Subject: Certainty

“Certainty? In this world nothing is certain but death and taxes.”
― Benjamin Franklin

“One of the few certainties in life is that persons of certainty should certainly be avoided.”
― Willy Russell, The Wrong Boy  

“Positive, adj.: Mistaken at the top of one's voice.”
― Ambrose Bierce, The Unabridged Devil's Dictionary 

“There is no such uncertainty as a sure thing.”
― Robert Burns, The Works of Robert Burns  

“At the core of all well-founded belief lies belief that is unfounded.”
― Ludwig Wittgenstein, On Certainty 

The quest for certainty blocks the search for meaning. Uncertainty is the very condition to impel man to unfold his powers.
Erich Fromm
Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/keywords/certainty.html#uMExZaKHqRbXtHth.99

"The quest for certainty blocks the search for meaning. Uncertainty is the very condition to impel man to unfold his powers."
― Erich Fromm

"To teach how to live without certainty and yet without being paralysed by hesitation is perhaps the chief thing that philosophy, in our age, can do for those who study it."
― Bertrand Russell

“Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science.”
― Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man 


Ed

Subject: Truthers

After years of observations, here are some common traits that appear to apply to all Anthrax Truthers:

1.  They all believe the government is wrong in saying Bruce Ivins was the anthrax killer.

2.  They all believe that they know "the truth," which is that someone other than Bruce Ivins did it.

3.  They cannot make any kind of meaningful case against whomever they think did it.

4.  They cannot provide evidence which proves their theory is better than the government's.

5.  They can only argue that the evidence against Ivins is not convincing to them.

6.  They do not seem to understand circumstantial evidence.

7.  They claim that the evidence against Bruce Ivins "isn't really evidence."    
 
8.  They do not fully agree with any other "truthers" about details of their own beliefs.

9.  Many "truthers" totally disagree with other "truthers" about who sent the anthrax letters. 

10. They endlessly seem to argue that beliefs and opinions are more important than facts.

11.  When presented with evidence that they are wrong, they ignore it and continue to just believe what they want to believe. 

12.  They believe their standards for evidence are the only acceptable standards for the world.

Example:

"Anonymous" has recently claimed once again HERE that the T in "NEXT" in the media letter was not highlighted. Here is what he wrote:

It is a FACT that the "T" in next has not been shown to have been double-lined and so the entire code was crock.

Here is an enlargement of the T in "NEXT" in the media letter:

Compare that T to the ones "Anonymous" doesn't seem to dispute, the T's in the two spellings of the word "TO" in the media letter, especially the T in the second "TO" below:

Can there be any dispute that the horizontal line in the T in NEXT is traced over in way that is virtually identical to the T in the second TO in the image above?  Isn't it perfectly clear that the horizontal lines in the T's in DEATH are NOT traced over the way the other T's are traced over?   

Example:

In a post HERE, R. Rowley quoted my point #5 in an earlier post and wrote his response:

5. It's a FACT that the message in the media letter CAN be decoded to be either "PAT" or "FNY" or both.
----------------------------
And literally hundreds of thousands(if not millions) of other things, rendering it worthless.

In other words, unless there is only one way to interpret "PAT" and "FNY," and that evidence points directly to Bruce Ivins, then the evidence is worthless.

Example:

In a post HERE, "Max" wrote this about the decoding of the hidden message in the media letter:

The FBI found nothing. There is no message.

PAT is not a message.
FNY is not a message.

What is Max's reasoning?  Try to make sense of this:

If you want to claim otherwise, then you need to show that you expected to find PAT before the "decoding". Of course, nobody did.

He appears to be saying that a person needs to expect to find "PAT" is the decoded message before they decode the message, otherwise "PAT" is not the decoded message?  Who but a "Truther" would think that kind of reasoning makes sense?

13.  When you attempt to get a "truther" to explain what he means, he either disappears or he changes the subject. 

Ed

 

Subject: Facts versus Facts

Click on the image above to view a larger version.

The picture above of snow on the pyramids is claimed to be a fake by Esquire magazine HERE, and a web site HERE, while a web site HERE suggests that it is real.  Which is it?  Real or fake?

The initial evidence of fakery seemed to consist entirely of three FACTS:

FACT #F-1: The picture seems to have been shot from the same spot as the picture below:

FACT #F-2: The two pictures seem to be tilted at the exact same angle.

FACT #F-3:  There are some KNOWN FAKES of snow on the pyramids on the Internet.

But those three FACTS didn't seem sufficient to prove it's a fake.  

There are also some FACTS which say that the picture COULD BE real:

FACT #R-1: Snow DID fall in Cairo on December 13, 2013.  Click HERE, HERE, HERE and HERE for news stories.  

FACT #R-2:  The pyramids are less than ten miles from the center of Cairo.

FACT #R-3: The weather system that caused the snow covered hundreds (maybe thousands) of miles and buried many places north of Cairo in deep snow. 

FACT #R-4: Because of the unrest in Egypt these days, tourists are discouraged from visiting the pyramids. Combined with the fact that it's winter and snowing, and since some vendors near the pyramids have become violent,  there wouldn't be hundreds of tourists taking pictures of the snow on the pyramids. 

FACT #R-5:  The KNOWN FAKES were not created in the same way as the picture in question would have to have been created (IF it is a fake).

Here is some information about the known "fake" pictures of snow on the pyramids:

FRAUDS. There are other pictures of snow on the pyramids which are KNOWN to be FRAUDS.  A fraud is something that is represented as something it is not.  Example, the picture below is a REAL picture which supposedly shows snow on a pyramid:

But, it's snow on the Luxor Hotel in Las Vegas, which is shaped like a pyramid.  So, it's a real picture, but it's not a picture of the actual pyramids.  That makes it a fraud.  Here's another fraud:

The picture above is actually a model of the Sphinx and a pyramid in a park in Tokyo.  It was really covered with snow.  So, it's a REAL picture, but it's not a picture of what it is claimed to be.

Here's another shot of the Sphinx model from another angle at a different time of year:

TRICKS.  The are real pictures of the real pyramids which supposedly show them covered with snow, but it is a TRICK done in a computer by simply altering colors.  The yellow sand and granite are made white.  Example from the British newspaper Mirror and wafflesatnoon.com:

FACT R-5: The picture at the top of this blog thread did not appear to be either a "fraud" or a "trick."  It seemed that IF it was a fake, it was a true work of art "fake" piicture that someone spent a lot of time and effort to DELIBERATELY create.  They would have had to

1.  Replace the sky and get the new sky to fit perfectly around the blocks of the pyramid.
2.  Add the two men into the picture without any indication they were artificially added.
3.  Change the color and lighting on the pyramids.
4.  Remove objects on the ground to make them appear to be covered with snow (see below),
5.  Remove the shadow of the column (near the man's foot).
6.  Add a cloud haze around the top of the pyramid.
7.  Paint a layer of snow on the stone block at lower left.

Here's a larger view of the snow covered stone block in the lower left corner of the "fake" (top) and the same stone block from the real picture (bottom):

This illustration shows some interesting things.

First, it shows that the area in the lower right in the "real" picture has uneven spots and debris on the ground which do not appear in the "fake" picture.  So, they would have to be removed.  Or, if the picture is real, the rough spots and debris were simply covered over with snow.

Second, if you click on the image to make it larger, you'll clearly see that the snow atop the block is not smooth.  The light playing on the surface of the snow covering shows the snow is uneven as if it is a layer of snow on an uneven surface.  That is NOT easy to create.  It's either the work of an artist, or it's an indicator that the picture is real.

Third, notice that the stone blocks BEHIND the block in the foreground are slightly different.  You can see more of the rear blocks in the real picture than the rear blocks in the "fake" picture.  There are two possible explanations for that: (1) The snow is piled pretty high and thus covers more of the block that is behind, or (2) the "real" photograph was taken from a position a few inches higher than the "fake" picture.  That would mean that the "fake" picture was NOT made from the real picture.  The "fake" is also real.

"Waffles" at Wafflesatnoon.com kindly provided this color adjusted version of the real picture:

And he provided the animated GIF file below which flips between the real picture and the "fake."  His intent, presumably, was to show that the "fake" is simply a color adjusted version of the real picture.

But, for me, the animated GIF just illustrated the vast differences between the pictures.  It showed the changing sky.  It showed the snow on the stone block at the lower left appearing and disappearing.  It showed the two men in the bottom center appearing and disappearing.  It showed the haze on the top of the Great Pyramid appearing and disappearing.  But most of all, it showed the light changing.  Notice particularly how the long platform behind the middle of the pillar changes from dark to light, indicating more than a simple color adjustment.  There's also a big change in the direction of the light source.

So, I hunted for the sources for the "real" picture and the "fake" picture.  Much larger versions would allow me to make a much better comparison.

Finally, I was supplied with NEW evidence.  Someone provide a link to the web site of post-apocalyptic art HERE.  It supplied some NEW FACTS:

FACT F-4:  That web page was created on April 27, 2013, before the snow reports in Egypt.

FACT F-5: The version of picture of the snow on the pyramids is equal in size to the largest version I have been able to find elsewhere.  It's the same size as the picture at the very top of this thread.

FACT F-6: It is all that it needed to be to convince me it was not a real picture, i.e., it is a work of art that took someone a long time to create.   

So, while I was once 95% certain that the picture was real, the NEW FACTS have convinced me that the picture is a work of art that was fraudulently presented on the Internet as being a real picture.  I'm 99.99% convinced of that.  But, I'm still open to SOLID proof that shows me to be wrong again.

A COMPLICATION: There is another picture (shown below) from a web site HERE which supposedly shows snow on the pyramids.  And, it shows similar wintery clouds in the sky.  But, it also seems to have a matching picture on the Internet that does not show snow.  And, in addition to the very different sky and coloring, there are also some very subtle minor differences between the two pictures:

One of the less subtle differences is that the picture with the snow also contains a man on a white camel in the lower right corner of the picture.  The man and camel are not there in the picture without snow.

Plus, there may be some unknown reason for people to take pictures from that spot (and the other spot), since I found another picture HERE that was taken from nearly the same angle:

And here's another:

So, do the FACTS say this picture is "fake" or do the facts say it is "real"?

On January 15, 2013, someone provided me with a tool to find other versions of the picture.  Using that tool, I found this version:

It also shows the same man on the camel.  And it shows the same clouds.  And, there still appears to be snow on the ground and on the pyramid even though it is not blue color adjusted like the other version.

So, does it really show snow on the pyramids?  It doesn't seem like another "work of art."  The web page where the photo is for sale says it was taken by Andre Klaassen, but it doesn't say WHEN it was taken. However, some research find that Andre Klaassen also took the picture which doesn't show the man on the camel, and he seems to do work on manipulating images to create works of art.

So, I feel, with about 95 percent certainty, that the facts say it is a work of art,  and NOT a REAL picture of snow on the pyramids. 

However, I am always open to new and better facts which solidly prove it one way or the other.

Ed       

Subject: Reading vs. Understanding - Part 2

It has been proved beyond any reasonable doubt that Bruce Ivins was NOT in Suite B3 when his co-worker was monitoring the mice in her "Passive Mouse Experiment" in late September and early October 2001.  So, that project cannot account for ANY significant amount of Bruce Ivins' unexplained hours in Suite B3 just before the anthrax attacks.  Any Anthrax Truther who believed it did has been shown to have been totally mistaken.

No evidence has been provided to show that Bruce Ivins was monitoring rabbits during this time, either.  No evidence has been provided on where the rabbits for protocol B01-11 were kept.  No evidence has been provided on when Bruce Ivins handled the animals -- or if he handled them at all.  The only items of "evidence" that have been provided are (1) a protocol which just says what was planned, not what actually happened, (2) an email that says Ivins knew some of the results of the challenge, and (3) a notebook which seems to only show that Ivins didn't seem to know when any of the specific animals died.

So, instead of providing solid facts to support a claim that Ivins was innocent and involved in routine work during his "unexplained"  hours in Suite B3, an Anthrax Truther has been attempting to ask meaningless questions and to post references to documents that can only be considered to be irrelevant and meaningless.  He provides no explanation of what the documents are supposed to represent in the way of evidence.  The documents in no way contradict the findings of the FBI which say Dr. Ivins was making anthrax powders in Suite B3.  All the EVIDENCE and  FACTS clearly show that Dr. Ivins had no explanation for why he was in Suite B3 late at night before the two attacks.  The FACTS say he had no explanation because he was committing the crime of preparing the anthrax letters that killed 5 innocent people and injured 17 other in the autumn of 2001.

Meaningless questions and irrelevant documents won't change what the facts and evidence say.

In a Dec. 5, 2013 post, an Anthrax Truther claimed that Ivins didn't work in B3 during the day.  Here's a chart of Ivins DAY & NIGHT hours during October 2001:

The chart clearly shows that Ivins worked in Suite B3 a lot more during the day than in evenings.  What stands out, however, is his STILL UNEXPLAINED evening hours on the 3rd, 4th and 5th.

Ed

Subject: Reading versus Understanding

There's a guy who posts to this forum as "Anonymous" who seems to believe that he is more knowledgeable than everyone else about the anthrax attacks of 2001 because he obtains documents no one else has bothered to collect or read.  The problem is, he's never been able to find anything in those documents that means anything toward supporting his theory about the attacks.  Mostly he just argues that there are still more documents that the government hasn't yet released, and if they'd just release those other documents, then he'd have proof of everything he claims.


Ed

Subject: Illogical Logic (Part 2)

In a post to another blog (click HERE), an Anthrax Truther argued that there were "Hebrew elements" in the text of the anthrax letter sent to Tom Brokaw and The New York Post.  I challenged his "illogical logic" in the previous thread on this blog.  That thread with my arguments can be found by clicking HERE.

In a response posted in that thread, the Anthrax Truther provided a new and revised explanation of his beliefs in a lengthy comment that can be read by clicking HERE.

Significantly, in his new post he tentatively dropped the idea that the question mark in the senate letter was deliberately drawn to resemble the Hebrew character "Kaf."  Here's the illustration I used in the previous thread to illustrate his claim:

He evidently dropped this claim because it conflicts with his argument that all the Hebrew elements that he sees in the media letter were dropped from all other anthrax documents.  Here is what he wrote about a "document" he is writing that explains his theory:

However, though that will make the document shorter, it will make it stronger: it will emphasize all the more that the printer abruptly dropped all Hebrew elements from his printing after writing the Brokaw letter: he didn't even retain those features when printing the outsides of the envelopes which contained the Brokaw/NY POST text.

He still claims that the G in "GREAT" in the media letter closely resembles the Hebrew character "Tet," although he acknowledges that it is "the most questionable Hebrew element left in the analysis."   Here's the comparison illustration for that:

And, he still claims significance to his belief that the characters "IC" in "AMERICA" in the media letter were written somewhat closer together than the way those same two characters were written in the same word in the senate letter and in "AVENUE OF THE AMERICAS" on The New York Post envelope.  In reality, however, it seems that the "I" was drawn farther from the "R" and the C" farther from the "A," since, when all the writings are made approximately the same size, the "IC" in the media letter appears to be no closer together than the "IC" in the Senate letter and less close than the "IC" on the New York Post envelope.  Here's a comparison illustration for that:

And, when viewed in their actual sizes, the I and C in the media letter are actually farther apart than in both of the other documents:

 So, the Anthrax Truther's claim makes no sense.  It isn't true.  It's just the way he views the two characters - as being close together - when, in reality, they are just farther from the adjacent characters.  And he sees no meaning to that, or he would have mentioned how far apart the A and T are in the word "GREAT" in the media letter.  Or compare the C and I in "PENACILIN."  Or the S and R in "ISRAEL."  Below is an image of the media letter sent to Tom Brokaw (click on it to view a much larger version):

The Anthrax Truther is finding "similarities" where no real similarities exist.  All that exists are normal variations in human handwriting.  He just wants to see things that confirm his beliefs.  He wants the I and C to be close together and resemble the Hebrew character Aleph instead of merely being further than "normal" from the adjacent characters R and A.

And this desire to see things that aren't really there is most clear in the two main points of his theory:

'T's in Brokaw text: 8/8=100% Hebrewized
All other KNOWN texts from same printer: 0/23=0% Hebrewized.

In the media letter, he sees all the T's as being "Hebrewized," although not all in the same way.  Six are "Hebrewized" by tracing over the horizontal bar in the T.  Two others are "Hebrewized" by the fact that the vertical line in the T's are not perfectly centered, they are offset slightly to the right.  NONE show BOTH "Hebrewized" characteristics.  And, in no other anthrax document does he see any of the T's as being "Hebrewized" in either fashion.  This lack of a pattern he inexplicably sees as a "pattern."  (Click HERE.)

In a post HERE, he also sees the T in the second spelling of "DEATH" in the Brokaw letter as a "perfect" Dalet.  But, what is a "perfect" Dalet (or Daleth)? Many exhibits on the Internet seem to be done by one pen stroke, which is definitely not the case with the T, but all the Dalets show a darkened or heavy horizontal bar across the top, which is NOT shown in the T in example he claims is a "perfect" Dalet.  (The red mark above the T in the illustration below is the cursive version of the Hebrew Dalet):

Furthermore, while the five Dalets in the illustration above are somewhat different from one another, they all have one thing in common: They all have a point or mark at the left top of the crossbar, which the T in "DEATH" (and every Ashuri Dalet I've ever seen) definitely does not have.  Thus, by no stretch of the imagination can the T in DEATH be called a "perfect" Dalet.

The Anthrax Truther also totally ignores the fact that some of the A's in the media letters are traced over in the same way as the T's.  The A's do not fit with his theory.  He ignores things which do not fit with his theory.  And he simply does not believe any theory where both the highlighted A's and T's fit perfectly.

Initially, his argument was:

So the too-far-to-the-left 'T' crossbar of the word 'DEATH' of line 4, AND the too-far-but-not-quite-so-far-as-that-of-line-4 'T' crossbar of the word 'DEATH' of line 3 are simply not credible as 'accidents' (vagaries or chance variants) of the printing      

When  I showed him examples from the Internet where people were commonly drawing the vertical lines on T's off-center, he changed his theory.  Now it's mostly a numbers game.  If eight T's in the media letter are all "Hebrewized" (in two different ways) and no T in any other document is "Hebrewized," then that is proof of his theory.  And, he writes:

And if one looks ever-so-closely at those 'T's on the outside of the envelopes, one will find that that slight imperfection seen in the distribution of the crossbar is OPPOSITE that of the Hebrewized forms of the Brokaw text: he, the printer, has a slight propensity to favor the RIGHT side of the crossbar, not the left which gives it a Daleth or otherwise Hebrewized cast, when taken to an extreme.

Deciphering that claim, he seems to be saying: The two T's with the off-center vertical line on the media letter are both off-center to the right.  On all other documents, if the vertical line is off-center, it is off-center to the left.  He simply ignores (or fails to see) that there are T's in the media letter that are also off-center to the left.  The T in "NEXT" is the best example:

The T in "TO" in "DEATH TO ISRAEL" is a less clear example.  Meanwhile, the T in "GREAT" in the senate letter is ever so slightly off-center to the right:

So, the Anthrax Truther is seeing what he wants to see, he's ignoring everything that doesn't fit his beliefs, and an abrupt change from mostly "Hebrewized" T's to mostly "NOT-Hebrewized" T's is somehow proof to him that someone deliberately tried to add Hebrew elements into the media anthrax letter to point at Mossad agents as being behind the attacks:

The ‘mistakes’ (ie interpolations of Hebrew forms) however are NOT likely to have been made accidently. Rather they seem to be embedded in the text(s) to produce a red herring for investigators: the possibility that a Mossad agent or other native Israeli wrote the Amerithrax letters.

In other words, his belief appears to be that the "mastermind" he believes was responsible for sending the anthrax letters (and lots of hoax letters) wrote "ALLAH IS GREAT" in the anthrax letters to be a "red herring" to make investigators (and everyone else) think that Muslim terrorists sent the anthrax letters, while at the same time including "Hebrewized" characters in the media letters to be another "red herring," this time to make investigators think that "a Mosaad agent or other native Israeli wrote the anthrax letters."

Of all the illogical logic in the Anthrax Truther's theory, I thought that the idea that someone would put TWO "red herrings" in the letters (one that everyone can see and one that only he can see) to mislead investigators in opposite directions was the most illogical.  But, in a post to the other thread (click HERE), he explained:

The Amerithrax mastermind does what he does (B'nai Brith, Amerithrax, ricin of 2003, Syracuse mailings, north Texas white powder mailings, jihad boom postcards etc.) for fun primarily. He gets bored easily. So he changed motifs, red herrings etc.

In other words, there is no rhyme nor reason to "the Anthrax mastermind's" crimes. And thus, the lack of any meaningful evidence to point to the "mastermind" is the Anthrax Truther's PROOF that his "mastermind" did it. And all the SOLID evidence pointing to Bruce Ivins is meaningless, because it is evidence, it is not a lack of evidence. And the Anthrax Truther's belief is that a lack of evidence is the best evidence, because a lack of evidence is what points to his suspect.

That is another perfect example of "illogical logic."

Ed  

Subject: Illogical Logic

 

An Anthrax Truther has provided an excellent example of "illogical logic" in a post to a different web blog HERE. He sees indications of Hebrew characters within the writing on the anthrax letters - mostly in the letter sent to Tom Brokaw and The New York Post.

He says the similarities he sees are "unnatural and contrived" in the way the Hebrew characters were drawn, and this evidently indicates to him that the writer of the anthrax letters was trying to deliberately draw characters that resemble Hebrew characters in an "unnatural and contrived" way.  Some of the characters he has mentioned are drawn using the formal calligraphy style called "Ashuri" and some are drawn using the informal script or "cursive" style as shown in the illustration above.  The anthrax letter sent to Tom Brokaw is shown below. (You can click on any of the illustrations to view larger versions).

Here are some details about the Anthrax Truther's "hypothesis" or "theory":

The Anthrax Truther's first claim is that the Hebrew "Ashuri" writing style involves a lot of thick horizontal lines.  The anthrax letter writer drew thick horizontal lines atop some of the T's in the media anthrax letter.  The Anthrax Truther views this as a "contrived" attempt to resemble Hebrew writing.  Of course, in order to arrive at that illogical conclusion he has to ignore the horizontal lines in the H and E and in other characters in the letter, like the L in PENACILIN and ISRAEL.  Plus, the "Ashuri" style of writing also includes a thick diagonal line, but there is no thick diagonal line in the X in NEXT.  The anthrax truther's "logic" is illogical.

The Anthrax Truther's second claim is that the T in the second writing of the word "DEATH" in the media letter resembles the Hebrew "Ashuri" style character "Dalet," which is drawn like the top and right sides of a box.  That particular T does not have the horizontal bar darkened, which the Anthrax Truther probably feels is "unnatural and contrived" rather than good evidence that he is seeking similarities to prove a belief, instead of seeing what is most likely and most logical: the writer simply drew a T with a vertical line that was a bit off-center. The anthrax truther's "logic" is illogical.

The Anthrax Truther's third claim is that the way the I and C are drawn close together in the word "AMERICA" is an "unnatural and contrived" way of drawing the Hebrew cursive letter Aleph. Of course, it could also be that that particular  "I" was simply drawn a bit too far to the right, which is perfectly natural for a human being who does not print like a machine. The Anthrax Truther's "logic" is illogical.

The Anthrax Truther's fourth claim is that the G in GREAT looks like an "unnatural and contrived" way of drawing the cursive Hebrew character Tet.  Actually, to most people the G probably looks more like the number 6 than the Hebrew character Tet. But, the Anthrax Truther argues that the differences between the G and the cursive Tet are evidence that the writer was drawing a Tet in an "unnatural and contrived" way, instead of simply drawing a G in the writer's natural style.  The Anthrax Truther's "logic" is illogical.

The Anthrax Truther's fifth claim is that the question mark in the Senate letter is an "unnatural and contrived" way of drawing the cursive Hebrew character Kaf.  Why anyone would draw a Kaf (which is pronounced like the K in King) where a question mark should be is undoubtedly the Anthrax Truther's proof that it is "unnatural and contrived."  But, to anyone else looking at it, it's probably good proof that the Anthrax Truther's "logic" is illogical.  His theory is unnatural and contrived.  He's making connections where there almost certainly are no real connections.  According to Wikipedia, someone writing in Hebrew who wants to write a question mark will write it the same way as it's written in English.

The Anthrax Truther seems to believe all this "unnatural and contrived" writing of pseudo-Hebrew characters was done to mislead the FBI into thinking Israelis were behind the anthrax letter attacks.  The Anthrax Truther clearly sees no problem with believing at the same time that writing the phrase "ALLAH IS GREAT" in the letters was done to mislead the FBI into thinking that the attack was done by Muslims.  

On the other hand, to me it seems that the entire Hebrew alphabet may simply look "unnatural and contrived."   Who creates an alphabet where so many characters look so much alike?  The Daled merely has a slightly shorter vertical line than the Khaf, and both are similar to the character Reish, except that the Reish is drawn with a single stroke.  And, what's the difference between a Samekh and a Mem Sofi?  And look at Chet, Hey and Tav.  And Beit and Kaf.  One would think that over the course of 2,400 years, someone would have come up with something better!  (That's a joke, folks.)   

Ed