CASE CLOSED … what really happened in the 2001 anthrax attacks?

«
»

* Here is another handwriting sample of Bruce Ivins — this one discussing the planned visit by the former Zawahiri associate being supplied virulent Ames in early May 1998

Posted by DXer on April 7, 2011

******

******

Ayman al-Zawahiri

******

This entry was posted on April 7, 2011 at 7:04 am and is filed under Uncategorized. Tagged: , , , , , , . You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

29 Responses to “* Here is another handwriting sample of Bruce Ivins — this one discussing the planned visit by the former Zawahiri associate being supplied virulent Ames in early May 1998”

  1. DXer said

    September 2, 2015 at 7:52 am

    Many FBI officials understandably feel that the FBI is damned if they do and damned if they don’t. Univiersities too.

    Lawsuit: False Allegations of Anthrax Research Led to Discriminatory Firing
    Miriam Rozen, Texas Lawyer
    September 1, 2015

    Read more: http://www.texaslawyer.com/id=1202736172174/Lawsuit-False-Allegations-of-Anthrax-Research-Led-to-Discriminatory-Firing#ixzz3kaJy6T3e
    http://www.texaslawyer.com/id=1202736172174/Lawsuit-False-Allegations-of-Anthrax-Research-Led-to-Discriminatory-Firing?mcode=1202615604418&slreturn=20150802084301

    A former University of Texas at San Antonio biology professor, who is a native of China, filed an employment discrimination lawsuit against the school.

    In her complaint, professor Ruoting Pei alleges that school officials falsely accused her of faking data and attempting to help the Chinese government with anthrax terrorist research.

    Pei filed on Aug. 28 her complaint in San Antonio federal court. Pei alleges that school officials rescinded her tenure offer in January and terminated her employment the next month. At the time, they did not explain the reasons for her termination, she alleges. But she later learned that the school had conducted an investigation into erroneous allegations that she was helping the Chinese government with anthrax terrorist research.

    The school officials’ erroneous allegations had previously prompted Federal Bureau of Investigation agents to question Pei, the complaint states. Ultimately, the FBI closed the investigation and determined no finding of wrongdoing on Pei’s part, according to the complaint.

    The school officials’ suspicions about Pei began with an innocent email she sent requesting a biosafety hood, a type of lab equipment, the complaint alleges. The school officials also misinterpreted her language in another email, the complaint alleges. Her language was problematic because of her self-described “labored English,” the complaint states. On the basis of a misreading of the email, the school officials alleged that she had sought to fake data, the complaint alleges.

    The complaint cites as causes of action: employment discrimination based on race and national origin and retaliation for reporting that discrimination. The false allegations against Pei arose at the same time that news reports surfaced about the Chinese government’s alleged role in malicious hacking, the complaint alleges.
    Adam Poncio of Poncio Law Offices in San Antonio, who represents Pei, and Gail Jensen, the chief legal officer for UTSA, did not return a call to each of their offices for this story.

    Reply

    • DXer said

      September 2, 2015 at 8:05 am

      http://engineering.utsa.edu/ce/research/CEResearch.html

      Areas of Research Interest:

      • Applied environmental microbiology
      • Antibiotic resistance
      • Microbial indicator
      • Molecular microbial ecology
      • Biological remediation
      • Environmental toxicology.

      Reply

    • DXer said

      September 2, 2015 at 1:55 pm

      The Complaint reads:

      “On or around December 1, 2014 Dr. Ruoting Pei received an email stating that an evaluation and investigation of Dr. Pei’s laboratory was conducted. The conversation seemed accusatory and intense, and Dr. Pei was asked about questions about her training of students in her lab experiments. Dr. Pei was further questioned on whether she was still using Hydrogren Fluoride (“HF”) in her lab. (Complaint, 11)

      ***

      “During the December 11, 2014 meeting, representatives of the Environmental and Health Services office accused Dr. Pei of not following her Institutional Biosafety Committee Protocol (“IBC” However, at that time, Dr. Pei had never been informed what the IBC standards were nor had been provided training. She was told that because she did not follow IBC, she was in violation of the National Institute of Health (“NIH”) regulations. She was further questioned about a volunteer researcher and former auditing student Dr. Jun Liu, also of Asian descent, and asked why he was doing volunteer research in her lab.” (Complaint, 14)

      ***

      “On December 17, 2014, Dr. Pei received an email from Defendant demanding to go through all of her laboratory inventory on the morning of December 18, 2014, and indicated all of the chemicals and biological material in Dr. Pei’s lab were to be inspected. Dr. Peis lab had been inspected every three months in the past five years, and there wer[e] no complaints about compliance with EHS regualtions.” (Complaint, 17)

      “On December 19, 2014, Defendant demanded to talk to Dr. Liu, and insisted that his green card picture did not match his passport picture, because his haircut was different and he was wearing glasses.” (Complaint, 18)

      “”Dr. Pei had a scheduled trip back to China on December 20, 2014. However, on the night of December 19, 2014, Dr. Pei went to her office, only to find that her passport, her computer, and all her laptops had been confiscated by Defendant.” (Complaint, 19)

      “On the morning of December 20, 2014, 5 FBI agents arrived at Dr. Pei’s house wanting to conduct an investigation based on the false accusations by Defendant that Dr. Pei was conducting criminal and terroristic activitiy. Dr. Pei’s friend from church, Tianhai Jiang, was also questioned by the FBI, including questions into why Jiang and Dr. Pei are returning to China, and whether or not Dr. Pei was a dangerous person working on a bioweapon.” (Complaint, 20)

      In reading the Complaint, questions come to mind:

      I believe one focus of her research concerns algae blooms. The idea, explained in press, was to “put earmuffs on” so that algae blooms did not occur. I guess, this would be akin to shutting down social media so as to avoid a flash mob by a gang.

      I see the mention of b. anthracis (Ames) in her publication about biofilms and bacterial communication. But all the science stuff is over my head. To simplify things: Am I right that she didn’t have virulent Ames anthrax stored in the lab?

      Then there is the discussion in the Complaint over her use of the word “faked” in connection with the data. I would have preferred that the plaintiff’s lawyer quoted the email rather than described it. Referring to someone’s english as “labored” and arguing that the language was misinterpreted is not nearly as effective as quoting it so that the reader can form an opinion. When the language of a document tends to support a litigant’s position, they tend to serve it up with relish.

      Plaintiff explains:

      “Defendant further alleged that Plaintiff was falsifying data in her manuscript because she used the word “fake” in an email to Dr. Liu. Dr. Pei has labored English, and her use of the word fake was not intended as an effort to generate fake data, but instead was an exaggeration or misuse of the English language. The email communications, reviewed in totality, demonstrate that she had no intention to fake any data nor conduct anthrax research.” Rather, the University had no equipment for the necessary testing so she referred to using analogous research information as a gap filler for the information.” In fact, the investigation concluded that UTSA was wrong with regard to the contention.” (Complaint, 32)

      To what did that data relate?

      Then there is the volunteer researcher doing research in her lab, Dr. Jun Liu. It seems a common name, even among esteemed scientists. Am I right in thinking that he was in fact the person depicted in passport photo? What was the nature of his research? I would have preferred that be explained in the Complaint. Did it relate to cyanobacteria toxins?

      I know algae blooms are a serious problem. I was surprised to see the issue addressed by someone in civil engineering — and yet I know that environmental engineering solutions often involve overlapping fields. I don’t envy these researchers — especially ones establishing new fields and research centers. There are lots of safety regulations and protocols. It’s a lot easier to write the protocols than to implement in daily worklife. I’m lucky if I follow my wife’s prescribed protocol for not breaking the tea pot in the dishwasher.

      Given that virulent b. anthracis (Ames) was made so ubiquitous — thanks to Dugway — these alarm bells may be sounding for years to come.

      Was UT at San Antonio one of the labs that received virulent Ames inadvertently sent from Dugway?

      The early press suggests not — but that was when only 9 labs, rather than the current 194, labs were known to receive the shipment.

      San Antonio Lab Not Among Those Accidentally Receiving Live …
      tpr.org/…/san-antonio-lab-not-among-those-accidentally-receiving-live- anthrax‎
      May 27, 2015 … The Texas Biomedical Research Institute in San Antonio has clearance to work with anthrax but says none of the live spores were sent here.

      Texas Lab Doing Defense Work Received Dangerous, Live Anthrax
      By SHELLEY KOFLER • MAY 28, 2015
      http://kut.org/post/texas-lab-doing-defense-work-received-dangerous-live-anthrax

      San Antonio research company confirms one of its Texas subsidiaries received potentially dangerous anthrax spores accidentally shipped by U.S. Department of Defense workers.

      A company spokesman says the live anthrax spores received by Signature Science in Austin, were frozen and the containers hadn’t been opened.

      Reply

  2. DXer said

    August 12, 2013 at 12:41 pm

    In the formal handwriting examination conducted for Amerithrax, it was concluded that Bruce Ivins probably did not write the anthrax letters.

    Forensic Laboratory Examination Report

    United States Postal inspection Service
    Forensic Laboratory Services

    224-33 Randolph Dr

    Dulles, VA 20104-1000

    March 08, 2007

    USPlS\RJMuehlberger

    Case No. – Lab File No. 9-957-002016

    Type of Examination: Questioned Documents
    Request Date(s) 1/2007

    SA FBI Washington Field Office
    7799 Leesburg Pike
    Falls Church, VA 22043

    PROBLEM:

    ALL FBI
    PEREII-I IS
    DATE dlciil

    Determine whether or not the questioned entries appearing in the printed digital images
    (also contained on CD) of three labels; one depicting the writing “Ames strain RMR

    from Dugway Bruce Ivins (1997) 2/27/02” and two

    depicting the writing “Dugway Ames

    spores – 1997” were written by Bruce E. Ivins, whose known writings are depicted in the
    photocopies of various course of business documents.

    Determine whether or not the questioned entries appearing in the printed diqital images

    (also contained on CD) of two parcels; one addresse

    second addressed

    known writings are depicted in the photocopies ot

    |and the

    ere written by Bruce E. Ivins, whose
    arious course of business documents.

    Determine whether or not the questioned entries appearing on the “anthrax” envelopes and
    letters (photographic copies retained in the laboratory) were written by Bruce E. lvins,
    whose known writings are depicted in the photocopies of various course of business

    documents.

    FINDINGS:

    Bruce E. Ivins probably wrote the original of the questioned entries appearing in the printed

    digital images of the three labels described above.

    Bruce E. Ivins probably wrote the original of the questioned address entries appearing in the

    printed digital images of the two parcels.

    Bruce E. Ivins probably did not write the writings appearing on the “anthrax” envelopes and

    letters.

    REMARKS:

    The qualified findings expressed above are due to the lack of original documents from
    which the examination and comparisons were conducted. The submission of the original

    Reply

  3. DXer said

    August 10, 2011 at 7:28 pm

    Did counsel for Mrs. Stevens obtain a copy of the May 14, 1992 “Memo on Unexpected short notice visits of foreign nationals” that Dr. Ivins kept?

    Did Frontline request it under FOIA from USAMRIID and the FBI?

    Reply

  4. Zicon said

    April 17, 2011 at 1:04 pm

    Handwriting Address Interpretation Software being used by the FBI …. “The program responded correctly 98 percent of the time.” … From the “Handwriting Institute that the FBI uses”

    If a program that can identify hundreds of things and compare million bits of data plus (per second) and remember everything, take in the account of human error and the capacity of a human brain looking under a mag/glass and from what I recall from a documentary a while back that “human handwriting matching” can only get into the very low 90th percentile… These numbers can “always” change depending on who the next expert the FBI uses and thinks that their words are of the same as GODS, but that’s just a load of crap for anyone who believes it.. Handwriting alone without “anything” else “cannot” prove anything Period.

    Reply

  5. richard rowley said

    April 14, 2011 at 10:43 pm

    Partial post by DXer:
    ————–
    I have read 12 books on graphology in the library systems available to me and there is not a shred of support for graphology as a valid science.
    =======================================================================================
    I think your problem here is in unrealistic expectations: what would constitute ‘support’ for graphology ‘as a valid science’? Is psychology ‘a valid science’? Psychiatry? What about the study of body language? But body language exists! We all know that! (the reason I bring this up is that BOTH body language and spontaneous handwriting samples can reveal things otherwise hidden because individuals tend to be oblivious to the messages their postures, their countenances etc. AND their handwriting are sending out, messages sometimes at variance with the impression the individuals are trying to make).

    You (or someone) compared graphology to astrology. I think that unfair: astrology can’t work EVEN IN PRINCIPLE. Why? Because the stars are just clouds of gasses, they can’t affect individual human beings here on earth. There’s no mechanism for individuals’ lives to be affected by the stars.

    Graphology, by contrast, says merely that humans express themselves and their personalities in a myriad of ways: not just what they say and write but HOW they say things and HOW they write.

    For generations aspiring actors have tried to master aspects of this: how to stand, how to walk (to capture a character, to convey an emotion). They have ALSO studied diction and regional and class accents and for the same reason(s): HOW you say something tells something about you: your class, your education level, your region of origin. In short, actors try to (more or less) self-consciously do (in character) what the model does UNCONSCIOUSLY.

    If your graphological analysis says that person X is very emotional (based, say, on rightward slant and/or other features of the writing) then the acid test of that is to meet person X and find out if it’s true! Whether you want to call this a ‘science’ or not doesn’t much matter (to me). It only matters if you are trying to submit graphological evidence in a court of law. That was beyond the scope of the point I was trying to make here.

    But:

    1)I would NEVER claim that a person ‘must’ have committed a crime based on graphology alone.

    2)I would NEVER claim that a person could not have committed a crime based on graphology alone.

    Again, a tool

    Reply

  6. DXer said

    April 14, 2011 at 6:40 am

    Who approved the visit by these researchers in May 1998? Upon arrival, one was a non-citizen who received his PhD degree in Microbiology from Cairo Medical. Dr. Ivins was surprised but the visit was approved by email by some superior. Who was the superior? Was it Dave F. who has been so helpful to me in understanding a range of issues? Was he Commander at the time — leaving in 1998 to become VP of Southern Research Institute? He mentioned to me that he knew James B. of University of Michigan who was arranging the visit with Dr. Ivins in the correspondence that the FBI provided. We lost touch only after I publicly asked when SRI first obtained virulent Ames. (When neither Dr. Voss nor Dr. Franz told me that SRI did not obtain virulent Ames until after September 2001, I inferred that they may have had it prior to that).

    SRI had the subcontract with the DARPA researchers at the Center for Biodefense at GMU regarding its research involving virulent Ames. When did SRI first acquire virulent Ames? (As I mentioned, neither Tom Voss, then head of SRI (and now at Tulane), nor Dave, then the SRI VP would tell me).

    “Former Colleague #2” elsewhere referred to as the Senior Lab Technician, Patricia Fellows, went on to head the BL-3 lab at SRI.

    In 2001, did Dr. Ivins ever work at SRI? I see nothing in the emails that indicates any work there in 2001.

    When Dr. Ivins urgently wrote a superior that he had heard that Dr. Ezzell’s dried powder was closest to the mailed anthrax, he was told to shut up — that “everything was under control.” Who told him that?

    Reply

  7. DXer said

    April 14, 2011 at 3:23 am

    Forensic handwriting analysis needs to be distinguished from graphology.

    Graphology (as illustrated by the sources Richard cites) is a pseudoscience — like palm reading.

    How Graphology Fools People
    Barry L. Beyerstein, Ph.D.
    http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Tests/grapho.html

    Graphology Fact Sheet
    http://www.ntskeptics.org/factsheets/graphol.htm

    (and numerous sources cited therein)

    Even handwriting analysis, however, has extremely limited utility in means, motive and opportunity of the crime.

    I have read 12 books on graphology in the library systems available to me and there is not a shred of support for graphology as a valid science. Indeed, you’ll find that different graphologists have differing systems — even the French do (and they lay claim to the founder and key 19th Century innovators).

    Now Battelle has a contract that has resulted in a detailed study in which slant, size etc. were measured by machine and cross-referenced against personality inventories. Publication forthcoming.
    I say “Bring it.”

    Reply

    • DXer said

      April 14, 2011 at 3:39 am

      Here is someone in May 2002 about submission of slants.

      * who wrote this email? who submitted the slants to the FBI?

      Reply

      • DXer said

        April 14, 2011 at 3:40 am

        Whose initials appear in connection with the April 2002 FBIR Submission by Ivins’ Lab? What do the initials signify?

        * Whose initials appear in connection with the April 2002 FBIR Submission by Ivins’ Lab?

        Reply

      • DXer said

        April 14, 2011 at 4:14 am

        The AUSAs rely on the fact that a subpoena issued February 2002 without acknowledging that the documentary evidence shows that someone from Dr. Ivins’ lab was imploring Dr. Ezzell to provide the instructions to be followed and slants to be used.

        What is the significance of the protocol Dr. Ezzell helped develop if he was failing to respond to emailed requests for a copy of the instruction and Dr. Ivins’ assistant in May 2002 was still unaware of the instructions to be followed? It was Terry Abshire in Dr. Ezzell’s lab (see 302) who collected the sample and who could perhaps she light on this issue of who submitted them, what do the initials (“AB”? refer etc.)

        In the Amerithrax Investigative Summary, the AUSAs write:

        “USAMRIID received a subpoena dated February 15, 2002, requiring the submission of samples of each of its Ames strain cultures. To ensure the uniformity of submissions to the FBIR, the FBI collaborated with various experts, including the then-Director of the Diagnostic Systems Division at USAMRIID [Ezzell], to provide a clear and thorough protocol for the preparation of the repository submissions. This protocol instructed the person submitting the sample to:
        1. Collect each B. anthracis Ames strain stock as per your
        institutional inventory and personal knowledge.

        2. Prepare a minimum of two TSA [tryptic soy agar] slant tubes per stock by prelabeling with permanent waterproof labels. Include the following information on the label: “B. anthracis Ames strain,” with other designators used by your laboratory, date and your lab name. Additional information for each stock shall be provided separately.

        3. A representative sample of each stock shall be used for inoculation
        of the TSA slants. If the stock is an agar culture, do not use a
        single colony, but rather use an inoculum taken across multiple
        colonies. Thawed frozen stocks or other liquid suspensions shall
        be well mixed prior to transfer of inoculum to the TSA.

        4. Inoculate each TSA slant in a zig zag manner over the surface of
        the agar.

        Reply

      • DXer said

        April 14, 2011 at 4:33 am

        “On or before March 28, 2002 – the date the FBIR was officially up and running and had received its first sample, FBIR001 – Dr. Ezzell’s lab technician advised Dr. Ivins and his lab technician that their submissions were not prepared according to the protocol. Specifically, Dr. Ivins and his lab technician used homemade slants as opposed to the commercially available Remel slants specified by the protocol, so the four slants prepared on February 27, 2002 were rejected by the FBIR, and Dr. Ivins was told to resubmit his culture samples on the appropriate slants.”

        So let’s see: Dr. Ezzell’s lab collecting Ivins’ sample made a dried powder out of Ames supplied by Flask 1029 (and the FBI kept this secret and did not even disclose it to the NAS). Dr. Ezzell’s lab and the technician collecting the sample from Ivins’ lab, Terry Abshire, kept the remaining Ames left at USAMRIID by DARPA-funded researcher Joany Jackman in an unlocked refrigerator, threw out Dr. Ivins’ sample from February 2002 (which was genetically matching). And in May 2002 Dr. Ezzell’s lab was being begged by Dr. Ivins’ lab for the instructions and slants to use.

        But we’re going to blame Dr. Ivins and build the “Ivins Theory” based on the premise of the intentional submission of false samples. What utter crock analysis. Maybe the reason the postal inspectors and psychiatrists think Dr. Ivins is guilty is because they are basing their analysis on a central false premise or two or three or four.

        The GAO should apply standard conflict of interest analysis and determine as a matter of proper government functioning that the collection of samples by the lab that made the dried powder out of “the murder weapon” cannot reasonably serve as the premise of the assertion that Dr. Ivins made the dried powder (when the evidence establishes that the FBI anthrax expert is the only one known to have made the dried powder).

        Now returning to the April 2002 samples, one question for the GAO to consider is: Were fingerprints taken from the slants? Whose fingerprints are on them? Whose fingerprints are on the labels? They took fingerprints from the tub in Terry Abshires refrigerator. That tub of anthrax had been left by DARPA-funded Joany Jackman (see 302 interview) when she left for Johns-Hopkins. Dr. Jackman is available to explain where aerosol experiments were conducted, what special facilities were built at USAMRIID and whether weaponized powder was ever shipped to USAMRIID that then turned up missing. See Dr. Ivins email on the subject.

        Reply

    • DXer said

      April 14, 2011 at 4:18 am

      The AUSAs report:

      “On February 27, 2002, slants of four different Ames strain cultures were prepared by Dr. Ivins and his senior laboratory technician.”

      I guess, with Dr. Ivins having passed, the one reporters will want to interview is “his senior laboratory technician” who prepared the February 2002 slants.

      Reply

      • DXer said

        April 14, 2011 at 4:21 am

        The AUSAs refer to the contemporaneous notes made by an FBI agent about a conversation he does not recall. The DOJ has failed to provide a copy of the notes. In such an important case, the standard of the Department of Justice appears to rely on assertion unsupported by accompanying documentary evidence. If the DOJ instead followed the “show me” principle and provided documentary evidence, errors in analysis could be more often avoided.

        Reply

    • Zicon said

      April 14, 2011 at 9:22 am

      With the right equipment anyone’s handwriting can be duplicated down to the exact ink used, to the type of paper and how much pressure was used when pressing down and what angle/degree the instrument is held during writing.. There is a formula for all this and in forensics handwriting can determine in the high 90’s % but still unless dna or other markers are left, handwriting alone without anything else is not 100% accurate… even once the evidence ends up being destroyed to check for raised fingerprints/ other markers that could be identified by forensics.

      Reply

      • DXer said

        April 14, 2011 at 11:15 am

        Do you have a source for your claim that handwriting forensics achieves 90%?

        Where an attempt is made to disguise handwriting, and even when it’s not, the success rate is far, far lower.

        For example, Ed Lake says it is 99% certain that a First Grader wrote the letters. Such claims have no support whatsoever in the literature or common sense.

        Indeed, the United States Department of Justice has formally asserted that the FBIR log shows that Dr. Bruce Ivins walked the samples down.

        When in fact the initials highlighted by the yellow circle do NOT appear to be Bruce Ivins’ initials.

        Yet this claim they make in the Amerithrax Investigative Summary is a central premise on which an Ivins Theory hinges.

        * Whose initials appear in connection with the April 2002 FBIR Submission by Ivins’ Lab?

        Reply

  8. richard rowley said

    April 13, 2011 at 10:28 pm

    Unfortunately, a lot of the writing is in lower case and thus almost impossible to compare to the printing of the Amerithrax mailings (texts and writings on outside of envelope).

    As we have seen elsewhere, Ivins would, in lower case, show some EXTREME slant to the right, this a general indication of underlying emotionality, but an emotionality that was more or less freely expressed.

    A bit from an online source:
    ——————
    Slant in handwriting
    The slant of a person’s handwriting reveals important information about their ability to express, feel, and show emotions. The slant of the handwriting is also one of the indicators between extroversion and introversion.

    The more the handwriting slants to the right the more easily it is for that person to express their emotions. These people “reach” out to others, evidenced by the “forward” slant and are willing to comply and work within society. These people make excellent relationship partners, especially if the handwriting is cursive and there is narrow word spacing. Right slanted writers are “givers” not “takers”.

    The most ideal slant ranges between 60 and 75 degrees. If the slant is too strong; then the person can be too emotional., and lack control over their feelings. A slant within this range is one of the more positive traits in all of graphology. It denotes the person able to feel and express their emotions, yet does not overdo it. They can feel but don’t let their emotions rule them; they still stay in control.

    The intensity levels of this emotional expressiveness is disclosed by the level of pressure.[ Refer to the page on pressure] The heavier the pressure, the more intense the writer’s emotions will be expressed. People who write with a right hand slant reason and act according to their feelings, or their heart. We often use the term “heart over head” These are the people who “go with their gut feelings” when making decisions.
    —————
    http://www.toughcases.net/writingslant.html
    ——————————————————————-
    And another source has the same basic take on to-the-right slant:
    ———-
    In Figure 6, we have the right-slanted writing, with heavy pressure (to be discussed in a later chapter) of the late Sen. Hubert H. Humphrey. From his script, we see his gesture of reaching out toward others, a most warm personality. We also notice quite similar traits in the handwriting of Simon Bolivar (Figure 7):
    ——————
    http://www.buzzle.com/articles/graphology-at-home-lesson-2-the-slant.html
    =====================================================================
    Another online source on right slant:
    ———————-
    Slanting to right :-

    It indicates that the person express his real emotional feeling, they are demonstrative, visionary, affectionate, expressiveness, oriented towards future.
    ———————–
    http://www.getpredictiononline.com/graphology/slant.htm
    =====================================================================

    Reply

    • DXer said

      April 14, 2011 at 3:02 am

      You cite some webpages about graphology. Graphology is a pseudoscience. It is a fake science. It is akin to astrology.

      Reply

      • richard rowley said

        April 14, 2011 at 6:57 pm

        Posted by DXer:
        —————-
        You cite some webpages about graphology. Graphology is a pseudoscience. It is a fake science. It is akin to astrology.

        =======================================================================
        I’m not convinced of that. Certainly because there is no central authority for earning credentials in the field and thus no universally recognized standards, it is the easiest thing in the world for someone to proclaim himself a ‘graphologist’. Thus charlatanism is a problem. But that doesn’t mean that a serious-minded EXPERIENCED professional can’t be of immense value in equating two sets of handwriting AND even tell a bit about the underlying psychology of a writer.
        (As a field graphology began in university psychology departments in, I think, the 19th Century; thus it was begun among serious people for serious purposes, and not to trick gullible people into making ‘contributions’. Alas, at some point the graphologists became separated from their academic origins and typically today tenured professors of psychology are completely unaware of graphology’s origins )
        ———————————————————————-
        In my previous post about Ivins, I remarked on the new sample because his printing at work is particularly valuable PRECISELY because there would be no reason for him in that context to ‘fake’ a style of printing not his own. This is important not only for comparison purposes but for trying to discern Ivins’ underlying psychology.

        The more self-conscious style of the Amerithrax printing is more problematic: the assumption is, almost has to be, that aspects of the Amerithrax printer’s style were changed, changed to appear foreign.

        I too, in the past several years have read many books on graphology. In one, there’s a brilliant analysis of the ‘ransom note’ in the Jon Benet Ramsey Case. There was an effort to change to natural style of the writer, but it was only partially successful.(The graphologist/author makes a convincing case that Patsy Ramsey wrote the note)

        Can a graphologist be fooled? Certainly!

        It (graphology) is just a tool and like all tools can be misused, overrated etc.

        Reply

        • richard rowley said

          April 14, 2011 at 10:13 pm

          There’s pretty good graphologist by the name of Anna Koren and she weighs in on, among other things, serial killers and graphology here: http://www.annakoren.com/handwriting-analysis-of-serial-killers.html

          Still, we mustn’t claim that one can detect graphologically murderers, one can only detect a psychological predisposition thereto.

          Here’s a list she gives:
          ——————
          Graphic signs of the Schizoid
          ■Vigilant and tense handwriting
          ■Extremely strong pressure
          ■Angels
          ■Arcades
          ■Separation
          ■Narrowness
          ■Extremely wide spaces between words or identical to the spaces between letters
          ■Covering strokes
          ■Emphasized upper zone
          ■Left of upright slant
          ■Frozen
          ■Tense strokes
          ■High upper zone
          ■Large or extreme height differentials
          ■At times – a weak stroke
          ■Secondary narrowness
          ■Angular connections
          ■Similar to the “autistic type” by Odem
          ■Emphasize of the beginning
          ■Rhythmic writing
          ■Covering the whole page
          ■Strange ending of letters
          ■”Invented” letters
          ■Twisted letters
          ■Broken letters
          ■Corrections, especially “artistic corrections”
          ■Abundance of punctuation marks or lack of them
          ■Slow writing
          ■Peculiarities and exaggeration
          ■Printed letters
          —————————————————————
          Again, not all schizoids are going to be schizoid murderers. But the above list is fairly long and in its particulars fairly specific. I’m unfamiliar with any equivalent guidelines in astrology.

  9. Zicon said

    April 7, 2011 at 1:05 pm

    In my opinion this subject line is finally getting somewhere to dig deep in for answers. And how many people were given samples from the host flask at USAMRIID that are of other overseas countries

    Reply

Leave a reply to DXer Cancel reply

«
»