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

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.

Martijn (admin) wrote: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...

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!)

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???

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

Patti wrote:

Fig. 68 is a loop because of the ridge count of 1.

See where the delta is placed at a point on the recurving ridge. The core is placed on the far shoulder and the recurve is long enough to be counted.

The delta is placed out past where the two parallel ridges diverge. The delta was not placed on the bifurcation.

Lynn wrote:
I agree with Patti that it would make sense to find the type lines first, to outline or define the pattern before finding the delta inside that outline. (Although it is only in the last few days that I learnt about type lines!)

A VERY QUICK NECESSARY RESPONSE TO THE PASSAGE ABOVE:


Lynn, I alreadly described earlier in the discussion that at page 7 of the book the three ITALIC SENTENCES clearly describe that the TYPE LINES can only be identified AFTER the identification of:

"... the cores, deltas and ridges with which we are concerned in classifying."

Only in the 2nd and 3rd ITALIC sentence are the TYPE LINES mentioned!


And actually, you described yourself that in the past we never ever used the TYPE LINES before to assess any fingerprint!!!

Despite that we had another long day of discussion, my sense for logics still works fine: Patti's claim about the need to first identify the TYPE LINES... is a significant violation of the order regarding how to assess a fingerprint. Again, the order is clearly described by the book!

I really hope that this now makes sense for you as well... please consult the book!!!


(You know, I like bananas... do you? )

Before pattern definition can be understood, it is necessary to understand the meaning of a few technical terms used in fingerprint work.

The pattern area is the only part of the finger impression with which we are concerned in regard to interpretation and classification. It is present in all patterns, of course, but in many arches and tented arches it is impossible to define. This is not important, however, as the only patterns in which we need to define the pattern area for classification purposes are loops and whorls. In these two pattern types the pattern area may be defined as follows:

The pattern area is that part of a loop or whorl in which appear the cores, deltas, and ridges with which we are concerned in classifying.

The pattern areas of loops and whorls are enclosed by type lines.

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

Focal points—Within the pattern areas of loops and whorls are enclosed the focal points which are used to classify them. These points are called delta and core.

The delta is that point on a ridge at or in front of and nearest the center of the divergence of the type lines.

It may be:

● A bifurcation

● An abrupt ending ridge

● A dot

● A short ridge

● A meeting of two ridges

● A point on the first recurving ridge located nearest to the center and in front of the divergence of the type lines.

Lynn wrote:

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

Actually I was saying that I thought it was probably a tented arch!
But IF ... and IF .. and IF those other considerations applied, it would be a radial loop!

Martijn (admin) wrote:

Lynn wrote:
I agree with Patti that it would make sense to find the type lines first, to outline or define the pattern before finding the delta inside that outline. (Although it is only in the last few days that I learnt about type lines!)

A VERY QUICK NECESSARY RESPONSE TO THE PASSAGE ABOVE:


Lynn, I alreadly described earlier in the discussion that at page 7 of the book the three ITALIC SENTENCES clearly describe that the TYPE LINES can only be identified AFTER the identification of:

"... the cores, deltas and ridges with which we are concerned in classifying."

Only in the 2nd and 3rd ITALIC sentence are the TYPE LINES mentioned!


And actually, you described yourself that in the past we never ever used the TYPE LINES before to assess any fingerprint!!!

Despite that we had another long day of discussion, my sense for logics still works fine: Patti's claim about the need to first identify the TYPE LINES... is a significant violation of the order regarding how to assess a fingerprint. Again, the order is clearly described by the book!

I really hope that this now makes sense for you as well... please consult the book!!!


(You know, I like bananas... do you? )

Martijn (admin) wrote:

Lynn wrote:

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

Actually I was saying that I thought it was probably a tented arch!
But IF ... and IF .. and IF those other considerations applied, it would be a radial loop!

Okay Lynn, I get (you are thinking out loud).

Though then your words were not very consistent because you actually described a very realistic IF-option that we so far did not really study at all!!! (At least I didn't!)

Because you wrote:

"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."

And obviously a 'ridge count' of 1... would for sure result in a 'radial loop', etc.


So, this comment of yours is actually very relevant... especially in the perspective of Patti's point regarding the requirement for a white area, etc.

Because we never really agreed about where exactly to put the SHOULDER LINE (... though of course I know that I have made a small adjustment in my pictures). And as a consequence of the disagreement about this point, we never really faced the consequences of the situation when we would not position the CORE on the inner ridge line...!!!

Actually, it was Patti who claimed that the 'core' should not be positioned at the inner ridge line... but we never really considered the consequences of her point because the three of us could hardly find any agreement about ANY ASPECT of the Disney print.

But any claim about 'unfairness' regarding changing a position sounds actually a bit ridiculous to me... because we should simply focuss on the rules in the book + the details as seen in the Disney print!

'Simples!'

Because we never really agreed about where exactly to put the SHOULDER LINE (... though of course I know that I have made a small adjustment in my pictures). And as a consequence of the disagreement about this point, we never really faced the consequences of the situation when we would not position the CORE on the inner ridge line...!!!

Actually, it was Patti who claimed that the 'core' should not be positioned at the inner ridge line... but we never really considered the consequences of her point because the three of us could hardly find any agreement about ANY ASPECT of the Disney print.

Patti wrote:ahhh Martijn,
You are confused with this sentence:

"The pattern area is that part of a loop or whorl in which appear the cores, deltas, and ridges with which we are concerned in classifying."

It is saying that inside the pattern area of the loop and whorl is the place where you find the "cores and deltas". You will also find the ridges with which they are concerned - i.e. "ridge counting, rods, spikes" and such. The features inside the pattern area concerns making a proper classification.

Ok?

Patti wrote:

Because we never really agreed about where exactly to put the SHOULDER LINE (... though of course I know that I have made a small adjustment in my pictures). And as a consequence of the disagreement about this point, we never really faced the consequences of the situation when we would not position the CORE on the inner ridge line...!!!

Actually, it was Patti who claimed that the 'core' should not be positioned at the inner ridge line... but we never really considered the consequences of her point because the three of us could hardly find any agreement about ANY ASPECT of the Disney print.

Martijn,

When I ponder the sentence relating to you and Lynn not having faced the consequences of where you positioned the core. I would interpret that to say if you had known the rules you would have insisted it was in a place that fit the requirements. That the *focal points* moved according to an agenda.

You, not Lynn, was anxiously concerned that the shoulders were low enough and the rod was high enough. Yet these moves did have future consequences.

Because the lower you placed the shoulders, the more in the "recurve" area, the spikes and/or short upthrusts would be, and without argument in the proper location to spoil the recurve. The higher the shoulders, the rod was too short.

Tightrope.

Lynn wrote:

Martijn (admin) wrote:

Lynn wrote:
I agree with Patti that it would make sense to find the type lines first, to outline or define the pattern before finding the delta inside that outline. (Although it is only in the last few days that I learnt about type lines!)

A VERY QUICK NECESSARY RESPONSE TO THE PASSAGE ABOVE:


Lynn, I alreadly described earlier in the discussion that at page 7 of the book the three ITALIC SENTENCES clearly describe that the TYPE LINES can only be identified AFTER the identification of:

"... the cores, deltas and ridges with which we are concerned in classifying."

Only in the 2nd and 3rd ITALIC sentence are the TYPE LINES mentioned!


And actually, you described yourself that in the past we never ever used the TYPE LINES before to assess any fingerprint!!!

Despite that we had another long day of discussion, my sense for logics still works fine: Patti's claim about the need to first identify the TYPE LINES... is a significant violation of the order regarding how to assess a fingerprint. Again, the order is clearly described by the book!

I really hope that this now makes sense for you as well... please consult the book!!!


(You know, I like bananas... do you? )

Martijn, that is not the strongest argument you've ever made
Yes, that's what the italic sentences say. But after that, what part do they describe first - the outline of the pattern area via the type lines! So which is the correct order of work?

Although I've always noticed the 'pattern area' in whorls & loops and tried to see its outline, but I didn't know it was called a 'pattern area' nor did I know the outline were called Type Lines till Patti mentioned them a few days ago. We are all learning a lot here!

you know I haven't eaten a banana for about 20 years!

Lynn, please do not underestimate the fact that the ITALIC words point out a definition!

And please notice that the ITALIC words are preceeded by the following words:

"... the only patterns in which we need to define the pattern area for clasification purposes are loops and whorls. In these two pattern types the pattern area may be define as follows:"

Form these words... one can even conclude that for an 'arch' + a 'tented arch'... the pattern area is not required to be defined, and therefore one can even safely conclude that in an 'arch' or 'tented arch' the TYPE LINES are not considered as relevant at all!

So, if you start thinking about what I described... there is no way out: TYPE LINES are obvously only helpful in certain situations - but do not require at all to be identified before a DELTA is identified!




But I have a few more likewise points to add, because:

1 - Firstly, the key-elements for identifying a fingerprint pattern are described in the 1st sentence; while the 2nd + 3th sentence only describes the outline of the pattern: with a description of how typical TYPE LINES look like!

But page 8 describes that type lines usually do not consist of one line, more often they are broken. Which probably explains why TYPE LINES are associated with the DELTA, but because they manifest often near the delta in various shapes.... but the TYPE LINES do not define the DELTA.


2 - Second, regarding the order in the book (after the ITALIC definition): obviously the author(s) of the book choose to describe the topic of classification with the analogy of a river (the TYPE LINES are sort of the 'riverbanks').

The elements are described from outside to inside: starting with the largest elements (TYPE LINES) to the small elements (FOCAL POINTS).


3 - Third, the TYPE LINES are not really required to identify any pattern. But the TYPE LINES are sometimes (only sometimes!) helpful to find especially the zone where the DELTA could be found: could... not should!

Because for example: the 4 DELTA-rules clearly show that the TYPE LINES only play an accessory role in some situations, because the TYPE LINES are only mentioned as a point of reference in the 3rd and 4th DELTA-rule (see page 12).


But one should not conclude from the fact that sometimes the TYPE LINES can serve as a helpful point of reference, the TYPE LINES are not really required for the classification of any fingerprint - because that is not described by the book at all! Everywhere the type lines are mentioned they are NOT mentioned as a decisive element, they are only mentioned as a point of reference!.

Because... and this is important ... the definition of the DELTA actually describes where the TYPE LINES can for sure not be found. Because they are always found OUTSIDE the pattern area, which implicates that at the point where the DELTA is found... the TYPE LINES are not found!


But don't get me wrong: I don't dispute that the TYPE LINES can be helpful to oversee a (complex) pattern, because I realize that they can be helpful as a point of reference - and yes, the TYPE LINE can sometimes be helpful for finding the DELTA.

But it is not a coincidence that the TYPE LINES are not mentioned at all in the first two DELTA-definitions, because again: the TYPE LINES never really become involved with the DELTA itself, because ved when the DELTA is found very close to the TYPE LINES!!!

However, the TYPE LINES never become a decisive element... simply because: at the location of the DELTA there can NOT be a TYPE LINE... because the DELTA is found inside the pattern area, while the TYPE LINES are found outside the pattern area.


Patti's theory describes that first the TYPE LINES require to be found in order to identify the DELTA... but that would implicate that TYPE LINES would define the DELTA, but that is just like turing the world upside down...

... because the book clearly describes that often the DELTA is not found close to the TYPE LINES at all!

So, my objection is based on the definition in the book... + a little bit of common sense!

Patti wrote:

Martijn (admin) wrote:

Lynn wrote:

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

Actually I was saying that I thought it was probably a tented arch!
But IF ... and IF .. and IF those other considerations applied, it would be a radial loop!

Okay Lynn, I get (you are thinking out loud).

Though then your words were not very consistent because you actually described a very realistic IF-option that we so far did not really study at all!!! (At least I didn't!)

Because you wrote:

"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."

And obviously a 'ridge count' of 1... would for sure result in a 'radial loop', etc.


So, this comment of yours is actually very relevant... especially in the perspective of Patti's point regarding the requirement for a white area, etc.

Because we never really agreed about where exactly to put the SHOULDER LINE (... though of course I know that I have made a small adjustment in my pictures). And as a consequence of the disagreement about this point, we never really faced the consequences of the situation when we would not position the CORE on the inner ridge line...!!!

Actually, it was Patti who claimed that the 'core' should not be positioned at the inner ridge line... but we never really considered the consequences of her point because the three of us could hardly find any agreement about ANY ASPECT of the Disney print.

But any claim about 'unfairness' regarding changing a position sounds actually a bit ridiculous to me... because we should simply focuss on the rules in the book + the details as seen in the Disney print!

'Simples!'

Not so simple....

You see, I would put both shoulders near where the two spikes are sticking up. I see the area in between as the recurve. The spikes ruin the recurve, too.

Rules are rules.

Patti wrote:I think the rules explain it pretty well when they say it's difficult to determine the type lines, and therefore the pattern contents, of a tented arch or plain arch. Just the loop and whorl.

That's why it's taken so long here to prove it's a loop, because it's not.

There are so many factors along the way that block this print being mistakenly classified as a loop.

There are debates over upthrust and spikes

There are debates over the location of the shoulders

There are debates over the location of the core

There are debates over the definite ending point of the core - or is it extended by pixelation and bleeding ink.

There are debates over the location of the delta

There are debates over the type lines

There is discussion about the radiant from location 1 to location 4

There's a discussion about if location 2 joined with location 3 and location 1 make a ménage à trois.

There's a debate over ridge count

It it were a simple loop....wouldn't it be simple?

It fails as a loop at every turn, and I think every rule.

To prove it shouldn't require acrobatics and tweaking.

The fingerprint analsyst was not looking at an overinked or pixelated print.

If it fails this many rules under our conditions, it's no wonder the FBI classified it a Tented Arch!

Nonsense, in my last response to Lynn I described that according the very first definition in the book, the TYPE LINES only can serve as additional points of reference - but basically only when DELTA-rule no. 3 or no.4 requires to be considered.

In all other cases the TYPE LINES are completely irrelevant, including all arches & far most tented arches. And... including the Disney print.

Because, while the types are associated with the DELTA... the truth is that DELTA is a decisive element regarding the identification of the TYPE LINES (because the TYPE LINES can not be found at the location where the DELTA is found).

But the reverse is not true: TYPES LINES are only accessory elements which are sometimes helpful to study the path of the ridge lines close to the DELTA (especially in cases that relate to DELTA-rule no. 3 and no.4). But there is no rule in the book at all which even suggests that TYPES LINES always require to be identified before the location of the DELTA is established.


PS. Some considerations far beyond the context of our discussion:

- Especially in applications for the forensic sciences, the identification of TYPE LINES can have value. But for the typical application of fingerprints in hand reading, the pattern identification does usually not require the identification of the the TYPE LINES at all.

- But in hand reading the focuss is nearly always solely focussed on the 'pattern area' for the pattern classification, and as an illustration... I would like to notice here that the aspect of the TYPE LINES is for example not even mentioned at all at Ed Campbell's website:
http://www.edcampbell.com/PalmD-History.htm

And I dare to claim that the issue of the 'type lines' was never ever mentioned in any PALMISTRY book.

You know why...? This may sound a bit cynical... but the main reason is: that the TYPE LINES were never ever important for any fingerprint identification at all.


- And therefore Patti, I dare to ask you to present at least a single example form the book which describes that the TYPE LINES became a decisive element for the pattern classification.

(I hope you understand that everytime when they get mentioned, that does not implicate that they actually became a 'decisive' element in any of those cases.....! Because my thought is that they ALWAYS get mentioned as an accessory element - only as a side-feature... and nothingelse!)


So Patti... if your 'TYPE LINE THEORY' would have had any implications (except that Lynn appears to have assumed from you that it might be an important theory... ), then you should now also have started thinking about the MAJOR IMPLICATIONS that such a theory would have... because your theory would also implicate that all those palmistry books which mention fingerprint classification, now require to be re-written.


You know what...?
I have soon have to go out to the grocery store to buy new bananas, because during the past days my bananas no longer get accepted at all, so I all had to eat them myself... and now my fruitbox is almost empty!

Patti wrote:The Science of Fingerprints:

Before pattern definition can be understood, it is necessary to understand the meaning of a few technical terms used in fingerprint work.

The pattern area is the only part of the finger impression with which we are concerned in regard to interpretation and classification.

...

Patti... not that I understand why presented and outlined this quote...

But this quote from the top of page 7 actually clearly points out why TYPE LINES have never ever become an important element in fingerprint classification at all!

You know why?
'Simples'... because they do not belong to the pattern area!

But appearantly it does require 'something' to understand this.

Logics? Common sense? A balanced mood?


Anyway... thank you so much for presenting that quote right in my face!

The delta is that point on a ridge at or in front of and nearest the center of the divergence of the type lines.

In figure 20, the dot marked "delta" is considered as the delta because it is the first ridge or part of a ridge nearest the point of divergence of the two type lines. If the dot were not present, point B on ridge C, as shown in the figure, would be considered as the delta. This would be equally true whether the ridges were connected with one of the type lines, both type lines, or disconnected altogether. In figure 20, with the dot as the delta, the first ridge count is ridge C. If the dot were not present, point B on ridge C would be considered as the delta and the first count would be ridge D. The lines X—X and Y—Y are the type lines, not X—A and Y—Z.

It should be understood that the diverging type lines must be present in all delta formations and that wherever one of the formations mentioned in the definition of a delta may be, it must be located midway between two diverging type lines at or just in front of where they diverge in order to satisfy the definition and qualify as a delta.

Patti wrote:"Geometry of Loops & Triradii"
"The system of lines which make an ideal loop can be expressed as a set of confocal parabolas which have the equation, for different values of the constant a:

y = 4a(x + a )

from "Quantitative Dermatgoglyphics" Danuta Z. Loesch M.D., Ph.D.

ok not from the FBI's "The Science of Fingerprints" but I thought you'd enjoy some humor (or some math and science)



BTW those diagrams in the upper right hand corner will make it easy for us to precisely place the shoulders as they contain the simple recipe for calculating the curvature of the loop.

(really!)

Danuta Loesch....fabulous!

I have the book myself as well, and this provides us finallly a few more details about how finding a 'realistic' position for the shoulder line!!

And this provides an 'argument' - on top of the arguments that I mentioned a few hours earlier - that we really SHOUD follow the details of ridge path in order to find the SHOULDER LINE: I will try to include the 'tangent at intersection' in both shoulders of my new pictures.

Great post Patti.

PS. This is not 'humor'... this is seriously related stuff. Afterall so far we had only one sentence in the book (+ pictures that are never present clear details about how any SHOULDER LINE).

Lynn wrote:...

But I 'capice' and I capitulate, I'm not going to argue about whether we should find type line or delta first.

...

Okay Lynn, thanks for confirming my point.

I hope that you now understand & acknowledged that the ITALIC words at page 7 (= definition), formally confirm what is descrided in the 2nd sentence at the same page:

"The pattern area is the only part of the finger impression with which we are concerned in regard to interpretation and classification."

NOTICE:
- the word 'interpretation' relates to the individual ridge lines inside the pattern area of the fingerprint;
- and the word 'classification' of course refers to the main issue of our interest: the pattern classification of the fingerprint.

So, page 7 implicitely describes why TYPES LINES in general are not important, and never required to fingerprint pattern classification. Basically, they only get useful (as a point of reference only) in situations that are described in the other definitions elsewhere in the book definitions (e.g. the 3th and 4th DELTA-rules).

And in the Disney example the TYPE LINES are helpful to make us see the similarity with figure 28...!

So we have now made 3 steps:

STEP 1 - After applying DELTA-rule no.1 on the 5 'bifurcations' we already found that the DELTA is located at 'bifurcation 1';
STEP 2 - Applying DELTA-rule no.3 confirmed the conclusion that the DELTA is located at 'bifurcation 1';
STEP 3 - And finally we found that the words at page 7 (sentence 2 + the ITALIC definition) implicate that the TYPE LINES are not required to be studied for identifying the DELTA.


After making these three steps I think we should now be able to safely conclude that - based on rules in the book - there can for sure be no longer any doubt at all about the location of the DELTA & the TYPE LINES.

(Patti's proposal that she is willing to agree under certain conditions with the DELTA at 'bifurcation 1' conclusion... might even confirm that we are on the right track. )



Lynn, seriously... I have two simple questions for you to answer:
- Can I take your words now as that they mean that you no longer have ANY DOUBT about the location of the DELTA at 'bifurcation 1'?
- And that you now also understand & agree that my TYPE LINES - which you liked after I had made one adjustment regarding the LOWER TYPE LINE - also follow the rules described by the book?

The answer to both questions is important for me to know, because then I we can finally speak that you and I found a permanent agreement about the location of both the DELTA & the TYPE LINES.

Correct?

PS. Of course, this is only a small step - but a necessary first step - towards finding any 'stable' agreement about Disney's fingerprint pattern... because it would not really makes sense to start considering the other aspects in the pattern area, if we can not even speak of a permanent agreement about the DELTA....! I hope this makes sense.

Martijn (admin) wrote:Lynn, seriously... I have two simple questions for you to answer:
- Can I take your words now as that they mean that you no longer have ANY DOUBT about the location of the DELTA at 'bifurcation 1'?
- And that you now also understand & agree that my TYPE LINES - which you liked after I had made one adjustment regarding the LOWER TYPE LINE - also follow the rules described by the book?

The answer to both questions is important for me to know, because then I we can finally speak that you and I found a permanent agreement about the location of both the DELTA & the TYPE LINES.

Correct?

PS. Of course, this is only a small step - but a necessary first step - towards finding any 'stable' agreement about Disney's fingerprint pattern... because it would not really makes sense to start considering the other aspects in the pattern area, if we can not even speak of a permanent agreement about the DELTA....! I hope this makes sense.

Lynn wrote:

Martijn (admin) wrote:Lynn, seriously... I have two simple questions for you to answer:
- Can I take your words now as that they mean that you no longer have ANY DOUBT about the location of the DELTA at 'bifurcation 1'?
- And that you now also understand & agree that my TYPE LINES - which you liked after I had made one adjustment regarding the LOWER TYPE LINE - also follow the rules described by the book?

The answer to both questions is important for me to know, because then I we can finally speak that you and I found a permanent agreement about the location of both the DELTA & the TYPE LINES.

Correct?

PS. Of course, this is only a small step - but a necessary first step - towards finding any 'stable' agreement about Disney's fingerprint pattern... because it would not really makes sense to start considering the other aspects in the pattern area, if we can not even speak of a permanent agreement about the DELTA....! I hope this makes sense.

OK, well first it should be obvious during this discussion that I am not able to make a PERMANENT agreement about anything! Because I am still learning about this. Thanks to you and Patti I keep finding more info in the book that influences and changes my thoughts.

However, I can repeat what I've already said:
At this point in the discussion,
- I think that the Delta is at 'bifurcation 1'.
- I would have placed the type lines where you placed them on your 2nd attempt Martijn , the lower blue line.
unless I have missed something that persuades me otherwise!

I do not feel qualified to make a permanent decision because I still don't know everything there is to know about fingerprint classification.
No reason why my lack of permanent commitment should stop you going ahead and consider the other aspects in the pattern area.