Two of the strongest indicators of suitability for public office are someone's personality and their core value system. Expert handwriting analysis can ascertain such qualities in a person--and without being overly influenced by their sometimes put-on public personas. Obviously, Einstein isn't running for President. But he keeps getting "re elected" by those in Ivory Towers; in government; and in our very nearsighted media to be: The Poster Boy of Intellect. This past year my various posts on sci.physics have documented my complete and total disproof of Einstein. In those posts, and in my replies to the comments of others, I've often referred to the man as: "...moronic Einstein". The latter isn't some all-too-convenient putdown of someone with whom I have disagreement. Rather, it is the result of a lifetime of having been a keen observer of human nature. This past year I wrote to President Bush urging him to reduce, by about two billion dollars, his 2008 budget request for the National Science Foundation. That's the approximate amount of money such agency is wasting each and every year on grants to universities to "research" anything and everything to do with Einstein's ideas about the Universe. Of course, I also sent detailed descriptions of my findings to the science and technology committee chairmen; the budget committee chairmen; as well as to my congressman and one of my senators. The latter two wrote me token reply letters. But I never heard from the President, nor from those four committee chairmen. The 2008 budget got approved... But President Bush didn't veto the NSF's portion--as I had urged him to do. So, another two billion dollars of taxpayers' money is being wasted. Now, the correction of the inflated National Science Foundation's budget will likely fall on either Clinton, Obama, or McCain to correct. Last spring TIME Magazine ran a simplistic and amateurish handwriting analysis of the six frontrunners for President. The signatures of all were shown. So, I did my own professional level analysis of each candidate's writing, and immediately sent such to TIME. But true to form, TIME won't acknowledge that anything in its pages has ever been less than... "perfection" (as seen in the eyes of their management). One of my fascinating hobbies is graphology, or handwriting analysis. I began doing such at age twelve. Most of the books that I read on the subject said that if the various letters in a person's writing are shaped a certain way it will mean this or that. To do an analysis of someone's writing, a person either has to memorize the meanings of the letter forms, or they must use a book(s) for reference. My favorite book, a paperback, came loose at the binding because I used it so much. I realized that most books that are written about graphology either don't want to explain how to analyze writing, or they simply don't know how to do it. Several of the books I read were written my people who analyzed celebrity's writing. But since most celebrities are known personalities from the outset, what is said doesn't necessarily result from what is learned just from the handwriting. Those books have a lot of pictures of handwriting samples. Often there were arrows pointing here and there at the letters. The inference is that the explanations in the text correlate to the peculiarities being pointed to on the samples. After about ten years of using my books for making analyses, I realized I had learned more from those people that I had done analyses of, than from those I had read about. So, I didn't need reference books any more. Now, my unique perspective is understanding the meaning of the dynamics of the hand as it moves across the paper. I can be across a room, and still discern the personality of a person who is writing. I do that by watching how their hand, arm and pen move! Of course I can make a more thorough analysis if I can see the actual writing. My favorite impromptu subjects are: waitresses, bank tellers and clerks whom I see writing for the first time. Often, before I've finished an analysis, a crowd is standing around in awe urging me to analyze some of their writing, too! More serious analyses involve the handwritings of those with emotional problems; lonely, and perhaps suicidal people; and criminals. Samples of the writing of the latter are sometimes reproduced in newspapers or magazines. I enjoy analyzing the corporate culture of an entire business. I can do so by studying the writing of those who have signed posters or large cards to an employee. And I can usually pick out who the leadership is just by how (and where) they sign their names on the card. Guest registries are another fruitful source for writing samples, as are high school and college annuals, if they have lots of autographs. Doodles also indicate personality. Their often- spontaneous nature is closely tied to brain activity. The name "Albert Einstein" is known to millions, but as a personality he's known to very few. I have only one signature of Einstein. It's inside 'Relativity, the Special and the General Theory' (by Albert Einstein) but translated dutifully by Robert W. Lawson, University of Sheffield. I say that it was translated "dutifully" because I have also seen the word-for-word translation from German to English. What I saw, in its grammar, syntax and sentence structure hints of the mind--not of a genius--but of one struggling to communicate verbally at all... Einstein was known as a man who communicated using equations. Google's posting protocol won't allow me to reproduce Einstein's signature for you to see. But I'll describe it well enough that most of you should be able to imagine what his signature looks like: Einstein signs his name:
A. Einst ein. (PERIOD)
He purposefully puts a PERIOD after his sir name! He has a slight break between the 't' and the 'e'. His 'A.' is just a three line triangle with a too long crossbar. His capital 'E' contains three loops or knots. His 't' is very short and has a too high, long crossbar that extends nearly to the last 'n'. The seven lower case letters have a total of eight pointed top (or bottom) forms [where most people would write with rounded letters]. His capital 'A.' is formed more slowly than the letters in 'Einst ein'. His 'i dots' are well placed, but slightly high. His 's' is an inverted v. His last letter 'n' is larger than the starting size of the lower case letters. His writing size is medium. His baseline wavers up and down in a normal range. And his signature is legible. Note: The characteristics that can be assigned to qualities of writing will vary according to the 'general overall impression'. Most of Einstein's signature has negative characteristics... It is important that those reading this should not infer--if they, or someone they know has a particular feature--that the meaning will be the same for them as for Einstein. Good characteristics can cancel one or more bad ones! Einstein's dominant writing characteristic is the pointed top 'A.' and those eight very sharply pointed, or angular places on the lower case letters. Angular shapes denote: aggressiveness; defensiveness; antisocial behavior; unfriendliness; crankiness; dictatorial feelings; temperamental nature; schizophrenia; and a general unhappiness in one's life. Angular shapes are made using just the fingers on an unmoving hand. And an unmoving hand making angular shapes denotes: self-centeredness; exaggerated ego; selfishness; tightness (with money and affection); simple-mindedness; and listlessness. One of those eight angular shapes is the letter 's' that looks like an inverted v. Letters that should be closed on the bottom, but aren't, denote: deceit; corruption; dishonesty; and untrustworthiness. The small break in his last name is caused by his unmoving hand and arm. People with normal personalities move their hand and arm as they write. People who don't are extremely introverted and out of touch. That period after his name is saying: "Notice me; notice me!" But it is also a sadistic jabbing of the point, like someone poking you in the chest to make an issue of something. Albert Einstein was a VERY unpleasant person to be around... That first letter 'A.' is most revealing. The deliberateness with which it was written suggests that Einstein is a pedant--or one who makes a showy display of knowledge. Pedants are those who like to impress you with trivial memorized facts and figures. Often, their doing so is just a mechanism to cover up their extreme inferiority complex. Einstein inferior? You had better believe it! One's openness to ideas is shown by the loops or non-loops of Bs, Ds, Fs, Hs, Ks, Ls, and Ts. Einstein's lower case 't' is as short as an i. This means that he was absolutely closed minded. People with schizophrenia are very closed minded to anything but their imagined reality, or delusions. Those loops or knots in the capital 'E' denote tenacity--a good trait, IF one is tenacious for the right things. That larger 'n' at the end of his name denotes talkativeness and inability to keep a secret. The high-placed and too long 't' bar denotes self- protectiveness and proficiency with verbal put-downs (as in... chop-your- head-off). Einstein used a protracted (in time and space) 'A.' Such letter looks like a teacher's proudly marked "A." on a test paper--a grade he never made in school. Handwriting is a marvelous indicator of IQ! Speed, fluidity, simplification, and legibility indicate intelligence. Angular forms are slower to write than curved forms and suggest a lower intelligence. Einstein's writing is bogged down with aggressive, angular forms... So, how did Einstein manage to "accomplish" so much? He had the work ethic of a man possessed! He devoted himself, untiringly, to compensating for his intellectual
On Feb 20, 2:28 pm, Puppet_Sock <puppet_s...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 20, 1:52 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:> Two of the strongest indicators of suitability for public office
> [snip more of the same off-topic blather]
> This guy's posting style looks very familiar. Is it a Min clone? > A Retic clone? A mimic? > Socks
Dear Puppet S...: My "style" is to be as clear as possible about my science and about how I have discovered that major "trusted" institutions in this country are screwing up not only science, but the prospects that the USA will make it another two or three centuries.
On the other hand, (Puppet Sock), your "style" is to avoid discussing the issues that I have raised in my post. Instead, you disparage the fact that I am not only a better and more energetic communicator than you, but I have worthy things to be communicated. If you will, please itemize YOUR worthy objectives for... anything in this Universe of ours! -- NoEinstein --
On Feb 20, 2:52 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
This present post should have included a link to the original "handwriting related" post regarding Obama, Clinton, and McCain. The letters to President Bush, at the end of the former, were intended to be included at the end of another of my posts, last year: "NC Governor Should Resign Over Science". The reason I was putting most of those letters there--all lumped under that one post--is because NC has six of those 22 universities. Included beneath that same post is a 'sampling' of the national media that I've contacted concerning the same subject. I've repeatedly informed the media not only about my complete and total disproof of Einstein's theories, but about my discovery of the widespread corruption and inertia in our universities; as well as, the couldn't-care-less attitudes of our governments toward wasteful spending. A prime example of the latter: the MAJORITY of the National Science Foundation's approximate seven billion dollar annual budget. I used to live in NC, so I know the huge emphasis that NC puts on attracting new industries. Part of it was due to their so-called Research Triangle Park near Raleigh. The larger part, now, is that NC happens to have those six highly regarded universities--at about three times the national average for a large state. NC Governor Mike Easley uses every opportunity he can to tout the 'excellence' of teaching available in his state; and the latitude of "research" going on there. But it's a BLACK EYE to NC universities, and to that whole state, that those universities are REPRESSING having my Einstein disproofs acknowledged. Folks the "good news" is: NC has highly 'respected' universities; the "bad news" is: What those universities teach, and much of what they... research is fraudulently wrong! And the media, there, won't allow the citizens of NC to learn about the CRIMES of Governor Easley, and so many others... ***Other states which have lost industries to NC, because of such fraud, should sue NC for the full monetary value of their combined losses!*** Due to the age of the above mentioned "NC..." post, the "Reply" button no longer makes such available to Google's larger readership. So, I had to add the present post in order to get my letters to President Bush 'on-the-record'. Equally important to those two letters is my 'personality' assessment of Obama, Clinton, and McCain. Because I've had 'graphology' as a hobby since I was a teen, I have been most attuned to people's personalities. I've either contacted, or have seen the signatures of, many top executives in my life. So, I know pretty well what type people will make good executives. A goodly number of top executives have either "risen to the level of their own incompetence", or they are the 'limp fish' puppets of the executive board. Some presidents of universities fit that category, like the head of Georgia Tech. If, under the most unfortunate circumstances that John McCain were to become president, he would be such a puppet of the Republican Party. Barack Obama is a very smart, detail oriented, egotistical, LONER. Because of his stature and confident speaking style, people are rallying behind him. But they're still rallying behind a LONER with very few people skills, and no executive experience. When it was revealed that Obama expresses different ideas about NAFTA publicly, than privately; and that he is more "clinging" to the war in Iraq privately, than publicly; doubt is cast on the man's integrity. That's part of the reason that Hillary Rodham Clinton won Texas and Ohio. Shamefully, those revelations that Obama isn't as 'truthful' as his confident speeches imply, DID NOT reduce his getting 90% of the "block vote of blacks" in subsequent states. Though Obama has more in common with WHITES than blacks, he has become the figurehead for black causes. Such status will not only ruin his presidency, it will reinstate segregation as 'an issue' in this country--if there is even one instance of... reverse discrimination because of what that man says or does. ***It is crucial that I clarify that I love ALL people, regardless of their race or color! Time and again on these posts I point the finger at... GROUP IDENTITIES as being the main causes of the world's problems. When blacks vote as a block, and often against reason, their group identities are hurting the entire world. Blacks, PLEASE become color blind! Jews and Muslims, PLEASE become religion blind! Representatives, PLEASE become political party blind!*** Only by disregarding our differences, and by recognizing those many things that we of the world have in common, can wars; terrorism; poverty; and strife be eliminated, and thereby restore HOPE for the future of life on this beautiful planet of ours! PLEASE ELECT: Hillary Rodham Clinton President of the United States of America! -- NoEinstein --
> Two of the strongest indicators of suitability for public office > are someone's personality and their core value system. Expert > handwriting analysis can ascertain such qualities in a person--and > without being overly influenced by their sometimes put-on public > personas. > Obviously, Einstein isn't running for President. But he keeps > getting "re elected" by those in Ivory Towers; in government; and in > our very nearsighted media to be: The Poster Boy of Intellect. This > past year my various posts on sci.physics have documented my complete > and total disproof of Einstein. In those posts, and in my replies to > the comments of others, I've often referred to the man as: "...moronic > Einstein". The latter isn't some all-too-convenient putdown of > someone with whom I have disagreement. Rather, it is the result of a > lifetime of having been a keen observer of human nature. > This past year I wrote to President Bush urging him to reduce, by > about two billion dollars, his 2008 budget request for the National > Science Foundation. That's the approximate amount of money such > agency is wasting each and every year on grants to universities to > "research" anything and everything to do with Einstein's ideas about > the Universe. Of course, I also sent detailed descriptions of my > findings to the science and technology committee chairmen; the budget > committee chairmen; as well as to my congressman and one of my > senators. The latter two wrote me token reply letters. But I never > heard from the President, nor from those four committee chairmen. > The 2008 budget got approved... But President Bush didn't veto the > NSF's portion--as I had urged him to do. So, another two billion > dollars of taxpayers' money is being wasted. Now, the correction of > the inflated National Science Foundation's budget will likely fall on > either Clinton, Obama, or McCain to correct. > Last spring TIME Magazine ran a simplistic and amateurish > handwriting analysis of the six frontrunners for President. The > signatures of all were shown. So, I did my own professional level > analysis of each candidate's writing, and immediately sent such to > TIME. But true to form, TIME won't acknowledge that anything in its > pages has ever been less than... "perfection" (as seen in the eyes of > their management). > One of my fascinating hobbies is graphology, or handwriting > analysis. I began doing such at age twelve. Most of the books that I > read on the subject said that if the various letters in a person's > writing are shaped a certain way it will mean this or that. To do an > analysis of someone's writing, a person either has to memorize the > meanings of the letter forms, or they must use a book(s) for > reference. My favorite book, a paperback, came loose at the binding > because I used it so much. I realized that most books that are > written about graphology either don't want to explain how to analyze > writing, or they simply don't know how to do it. Several of the books > I read were written my people who analyzed celebrity's writing. But > since most celebrities are known personalities from the outset, what > is said doesn't necessarily result from what is learned just from the > handwriting. Those books have a lot of pictures of handwriting > samples. Often there were arrows pointing here and there at the > letters. The inference is that the explanations in the text correlate > to the peculiarities being pointed to on the samples. > After about ten years of using my books for making analyses, I > realized I had learned more from those people that I had done analyses > of, than from those I had read about. So, I didn't need reference > books any more. Now, my unique perspective is understanding the > meaning of the dynamics of the hand as it moves across the paper. I > can be across a room, and still discern the personality of a person > who is writing. I do that by watching how their hand, arm and pen > move! Of course I can make a more thorough analysis if I can see the > actual writing. > My favorite impromptu subjects are: waitresses, bank tellers and > clerks whom I see writing for the first time. Often,
|
