The World Bank Group / Committee of 300 Secret Documents

Look at these signatures which are supposedly legit from other documents.

Founding documents

A second sig

I will post the photos here also for comparison.





Notice the similarities between this and the document in question.

However please note the first photo is from 1953 and the second is from 1973.
These two signatures alone cause me to think they could very well be the same as that in the document from the OP.

Compare the E, the Z, and the T style and stroke.
Very similar.

Originally posted by Afterthought
reply to post by muzzleflash

 

Believe it or not, but I'm a trained handwriting analyst and have studied questioned signatures.
Althought it's different trying to make an educated guess on a computer screen, I'm saying these are not the real thing. I spotted some obvious things that wouldn't change over time. Let me go back and quote her post, so I can point these out.

Check the signatures I just posted above this post.

Compare those closely. You should see far more similarities in these.

reply to post by muzzleflash


Thanks for your help...This is an awful lot of information to try to hoax, so if we can prove the sigatures false, that would seem to potentially mean an inside hoax. There is something to this whole story, and this may be set up as a false flag to distract people from the truth. If you look at the Green Hilton agreement, it's clear that the Philippines had an enormous amount of gold.....there is some truth somewhere in all of this, and even if the documents are fake, this still needs to be researched.

Edit: Wow.....I may be wrong in thinking they are fake. Those signatures do have a better resemblence to those in the documents. We need someone that knows what they are looking at to prove if these documents are fakes or not.....Great find Muzzleflash!!!!

The loop of the cursive 'z' in Elizabeth is incomplete in the known signature, but the forged one is complete.
Most times, this will not change over an adult's lifetime. If someone makes complete loops, the size may change, but they usually won't go from complete to broken. A broken line is highly suspect when dealing with a known signature that is free flowing.

The 'E' in Elizabeth is also wrong. The known signature shows a little loop at the completion of the 'E', the fraudulent signature is lacking this. Also, the 'l' in Elizabeth is a flat 90 degree line on the left side, the fraudulent signature shows this line as curved. This would also not change over an adult's lifetime. The loop at the end of the 'E' might, but the line leading into the 'l' would not. As you can see, the known signature has a very slight line leading into the 'l', while the fraudulent signature shows a long lead in. This is also not considered to be a characteristic change over time.

You can also see two huge differences in the 't' of Elizabeth. The fraudulent one has a wide loop in the verticle t bar, while the known signature is tight. The horizontal t bar is a long slash in the fraudulent signature, while the same line is a short and stunted line in the known signature.

I could also point out differences in the other signatures as well, but I feel I've made my point. I could go on and on, but I think it would be beating a dead horse.

In conclusion, I've seen signatures of people who have aged compared to signatures of when they were younger as I've worked on wills and quick claim deeds. What we're seeing here are not characteristic changes with age.

I see a very interesting similarity between the "TH" and "TH" between the in question document and these other older documents.

Notice how the T gets crossed and the H is almost non existent. It's almost as if they are combined and a very small stroke is applied to the end where the H should be.

Also notice the small deviation that occurred with the BE, how originally the B led into the E during the 50s-70s documents, but in this 2010 document it is almost as if the B is followed by an lower case cursive R now(where the E should be), and this is indeed possible over 40 years of signatures.

Although this isn't absolute proof, I am seeing some uncanny similarities here.

We have to take into account the vast age differences between the documents, for example the E at the beginning of the name begins with a curve at the top of the E in the old documents, but this 2010 document it is a very straight line at the top of the E.

I am not sure how this deviation would occur but due to the scribbles it appears that the Queen could indeed have a form of 'shaky hand' issue like Parkinson's or Alzheimer's or just simply old age, and this could explain the poor quality and shaky nature of the signature.

I will continue looking around and see if I can't find some more recent signatures within the last 10 years to see how it evolves and compare them.

Originally posted by muzzleflash

Originally posted by Afterthought
reply to post by muzzleflash

 

Believe it or not, but I'm a trained handwriting analyst and have studied questioned signatures.
Althought it's different trying to make an educated guess on a computer screen, I'm saying these are not the real thing. I spotted some obvious things that wouldn't change over time. Let me go back and quote her post, so I can point these out.

Check the signatures I just posted above this post.

Compare those closely. You should see far more similarities in these.

Thanks for posting those. I jsut saw them and remain steadfast in my analysis. The 'y' is so wrong I can't even believe that someone even gave the forgery a honest effort (if you can say that).

One thing I'd like to add is that characteristic won't change with size. A person's signature will retain all characteristics whether they're writing very small or very large.

For example, look at your signature on a document compared to the one on your driver's license. Even though the driver's license gave you a very small space to sign upon, then it was scanned into a computer, your writing characteristics will remain and you can see this through the pixelations.

Really amazing thread, i did wonder why they are so poor if they are the centre of everything.i found this paragraph very interesting from that weird website posted above

"Only the few corrupt and dishonest business operators and government officials are benefiting, leading the country's financial comfort. The blood money of the three (3) million (OFW) Overseas Foreign Workers remmitted to the Philippines for the their family's basic livelihood for foods,clothings, house, shelters and education of their children paid to the catholic school, colleges and universities are collectively send to Vatican Church tax free , two times in a year. Therefore the Philippines financial situation is always drained and start from nothing each and every year."

so its saying the entire country is in poverty because all the money just gets sent to the Vatican instead each year, and the truth is that millions do live in absolute poverty.

Also just below it they say how the accounts all matured in 2005 and this is one way how they would like to give money to the people:
To file a claim for the release of the 4.85% interest from the Mother Account list of deposit in 844 in various banks accounts deposited in the different countries of the world. In which already matured in the year 2005 are known to all men, ststed in bi-yearly report of BANKS STATEMENT AND AMENTMENT intended and directed for the humanitarian and National Economic Development of for the people of the Philippine Islands 50%-70% and 30%-50% the world.

So they want to get access to their entitled interest which seems not possible right now

reply to post by muzzleflash


Something else to think about....it may be possible that these are "digital signatures". With technology today, things are often signed on pads to render them digitally...I do this with Fed Ex, UPS, and several stores. This may account for the shakey handwriting and the similarity of R Zoellick's signature.

reply to post by muzzleflash


I'm still holding steadfast in my opinion.
Look at the supposedly forged signature on the document in question. The lower case 'a' is retraced (very dark ink) and the distance between the other letters is unnatural. You can also see this in the signatures you posted as a valid comparison. There is really no need to retrace any letters in a signature. Retracing is another tell tale sign of a forgery.

Here is a 2011 signature : Source



Another recent one : source



And another one, this one is several decades older though:
source

Originally posted by isyeye
reply to post by muzzleflash

 

Something else to think about....it may be possible that these are "digital signatures". With technology today, things are often signed on pads to render them digitally...I do this with Fed Ex, UPS, and several stores. This may account for the shakey handwriting and the similarity of R Zoellick's signature.

edit on 10-1-2012 by isyeye because: (no reason given)

I hate digital signatures. They are so sloppy and horrifying to be honest.
I always make a mess when trying to do one of those.
Good points.

Originally posted by isyeye
reply to post by muzzleflash

 

Something else to think about....it may be possible that these are "digital signatures". With technology today, things are often signed on pads to render them digitally...I do this with Fed Ex, UPS, and several stores. This may account for the shakey handwriting and the similarity of R Zoellick's signature.

edit on 10-1-2012 by isyeye because: (no reason given)

Yes, but you would never use one of these electronic pads to sign a document ever.
I did address the pixelation when discussing how your signature for your driver's license is scanned into the computer and causes the signature lines to appear broken. Although this "breakage" isn't what I'm referring to in my analysis. When I speak of line breaks, I'm talking about when one lifts the pen.

reply to post by Afterthought


If they were faking these signatures why didn't they just make a direct image copy of the originals we have all over the internet? You would think going through all this trouble would warrant just making a photoshop style copy which would have been easier than actually trying to retrace them by hand.

Just a thought.

reply to post by Afterthought


The "a:" you are refering to is in the Queen's REAL signature, not the one on the document...at least I think that's what you are refering to.

reply to post by Afterthought


Wouldn't someone's signature be a bit different if they were ill and their hands were shaky?

Also what if they were under duress, or very anxious (such as in a dire situation)?

Just more thoughts to add to the mix.

Thanks for taking a closer look at this and pointing out what you notice to be interesting differences. I enjoy having someone to 'debate' it with if you want to call it that. It's nice to play devil's advocate back and forth on this issue.

Any more comments you have would be greatly appreciated.

OK, I see where I confused the two in my first analysis. As a correction, the KNOWN signature has an incomplete loop in the 'z', while the forged one has a complete loop.
As you can see from the other signatures submitted, there is no reason why she would complete the loop on these documents when she's always written her 'z's with incomplete loops.
So, regarding my first analysis, I'm correcting my error.

Look at the way the "A" is made. Sometimes it has an internal circle and sometimes it's almost non-existent. This A styling seems highly similar in the OP document and the comparison sigs.

Also look at the Z section, and notice how her dot on the I is often moving from side to side, but the average seems to be putting the dot for the I directly above the main column of the Z (which looks more like a lower case J).

I am seeing enough similarities here that it is causing me to question it much deeper.

from reading that website it seems like the money was intended for the people, to create a peaceful life but what is really happening is that the people can't access it and the TPTB and all the corrupt people around the world are using it, they're basically stealing the money intended to do good in the world to fund their own lifestyles and wars. They're living off the money that was intended for millions of people, no wonder they are so rich.

In turn, they filter as little money as possible through to the people, to live a very minimal existence while they live their dream off this, almost unlimited, fund that was designed for the complete opposite.

That's what i understand from that website. Seems quite likely as well, the error that was made was putting it all into accounts, maybe they got conned, promised security and interest, but really the money is being stolen for them, while they still stay it's there but the people who it's intended for can't get access.

makes sense to me, TPTB don't care about anything because theyre living off this unlimited wealth, spending millions of peoples money on the select few

"The financial planning was already put in placed in 1986 by two great Presidents namely late President Ferdinand E. Marcos-RP and late President Ronald W. Reagan - USA it was written into the Certificate of Entitlement as a "Gift of Love" to Mankind Mission under the Humanitarian and National Economic Development Program in the event Of global catastrophic economic crisis .

The Marcos Heritage Funds was deposited into banking institutions of the world to the different Major Banks of various countries. To stimulate General Economic Developmentr Program under the humanitarian Projects for the National and Global Economic Recovery."

reply to post by muzzleflash

Wouldn't someone's signature be a bit different if they were ill and their hands were shaky?

Yes, the lines would be shakier, but the slant of the lines and signature itself would remain the same unless the person was also suffering from depression. The breaks in the lines would change slightly if they had Parkinson's disease, but most people will still hold their characteristic signatures.

If you drink, you can give this a try. Sign your name after lunch when you're feeling your best. Place this signature somewhere it won't get lost. Next time you have a few drinks, sign your name again and compare it later with the original. You will notice certain changes such as slant (since alcohol is a depressant), but the characteristics should remain such as loops, lead ins, and curved/straight lines.

Handwriting is also called brainwritining. As adults, the way we feel comfortable writing our signatures becomes ingrained and the brain will always send down signals to the nerves in the hand to write how we've decided is comfortable and natural. It's unnatural to go back and retrace a letter within one's signature. Unless the pen is low on ink or the paper has dirt or dust on it or is made of a slick parchment, there is no need to retrace a letter. Most of the time, when an important document such as we're seeing here (had they been real), new pens are provided to the signees. Just as we see the President using several pens to sign documents, you can assume the same for this situation.

Originally posted by isyeye
reply to post by Afterthought

 

The "a:" you are refering to is in the Queen's REAL signature, not the one on the document...at least I think that's what you are refering to.

Am I confusing them?
The signature under the following statement you made here:

The Queen's signature is forged on the document

is the one I'm using as the questioned, or supposedly forged, signature. Have I confused them? This is the one that has the majority of the differences like the loop at the end of the 'E' and the complete loop in the 'z'.