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

Patti wrote:

Lynn wrote:

Patti wrote:(1) You've both settled for putting the delta at location 1. Agreed?

(2) Do you both see that where the radiant rising from location 1 touches location 4?

(3) Do you agree that location 4 is located on the only recurving ridge that could possibly qualify as a looping ridge?

Quickly....we can be done in a few minutes.

Yes, yes and yes.

(It would be too much to hope that we can be done in a few minutes!)

Well, we can try.

Martijn?
Do I have a "yes, yes and yes." from you?

Well Lynn... my thought is that Patti asked 3 questions that are like she asked us to 'open doors that are alreadly open' - she did that also with her question regarding figure 28, like I just noticed in the former post - she asks us to walk through an 'open door', so of course I can follow your answers:

Ad 1: Yes
Ad 2: Yes
Ad 3: Yes

However, I would have prefered her to explain to us why she can not simply follow the DELTA-rules... !!!

Lynn wrote:Martijn, what do you think of Patti's latest 2 msgs. sounds convincing to me!

Lynn... great question!

Now, I hope that you noticed that in our discussion about the 'shoulder line' I have described how we could actually end up with a 'ridge count = 2'... remember? (Actually, I have mentioned that possibility twice)

And this possibility should make you immediately aware that the connecting ridge line between 'bifurcation 1' and 'bifurcation 4' really doesn't have to be a decisive element for the assessment! Because if the Disney indeed would show up as having a 'ridge count = 2', that would implicate that even despite the connecting ridge line the Disney print still count have a 'ridge count =1'

'Capice?'


But so far, I never brought the discussion focussed on that possibility of 'ridge count = 2', because when we arrived at the issue of the 'shoulder line' - it became quite obvious for me that Patti and I sort of disagreed about EVERYTHING in the Disney print! (Including: the quality of the prints, the white patch, the inkt dots, upthrusts, looping ridge line, shoulder line... and then finally even the type lines.... )

Therefore I began to realize that, in order to get together at a point where find a solid agreement... we really had to make a few steps back: in order to find out if we are able to find an agreement about the elements where there is really not much space for any discussion at all!


Therefore, I decide to give it a try.. by re-focussing our discussion on the issue of the DELTA. And guess what... Patti 'appears' not even able (willing?) to agree with us about the location of the DELTA!!!




So, .... as soon as Patti would accept that 'bifurcation 4' really has all possible characteristics of a typical 'bifurcation', and as soon as Patti would accept that (edit:) 'bifurcation 1' is really to only of the five 'bifurcations' that does not violate any of the DELTA-rules... just like you and I did concludes ... then for sure...

... this discussion is not over yet at all!

Patti wrote:

The FBI classifies the loop in Fig. 136 a tented arch because there is no ridge count. The bifurcations that run off to the bottom are not used as a delta. The delta is found on the recurving ridge.

Even without the the ridge that runs from #1 to #4 it fails to qualify.

Lynn wrote:

Patti wrote:

The FBI classifies the loop in Fig. 136 a tented arch because there is no ridge count. The bifurcations that run off to the bottom are not used as a delta. The delta is found on the recurving ridge.

Even without the ridge that runs from #1 to #4 it fails to qualify.

Fig 136 is not like the Disney print. The birfucations there are not opening towards the core. In fact they are under the type line. The delta in fig 136 has to be on the recurving ridge, there are no other possibilities for it. So obviously in that case there is no ridge count.

I disagree with "Even without the the ridge that runs from #1 to #4 it fails to qualify." If that ridge wasn't there, there would be a white space and it would qualify.

Ok, but you do agree that it's okay under certain circumstances to put the delta on the recurving ridge?

Lynn wrote:

Patti wrote:

The FBI classifies the loop in Fig. 136 a tented arch because there is no ridge count. The bifurcations that run off to the bottom are not used as a delta. The delta is found on the recurving ridge.

Even without the the ridge that runs from #1 to #4 it fails to qualify.

Fig 136 is not like the Disney print. The birfucations there are not opening towards the core. In fact they are under the type line. The delta in fig 136 has to be on the recurving ridge, there are no other possibilities for it. So obviously in that case there is no ridge count.

I disagree with "Even without the the ridge that runs from #1 to #4 it fails to qualify."
If that ridge wasn't there, there would be a white space and it would qualify.

(edit) PS I think it would also qualify if the shoulders were higher. Then centre ridge wouldn't reach the shoulders and the core would be on the shoulder furthest away from the delta. The centre ridge would then give a ridge count of 1.

Patti your argument about lack of white space (because of that light coloured ridge crossing the space en route between delta & core) is still convicing me!

Patti wrote:Martijn,
Thank you.

I am willing to agree to the previous presentation that showed where you saw the core and the delta.

Lynn agreed to those two places, too.

It is now unfair for you to make any adjustments of your presentation - now that I have presented you with the rules - so that you suddenly fit your loop within the rules.

...

Dear Patti, your words could indicate that we made a new step towards a common agreed assessment of the Disney print... but I am also wondering what your words really implicate, because...

1 - Do your words about that you're 'willing to agree'... implicate that you now understand why Lynn & I recognized that the DELTA really has to be located at 'bifurcation 1'?

2 - And do your words also implicate that you now also understand that you made a mistake in your assumption to locate (edit:) 'bifurcation 4' as the DELTA?

Patti, would you please mind to confirm both points?


Because I think that it would actually be 'unfair' to both Lynn and me ... if you would now suddenly try to agree with us about the DELTA issue only, when you are not able to confirm that you actually made a mistake in your attempt to identify the location of the DELTA.

So, Patti I really hope that you are able to confirm on both points... because otherwise my conclusion would be that then this 'attempt for an agreement' would not be based on both our perception of the Disney print AND our perception of the rules described by the book!!

(And of course... then it would not make sense for me at all... to invest even time by re-starting the discussion about other topics that we disagreed upon earlier in this discussion. I hope this makes sense!)

Martijn (admin) wrote:

Patti wrote:Martijn,
Thank you.

I am willing to agree to the previous presentation that showed where you saw the core and the delta.

Lynn agreed to those two places, too.

It is now unfair for you to make any adjustments of your presentation - now that I have presented you with the rules - so that you suddenly fit your loop within the rules.

...

Dear Patti, your words could indicate that we made a new step towards a common agreed assessment of the Disney print... but I am also wondering what your words really implicate, because...

1 - Do your words about that you're 'willing to agree'... implicate that you now understand why Lynn & I recognized that the DELTA really has to be located at 'bifurcation 1'?

2 - And do your words also implicate that you now also understand that you made a mistake in your assumption to locate 'bifurcation 1' as the DELTA?

Patti, would you please mind to confirm both points?


Because I think that it would actually be 'unfair' to both Lynn and me ... if you would now suddenly try to agree with us about the DELTA issue only, when you are not able to confirm that you actually made a mistake in your attempt to identify the location of the DELTA.

So, Patti I really hope that you are able to confirm on both points... because otherwise my conclusion would be that then this 'attempt for an agreement' would not be based on both our perception of the Disney print AND our perception of the rules described by the book!!

(And of course... then it would not make sense for me at all... to invest even time by re-starting the discussion about other topics that we disagreed upon earlier in this discussion. I hope this makes sense!)

Lynn wrote:

Patti wrote:

The FBI classifies the loop in Fig. 136 a tented arch because there is no ridge count. The bifurcations that run off to the bottom are not used as a delta. The delta is found on the recurving ridge.

Even without the the ridge that runs from #1 to #4 it fails to qualify.

Fig 136 is not like the Disney print. The birfucations there are not opening towards the core. In fact they are under the type line. The delta in fig 136 has to be on the recurving ridge, there are no other possibilities for it. So obviously in that case there is no ridge count.

I disagree with "Even without the the ridge that runs from #1 to #4 it fails to qualify."
If that ridge wasn't there, there would be a white space and it would qualify.

(edit) PS I think it would also qualify if the shoulders were higher. Then centre ridge wouldn't reach the shoulders and the core would be on the shoulder furthest away from the delta. The centre ridge would then give a ridge count of 1.

Patti your argument about lack of white space (because of that light coloured ridge crossing the space en route between delta & core) is still convicing me!

Yes Lynn, I think I can agree with all points you've made... and I recognize how your green words relate to the issue which I just mentioned in my former reply to your post: the possibiligy of a potential 'ridge count = 2'.

So, I read your words as that you precisely described why you think the Disney print is probably a 'radial loop' - but of course I realize that we both need to face a few considerations before you and I could speak of a permanent agreement.

But I think it would be better to small steps, in order to see how far we can find an agreement with Patti... based on all 3 prints + the rules in the book.

So, .... as soon as Patti would accept that 'bifurcation 4' really has all possible characteristics of a typical 'bifurcation', and as soon as Patti would accept that 'bifurcation 4' is really to only of the five 'bifurcations' that does not violate any of the DELTA-rules... just like you and I did concludes ... then for sure...

1 - Do your words about that you're 'willing to agree'... implicate that you now understand why Lynn & I recognized that the DELTA really has to be located at 'bifurcation 1'?

2 - And do your words also implicate that you now also understand that you made a mistake in your assumption to locate 'bifurcation 1' as the DELTA?

Patti wrote:

Lynn wrote:[color=blue](edit) PS I think it would also qualify if the shoulders were higher. Then centre ridge wouldn't reach the shoulders and the core would be on the shoulder furthest away from the delta. The centre ridge would then give a ridge count of 1.

<edit> Don't you think if you bring the shoulder line up, so that the core is moved to the far shoulder, that also proves the rod is too short to be in the count - still. The higher shoulder line would allow for a higher line to be drawn between the delta and the shoulder line.

Martijn wrote:Now, I hope that you noticed that in our discussion about the 'shoulder line' I have described how we could actually end up with a 'ridge count = 2'... remember? (Actually, I have mentioned that possibility twice)

And this possibility should make you immediately aware that the connecting ridge line between 'bifurcation 1' and 'bifurcation 4' really doesn't have to be a decisive element for the assessment! Because if the Disney indeed would show up as having a 'ridge count = 2', that would implicate that even despite the connecting ridge line the Disney print still count have a 'ridge count =1'

'Capice?'

Martijn (admin) wrote:

Lynn wrote:

Patti wrote:

The FBI classifies the loop in Fig. 136 a tented arch because there is no ridge count. The bifurcations that run off to the bottom are not used as a delta. The delta is found on the recurving ridge.

Even without the the ridge that runs from #1 to #4 it fails to qualify.

Fig 136 is not like the Disney print. The birfucations there are not opening towards the core. In fact they are under the type line. The delta in fig 136 has to be on the recurving ridge, there are no other possibilities for it. So obviously in that case there is no ridge count.

I disagree with "Even without the the ridge that runs from #1 to #4 it fails to qualify."
If that ridge wasn't there, there would be a white space and it would qualify.

(edit) PS I think it would also qualify if the shoulders were higher. Then centre ridge wouldn't reach the shoulders and the core would be on the shoulder furthest away from the delta. The centre ridge would then give a ridge count of 1.

Patti your argument about lack of white space (because of that light coloured ridge crossing the space en route between delta & core) is still convicing me!

Yes Lynn, I think I can agree with all points you've made... and I recognize how your green words relate to the issue which I just mentioned in my former reply to your post: the possibiligy of a potential 'ridge count = 2'.

So, I read your words as that you precisely described why you think the Disney print is probably a 'radial loop' - but of course I realize that we both need to face a few considerations before you and I could speak of a permanent agreement.

But I think it would be better to small steps, in order to see how far we can find an agreement with Patti... based on all 3 prints + the rules in the book.

Lynn wrote:

Martijn wrote:Now, I hope that you noticed that in our discussion about the 'shoulder line' I have described how we could actually end up with a 'ridge count = 2'... remember? (Actually, I have mentioned that possibility twice)

And this possibility should make you immediately aware that the connecting ridge line between 'bifurcation 1' and 'bifurcation 4' really doesn't have to be a decisive element for the assessment! Because if the Disney indeed would show up as having a 'ridge count = 2', that would implicate that even despite the connecting ridge line the Disney print still count have a 'ridge count =1'

'Capice?'

Yeah Capice. BUT If the core is at the tip of the single central ridge (which I thought we'd agreed on?), there is no ridge count of 2. In fact I am seriously doubting any ridge count at all!

Thanks Lynn, I have corrected both mistakes.


PS. I can understand your doubts, but I understand also that you described yourself that you recognize how a 'ridge count 2' could potentially be created if at the end of this discussion the 'core' would end up at the right shoulder.

But hey... we were discussing the DELTA, where you and I agreed. And Patti is talking about some kind of 'agreement' about the DELTA.

Haven't you noticed that?

Before you make any news steps ahead.... Lynn, are you actually 100% sure about the DELTA?

(Just asking because I noticed that your thoughts appear to 'flip-flop' even while you are writing your posts - shouldn't we first try to include Patti in our agreement about the DELTA? And if you think not... why not!???? )

Patti wrote:

Martijn (admin) wrote:

Lynn wrote:
Fig 136 is not like the Disney print. The birfucations there are not opening towards the core. In fact they are under the type line. The delta in fig 136 has to be on the recurving ridge, there are no other possibilities for it. So obviously in that case there is no ridge count.

I disagree with "Even without the the ridge that runs from #1 to #4 it fails to qualify."
If that ridge wasn't there, there would be a white space and it would qualify.

(edit) PS I think it would also qualify if the shoulders were higher. Then centre ridge wouldn't reach the shoulders and the core would be on the shoulder furthest away from the delta. The centre ridge would then give a ridge count of 1.

Patti your argument about lack of white space (because of that light coloured ridge crossing the space en route between delta & core) is still convicing me!

Yes Lynn, I think I can agree with all points you've made... and I recognize how your green words relate to the issue which I just mentioned in my former reply to your post: the possibiligy of a potential 'ridge count = 2'.

So, I read your words as that you precisely described why you think the Disney print is probably a 'radial loop' - but of course I realize that we both need to face a few considerations before you and I could speak of a permanent agreement.

But I think it would be better to small steps, in order to see how far we can find an agreement with Patti... based on all 3 prints + the rules in the book.

Martijn,
You said you agreed with all the points that Lynn made.

Did you notice her words at the end in Blue? i.e. we're looking at a tented arch.

Patti wrote:


The illustration above shows where I already placed that half way point. This is why I placed #4 where I placed it - at the purple dot. I wasn't thinking about bifurcation - just location.

Martijn (admin) wrote: I can understand your doubts, but I understand also that you described yourself that you recognize how a 'ridge count 2' could potentially be created if at the end of this discussion the 'core' would end up at the right shoulder.

But hey... we were discussing the DELTA, where you and I agreed. And Patti is talking about some kind of 'agreement' about the DELTA.

Haven't you noticed that?

Before you make any news steps ahead.... Lynn, are you actually 100% sure about the DELTA?

(Just asking because I noticed that your thoughts appear to 'flip-flop' even while you are writing your posts - shouldn't we first try to include Patti in our agreement about the DELTA? And if you think not... why not!???? )[/color]

Martijn (admin) wrote:

Patti wrote:

Martijn (admin) wrote:

Lynn wrote:
Fig 136 is not like the Disney print. The birfucations there are not opening towards the core. In fact they are under the type line. The delta in fig 136 has to be on the recurving ridge, there are no other possibilities for it. So obviously in that case there is no ridge count.

I disagree with "Even without the the ridge that runs from #1 to #4 it fails to qualify."
If that ridge wasn't there, there would be a white space and it would qualify.

(edit) PS I think it would also qualify if the shoulders were higher. Then centre ridge wouldn't reach the shoulders and the core would be on the shoulder furthest away from the delta. The centre ridge would then give a ridge count of 1.

Patti your argument about lack of white space (because of that light coloured ridge crossing the space en route between delta & core) is still convicing me!

Yes Lynn, I think I can agree with all points you've made... and I recognize how your green words relate to the issue which I just mentioned in my former reply to your post: the possibiligy of a potential 'ridge count = 2'.

So, I read your words as that you precisely described why you think the Disney print is probably a 'radial loop' - but of course I realize that we both need to face a few considerations before you and I could speak of a permanent agreement.

But I think it would be better to small steps, in order to see how far we can find an agreement with Patti... based on all 3 prints + the rules in the book.

Martijn,
You said you agreed with all the points that Lynn made.

Did you notice her words at the end in Blue? i.e. we're looking at a tented arch.

Patti.... Lynn talked twice about how it would qualify for a 'ridge count' (higher than zero) - which would result in a 'radial loop'!

But I agree... about what her blue words suggest, therefore I explicitely described how I read her words.

Though maybe I better had describe it as "... why you think the Disney print could be a 'radial loop'"... instead of "... why you think the Disney print is probably a 'radial loop'".

And therefore I also wrote in my former post to Lynn that she is now even appears to 'flip-flop' while writing.

Lynn wrote:

Martijn (admin) wrote: I can understand your doubts, but I understand also that you described yourself that you recognize how a 'ridge count 2' could potentially be created if at the end of this discussion the 'core' would end up at the right shoulder.

But hey... we were discussing the DELTA, where you and I agreed. And Patti is talking about some kind of 'agreement' about the DELTA.

Haven't you noticed that?

Before you make any news steps ahead.... Lynn, are you actually 100% sure about the DELTA?

(Just asking because I noticed that your thoughts appear to 'flip-flop' even while you are writing your posts - shouldn't we first try to include Patti in our agreement about the DELTA? And if you think not... why not!???? )[/color]

In my posts tonight, I am only flip-flopping or see-sawing by saying IF we look at it this way or that way. e.g. IF that ridge blocks the white space then it's a tented arch, but IF the core was on the right shoulder then it is a loop (IF the single ridge line is long enough)

I am only sure about the delta being placed at bifurcation 1 if the blue lines you drew are the type lines.



But if Patti's purple lines are the type lines, then the delta cannot be at bifurcation 1 as it is on or underneath the type line ??



This might be a stupid question....
Looking at the video you posted recently about fingerprints - That thing that looks like an island is a double birfurcation in the type line, ie bifurcations 2 & 3. As they join with location 1, could that make location 1 a trifurcation?? and if so what are the implications of that?

Martijn wrote:So, I read your words as that you precisely described why you think the Disney print is probably a 'radial loop'

Lynn wrote:

Martijn (admin) wrote:

Patti wrote:I can see at a glance that you are making big, big errors (in your favor, of course).

Two parallel lines that diverge.

They should not have ridge line between them.

Even if they are parallel a short distance and diverge they are counted. That is clearer in the 1933 print.

Have you noticed Martijn, how many times that an inconvenient rule pops up, you immediately tell us it is unimportant or insignificant. That is what I call 'smoke and mirrors'. You tell us to see what you want us to see and tell us not to notice what you don't want us to notice.

I think you correctly placed the lines in blue with red dots earlier when you didn't realize that they were important. You just followed what you saw.

The only place the delta can go after the two line I traced part ways is the next ridge in. You had called the areas outside your bananas ink blots. Are you now seeing them as ridge lines?

Patti, I assume that your first 4 comments relate to the 'type lines'?

The 'type lines' definition on page 7 says:

"Type lines may be defined as the two innermost ridges which start parallel, diverge, and surround or tent to surround the pattern area."


Patti, first of all: you describe that the 'type lines' are required... quoted from your words: "...should not have ridge line between them."

But where did you find such a requirement? Figure 27 & figure 30 clearly show that the types (T and T) can have a ridge between them. So, the requirement that you described... does not exist at all!



Second, if you would have looked at my 'blue lines' closely... then you should have noticed that my blue lines do diverge!




Third, yes ... after looking closely at figure 28 in the F.B.I. book, I can see that I did made a mistake as well:

Despite that I had to point out that you created yourself a 'new rule' (which doesn't exist at all!), and you made an incorrect observation regarding my 'blue lines' (they do diverge!),... yes, I must admit that I did make a mistake here... because I should have drawn the lower type line at another ridge line, see the picture below!



... During this discussion my drawings have shown a high level of consistancy, and with the help of your feedback & Lynn's feedback my pictures kept improving:

I have now also hightlightened the 'top' of the recurve with the same 'red dot' that I used earlier in my pictures, and I have also slightly lifted the right sight of the 'shoulder' - following the suggestion made by Lynn.

Resulting in that we can now clearly see that 'my shoulders' are not only following the rule that they are found at the point where the "recurving ridge definitely turns inwards or curves", we can also see that both sides also show is a high level of SYMMETRY in the perspective of the 'top'!


Finally, regarding your last point related to the delta... I am not sure what you are trying to say there. But I now would like to describe explictely why the DELTA is found at the location which I described in my former post (see the picture above):



First of all, the picture below clearly shows why we are faced with the problem of identifying the position of the DELTA... because there is no clear 'triradius' seen in this print... however, there are 5 'bifurcations' that could be associated with the delta - but after the following two considerations if becomes very obvious why only 'bifurcation 1' can be described as the delta!

But only 'bifurcation 1' and 'bifurcation 2' meet the first criterium for the DELTA desribed at page 12 of the book (I quote again):

"# The delta may not be located at a bifurcation which does not open toward the core."

'Bifurcation 3, 4 and 5' do not meet this criterium - so we only need to consider the other two!

And because 'bifurcation 1' and 'bifurcation 2' can be recognized as a SERIES OF BIFURCATIONS, we can apply the third rule described at page 12 of the book:

"# When there is a series of bifurcations opening toward the core at the point of divergence of the two type lines, the bifurcation nearest the core is chosen as the delta."

Therefore I am 100% sure that 'bifurcation 1' can only be described as the DELTA!


Patti, I hope you now recognize that my mistake regarding the lower 'type line' has no implications for my assessment that in the Disney print we can CLEARLY identify the 3 essential requirements for a loop (quoted from page 18 in the F.B.I. book):

- A sufficient recurve
- A delta
- A ridge count across a looping ridge.

The picture below shows all essential elements, which clearly indicate that the Disney print is ... a RADIAL LOOP:



The original print might be helpful as a point of reference:




PS. Patti, I also would like to add the following thought:

In my first attempt I hardly explained my 'type lines'... so your accusation regarding that I am fouling-around-with-the-rules (my words) is unfounded... let's be reasonable: if I make a mistake you should not translate that into that I am trying to change the rules. Especially, when the mistake has no consequences regarding my assessment at all!

And I do not recognize at all how my mistake was 'in my favour'... like you suggested!

And it is quite funny that while you make these unfounded accusations (for sure, I did not describe any incorrect rule regarding the 'type lines' because I in that post I only quoted from the book regarding the requirements)... you actually described YOURSELF an incorrect rule.


Patti we all make mistakes... but you should never ever make the assumption that I am making them 'with a purpose'. I can only hope that you will at least give it a thought about why you made these suggestions - because again... I mentioned this already quite a few times...

I never tried to 'trick' you anyhow!

This is the post that Martijn specifically asked me to reply to.

I can't find a rule that says that type lines should not have ridge line between them.

I did not agree with Martijn's original type lines, but I do agree with the corrected version here


I like the new position of the shoulders.
Previously I thought if the shoulder line was drawn slightly higher as I imagined it, then the central ridge line would not come up as high as high as the shoulders. But now I can see that it does. Actually I would still draw the right shoulder a little higher (touching the base of the triangle on the red arrow) but I don't think that would not make any difference to the print assessment (I think the centre ridge would still reach the shoulders.) So that is one thing clearer in my mind!

I agree with the way Martijn's worked this out :

"# The delta may not be located at a bifurcation which does not open toward the core."

'Bifurcation 3, 4 and 5' do not meet this criterium - so we only need to consider the other two!

And because 'bifurcation 1' and 'bifurcation 2' can be recognized as a SERIES OF BIFURCATIONS, we can apply the third rule described at page 12 of the book:

"# When there is a series of bifurcations opening toward the core at the point of divergence of the two type lines, the bifurcation nearest the core is chosen as the delta.

Therefore, at this point in the discussion, I also think that the Delta is at 'bifurcation 1'.
And obviously my see-saw has swung towards radial loop again!

(again, unless I have missed something that persuades me otherwise!)

Lynn, first of all: thanks for honouring my request from a few days ago.

Sounds like you and I at least found an agreement about the DELTA and the TYPE LINES.


NOTICE: I am 100% sure that we have an agreement about both... but I also notice that you are a little confused, because you described in your last post:

"I am only sure about the delta being placed at bifurcation 1 if the blue lines you drew are the type lines. But if Patti's purple lines are the type lines, then the delta cannot be at bifurcation 1 as it is on or underneath the type line ??"

Lynn, for the obvious reason: the TYPE LINES can only be identified after the DELTA is identified (because the DELTA is a part of the 'pattern area'). So, because you and I agree about the DELTA... as a consequence you and I were also able to agree about the type lines.

And because we both can not agree with Patti about HER DELTA (which she positiones in 'bifurcation 4') ... as a consequence we also can not agree with Patti about HER TYPE LINES... because HER LOWER TYPE LINE crosses OUR AGREED DELTA. But that is only the consequence of where she positioned HER DELTA!

Logics shows that IF you are 100% sure about that the DELTA is positioned at 'bifurcation 1'... then I am 100% sure that it is only common sense that you not only disagree with Patti about HER DELTA, but also do not agree with Patti about HER LOWER TYPE LINE...!



PS. So Lynn, just checking again... Lynn do you think that you could describe our agreement about the DELTA as permanent agreement?

( )


Actually, I would love to hear your thoughts about why you think that Patti is not able to find an agreement with us about the DELTA, and why she offered both of us some kind 'agree' about the DELTA... while she also says that she does not agree with us about 'bifurcation 4' at all???

But I realize that I offered you in return... that I would not ask any further questions - so now I hesitate to ask you for your other thoughts.


So, maybe... you want me to post another picture where I can show how the 'ridge count = 2' is created?

Maybe that could help you to step permanently from your...