X - WALT DISNEY - One of his fingerprints shows an unusual characteristic!

Lynn wrote:Thanks Martijn & Patti for all your hard work in this discussion. I've learnt more about the technicalities of fingerprint recognition. (Although I have the FBI book, I hadn't read it all). It has also helped to bring me into 21st century with regard to appreciating modern digital photo technique, as this discussion shows how inkprints can be deceptive - with white spaces, black dots etc depending on amount of ink used. I've also learnt about lithograph printing technique, and wonder if the 'excess ink' in 1933 print was due to 'excess grease' on the hand.

You have both done a great job in "presenting your case". The discussion became so complex and, being away at the start & busy this week, I got lost a few times. However I've now read it all through twice (yes, all 12 pages!). I have nothing to contribute. I can see the loop on all prints. I can see the tented arch on 1933 print. I can't see the tented arch on the 1937 prints, but I note how it was officially marked t \ (tented arch \ radial loop), and can see those faint black dots that could be continuation of skin ridges. I can't make my mind up, so maybe Patti is right after all about me sitting on the fence!

I thank you for your time and energy and insights Patti & Martijn. Thank you for caring about what type of print it is! Not many people in the world would give a damn about it! and I'm not sure that anyone else here is able or willing to give another perspective on it. You have given us a lot of food for thought.

You have both spent a lot of your valuable time on this discussion! I think you have both presented plenty of evidence to back up your arguments. However, I don't think you are ever going to agree on it, so my friends I suggest you leave it here, for us all to see and think about.

Thanks Lynn,

Great to heart that you have tried to study the details of our discussion, and I observe that your thoughts haven't really changed since the beginning of the discussion (you were able to see the 'looping ridge line' in all three prints soon after each of them were posted).

And yes, I can understand that for multiple reasons so far you were not able to make up your mind regarding our assessments.


But I have small specific request:

Would you please mind to post a thought regarding the quality of the 'LIGHT 1937 print'?
Do you see any significant problems regarding the quality of that print?

(I would really appreciate a comment from your side because I know that just like Patti and myself you are quite experienced with studying inkprints, etc.)

Patti wrote:

Martijn (admin) wrote:

Patti wrote:
Why do you bring up "core"? ...

In these tented-arch examples we can see that only example 177 includes a likewise 'single central ridge line' which represents the core, but in that example we see that the surounding ridge line is 'spoiled' via the appendix that is connected to the next ridge line - which is obviously not a 'looping ridge line' either.

The core is not a ridge, it is a *spot*. A designated location. It confuses the subject when you use specific terms that relate to specific features in a generalized way.

jeanette wrote:Hi Patti,
Thanks very much for that. When I can get time I will get into the FBI book. I have a question but, as I think it is a different topic, I will send it in. Thanks again as I did not even know that fact.
Jeanette.

Patti wrote:

Actually, I thought I'd said all I could say about this.



but,

maybe just one more thing.....

Thank you Martijn for calling my attention to page 41 (in the book 48 on the web site)

As I had not once read that the location of the core was a necessary part of determining a pattern as a tented arch, I thought it wise to take a good look and see if you perhaps had come across something I missed.

and glory be, you had,







Checkmate ! and guard your !



"The Science of Fingerprints"

"It must be remembered that the core of a loop may not be placed below the shoulder line. Lacking one of the three characteristics of a loop, these patterns must be classified as tented arches."



So thank you Martijn for pointing out the importance of the core when classifying those troublesome tented arch/loop patterns.

As here is one more characteristic joining the long list of characteristics that undeniably designate Walt Disney's left index finger a Tented Arch.

Martijn (admin) wrote:Thanks Lynn,

Great to hear that you have tried to study the details of our discussion, and I observe that your thoughts haven't really changed since the beginning of the discussion (you were able to see the 'looping ridge line' in all three prints soon after each of them were posted).

And yes, I can understand that for multiple reasons so far you were not able to make up your mind regarding our assessments.


But I have small specific request:

Would you please mind to post a thought regarding the quality of the 'LIGHT 1937 print'?
Do you see any significant problems regarding the quality of that print?

(I would really appreciate a comment from your side because I know that just like Patti and myself you are quite experienced with studying inkprints, etc.)

Martijn (admin) wrote:

Patti wrote:

Actually, I thought I'd said all I could say about this.



but,

maybe just one more thing.....

Thank you Martijn for calling my attention to page 41 (in the book 48 on the web site)

As I had not once read that the location of the core was a necessary part of determining a pattern as a tented arch, I thought it wise to take a good look and see if you perhaps had come across something I missed.

and glory be, you had,







Checkmate ! and guard your !



"The Science of Fingerprints"

"It must be remembered that the core of a loop may not be placed below the shoulder line. Lacking one of the three characteristics of a loop, these patterns must be classified as tented arches."



So thank you Martijn for pointing out the importance of the core when classifying those troublesome tented arch/loop patterns.

As here is one more characteristic joining the long list of characteristics that undeniably designate Walt Disney's left index finger a Tented Arch.

'Checkmate'....???

Patti, what is your argument anyway?

You only presented the picture with the horizontal green lines (which appear to correspond with the points where the shoulders of the 'looping ridge line' end) + you presented a quote from page 41.

But that quote actually refers to the examples 186 + 187 - which both present a print where the 'core' is found on the one of the shoulders. But in the Disney print the 'core' is not found on any of the shoulders at all - because of the 'central ridge line' where the highest point represents the 'core'!!


So, I recognized how your quote can not be understood properly without considering it's context... but I also recognize how the first line in your quote may SUGGEST something, but basically... that first line doesn't tell any 'message' (nor any specification) in that quote at all. The 'message' relates to the context of those sentences... but that context does not relate to the Disney print at all.

Therefore I dare to invite you to explain what you read in the words included in the first line of your quote....???

For example: the 'horizontal arrowed green lines' in your picture do not relate to that quote at all: because in the Disney print we do find the 'core' on the central ridge line... and not on the shoulders at all!!


This shows again how you tried to find support for your assessment with biased-arguments. And this is just another example in a series of examples that I pointed out, because I have tried to demonstrate likewise fundamental mistakes over and over again.

Unfortunately, sometimes my responses & arguments did not generate much specified feedback from your side.


FOR EXAMPLE:

Patti, I would love to hear you thoughts on my symbolic representation of Disney's fingerprint (the black lines are the common lines seen in the 1933 print' + both '1937 prints'):

The red spike is seen only in the '1933 print' (though we can also observe a large INK DOT in the 'DARK 1937 print'), and I described why various characteristics of this red spike (including: 1 - it's width, 2 - it's position on shoulder, and 3 - it's angle with the shoulder of the 'looping ridge line') do not meet the requirements to 'spoil' the looping ridge line.


THIS SYMBOLIC REPRESENTATION SUGGESTS... THAT THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE CONCLUSION:

The triradius, the looping ridge line, and the presence of a 'ridge count' (=1) present the essential three elements that make it sensible that this fingerprint type falls under the classification 'loop'.

Martijn (admin) wrote:
Patti, now I will demonstrate with some visual illustrations why for multiple reasons the 'small ink dot' in the '1933 print' can not be described as an element that spoils the 'looping ridge line'.

In one of my earlier posts, I presented a new layer describing the 'looping ridge line' with more red dots than I used in my 'bananana-post'.


STEP 1 - I have first created a new 'layer' for the 'light 1937 print' with the red dots:




STEP 2 - I have copied-and-paste this layer into the 'dark 1937 print' and the '1933 print':

(In both pictures we can see that the 'right angle' does not manifest with the same coordinates: in the '1933 print' the appearant 'right angle' has shifted a 10 degrees clockwise... so, this indicates that any appearant simililarity regarding the 'right angle' in both pictures could be described as visual-coincidence, since the 'right angle' does not manifest in both pictures in the same 'coordinates'.)






STEP 3: Then I have created a 'silhouet' of the 'little ink dot', and when the details are considered... then we can actually notice that the 'little ink dot' can not be described as a 'spike' because it APPEARS to be connected with the other surrounding black zones.

You can see the shape of the 'silhouet' in the picture below:



As you can see, I have also added the direction of the 'small ink dot' with a light green pointer, and the direction indicates that even if the 'small ink dot' was not connected to the surrounding ridge lines... it doesn't appear to be positioned in the zone between the 'shoulders' of the 'looping ridge line' (the 'spike' is positioned at the LEFT SHOULDER), nor does it meet the requirement regarding 'right angle' (the 'spike appears to be at an angle of about 45 degrees).

Lynn wrote:
However, Patti's latest post about "the core of a loop may not be placed below the shoulder line." really made me think it is a tented arch (looking at LIGHT 1937 print)! if I understood it correctly....because if the tip of the central ridge is not the core (ie, placed below the shoulder), then the core is placed at the shoulder furthest away from the delta, and then there is no ridge count to consider it a loop!

Martijn (admin) wrote:

Only when the 'spike' is (ad 1) BETWEEN THE SHOULDERS, and (ad 2) AT A RIGHT ANGLE, and it should (ad 3) represent the 'core' of the print.

If any of these 3 requirements is not applicable on the 'spike', then it doesn't spoil the 'looping ridge line'!!

After these theoretical considerations, I will desribe in my next post why the 'spike' in the '1933 print'... does not spoil the looping ridge line....[/color]

Lynn wrote:[i]
Reading about how lithographs are made, they put a greasy/waxy print on a stone & ink over it. The hand already has lots of grease on it (hence how detectives find fingerprints at scene of crime etc!) but I wonder if they add extra substance eg oil based ink or some such when placing the hand on the stone to make the lithograph. That might explain all the black blobs & 'thick' skin ridges. (?) Anyone know how a lithgraph of a handprint is made?

Patti wrote:

Lynn wrote:
However, Patti's latest post about "the core of a loop may not be placed below the shoulder line." really made me think it is a tented arch (looking at LIGHT 1937 print)! if I understood it correctly....because if the tip of the central ridge is not the core (ie, placed below the shoulder), then the core is placed at the shoulder furthest away from the delta, and then there is no ridge count to consider it a loop!

Exactly!!

The only way Martijn could try to make it a loop was to lower the shoulders. He correctly placed the shoulders high, because as he has already earlier noted, it is a sharp bend for a recurve. This is also a clue it's closer to a tented arch. So, the only way for him to shift this argument back to his favor was to contradict himself.

Sorry Lynn & Patti,

Please consider the following two points:

1 - While Patti responded with: 'Exactly'... her drawing from earlier today clearly shows where she sees the 'core': it is on the central ridge line!!!

And let's be aware... so far in this discussion Patti NEVER questioned the position of the 'core'!!!!!


2 - Again... in cases where a clear 'central ridge line' is present (+ a relatively normal 'looping ridge line'), the position of the 'core' relative to the size/position of the shoulders of the surrounding 'looping ridge line' is not relevant at all. This is clearly indicated by Patti's quote from page 41, because the first sentence of the quote directly relates to figures 186 + 187 in the book: and in both examples we can see there is no 'ridge count'!


I think this clearly shows how you BOTH misread 'Patti's quote' from page 41: because it appears that both of you are assuming that regarding the position of a 'core' on a central ridge line one should also consider the position of the 'shoulders' of the surrounding ridge lines... but that is not at all what 'Patti's quote' describes!!

'Patti's quote' is only relevant for cases where finding the 'core' is problematic (in figures 186 + 187 we can see how the 'looping ridge line' is pointed at the triradius... resulting in that there is no 'ridge count' at all, etc.

'Patti's quote' actually relates to what is described on page 14 where are all significant guide lines for recognizing the 'core' are described, including e.g.:

"When the innermost sufficient recurve contains no endiging ridge or rod rising as high as the shoulders of the loop, the core is placed on the shoulders of the loop farther from the delta. The exception to this rule is when both shoulders are equidistant to the delta, the core is then located on the center of the sufficient recurve (See Figure 139)."

Patti wrote:

Martijn (admin) wrote:

Only when the 'spike' is (ad 1) BETWEEN THE SHOULDERS, and (ad 2) AT A RIGHT ANGLE, and it should (ad 3) represent the 'core' of the print.

If any of these 3 requirements is not applicable on the 'spike', then it doesn't spoil the 'looping ridge line'!!

After these theoretical considerations, I will desribe in my next post why the 'spike' in the '1933 print'... does not spoil the looping ridge line....[/color]

We are following rules not theory. So your theoretical considerations are just a bunch of

1. Between the shoulders - correct

2. At right angle - correct = angle here represents 45 to 90 degrees.

3. represent the core - wrong. Nothing in the book says this. Must be a "theory".

Must comply with all three to qualify - way wrong.

Well Patti, I could accept one of your 'bananas'... because regarding point 1 I could admit that I made a slight mistake by claiming that the 'spike' is not BETWEEN the shoulders; instead it is actually ON one of the shoulders - but that is just like I described in one of my earlier comments: "The position of the 'spike' is at the LEFT SHOULDER of the 'looping ridge line".

So, here we could indeed debate whether the Disney print actually violates the first requirement.... but I argued that to become a 'tented arch' the Disney needed to violate all three requirements:


But your suggestion regarding piont 2 that a 'right angle' could include angle of 45 degrees... that is completely ridiculous, because according the rules of mathmatics a 'right angle' always IMPLICATES an angle of 90 degrees.

So for example: even an angle of 60 degrees can for sure NEVER EVER be described as a 'right angle'.... this again shows how easily you give your 'bananas' for issues that you did not consider properly.


And regarding point three, that issue if actually described with many details on page 14 of the book! Because page 14 describes four guidelines regarding where to find the 'core'; the first guideline is:

"The core is placed upon or within the innermost sufficient recurve."

The other 3 guidelines relate clearly relate to situations where the first guideline is not applicable!!!

NOTICE: The 2nd guide line relates to the situations where the 'shoulders' become involved in 'your quote' from page 41, and the figures 186 + 187.



Patti, finally I would like to give you another point of correcting feedback which illustrates the 'quality' in your arguments:

Because it doesn't makes sense at all to describe a 'shoulder' as a 'point'... because that would violate the concept of the word 'shoulder' in for example the perspective of a human body: shoulders: 'shoulders are the part of the body between the neck and the upper arm'.

So, regarding the 'shoulders' in a fingerprint, I invite you to present me at least one single quote from ANY BOOK which describes that the 'shoulders' should be considered as 'points' - like you suggested in the picture below...


... Don't be surprized if you can not find any confirming quote at all, because that actually only makes sense.


Patti, just like your claims for 'victory' and 'checkmate'.... I can see that you are trying to follow the universal rules, but in this process you made many (incorrect) assumptions regarding how to apply those rules... and your comments indicate that you still do not recognize how your argument violate certain other rules - I am still trying to point that out to you but unfortunately... you also assumed that I am trying to talk you into an 'illusion'.

And so, despite that I only wanted to point out where exactly your arguments failded... this discussion became a 'mission-impossible' for me because you assumed that I was trying to 'trick' you![/b]



But the truth is that I never tried to 'trick' you ever... and at least I tried to admit my mistakes wherever I spotted them.

Patti wrote:Explanation of the use of the word "angle":

"The Science of Fingerprints"

The Tented Arch:

In the tented arch, most of the ridges enter upon one side of the impression and flow or tend to flow out upon the other side, as in the plain arch type; however, the ridge or ridges at the center do not. There are three types of tented arches:

● The type in which ridges at the center form a definite angle; i.e., 90° or less.

● The type in which one or more ridges at the center form an upthrust. An upthrust is an ending ridge of any length rising at a sufficient degree from the horizontal plane; i.e., 45° or more.

● The type approaching the loop type, possessing two of the basic or essential characteristics of the loop, but lacking the third.

I think it is safe to say that the FBI's rules indicate that the angle should be between 45° and 90° to result in a tented arch.

Patti wrote:Direct quote from page 14, the book "The Science of Fingerprints"

...

The shoulders of a loop are the points at which the recurving ridge definitely turns inward or curves.

Martijn (admin) wrote:




Because it doesn't makes sense at all to describe a 'shoulder' as a 'point'... because that would violate the concept of the word 'shoulder' in for example the perspective of a human body: shoulders: 'shoulders are the part of the body between the neck and the upper arm'.

So, regarding the 'shoulders' in a fingerprint, I invite you to present me at least one single quote from ANY BOOK which describes that the 'shoulders' should be considered as 'points' - like you suggested in the picture below...


... Don't be surprized if you can not find any confirming quote at all, because that actually only makes sense.

Patti wrote:Lynn,
I give up on Martijn. Your turn.
Patti

Patti... before you give up:
can't you see the MAJOR difference between these two pictures?

(In the first picture the central ridge line does not reach out to the 'shoulder line', but in the second picture it does reach out to the shoulder line...!!)





Patti, your 'shoulder line argument' is applicable to the first picture... but not to the second, and also not to any of the three Disney prints: your horizontal green lines illustrate this explicitely in the picture that your presented earlier, see the copy below:

And there is no way you can deny this observation, nor my conclusion that you simply made an invalid point!!

Martijn (admin) wrote:

Patti wrote:Lynn,
I give up on Martijn. Your turn.
Patti

Patti... before you give up:
can't you see the MAJOR difference between these two pictures?

(In the first picture the central ridge line does not reach out to the 'shoulder line', but in the second picture it does reach out to the shoulder line...!!)





Patti, your 'shoulder line argument' is applicable to the first picture... but not to the second, and also not to any of the three Disney prints: your horizontal green lines illustrate this explicitely in the picture that your presented earlier, see the copy below:

And there is no way you can deny this observation, nor my conclusion that you simply made an invalid point!!

Patti wrote:

Martijn (admin) wrote:




Because it doesn't makes sense at all to describe a 'shoulder' as a 'point'... because that would violate the concept of the word 'shoulder' in for example the perspective of a human body: shoulders: 'shoulders are the part of the body between the neck and the upper arm'.

So, regarding the 'shoulders' in a fingerprint, I invite you to present me at least one single quote from ANY BOOK which describes that the 'shoulders' should be considered as 'points' - like you suggested in the picture below...


... Don't be surprized if you can not find any confirming quote at all, because that actually only makes sense.

The x = the point where the shoulders are located.

Patti, it doesn't matter if we are agree or disagree about whether the shoulders are 'points' or 'zones' at the ridge line.

The significant issue for our discussion is the consideration of the 'shoulder line'!

And I am not sure if you got confused by my feedback... but I would like to notice here explicitely that I never made any objection regarding how you drew those 'shoulder lines' in any of your pictures!


EDIT: Oeps...

Patti has just explicitely described in a later post that the horizontal green lines with the arrow were never meant to represent 'shoulder lines' at all... she only drew those lines to illustrate the cores... but this again show how 'confusing' her arguments really are because in the issue of the 'shoulder lines' is ONLY relevant for prints where the 'core' is hard to identify.




However, again, because in all your pictures the 'inner ridge line' passes the shoulder line... there is no basis to bring up the issue of the 'shoulder line'!

Simply because we never had any trouble to find the 'core' in Disneys fingerprint!