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

Patti wrote:My main argument against your loop argument is that you insist on completing the BLANK spaces in the way that pleases you.

My as you call it spagetti image is extremely accurate and there is ABSOLUTELY no loop! None whatsoever.

If you look closely you can even see the rounded edges of the ending of the ridges that you are trying to make a loop. You can also see the upthrust sits on the horizontal ridge and yes, it forms a triradius. You have been drawing a second triradius to the left instead.

Great... Patti, now I can also describe the flaw behind what you described as your major argument against my analysis:


Your argument regarding the BLANK SPACES & rounded edges is only based on your perceptions about those aspects, because your argument does not include any details about what is exactly visible in the lighter version of the 1937 fingerprint.

Let me try to explain this with two sensible thoughts regarding the typical structure of an ink-fingerprint:

1) Ridge lines typically manifest as 'connected dots' in an ink-fingerprint. Only when there is a considerable distance between the 'dots' (which logically requires to be larger than half of the width between two ridge lines), then one could say that a ridge line terminates.

2) Another typical characteristic of a 'terminating ridge line' is that there is no likewise directed ridge line visible in the continueing path.


But both of these points are not applicable to the light example of the 1937 fingerprint, because the BLANK SPACES are much narrower than ridge-width, and in this case each of the five BLANK SPACES are followed by continued ridge line which follows exactly the same path as the preceeding aspect of the ridge line.

This clearly indicates that your main argument is actually... not significant at all: simply because the BLANK SPACES that you mentioned are relatively small (far too small to describe any of them as 'terminating ridge lines') - and therefore one can safely assume that the 'looping ridge line' is build by pieces that are continued elements of the same ridge line.

So, I have now explained with 2 arguments why we should reject your main argument against my illustrations!!!




Back to 'your fingerprint':

Anyone who would take a look at this 6x ZOOMED variant of 'your picture', should notice that the quality of your picture is actually very poor: simply because in that picture is not a single ridge line visible where we can actually see where it begins... or ends.



And let me put it like this:

All the way this discussion, I have tried to focuss on only the characteristics that are confirmed in at least 2 of the 3 example.

Patti... I agree that it 'may look like' that there is a triradius-like shape in the center of "your fingerprint" - but for sure: the two 1937 fingerprints do not show any signal of the presence of a central-triradius. So that impression only results from that the zones between the ridges became hardly visible in "your fingerprint" - simply because there was too much ink on the finger.

For sure: formally one can not find any (clear) 'upthrust' in that picture at all - because there are also 2 horizontal lines visible that clearly cross the 'your 3th uptrust' that you described.... because the earlier 'two upthrusts' where deffinitely in a different position.

(Another inconsistancy in your observations!)


By the way, formally... the 2 horizontal lines actually spoil the 'upthrust'!!!
So Patti, even 'your 3th upthrust' doesn't provide you a solid argument either.


And regarding your claim that your 'spaggeti image' is "extremely accurate": using 'strong words' is probably not helpful to illustrate your points either.

As a matter fact: I asked you to explain why you created that inverted-image: but where do you think that Photoshop will take us anyway? Usually the effects are used to create illusions - instead I can only recommend you to focuss back again on the facts that are seen in all 3 fingerprints that are available for us.

Martijn (admin) wrote:

Patti wrote:My main argument against your loop argument is that you insist on completing the BLANK spaces in the way that pleases you.

My as you call it spagetti image is extremely accurate and there is ABSOLUTELY no loop! None whatsoever.

If you look closely you can even see the rounded edges of the ending of the ridges that you are trying to make a loop. You can also see the upthrust sits on the horizontal ridge and yes, it forms a triradius. You have been drawing a second triradius to the left instead.

Great... Patti, now I can also describe the flaw behind what you described as your major argument against my analysis:


Your argument regarding the BLANK SPACES & rounded edges is only based on your perceptions about those aspects, because your argument does not include any details about what is exactly visible in the lighter version of the 1937 fingerprint.

Let me try to explain this with two sensible thoughts regarding the typical structure of an ink-fingerprint:

1) Ridge lines typically manifest as 'connected dots' in an ink-fingerprint. Only when there is a considerable distance between the 'dots' (which logically requires to be larger than half of the width between two ridge lines), then one could say that a ridge line terminates.

2) Another typical characteristic of a 'terminating ridge line' is that there is no likewise directed ridge line visible in the continueing path.


But both of these points are not applicable to the light example of the 1937 fingerprint, because the BLANK SPACES are much narrower than ridge-width, and in this case each of the five BLANK SPACES are followed by continued ridge line which follows exactly the same path as the preceeding aspect of the ridge line.

This clearly indicates that your main argument is actually... not significant at all: simply because the BLANK SPACES that you mentioned are relatively small (far too small to describe any of them as 'terminating ridge lines') - and therefore one can safely assume that the 'looping ridge line' is build by pieces that are continued elements of the same ridge line.

So, I have now explained with 2 arguments why we should reject your main argument against my illustrations!!!




Back to 'your fingerprint':

Anyone who would take a look at this 6x ZOOMED variant of 'your picture', should notice that the quality of your picture is actually very poor: simply because in that picture is not a single ridge line visible where we can actually see where it begins... or ends.



And let me put it like this:

All the way this discussion, I have tried to focuss on only the characteristics that are confirmed in at least 2 of the 3 example.

Patti... I agree that it 'may look like' that there is a triradius-like shape in the center of "your fingerprint" - but for sure: the two 1937 fingerprints do not show any signal of the presence of a central-triradius. So that impression only results from that the zones between the ridges became hardly visible in "your fingerprint" - simply because there was too much ink on the finger.

For sure: formally one can not find any (clear) 'upthrust' in that picture at all - because there are also 2 horizontal lines visible that clearly cross the 'your 3th uptrust' that you described.... because the earlier 'two upthrusts' where deffinitely in a different position.

(Another inconsistancy in your observations!)


By the way, formally... the 2 horizontal lines actually spoil the 'upthrust'!!!
So Patti, even 'your 3th upthrust' doesn't provide you a solid argument either.


And regarding your claim that your 'spaggeti image' is "extremely accurate": using 'strong words' is probably not helpful to illustrate your points either.

As a matter fact: I asked you to explain why you created that inverted-image: but where do you think that Photoshop will take us anyway? Usually the effects are used to create illusions - instead I can only recommend you to focuss back again on the facts that are seen in all 3 fingerprints that are available for us.

Patti wrote:This is so hilarious!!

...

Honestly, I'm amazed at your bias.

Ignoring the fingerprints on the paper from the State Board in 1937, but look at anything in print. There are shadowy blotches all around any text or dark markings. This was the nature of old copy machines.

Look closely at the text. Many letters have blended together. The same smearing of dark areas is common in old photocopying technology.

For example look at the last letter *e* in this clip. See how it has completely closed. The same messing up of the clarity of the text is also apparent in the ink prints.





The more I enlarge it the more it distorts. Now the *y* is touching the *e* and the top of the *y* is closed. Don't you see how enlarging the poor quality copy actually causes the features to join and merge. This is how you are obtaining a loop.

Enlarging the prints from 1937 only causing the ends to blend where they should not be blending. The prints from 1937 just simply cannot be used in this hard to discern print.



Perhaps the type was hit too hard and blurred - too much ink on the ribbon. But, definitely one confirmation we're not looking at a sharp clear copy.

Patti, because in 1937 those papers were indeed written on a typewriter we can indeed safely asume that the differences in the letter 'e' are probably a direct result from how hard the machines was hit - just like you described yourself!!

And let's not forget that any typewriting machine has it's own characteristics regarding certain letter combinations in words.

All letters are clearly readable in that paper and the shape of the letters look perfectly normal, I see no reason at all to question the quality of the copy.

So, I don't recognize at all how your observations regarding the letters have any implications for the quality of the 1937 fingerprints.

(To me it appears quite irrational to simply describe my efforts as 'biased' in the perspective of your unrelated observations regarding the letters on the paper)




PS. By the way... have you planned to answer any of my (unanswered) questions??? (See for example in my former post the question regarding the 'large white spot').

Patti wrote:
The white spot has a small dot in it. Could be an island ridge (looks to have 1 pore), a scar or wasn't inked. It is visible in one of the 1937 prints but just as I illustrated in the *e* sample above, enlarging it to get a good look only fills it in with shadowy color.

Okay (sorry I indeed missed your comment): thanks for your response!

The smaller white spot in the 1937 print is not the same - please take a closer look at it's position compared to the 'core' and the upper ridge line!

MORE SPECIFIC: In the lightest 1937 print there is only a small white spot - which is actually positioned a little bit higher than the 'large white spot' in the 1933. But in the darker 1937 print there is a clearly identifiable ridge line that continues all the way in that zone!

Patti, there can only be one conclusion:

While the 1933 suggests that there is no ridge line in the 'large white spot' region, both 1937 prints show that there is for sure is a ridge line. And on top of that: I already have explained why relatively small white spots can safely be ignored in ink-fingerprints!

And of course: this is an important point because this actually concerns the ridge line which makes the crucial single 'looping ridge line'.


You can continue denying that there is a 'looping ridge line'... but that no longer really makes sense. Especially now that there is clear evidence that other parts of the 1933 handprint show other signs that there was too much ink involved - and obviously it includes at least one flaw: the 'large white spot'!!

Patti wrote:You mentioned in the first post of this thread you have a high quality image. I copied that image but it is a very poor quality image, same as the one from Andres site. Do you have another better one for our use?

What I'm looking at is obvious a 2nd generation. I think my observation of other printing on the page to show the distortion from copies is valid. In fact, it'd be a case of denial to ignore it.

Patti wrote:

I anxiously awaited to see your response. I wondered just how in the world you would dispute my drawings. And you did!!!

If you are discounting it because I didn't completely finish the purple line, that is silly. I wrote that I didn't complete but said where it continued.
...

Patti, your response sounds a bit like that you are not interested in the details that I described in your pictures, but I really needed those additionals lines to show you the inconsistancies in your drawings.

By the way, I haven't discounted your efforts for the reason that you just described: I have pointed out the inconsistancies in both your purple- AND yellow lines!!


Basically, I could describe your assessment of this fingerprint during this discussion - so far - as follows:

Your assessment of this fingerprint is sort of build on the 'large white zone' in the 1933 print. And in your latest drawing of the 1933 print you have putten a 'pink arrow' (the pointer) right in the 'large white zone' - the 'pink arrow' is also positioned very close the end point of your purple line.

But the flaw in your approach is illustrated by the following:

You have ignored the fact that both 1937 prints clearly indicate that this 'large white zone' is actually a flaw in the 1933 print!! Simply because in both 1937 prints there is a continued ridge line visible: the darker version has definitely a firm continued ridge line; only the lighter 1937 has a couple of small white spots - but these can safely be ignored because these reflect just the nature of how ink-prints are typically created + the fact that there is less ink involved in that lighter 1937 print!

Anyway, in both 1937 prints you have putten the 'pink arrow' at a very different position compared to the 1933 print!!

By the way, I can image that this different position fo the 'pink arrow' is only a direct result of that you did not notice that in those pictures your purple line actually ends at a lower ridge line: in both pictures the purple line concerns the ridge line just below the purple ridge line in the 1933 print.

So, you were able to produce likewise lines for both 1937 pictures... but not for the 1933 picture! And your inability to produce consistant drawings for the 1933 print perfectly illustrates that my worries about the quality of the 1933 picture are justified!


Patti, I hope this will finally somehow make sense for you as well. But so far your responses indicate to me that you simply don't want to 'believe' my comments & responses... and instead you kept your focuss on the 1933 print.

I have not tried to 'trick' you anyhow in this discussion - but I have noticed the continued flow of inconsistancies in your drawings, descriptions & observations.

And you can not blame me for pointing out these inconsistancies... especially since you also continued to attribute significance on some other (much smaller) white zones in the prints.

Unfortunately, you never answered my comments about the insignificant size of the other whites zones. But I can understand that you're done here.

Patti wrote:A picture is worth a 1000 words:

...

Patti, your words look like an attempt to keep an delusion alive... with words only!


Yes, obiously your 1933 picture was worth even more than a 1000 words at this forum... untill I discovered that it has a major flaw + was made with too much ink.

Resulting in (1) the 'large white spot' + (2) connections between various ridge lines - which are both not seen in the two 1937 examples of Walt Disney's left index finger fingerprint!


The other 1937 examples indicate that this actually concerns a RADIAL LOOP; and only due to the flaws this 1933 example may appear as something else - what it not really is.

I think I can fairly call this a 'delusion' because you simply refused to aknowledge the significance (and consequences) of the flaws in the 1933 picture.

Patti wrote:...

That is also why you have yet to attempt to draw your loop in the 1933 image. All you can do is try to discredit the image - when it is plain to anyone's eyes, it's the best quality of all.

I honored your request to show where I saw the white spots. Please honor my repeated request to show your loop on the 1933 print. Use transparent color.

Patti, if you have red the details that I just described properly, I could imagine that you are now getting confused by all the elements that I have considered in my assessments all the way!!

Again, I am not trying to 'trick' you anyhow.

Patti wrote:Martijn,
Studying the ridges you colored in orange, I also notice none of them create a loop.

Patti, your problem perfectly makes sense to me:

It is quite simple: because as long as you do not accept that there is a major flaw in this picture (related to the 'large white spot') ... you will never notice that this fingerprint is a radial loop!

Patti wrote:The white spot isn't that important. ...

The 'large white spot' is important... and I can now proof it!

I already describe why that spot is a crucial element regarding the 1933 print. And actually... I am now able to proof that the 'large white spot' is definitely a flaw in that picture!!!The new picture (see below) shows again where the RADIAL LOOP is found in all three examples... but now I have illustrates each of the examples with a red circle which illustrates exactly the zone where we found the 'large white zone' in the 1933 print.

As you can see in both of the 1937 prints that zone is filled with a ridge line: in the DARK 1937 example that ridge line is completely printed with ink on the paper, while in the LIGHT 1937 example the same ridge is alsmost completely printed.

And we can now see how in the 1933 the 'large white zone' is exactly created (see the 3th example below): the ridge APPEARS to be missing almost completely... but now that I have made this picture I actually recognize that we can actually see 2 small traces of the ridge line!!!

So, it took a while... but this new discovery proofs that the 'large white spot' is for sure a flaw - because in both of the 1937 examples the zone of the 'white large spot' is clearly filled with respectively:
- a 'completely ridge line' (see the 2nd example);
- and an 'almost complete ridge line' (see the 1st example)

Only in the 1933 prints (see the 3th example) that zone is almost empty, but still: the 'two traces of the ridge line' are clearly visible!!


Patti, regarding your propositions... after describing my new 'discovery' you should be able to understand that I see no need at all to exclude any of the prints from our discussion.

Patti wrote:Don't get too excited for yourself. If you follow and count the ridges upward from the obviously matched ridges (see above illustrations) you will see that you actually haven't matched the 33 print to the 37s.

Why don't we work from those ridges we agree on as I mentioned in my previous post. Perhaps you have and don't like the result....?

Patti, where did you so far express your agreement about any of the details that I described? I think so far you never gave your agreement about anything!

So, how realistic is your 'proposal' regarding working to find ridges 'we agree on' really?

Your latest response appears to me as if you are unwilling to consider the zone of the 'large white spot'. If so, then our discussion will probably end here because I am very aware that the 'large white spot' in the 1933 is the main cause why this discussion has continued... on and on and on!!!

A few more thoughts:

1 - Your proposal regarding rejecting the LIGHT 1937 print is actually quite unrealistic... because I clearly described from the beginning why from my point of view that is actually the print that presents the best quality: simply because the quality of the other two prints is at least partly 'spoiled' because there was too much ink on the finger.

2 - By the way, after composing my last picture... I do understand from ONE PERSPECTIVE ONLY why you describe the 1933 as 'the best': because I now have noticed that the 1933 picture does have the highest resolution... but that does not implicate at all that is also 'the best fingerprint'.

3 - The resolution of all three pictures is quite good... otherwise I would not have been able to produce 1000% ZOOMED pictures for the 1937 prints! So, regarding our study the resolution of the pictures is actually... irrelevant!! Again, simply because there is too much ink on the paper in that 1933 print... clearly indicated by the fact that in my last picture I can easily see that the 1933 print is even darker than the DARK 1937 print!


So, I see no options to change any of my conclusions so far. Because the RADIAL LOOP is clearly visible in my last pictures + illustrated by the lines that I have drawn... I don't understand what you actually have in mind regarding finding agreement about any individual ridge lines.

But maybe you are willing to explain your thoughts regarding how to find common agreement... regarding the zones INSIDE the red circles of all three prints???

(Sorry, I have nothing to add regarding the zones OUTSIDE the red circles)