yours (the answers you seek) after you win or lose my bet. Pony up or shut up. Otherwise, fuck off.

 

[usmbguest5318]

You can photograph the title page of the manuals if you want -- I don't care whether you do that or simply type the author's name(s) and manual titles -- so long as the author and title are clearly readable. As goes the accreditation information I requested.

Maybe you'd like them autographed and gift boxed as well?

I would think that the names of the organization are known off the top of your head.

I should hope so, I have been friends with many of the people behind those publications and have helped to further the state of their art. It's all yours (the answers you seek) after you win or lose my bet. Pony up or shut up. Otherwise, fuck off.

Let me be clear: I'm not about to dole out, or position myself to have to dole out, money to you or anyone else in exchange for your providing information needed to corroborate the nature and extent of veracity of assertions you made.

I asked for information you must necessarily have given the the remarks you posted. You can share it or not share it, but if you don't share share it, there is no basis for any reader to construe your remarks as credible. It's perfectly fine that you are okay posting remarks that you don't support by providing specific sourcing references for them them. You've read more than enough of my posts to know I freely divulge the sources that support my objective assertions of fact. (See the last "blue" quote in my signature.)

 

[toobfreak]

You can photograph the title page of the manuals if you want -- I don't care whether you do that or simply type the author's name(s) and manual titles -- so long as the author and title are clearly readable. As goes the accreditation information I requested.

Maybe you'd like them autographed and gift boxed as well?

I would think that the names of the organization are known off the top of your head.

I should hope so, I have been friends with many of the people behind those publications and have helped to further the state of their art. It's all yours (the answers you seek) after you win or lose my bet. Pony up or shut up. Otherwise, fuck off.

Let me be clear: I'm not about to dole out, or position myself to have to dole out, money to you or anyone else in exchange for your providing information needed to corroborate the nature and extent of veracity of assertions you made.

CLEARLY, there is no risk to you unless you simply do not believe that I really have not talked pretty long and often about Trump's signature and personality and related matters throughout my history being here, and that more than anything seems to have seized your concerns far more than what you could have learned. At worst, you would merely contribute towards a service that you should probably be contributing to anyway, for as much as you've used it!

As far as the books, the one was commercially published in 1959 and copies of it can be found in used book stores, the other is a professional manual published for the consumption of people in the field and not available to the public, though they both have a common publisher and background because they were all tied to a common governing body of experts in the field. I appreciate that you cite links to articles and things, but then, those links do not tie in with your personal life. Any information I provide may directly affect me, my privacy, people I know, professional collaborations and confidences I have, business associations, be found by an opposing attorney to attack me with trying to discredit my credibility in a court case or do harm to my living or profession in what is a highly litigious and competitive field, so I only give info on a truly need-to-know basis, and you have already been given all the info you need. However, I do note that you have not contacted Michelle Dresbold or any of the others to ask them for independent corroboration of any of their claims on their skills, training or background, much less test them on the veracity of any of their claims about Trump! You should ask Michelle how a stroke structure can be gender-based when either a man OR a woman may make a backward-aching p-buckle above the baseline! If it means Trump's big phallus when he does it, does it mean she's a giant pussy when a woman does it??? Science wants to know! Then ask her about all those curved strokes in writing she claims is 100% straight, angular writing, then we will talk about "credibility."

 

[usmbguest5318]

You can photograph the title page of the manuals if you want -- I don't care whether you do that or simply type the author's name(s) and manual titles -- so long as the author and title are clearly readable. As goes the accreditation information I requested.

Maybe you'd like them autographed and gift boxed as well?

I would think that the names of the organization are known off the top of your head.

I should hope so, I have been friends with many of the people behind those publications and have helped to further the state of their art. It's all yours (the answers you seek) after you win or lose my bet. Pony up or shut up. Otherwise, fuck off.

Let me be clear: I'm not about to dole out, or position myself to have to dole out, money to you or anyone else in exchange for your providing information needed to corroborate the nature and extent of veracity of assertions you made.

CLEARLY, there is no risk to you unless you simply do not believe that I really have not talked pretty long and often about Trump's signature and personality and related matters throughout my history being here, and that more than anything seems to have seized your concerns far more than what you could have learned. At worst, you would merely contribute towards a service that you should probably be contributing to anyway, for as much as you've used it!

As far as the books, the one was commercially published in 1959 and copies of it can be found in used book stores, the other is a professional manual published for the consumption of people in the field and not available to the public, though they both have a common publisher and background because they were all tied to a common governing body of experts in the field. I appreciate that you cite links to articles and things, but then, those links do not tie in with your personal life. Any information I provide may directly affect me, my privacy, people I know, professional collaborations and confidences I have, business associations, be found by an opposing attorney to attack me with trying to discredit my credibility in a court case or do harm to my living or profession in what is a highly litigious and competitive field, so I only give info on a truly need-to-know basis, and you have already been given all the info you need. However, I do note that you have not contacted Michelle Dresbold or any of the others to ask them for independent corroboration of any of their claims on their skills, training or background, much less test them on the veracity of any of their claims about Trump!

As far as the books, the one was commercially published in 1959 and copies of it can be found in used book stores, the other is a professional manual published for the consumption of people in the field

All well and good....Authors and titles, please. If no author is indicated, publisher and title, please.

 

[BlackSand]

.​

Xelor ... Why do you waste your time and obvious intellect being such a partisan hack ...
The best I can guess is that you are currently retired and your life used to actually have meaning.​

.​

 

[OldLady]

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.

It's like the placemats at the Chinese restaurant--if you're born in 1963, you are born in the year of the rabbit (I don't know, I just made that up) and it lists a bunch of your traits, mostly pleasant ones.
People who want to fire everyone who says negative stuff about our President are more of a worry to me than graphologists, though.

 

[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.

It's like the placemats at the Chinese restaurant--if you're born in 1963, you are born in the year of the rabbit (I don't know, I just made that up) and it lists a bunch of your traits, mostly pleasant ones.
People who want to fire everyone who says negative stuff about our President are more of a worry to me than graphologists, though.

That is actually a pretty erudite comment, Old Lady! Both the appeal and the problem with graphology is that it is based on LETTER FORMATIONS rather than the individual strokes themselves wherever they occur in the handwriting. Much like the Chinese calendar, an offshoot of astrology, graphologists like those in the cited article make claims about a persons gender, actions and future (among other things) which simply are not there in the writing. This may sell books and attract readers, but it leaves most intelligent people a bit doubtful. Graphologists cannot even agree among themselves as to what means what.

Handwriting is a projection of the way you think, your brain directs the arms and fingers (or whatever), and through careful, clinical analysis, many specific traits and qualities (at least 200) have been tied to either basic stroke structures or by evaluating combinations of them. But you cannot reliably determine a persons sex, feelings, attitudes or future happenings from writing------ only their emotional patterns, thought processes, imagination, fears, defenses, drives, aptitudes and talents, integrity and social image (both to self and projected) traits and TENDENCIES. The good news is that to a professional scientific handwriting expert, you can go from one to another to another and they will all draw pretty much the same conclusions, and THAT is the mark of good handwriting analysis. Unfortunately, determining that a person can be trusted to handle money and be bonded, or that they are a good team player, does not make for good entertainment in newspaper columns!