I understand the definition of the use of the words. Graphology is not accepted as a scientific standard for use in a court of law. I understand what it looks at. I also understand what the Scientific people say are accepted points. In my view point is how I should have worded everything I stated. From now on I guess I should always use IMO.
Everything I wrote was based on how I see it and my opinion. I didn't attack anything you stated. I don't understand how come everyone gets so sensitive and defensive to my posts as if I am accusing people of not thinking for themselves because I used TS and numerology as my basis for believing in Linda and Jesse/Elvis. If you choose not to believe based on what you found that is fine.
Peace
I am not defensive, I am answering your comment. I never said I didn`t believe anything. I actually said that I did believe that it is possible that Elvis faked his death and have stated that for the third time now. I also said that I believed in TS, Michael and Michael`s hoax. You have assumed that because I looked into whether or not graphology is the proper analysis to use to establish authorship of a document and whether or not it is recognized by the scientific and legal communities and I found that it isn`t on both questions, that I therefore don`t believe Linda. But I never said whether I believed her or not. Whether I believe Linda or not has no bearing on my inquiry into graphology (it`s uses, it acceptance in as a science and in the legal realm etc).
As I previously stated, I feel I have an obligation to provide any and all information, that I discover, to the members of this site. Whether it be good, bad, ugly, or beautiful, it doesn`t matter. We all deserve to have all the information available on a subject, to be able to have an informed opinion on that subject. If you take issue with that and feel I am attacking your beliefs because of this, you are mistaken. I am only providing the information and that is all. What the reader decides to do with that information is up to them.
I did read everything you wrote and understood when you said what you believed in or did not believe in. That is what I mean by defensive. When I said if you choose not to believe them (based on your findings) it was meant as that is your right to do so not as if I was implying you didn't.
I don't make assumptions of how you think based on the info you provided when I expressed my opinion on it. The questions you could of answered were the ones with the question marks and then leave everything else out of it. I do feel like you get defensive of words based on how you have interpreted mine. I am not even thinking that your attacking my beliefs. I don't funtion like that. I don't get emotional when I am expressing an opinion here on the forum when it deals with these kind of facts that you provided.
Telling me again of your obligation to bring this info here is defensive to my words as if I accused you of doing something shady by bringing the info here. That statement has nothing to do with what I said about the info you did bring. You are telling me your emotional reasons why you brought the info. I wasn't speaking on your intentions.
I am a analytical thinker, I also am a person who uses common sense even if I am looking at facts like what you brought. In a court of law when the DA doesn't have a body to provide as evidence to the jury a murder has been commited they have to use examples or circumstancial evidence and a whole lot of flashy talking to convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that it happened. The jury then relys on their common sense if it makes sense or not. Life consists of more than rules, what the scientific community says is acceptable or not and we use our common sense to make decisions everyday, at least I do.
I understand the definition of the use of the words. Graphology is not accepted as a scientific standard for use in a court of law. I understand what it looks at. I also understand what the Scientific people say are accepted points. In my view point is how I should have worded everything I stated. From now on I guess I should always use IMO.
Everything I wrote was based on how I see it and my opinion. I didn't attack anything you stated. I don't understand how come everyone gets so sensitive and defensive to my posts as if I am accusing people of not thinking for themselves because I used TS and numerology as my basis for believing in Linda and Jesse/Elvis. If you choose not to believe based on what you found that is fine.
Peace
I am not defensive, I am answering your comment. I never said I didn`t believe anything. I actually said that I did believe that it is possible that Elvis faked his death and have stated that for the third time now. I also said that I believed in TS, Michael and Michael`s hoax. You have assumed that because I looked into whether or not graphology is the proper analysis to use to establish authorship of a document and whether or not it is recognized by the scientific and legal communities and I found that it isn`t on both questions, that I therefore don`t believe Linda. But I never said whether I believed her or not. Whether I believe Linda or not has no bearing on my inquiry into graphology (it`s uses, it acceptance in as a science and in the legal realm etc).
As I previously stated, I feel I have an obligation to provide any and all information, that I discover, to the members of this site. Whether it be good, bad, ugly, or beautiful, it doesn`t matter. We all deserve to have all the information available on a subject, to be able to have an informed opinion on that subject. If you take issue with that and feel I am attacking your beliefs because of this, you are mistaken. I am only providing the information and that is all. What the reader decides to do with that information is up to them.
I did read everything you wrote and understood when you said what you believed in or did not believe in. That is what I mean by defensive. When I said if you choose not to believe them (based on your findings) it was meant as that is your right to do so not as if I was implying you didn't.
I don't make assumptions of how you think based on the info you provided when I expressed my opinion on it. The questions you could of answered were the ones with the question marks and then leave everything else out of it. I do feel like you get defensive of words based on how you have interpreted mine. I am not even thinking that your attacking my beliefs. I don't funtion like that. I don't get emotional when I am expressing an opinion here on the forum when it deals with these kind of facts that you provided.
Telling me again of your obligation to bring this info here is defensive to my words as if I accused you of doing something shady by bringing the info here. That statement has nothing to do with what I said about the info you did bring. You are telling me your emotional reasons why you brought the info. I wasn't speaking on your intentions.
I am a analytical thinker, I also am a person who uses common sense even if I am looking at facts like what you brought. In a court of law when the DA doesn't have a body to provide as evidence to the jury a murder has been commited they have to use examples or circumstancial evidence and a whole lot of flashy talking to convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that it happened. The jury then relys on their common sense if it makes sense or not. Life consists of more than rules, what the scientific community says is acceptable or not and we use our common sense to make decisions everyday, at least I do.
Peace
I am not going to argue with you. You are again assuming my state of mind and applying your own interpretation of what I have written, when that is not anywhere near the intentions. Please do not continue this, it has absolutely nothing to do with the topic of Graphology. I provided the facts on graphology, it`s uses and lack of acceptance in our society. Spin it any way you want, but graphology is pseudoscience and is not the correct analysis to prove authorship of a document.
Back to the topic and not about me...
This is what I want to talk about.
In all seriousness, if Linda wanted to prove that the documents and letters were written by Elvis why hasn`t she had the analyzed by a certified Forensic Document Examiner <!-- s:?: -->:?:<!-- s:?: -->
This is what these people do, they compared handwriting samples to determine authorship, a graphologist does not do that and it would unequivocally substantiate her claims.
Is it because no FDE would certify them <!-- s:?: -->:?:<!-- s:?: -->
Why would that be <!-- s:?: -->:?:<!-- s:?: -->
She could have submitted the letters with a sample of his known handwriting without it being revealed it was actually Elvis.
Also why if Jesse wants to set the record straight as Linda says hasn`t he just come forward and done so <!-- s:?: -->:?:<!-- s:?: -->
I am not Elvis and I don`t know why he faked his death, if he did but I am conflicted about whether he truly is wanting to be revealed as alive and neither Linda nor Eliza has really explained why he hasn`t come forward himself. If Eliza`s case is successful than it will prove he is alive so why waste all the time and effort, just come forward and settle the whole thing and then disappear again. I mean if Jesse Presley, is Elvis, we already have his name and yet he is able to remain hidden. If Eliza`s case is successful it will cause a media frenzy but that won`t be any different than Jesse himself coming forward and telling his tale, doing a DNA test or whatever is required...
<!-- s;) -->;)<!-- s;) -->
I was done with the topic of your state of mind when I hit submit. If you want to talk about the topic and forensic science, again what I am saying based on analyzing the information given by you, Linda, Eliza, Jesse/Elvis, TS and whomever else:
I have come to a beyond a reasonable doubt using my intuition and common sense that the writings are from Elvis. That is my opinion of the writings. I believe that sometimes in life you have to come to a conclusion based on what you have to work with. There may never be those types of evidences that we know will be accepted as real according to a science made up from a certain group of people. Saying something is pseudoscience doesn't necessarily make it so. I might use pseudo thinking everyday in my life. My way of living or thinking is not the same as everyone elses. I think that is my point in how I am viewing this.
Serenity_Dream
For all we know TS/Michael wanted us to find these issues, with both Linda and Eliza's evidence. This could all be part of the ARG, Human Nature, acceptance, belief and faith issues. Think bigger, outside the box and not just from one perspective...
Thank you Serenitys_Dream for your investigation and posting the results here to share with all of us.
Now with the 'shaky' DNA and 'shaky' handwriting, what is left of "the strongest scientific proofs that he really did fake his death—and in fact, he is still alive to this very day"?
Eliza says Elvis wants to set the record straight before he is really gone. It beats me, but why would Elvis need a rickety court case to set the record straight?
There can be one Jesse, there can be two Jesse's, and there even can be no Jesse at all but...of course we're all going to wait and see..... <!-- s:roll: -->:roll:<!-- s:roll: -->
Do you seriously think TS could have forseen this 'digging' on your part? Do you believe that TS is 100% sure that Elvis is alive? Or is he only resting on Linda's and Eliza's convictions. When married to Lisa do you think MJ would have seen Elvis? It is this MJ-Elvis connection that has always left a bad taste in my mouth, but I trust Michael knows what he's doing. Big helping of wait and see.
The point of my post is that we have to think for ourselves and believe what we choose but to do so with an informed mind. We have people using Linda's updates to her site, to discredit Eliza. Yet, both of these women's evidence is just as shaky so neither can really discredit the other and we should not just be believing one over the other either. They may be both in contact with Elvis, one may be in contact with Elvis and the other is being fooled or neither of them may actually be in contact with Elvis. This situation is not so cut and dried.
Amen! That is what I tried to say, but you worded it better. Judgement and accusations based on assumptions is not thinking for yourself, but investigating and making up your own mind is.
This webpage did not have an anchor at the right part of the page for a normal jump, so a “jumpless-pointer” was included in the URL. Of course there are many things on the page of interest; but the most significant was that Linda had talked with Jesse one day prior to May 13, 2010—which means that Elvis is still alive now. And we know that Linda is not a fake, because Eliza has a link to her page (see 6-7, below); and also because Linda was involved with Dr. Hinton, the one who was cleared of fraud charges {http://www.lindahoodsigmontruth.com/page1}.
As far as I can read TS wrote that Linda is not fake because Eliza redirected to her website, and Linda is Elvis' informer....
If Linda is Elvis' informer, then what she writes should be the truth, right? If not what kind of informer she is!
If she is in touch with the fake Jesse, then why did Eliza redirect to Linda's website......?
Probably we have another nice Elvis/MJ parallel here......
As far as I can read TS wrote that Linda is not fake because Eliza redirected to her website, and Linda is Elvis' informer....
If Linda is Elvis' informer, then what she writes should be the truth, right? If not what kind of informer she is!
If she is in touch with the fake Jesse, then why did Eliza redirect to Linda's website......?
Probably we have another nice Elvis/MJ parallel here......
The important thing is to find if Jesse is legit on the first place. The credibility of those 2 women depends on Jesse. At the end, those 2 women have put their trust in Jesse and his claims. He could have been the fraud one, not Eliza or Linda. They would represent the collateral damaged created by the delutional mind of someone pretending to be Elvis.
As far as I can read TS wrote that Linda is not fake because Eliza redirected to her website, and Linda is Elvis' informer....
If Linda is Elvis' informer, then what she writes should be the truth, right? If not what kind of informer she is!
If she is in touch with the fake Jesse, then why did Eliza redirect to Linda's website......?
Probably we have another nice Elvis/MJ parallel here......
The important thing is to find if Jesse is legit on the first place. The credibility of those 2 women depends on Jesse. At the end, those 2 women have put their trust in Jesse and his claims. He could have been the fraud one, not Eliza or Linda. They would represent the collateral damaged created by the delutional mind of someone pretending to be Elvis.
What I'm saying here is, as far as Eliza redirected to Linda website does mean that Eliza thinks, or thought, that Linda's information are valid and legit, so I can't see how this redirection could led to the conclusion that the two women are in touch with two different Jesse.
I don't know if Jesse is Elvis, if Linda is in touch with Elvis himself, that is not important for me, what is important is that Eliza's redirect means that she knows very well what kind of info Linda has...
Did they ever mention how they got in contact with Jesse the first time?
Did Jesse contacted both of them?
Was one contacted by Jesse and the other got to know by the one?
How was Jesse introduced on the first place? and the psychiatric Doctor. How does he fit in to the picture? Was Jesse demanding meds from the Doctor first and the doc connected Eliza and Linda?
That triangle is not clear to me.
Also, how can a doctor prescribe medications to a patient he never saw in person?
<!-- s:ugeek: -->:ugeek:<!-- s:ugeek: --> Ok first I apologize for going back on my word when I said I wouldn't comment here anymore. I couldn't help this though. I was so hoping someone would pick up on this info. Since I haven't seen anyone picking up on the info that is actually written in this thread and on Linda's website I will point it out.
First in regards to whether or not the Graphology opinion is acceptable or not in a court of law based on scientific rules of points matching:
The Attorney General of Missouri accepted Ms. Mason's opinion into evidence and he ruled to drop ALL charges of fraud against Dr. Hinton. <!-- m -->http://www.lindahoodsigmontruth.com/page4<!-- m -->
Please take note that Jesse wrote this letter to the Attorney General of Missouri in December, 2002. The Attorney General brought in Ms. Mason to certify that the letter to him actually was written by none other than Elvis Presley. The Attorney General admitted Ms. Mason's report into evidence in his decision on the charges against Dr. Hinton. The Attorney General's investigation resulted in all fraud charges being dropped against Dr. Hinton.
Does his ruling count when deciding if the writing is acceptable in your own mind that it is geniune?
The Attorney General of Missouri called in this graphologist to examine and certify the writer of this letter. The Attorney General cleared Dr. Hinton of all charges of fraud.
Jeremiah Wilson "Jay" Nixon (born February 13, 1956) is the 55th and current Governor of the U.S. state of Missouri. A member of the Democratic Party, he previously served as Missouri's Attorney General before his election in 2008. Nixon holds both an undergraduate degree and a law degree from the University of Missouri in Columbia.
Ms. Mason was indeed a graphologist in every sense of the word. That is the only way I have referenced her in all of my statements. However, in an effort to educate myself more in regard to the legal terms used for graphologist's findings which are accepted in a court of law, I have learned that I have been using an incorrect term.
Actually, when handwriting analysis is accepted as evidence in legal proceedings, the legal term for it is the findings of a Forensic Document Examiner. Due to Ms. Mason's over 10 year history of professional association working with the Kansas City, Missouri Bureau of Investigation...and that her findings have stood as "concrete evidence" in criminal cases, her correct professional title relating to this portion of her work is:
Forensic Document Examiner
Also to answer the questions about submitting the writing to a FDE, on page 51 Linda addresses this and she did do it.
<!-- m -->http://www.lindahoodsigmontruth.com/page51<!-- m -->
FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 24, 2010
Regarding the update which I added concerning the fact that the forensic document authentication firm, which did my on-line authentication of Jesse's/Elvis Presley's autograph, was unable to authenticate the very same autograph when I submitted the actual book for their hands-on examination:
I could not be more pleased with the outcome...contrary to some reactions to the hands-on conclusion. The reasons I feel this way are:
I did not have to send the actual book to the firm after they had already unequivocally authenticated it as Elvis's autograph. I did not have to even make public the fact that they declined to authenticate it from the actual hands-on of the book itself. I did both of these things in an effort to be totally honest and forthright...just as I am about everything I put on my site.
The important thing is that after the hands-on examination, they DID NOT indicate that they could not authenticate it because of the handwritten autograph itself...only that the book was published in 2001 and Elvis Presley died in 1977.
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 2, 2010
Just a word to clarify something about this authentication. The ONLY reason I had this analysis done was so that I could post it on this web site. I was hoping that people would recognize proof when they saw it.
Please do not slander this well respected firm...law suits have been filed for this type of behavior.
I remind everyone that this is but one tiny piece of the vast amount of substantiated evidence which I have on this site.
I close by saying, once again, if you were a juror, the judge would admonish you to: "Be reasonable, use your common sense, and go with the preponderance of evidence."
Found this fanstastic site about the family history and all the Jesses in the family. Worth a look at if you have the time.......remember to love one another..God Bless.
I am Elvis fan i always knew in my heart he faked his death.I commend him into stay in hidding for 33 yrs. I would have loved to see how he lived for these 33 yrs. Did he live as a poor man, or a rich man? Just curious. I hope Michael doesn"t decide to wait 33 yrs to come out <!-- s --><!-- s --> I am with Souza on this we shall wait until dec.14 to see what happens.
Comments
I don't make assumptions of how you think based on the info you provided when I expressed my opinion on it. The questions you could of answered were the ones with the question marks and then leave everything else out of it. I do feel like you get defensive of words based on how you have interpreted mine. I am not even thinking that your attacking my beliefs. I don't funtion like that. I don't get emotional when I am expressing an opinion here on the forum when it deals with these kind of facts that you provided.
Telling me again of your obligation to bring this info here is defensive to my words as if I accused you of doing something shady by bringing the info here. That statement has nothing to do with what I said about the info you did bring. You are telling me your emotional reasons why you brought the info. I wasn't speaking on your intentions.
I am a analytical thinker, I also am a person who uses common sense even if I am looking at facts like what you brought. In a court of law when the DA doesn't have a body to provide as evidence to the jury a murder has been commited they have to use examples or circumstancial evidence and a whole lot of flashy talking to convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that it happened. The jury then relys on their common sense if it makes sense or not. Life consists of more than rules, what the scientific community says is acceptable or not and we use our common sense to make decisions everyday, at least I do.
Peace
I am not going to argue with you. You are again assuming my state of mind and applying your own interpretation of what I have written, when that is not anywhere near the intentions. Please do not continue this, it has absolutely nothing to do with the topic of Graphology. I provided the facts on graphology, it`s uses and lack of acceptance in our society. Spin it any way you want, but graphology is pseudoscience and is not the correct analysis to prove authorship of a document.
Back to the topic and not about me...
This is what I want to talk about.
In all seriousness, if Linda wanted to prove that the documents and letters were written by Elvis why hasn`t she had the analyzed by a certified Forensic Document Examiner <!-- s:?: -->:?:<!-- s:?: -->
This is what these people do, they compared handwriting samples to determine authorship, a graphologist does not do that and it would unequivocally substantiate her claims.
Is it because no FDE would certify them <!-- s:?: -->:?:<!-- s:?: -->
Why would that be <!-- s:?: -->:?:<!-- s:?: -->
She could have submitted the letters with a sample of his known handwriting without it being revealed it was actually Elvis.
Also why if Jesse wants to set the record straight as Linda says hasn`t he just come forward and done so <!-- s:?: -->:?:<!-- s:?: -->
I am not Elvis and I don`t know why he faked his death, if he did but I am conflicted about whether he truly is wanting to be revealed as alive and neither Linda nor Eliza has really explained why he hasn`t come forward himself. If Eliza`s case is successful than it will prove he is alive so why waste all the time and effort, just come forward and settle the whole thing and then disappear again. I mean if Jesse Presley, is Elvis, we already have his name and yet he is able to remain hidden. If Eliza`s case is successful it will cause a media frenzy but that won`t be any different than Jesse himself coming forward and telling his tale, doing a DNA test or whatever is required...
I was done with the topic of your state of mind when I hit submit. If you want to talk about the topic and forensic science, again what I am saying based on analyzing the information given by you, Linda, Eliza, Jesse/Elvis, TS and whomever else:
I have come to a beyond a reasonable doubt using my intuition and common sense that the writings are from Elvis. That is my opinion of the writings. I believe that sometimes in life you have to come to a conclusion based on what you have to work with. There may never be those types of evidences that we know will be accepted as real according to a science made up from a certain group of people. Saying something is pseudoscience doesn't necessarily make it so. I might use pseudo thinking everyday in my life. My way of living or thinking is not the same as everyone elses. I think that is my point in how I am viewing this.
I won't respond anymore on your topic.
Peace
As far as I can read TS wrote that Linda is not fake because Eliza redirected to her website, and Linda is Elvis' informer....
If Linda is Elvis' informer, then what she writes should be the truth, right? If not what kind of informer she is!
If she is in touch with the fake Jesse, then why did Eliza redirect to Linda's website......?
Probably we have another nice Elvis/MJ parallel here......
The important thing is to find if Jesse is legit on the first place. The credibility of those 2 women depends on Jesse. At the end, those 2 women have put their trust in Jesse and his claims. He could have been the fraud one, not Eliza or Linda. They would represent the collateral damaged created by the delutional mind of someone pretending to be Elvis.
What I'm saying here is, as far as Eliza redirected to Linda website does mean that Eliza thinks, or thought, that Linda's information are valid and legit, so I can't see how this redirection could led to the conclusion that the two women are in touch with two different Jesse.
I don't know if Jesse is Elvis, if Linda is in touch with Elvis himself, that is not important for me, what is important is that Eliza's redirect means that she knows very well what kind of info Linda has...
Did Jesse contacted both of them?
Was one contacted by Jesse and the other got to know by the one?
How was Jesse introduced on the first place? and the psychiatric Doctor. How does he fit in to the picture? Was Jesse demanding meds from the Doctor first and the doc connected Eliza and Linda?
That triangle is not clear to me.
Also, how can a doctor prescribe medications to a patient he never saw in person?
Ok first I apologize for going back on my word when I said I wouldn't comment here anymore. I couldn't help this though. I was so hoping someone would pick up on this info. Since I haven't seen anyone picking up on the info that is actually written in this thread and on Linda's website I will point it out.
First in regards to whether or not the Graphology opinion is acceptable or not in a court of law based on scientific rules of points matching:
The Attorney General of Missouri accepted Ms. Mason's opinion into evidence and he ruled to drop ALL charges of fraud against Dr. Hinton. <!-- m -->http://www.lindahoodsigmontruth.com/page4<!-- m -->
Does his ruling count when deciding if the writing is acceptable in your own mind that it is geniune?
The letter from Jesse/Elvis to the AG is on this link:
<!-- m -->http://www.lindahoodsigmontruth.com/page2<!-- m -->
<!-- m -->http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jay_Nixon<!-- m --> On this link Linda addresses the issue of the wording between Graphology and FDE.
<!-- m -->http://www.lindahoodsigmontruth.com/page3<!-- m --> Also to answer the questions about submitting the writing to a FDE, on page 51 Linda addresses this and she did do it.
<!-- m -->http://www.lindahoodsigmontruth.com/page51<!-- m --> <!-- s:ugeek: -->:ugeek:<!-- s:ugeek: -->
Peace
<!-- m -->http://www.elvis.com.au/<!-- m -->
Listen to this interview...........sounds familiar.[youtube:p79luy08]