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

Patti Sat Mar 05, 2011 7:32 pm

I'm looking, but I can't find where you've shown the correct type lines that illustrate we're looking at a loop.

I also can not find where you have shown how the delta is not on a type line.

Until then, you have only shown us a spoiled loop resulting in a tented arch.

I think you can work at this point with all three prints and agreed upon coordinates to show us a credible set of type lines. I'd recommend this time, not ignoring ridges on two of the prints because you can not easily see them in the third print. There's a lot you can't see in the third light 1937 print..... like a crescent moon shape on a vertical pole. At least now you see the vertical pole.

**Martijn (admin)** Sat Mar 05, 2011 8:18 pm

Patti wrote:...

I haven't read your PM regarding OZ. You can say whatever to me here on the board. I don't believe that you are being sincere.

How could you possibly make your claims so strongly when it's obvious you are just (still) learning the rules this weekend???!!!!

Okay Patti, since you question the sincerity of my words and you also avoid to read the only PM that I send you... then I feel free to share a copy of my PM titled 'Oz' inside the discussion:

"Patti, can you please explain this:

Why do you first make an apology regarding your comments about 'illusions'?
And then only a few posts later you start posting pictures of the 'Wizard of Oz'???

Sincerely, Martijn."

Patti Sat Mar 05, 2011 9:10 pm

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!

Oz reason # 1:

Because throughout this post you continued the same routine even though you were saying you were not.

You decided for yourself how to choose the appropriate delta from your image.

Then shortly after illustrate that you haven't a clue what "open to the core" means. So how in the world can you be so absolutely sure that you have followed all the rules that involve a delta when there are bifurcations?

Although, I don't think at all that it is a radial loop, I have worked with you on the possibilities. You have not once, tested this pattern in a way to rule out it was a tented arch. You have only approached your presentation from the angle of proving it's a radial loop.

If you look closely and use the ridges that you have previously outlined as type lines and bifurcations, plus those lines that you didn't include in your drawings, but are obviouly part of Disney's fingerprint, you will see it is possible to 'imagine' that there is a short ridge on the bottom and a longer ridge over the top of the central pattern, that run parallel for a short distance and then diverge. Between those two ridges, there is only the single recurving ridge. This forces the delta to be placed at that bifurcation. That bifurcation which you have drawn, also appears to continue between the side of the so called loop and the rod. In all 3 prints. It's light gray in the light 1937 print.

Patti Sat Mar 05, 2011 9:20 pm

Martijn (admin) wrote:
Patti wrote:...

I apologize if I've been over the top with the 'banana, egg and illusion' accusations.

Maybe saying things to me like "cherished delusion" egged me on.

I can see now that it may be that you were not really aware of the rules of the fingerprints when you began your argument for a radial loop. Your assessment was really based on what it looked like to your eyes. From there you set about showing us only ways to see a radial loop. But, along the way, the rules have made that difficult.

Perhaps that's how the FBI narrowed down their rules.

Lynn, I appreciate your thoughts. I keep wondering about the time I've put into this. I can say I've learned a whole lot more than I knew. I had already researched Disney's tented arch before I posted as I've been working on writing about Disney's hands for a couple of months.

I think it's pretty obvious now that we've worked through the rules, it is a tented arch and not a radial loop.

Patti, regarding your apollogy...

Thank you for your making that apollogy, and of course I accept the related explanation: your explanation perfectly makes sense for me. I recognize how some of my words & emoticons made you go 'over the top'.

Regarding the comment that followed + your conclusion so far...

My thought is that so far maybe there are only three people in the world who have studied the 3 versions of Walt Disney's left index fingerprint with the F.B.I. book in their hands.

And after two weeks of discussion.... ... focussed on considerations about many details described in the F.B.I. book 'The Science of Fingerprint'... the situation appears to be right now (see also the new picture below):

- Only one of those three people prefers to describe it as a 'tented arch', however the INK ELEMENTS - that could indeed be used for that assessment (I acknowledge that!) - are seen in only two of the three prints: the 2nd and the 3rd print in the picture below. But the first print present contradictive evidence against that assessment!

- And two of those three persons concluded that the Disney's fingerprint can safely be described as a 'radial loop' - because the required INK ELEMENTS are found in all three versions of Disney's fingerprint: see the picture below.

(However, this second conclusion can not be understood properly without the consideration regarding the abundance of ink in the 2nd and 3th print - which resulted in well described confusing elements. These confusing elements are described earlier in this discussion as e.g.: the 'appearant upthrust', the '8-pointed-star', and the 'small ink dot' - but there are no traces of these elements in the 1st print)

The picture below shows where the required elements for a 'radial loop' can be spotted in all 3 versions of Walt Disney's left index fingeprint. The brown lines in the 3rd print are creases (some of them can be spotted in the other two prints as well, but there they become manifest in a different shape: as interruptions in the ridge lines).

Reason for OZ post # 2:

In this one you once again began to tell us "how" to see a loop. You told us what to see, too much ink, creases etc. That's fine, I did too in my post. But, instead of offering the facts, such as how the loop that you saw followed the appropriate requirements, you simply dismissed all that with messy ink.

Well messy ink can be interpreted in many smoky, illusionary ways.

Patti Sat Mar 05, 2011 9:36 pm

X - WALT DISNEY - One of his fingerprints shows an unusual characteristic! - Page 15 1933-110

If I work with your images for a loop, ignoring the spaces you have ignored, you can see with the pink and green type lines, there is no other place for the delta to go.

You can't put it on a type line and you can't move a type line down a row to make it convenient to put the delta in a place that is less likely to spoil a ridge count.

But the idea of type lines is to *outline* the pattern. Pattern lines can be the only lines contained inside the type lines.

Patti Sat Mar 05, 2011 9:45 pm

The Science of Fingerprints:

"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.

and

Sometimes type lines may be very short. Care must be exercised in their location. Notice the right type line in figure 14."

X - WALT DISNEY - One of his fingerprints shows an unusual characteristic! - Page 15 Fig01410

X - WALT DISNEY - One of his fingerprints shows an unusual characteristic! - Page 15 Fig01410

**Martijn (admin)** Sat Mar 05, 2011 10:37 pm

Patti wrote:
Oz reason # 1:

Because throughout this post you continued the same routine even though you were saying you were not.

You decided for yourself how to choose the appropriate delta from your image.

Then shortly after illustrate that you haven't a clue what "open to the core" means. So how in the world can you be so absolutely sure that you have followed all the rules that involve a delta when there are bifurcations?

Although, I don't think at all that it is a radial loop, I have worked with you on the possibilities. You have not once, tested this pattern in a way to rule out it was a tented arch. You have only approached your presentation from the angle of proving it's a radial loop.

If you look closely and use the ridges that you have previously outlined as type lines and bifurcations, plus those lines that you didn't include in your drawings, but are obviouly part of Disney's fingerprint, you will see it is possible to 'imagine' that there is a short ridge on the bottom and a longer ridge over the top of the central pattern, that run parallel for a short distance and then diverge. Between those two ridges, there is only the single recurving ridge. This forces the delta to be placed at that bifurcation. That bifurcation which you have drawn, also appears to continue between the side of the so called loop and the rod. In all 3 prints. It's light gray in the light 1937 print.

Sounds like you first made an apology... but because I continued with posting my analyses & arguments (e.g. about the inconstancies in your post) featured with a few banana-emoticons... you allowed yourself to continue with the activity for which you made your apology???

Wow... sounds like my words - or the bananas - somehow arrived at a personal level!!

thinking

... Patti, I never meant to bring this discussion to a personal level (quite a few times I have even ignored your words that were solely related to that level, e.g. your posts where you talked about 'blunder & barnum', 'the illusionist', 'Oz', etc.).

But I noticed in your latests posts you now also started questioning explicitely the sincerity of my words. And in response I need to inform you that those words for me take away most of the fun I had during this discussion + all my motivation to continue responding to any of your arguments.

And because you also put question marks behind my motives for how my input developed from the start of this discussion (you said that you suspect me of having an 'agenda'), it would not even be sensible for me to end this discussion with you via an 'agree to disagree'.

Instead, all what I see that is now left for me (after you revealed that you distrust any of my words & motives), is that I now simply prefer to wait and see what Lynn's final input in this discussion will become.

Neutral

PS. Lynn informed me earlier today that despite her earlier comment related to other priorities, she will at least respond to one of my earlier posts.

**Lynn** Sun Mar 06, 2011 2:55 am

Patti wrote:
Martijn (admin) wrote:
Lynn wrote:
Patti wrote:I'm going to interpret this as you have been convinced to hop off the fence in favor of tented arch.

I've realised I am not on a fence, I am on a see-saw! It changes direction frequently!

So... the major question here is: 'will you change your mind again?'

(Just a reminder... ...your latest conclusion so far was that you think it is a 'radial loop', and I assume that you will always correct ME... if necessary)

Why are you not concerned with the rules - rather than who is right and who is wrong.

Side with the rules!!

whoa! to be honest I can't remember if my last thoughts were radial loop or tented arch!

Patti, I am not concerned with who is right or wrong, I am not 'taking sides'! I am trying to concern myself with the rules. But the rules also have some degree of 'personal interpretation' - where we see the shoulders, whether we see white patches or ink blots, where we see the delta, which print we are looking at, whose drawings..... It all comes into whether I see a radial loop or tented arch. and I continue to ....

X - WALT DISNEY - One of his fingerprints shows an unusual characteristic! - Page 15 23

X - WALT DISNEY - One of his fingerprints shows an unusual characteristic! - Page 15 23

**Lynn** Sun Mar 06, 2011 4:17 am

whoa again! In catching up on this thread I am rather disturbed by some of the comments!

I was not happy about Martijn's excessive ridiculing 3 rows of laughing emoticons earlier in this discussion. Then he admitted he made a mistake in understanding the 'core of the loop type' (just as we have all made mistakes in this discussion) and he edited his msg more appropriately, for which I am grateful.

Patti, why would you refuse to read someone's PM? Why do you think I am 'taking sides' between you & Martijn? It's not personal in any way!
I don't think Martijn has any 'hidden agenda' for radial loop. I don't think he is trying to create any illusions, nor do I doubt his sincerity. Neither do I think you are trying to create any illusions with a tented arch, nor do I doubt your sincerity! I thought we were all trying to learn from the FBI book as we went through this discussion. We have all learnt a lot from each other, and from studying the book. I am grateful for that! But please, can we stop the personal insults on this thread?

peace emoticon.... X - WALT DISNEY - One of his fingerprints shows an unusual characteristic! - Page 15 1

X - WALT DISNEY - One of his fingerprints shows an unusual characteristic! - Page 15 1

Patti Sun Mar 06, 2011 5:40 am

Martijn (admin) wrote:

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![/i][/color][/color]

Martijn,
I have removed my OZ post. I don't have the delete option.

And I do apologize. I shouldn't have stooped so low.

Perhaps too you don't realize some of the things you say in your posts that are offensive, condescending and refers to abstract mistakes and errors on my part. When in fact in the very same post you are making really serious errors in which both Lynn and I have made you aware. Not just the one with all the rotfl and banana dudes, but many others. Each time you claim to be right, you point out that I have been delusioned. Yet, each time it seems it's you that is the one who is unaware of the rule involved.

Patti Sun Mar 06, 2011 5:49 am

Lynn wrote:
Patti wrote:
Martijn (admin) wrote:
Lynn wrote:
Patti wrote:I'm going to interpret this as you have been convinced to hop off the fence in favor of tented arch.

I've realised I am not on a fence, I am on a see-saw! It changes direction frequently!

So... the major question here is: 'will you change your mind again?'

(Just a reminder... ...your latest conclusion so far was that you think it is a 'radial loop', and I assume that you will always correct ME... if necessary)

Why are you not concerned with the rules - rather than who is right and who is wrong.

Side with the rules!!

whoa! to be honest I can't remember if my last thoughts were radial loop or tented arch!

Patti, I am not concerned with who is right or wrong, I am not 'taking sides'! I am trying to concern myself with the rules. But the rules also have some degree of 'personal interpretation' - where we see the shoulders, whether we see white patches or ink blots, where we see the delta, which print we are looking at, whose drawings..... It all comes into whether I see a radial loop or tented arch. and I continue to ....

I was quoting Martijn, quoting you. I wasn't responding to you, Lynn.

As far as the sides thing, it was because Martijn keeps asking you to side with him or agree, or show that there are two people who see one thing and only one who sees the other.

I guess that irritates me in the sense that it's not about being talked into something or convincing larges numbers - it's about applying the rules and seeing the results.

I agree that there are some aspects that can be slightly subjective. But, not much, it does look like the rules have been well established over the years to avoid misclassifying prints. What is subjective here is the quality of the prints. Yet, with all three, we usuallycan see in two prints what is missing in the third. Now the only areas that we are really focusing on consists of only a few ridges. We should be able by just knowing the natural flow of ridges, figure out their paths.

**Martijn (admin)** Sun Mar 06, 2011 3:00 pm

Patti wrote:

Martijn,
I have removed my OZ post. I don't have the delete option.

And I do apologize. I shouldn't have stooped so low.

Perhaps too you don't realize some of the things you say in your posts that are offensive, condescending and refers to abstract mistakes and errors on my part. When in fact in the very same post you are making really serious errors in which both Lynn and I have made you aware. Not just the one with all the rotfl and banana dudes, but many others. Each time you claim to be right, you point out that I have been delusioned. Yet, each time it seems it's you that is the one who is unaware of the rule involved.

Okay Patti, I appreciate that you deleted the Oz post.

But I am still confronted with you doubts about my sincerity. Your featured comments suggest that I made offensive comments.:

Yes, I am very aware that much, much,... much earlier in the discussion I described a few times some of your ARGUMENTS as a delusion.

By the way, I think I never said that YOU are delusioned... because I see a major difference: by describing an ARGUMENT as a delusion I am not saying that YOU are delusioned. I hope you recognize the difference as well.

Anyway, despite that I think that you misread my words - but we don't need to discuss the details - I am willing to apologize for how I used that word. And for sure: don't worry... I will never use that word again in any communication with you!

Patti, as you took my use of that word as an insult... and especially since I have used that word a few times (but certainly not 'every time' like you suggested)... I am wondering: why did you not share your feedback at a much earlier moment in this discussion?

Now it looks like that - after Lynn shared that she can not support your accusations - you now come up with this point only to justify all your accusations? And additionally, you also suggest (without any specification) that in all those situations I was always "unaware of the rule involved".

I wish you had been able to feature your apology with an attempt to strive for .... X - WALT DISNEY - One of his fingerprints shows an unusual characteristic! - Page 15 1

Patti Sun Mar 06, 2011 4:19 pm

I should have checked my astrological transits!!!
lol!

Verbal arguments
This influence is favorable for thinking about and reviewing the past as well as for planning and looking toward the future. But it would be better to be out with people at this time, because this quality of time favors interaction with others more than solitary cogitation. Now, you can try out your ideas on others to find out what they think. Their feedback could be extremely valuable to you in adjusting your thinking. Don't get so wrapped up in your own ideas that you feel you must defend all your opinions with your life. That will take away the flexibility you need so badly at this time. Even if you get involved in a verbal argument with someone, look at it as a test of your ideas and do not be afraid to change your thinking.
The interpretation above is for your transit selected for today:
Mercury Opposition Mercury, , exact at 16:36
activity period from 6 March 2011 to 7 March 2011

and

On the line
This is a time when you are inclined to put emotional considerations second to the immediate necessities, as you see them, in your life. Emotional repression of one kind or another is a probable consequence of this influence. But if you do react with emotional repression, you may become hypercritical, which is really the expression of a repressed feeling, usually of resentment toward someone. Another negative expression of this influence is the "martyr game", a tactic of pretending that something is all right with you while subtly signaling that it is not and possibly trying to make others feel guilty for their behavior. Often this is done quite unconsciously. It is much better to put your feelings on the line, even if they don't seem to fit the situation.

Transit selected for today (by user):
Moon in the 6th House, 6, from 17:44
activity period from 6 March 2011 to 8 March 2011

and

Act quickly ***
Valid during many months: This influence can help you to reconcile your personal needs with those of others. If you now have the courage and single-mindedness to stick up for your own interests you can expect support from others. Having experienced that acting in your own interests does not have to mean being inconsiderate or reckless will help you greatly in the future. You won't encounter any resistance or rivalry if you stand up for things which correspond to your inner nature.

Transit selected for today (by user):
Chiron Trine Ascendant, ,
activity period from end of May 2010 until middle of January 2012

flower

(the description I underlined above in the Mercury opposite Mercury transit is the 'meaning' I apply when using the tarot for the card 7 of Wands in a reading - it's just a test of your ideas - stand your ground, but remember, it's just a test, a practice for improvement) sunny

**Lynn** Sun Mar 06, 2011 4:58 pm

Patti wrote:
I was quoting Martijn, quoting you. I wasn't responding to you, Lynn.

Oh sorry I misunderstood.

Patti Sun Mar 06, 2011 10:50 pm

X - WALT DISNEY - One of his fingerprints shows an unusual characteristic! - Page 15 Delta_13

I took a photo of a frame from the above video. And highlighted some details.

X - WALT DISNEY - One of his fingerprints shows an unusual characteristic! - Page 15 Delta_11

X - WALT DISNEY - One of his fingerprints shows an unusual characteristic! - Page 15 Delta_11

Here you see that there were other places someone might want to choose for the delta, but did not. The two red dots on the left are at locations not equal distance from the two parallel lines out in front of where they diverge. The red dot on the right is not equal distance from the two type lines nor is it the most directly in front. The point with the purple dot was the correct location.

X - WALT DISNEY - One of his fingerprints shows an unusual characteristic! - Page 15 Delta_10

X - WALT DISNEY - One of his fingerprints shows an unusual characteristic! - Page 15 Delta_10

These are the rules for a delta:

"The Science of Fingerprints"

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.

"The Science of Fingerprints"

Sometimes type lines may be very short. Care must be exercised in their location. Notice the right type line in figure 14.

X - WALT DISNEY - One of his fingerprints shows an unusual characteristic! - Page 15 Fig01411

Below you will see where these focal points appear when applied to the illustration presented for a radial loop. Walt Disney's Left Index Fingerprint.

X - WALT DISNEY - One of his fingerprints shows an unusual characteristic! - Page 15 Delta_12

X - WALT DISNEY - One of his fingerprints shows an unusual characteristic! - Page 15 Delta_12

If you follow the diagonal blue arrow you can see they align perfectly with where the green arrow is pointing (my purple dot), and another red dot on the far side of the possible recurve. All three prints align.

In order for there to be a loop, there must be a ridge count. The ridge count is made by counting the ridges between the focal points, the core and the delta. The core and the delta are not counted. If there is no ridge count, the loop is spoiled and must be considered a Tented Arch.

**Martijn (admin)** Mon Mar 07, 2011 12:45 am

Patti wrote:
Martijn,
I think you are misunderstanding "open towards the core".

Look at all the examples of those with marked deltas on bifurcations that say they are open toward the core. That means that both limbs of the bifurcating ridge go in such a way the delta point is exposed to the core.

Imagine a V shape of a bird flying. The head between the wings is the delta. The outstretched wings are open. The head is facing the core. Open to the core.

Patti, regarding the issue of how to identify the DELTA... let's keep it simple:

A bifurcation opens BETWEEN the two 'forking line parts', and these two 'forking line parts' always show the smallest angle (see the left picture below).

X - WALT DISNEY - One of his fingerprints shows an unusual characteristic! - Page 15 Fingerprint-patterns-2

X - WALT DISNEY - One of his fingerprints shows an unusual characteristic! - Page 15 Fingerprint-patterns-2

And if we apply this simple principle to 'bifurcation 4' in the picture with the five bifurcations that I presented earlier (see below)... we can see that in 'bifurcation 4' the two 'forking line parts' are pointing downwards, which implicates that 'bifurcation 4' OPENS downwards.

So, 'bifurcation 4' does NOT open toward the 'core' - which implicates that 'bifurcation 4' can NOT be the DELTA.

PS. I noticed that your 'bird-anology' appears to have resulted in the conclusion that 'bifurcation 4' is the DELTA, so I think my simple example indicates that your 'bird analogy' probably does not work.

X - WALT DISNEY - One of his fingerprints shows an unusual characteristic! - Page 15 1937-l21

X - WALT DISNEY - One of his fingerprints shows an unusual characteristic! - Page 15 1937-l21

Patti Mon Mar 07, 2011 1:10 am

Martijn (admin) wrote:
Patti wrote:
Martijn,
I think you are misunderstanding "open towards the core".

Look at all the examples of those with marked deltas on bifurcations that say they are open toward the core. That means that both limbs of the bifurcating ridge go in such a way the delta point is exposed to the core.

Imagine a V shape of a bird flying. The head between the wings is the delta. The outstretched wings are open. The head is facing the core. Open to the core.

Patti, regarding the issue of how to identify the DELTA... let's keep it simple:

A bifurcation opens BETWEEN the two 'forking line parts', and these two 'forking line parts' always show the smallest angle (see the left picture below).

And if we apply this simple principle to 'bifurcation 4' in the picture with the five bifurcations that I presented earlier (see below)... we can see that in 'bifurcation 4' the two 'forking line parts' are pointing downwards, which implicates that 'bifurcation 4' OPENS downwards.

So, 'bifurcation 4' does NOT open toward the 'core' - which implicates that 'bifurcation 4' can NOT be the DELTA.

PS. I noticed that your 'bird-anology' appears to have resulted in the conclusion that 'bifurcation 4' is the DELTA, so I think my simple example indicates that your 'bird analogy' probably does not work.

No Martijn,
That is not how I concluded that 4 was the delta. See my last post. It is the best illustration. I mentioned to you earlier that the delta could not be on a type line.

The delta must be "within" the pattern.

Here's an example showing a bifurcation "open to the core". Notice the 'flying bird' like characteristic?

X - WALT DISNEY - One of his fingerprints shows an unusual characteristic! - Page 15 Fig01110

X - WALT DISNEY - One of his fingerprints shows an unusual characteristic! - Page 15 Fig01110

Figure 11 is a typical loop. Lines A and B, which have been emphasized in this sketch, are the type lines, starting parallel, diverging at the line C and surrounding the pattern area, which is emphasized in figure 12 by eliminating all the ridges within the pattern area.

If you look at other samples. You will see that is the case, in every case.

X - WALT DISNEY - One of his fingerprints shows an unusual characteristic! - Page 15 Fig02510

X - WALT DISNEY - One of his fingerprints shows an unusual characteristic! - Page 15 Fig02510

When there is a choice between two or more possible deltas, the following rules govern:

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

In figure 26, the bifurcation at E is closer to the core than the bifurcation at D. However, E is not immediately in front of the divergence of the type lines and it does not open toward the core. A—A and B—B are the only possible type lines in this sketch and it follows, therefore, that the bifurcation at D must be called the delta. The first ridge count would be ridge C.

X - WALT DISNEY - One of his fingerprints shows an unusual characteristic! - Page 15 Fig02612

X - WALT DISNEY - One of his fingerprints shows an unusual characteristic! - Page 15 Fig02810

X - WALT DISNEY - One of his fingerprints shows an unusual characteristic! - Page 15 L_895710

Patti Mon Mar 07, 2011 1:44 am

**Martijn (admin)** Mon Mar 07, 2011 2:07 am

Patti wrote:No Martijn,
That is not how I concluded that 4 was the delta. See my last post. It is the best illustration. I mentioned to you earlier that the delta could not be on a type line.

The delta must be "within" the pattern.

Patti, I don't know why you think that I suggested that the delta is not within the pattern: I was only talking about 'bifurcation 4'...!

(By the way, I can confirm the position of the yellow dot in your example; but in 'bifurcation 4' the forking lines are pointing downward... and NOT pointing toward the 'core')

Once again, let's keep it simple:

At page 12, DELTA-rule number 1 describes:

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

Applying DELTA-rule number 1 on 'bifurcation 4' shows:

The two forking ridge lines of 'bifurcation 4' point DOWNWARD, which implicates that 'bifurcation 4' opens DOWNWARD... and that means that 'bifurcation 4' does NOT open toward the core.

This implicates that the first DELTA-rule on page 12 of the F.B.I. book shows why 'bifurcation 4'... can not be the DELTA.

Patti, if you can not agree with this conclusion, please try to explain your thoughts about what I described. For example, do you deny that 'bifurcaton 4' opens downwards?

PS. Regarding your comment about the 'type lines': page 7 of the book describes how the 'type lines' are surrounding the PATTERN AREA (yes, of course: the pattern area includes the triradius).

But more important: this implicates that the 'type lines' can only be identified AFTER the position of the triradius has been identified!

Therefore I think your associations about the 'type lines'... is irrelevant regarding 'bifurcation 4'.

Patti Mon Mar 07, 2011 2:25 am

Martijn,
You have misunderstood what they mean by "opens to the core".

You really need to "get your arms around it". Wink

What they are saying and what they show in every illustration with a delta at a bifurcation is one branch of the splitting, forking ridge heads in one direction and the other branch heads in the other - leaving the focal point, the delta, to be placed where it is *exposed* to the core. Open to the core.

It's not about the bifurcation aiming up or down - it must be aiming at the core.

If you actually look at all the deltas in the figures in the book and especially at those that fork, you will see what I'm trying to illustrate with the bird.

Here's another important illustration:

X - WALT DISNEY - One of his fingerprints shows an unusual characteristic! - Page 15 Fig05310

X - WALT DISNEY - One of his fingerprints shows an unusual characteristic! - Page 15 Fig05310

A white space must intervene between the delta and the first ridge count. If no such interval exists, the first ridge must be disregarded. In figures 53 and 54, the first ridge beyond the delta is counted. In figure 55, it is not counted because there is no interval between it and the delta. Notice that the ridge running from the delta toward the core is in a straight line between them. If it were not, of course, an interval would intervene as in figures 53 and 54.

Take a good look at figure 55 and read the rule above. That line that is connected from where you want to put the delta to where it touches on the first and only possible recurve also spoils the ridge count.

I'm impressed, these FBI guys really narrowed down the rules, so that it's very difficult to legimately make a loop out of a single ridged silhouette.

Patti Mon Mar 07, 2011 2:37 am

"The Science of Fingerprints"

A white space must intervene between the delta and the first ridge count. If no such interval exists, the first ridge must be disregarded. In figures 53 and 54, the first ridge beyond the delta is counted. In figure 55, it is not counted because there is no interval between it and the delta. Notice that the ridge running from the delta toward the core is in a straight line between them. If it were not, of course, an interval would intervene as in figures 53 and 54.

X - WALT DISNEY - One of his fingerprints shows an unusual characteristic! - Page 15 1933-111

X - WALT DISNEY - One of his fingerprints shows an unusual characteristic! - Page 15 1933-111

**Martijn (admin)** Mon Mar 07, 2011 2:38 am

Patti... didn't you notice my request?

I simply asked you to specify your comments to what I described about 'bifurcation 4'.
And what are YOUR thoughts & observations about 'bifurcation 4'?

Patti Mon Mar 07, 2011 2:39 am

**Martijn (admin)** Mon Mar 07, 2011 2:46 am

I repeat:

Patti, didn't you notice my request?

I simply asked you to specify your comments to what I described about 'bifurcation 4'.
What are YOUR thoughts & observations regarding the characteristics of 'bifurcation 4'?

(And would mind to specify your thoughts about 'bifurcation 4' to what we can see in the picture below... please?)

X - WALT DISNEY - One of his fingerprints shows an unusual characteristic! - Page 15 1937-l21

Patti Mon Mar 07, 2011 2:48 am

Martijn (admin) wrote:
Patti... didn't you notice my request?

I simply asked you to specify your comments to what I described about 'bifurcation 4'.
And what are YOUR thoughts about 'bifurcation 4'?

It really doesn't matter if bifurcation 4 opens to the core. Because that branch between it and bifurcation 1 spoils the loop. Read the rule I just posted.

But, to answer your question. And I have been answering your question. It's just the answer doesn't make sense since you do not know what they mean by "open to the core".

Look at figure 26. There are two bifurcations. The one they chose as the delta is the delta. It opens to the core. Like a bird. Or two legs... or arms. Each limb flowing in the direction of a type line.

The other bifurcation, higher up, they say that two of it's branches (when viewed from the angle of seeing it as 'open to the core') do not wrap around the pattern, so obviously they are not Type Lines. They also do not conform to the rules as where they do open, is toward upward thrusting rods, and also it's not out in front of two parallel lines.

Please read my posts. I am in a very detailed way, fully answering your question.

Sponsored content