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

STEP 4 - Then I have tried apply the method describe by Danuta Loesch, see the PURPLE LINES (the left line is only shorter, because I stopped that line at the point where the right 'forking line of bifurcation 5' re-directs inward): I think I managed to create a result that looks symmetrical... however, there is a small angle difference. But I think it is interesting to see how both lines end in the center of the next ridge line!

Patti wrote: Amazing presentation

So, is this it?

...

No Patti, this is not 'it'. My focuss in this discussion has became to find agreement about this fingerprint based on the rules described in the book (and of course Danuta Loesch's technical approach is helpful to apply the rules for finding the SHOULDER LINE).

So, I think it would now make sense to see if we can find any agreement regarding the position of the SHOULDER LINE. But it was not easy at all to find this result that I present because the problem here is that we are faced with a rather small asymmetrical loop.


While I earlier had only talked about the possibility of a 'ridge count = 2' (when we had not even located the DELTA at a specific location), now that Lynn and I agreed about the location of the DELTA (by following all related rules)... the time has arrived to see if we can also find an agreement about the SHOULDER LINE, which obviously is the most problematic aspect of this print!

(Without Loesch's approach the result would have probably looked the same, because basically I only concluded that it was necessary to adjust the position of the left part of the SHOULDER only - based on the path of 'bifurcation 5').


And because the 'bifurications' inside the looping ridge line do not spoil the 'looping ridge line', and there are no 'spikes', 'upthrusts', etc. at all... the (current) agreement about the triradius now only requires to find agreement about the position of 'core' (via the issue of the SHOULDER LINE).

But we now at least have a full visual perspective of this fingerprint. Any specified comment, question or objection is welcome!



PS. Regarding Loesch's approach, the angles in her pictures are the key-fact (the mathmatical aspects in terms of formulas have only theoretical value... unitil anyone would ask me to deliver the details regarding the angles in my picture. )

Patti wrote:Martijn...I'll respond to points in your presentation, once you have informed me that you have finished and are illustrating a radial loop.

Patti wrote:
Martijn,
What do you think of Lynn's suggestion of a trifurcation?

"Angles are never formed by a single ridge but by the abutting of one ridge against another. Therefore, an angular formation cannot be used as a type line."

Martijn (admin) wrote:

Patti wrote:
Martijn,
What do you think of Lynn's suggestion of a trifurcation?

A trifurcation???

That requires that 3 ridge lines 'split' from the same location and they are also required to sort of continue in the same direction (as parallel ridges).


I had never seen one ever before, but here is an example (starting in the second ridge line above the core, the three ridges flow to right.. though the details show that the lower branch is not very strong and also 'feeded' by the first line above the core):

Patti wrote:
...
How do you think this fingerprint pattern is influenced by so many angles?

... I guess your question might require a consideration from the perspective of 'volar pad' development. Is that what you had in mind as well?

Martijn (admin) wrote:

Patti wrote:
...
How do you think this fingerprint pattern is influenced by so many angles?

... I guess your question might require a consideration from the perspective of 'volar pad' development. Is that what you had in mind as well?

Patti wrote:
That looks like an ending ridge lying next to a bifurcation. Unless I missed it. Can you outline it?

Figures 122 to 124 are of the type possessing an angle.

Figures 125 to 129 reflect the type possessing an upthrust.

Figures 130 to 133 show the type approaching the loop but lacking one characteristic.

Tented arches and some forms of the loop are often confused. It should be remembered by the reader that the mere converging of two ridges does not form a recurve, without which there can be no loop. On the other hand, there are many patterns which at first sight resemble tented arches but which on close inspection are found to be loops, as where one looping ridge will be found in an almost vertical position within the pattern area, entirely free from and passing in front of the delta.

Figure 134 is a tented arch.
The ridge marked "A—A" in the sketch enters on one side of the impression and flows to the other with an acute rise in the center.

Ridge C strikes into A at point B and should not be considered as a bifurcating ridge. The ridges marked "D—D" would form a tented arch if the rest of the pattern were absent.

Martijn (admin) wrote:

Patti wrote:
That looks like an ending ridge lying next to a bifurcation. Unless I missed it. Can you outline it?

It was presented by this source as a 'trifurcation':
http://www.realcurriculum.com/scopecurriculum/_fingerprint_detective/images.htm

Patti wrote:
...



Notice the similarities between the two angles?

Where you originally placed your diagonal purple lines, it appeared as a peak. The other where you have placed your delta.

Key locations, too.

What do you think of those facts?

Patti wrote:...

So I set about applying the inspiration from Penrose's book, because I thought my orange line in the 1933 print looked a whole lot like his example of "an angle between radius & tangent at intersection".



...

Patti wrote:...
Although, I admit, I hadn't a clue about how to apply an equation with confocal parabolas (is that a type of banana????) I drew a few more lines.

I started by drawing my purple lines horizontal to each other and in the only direction that allowed the entire pattern, that appears to be a loop, to be contained within.

I was pleasantly surprised.



The Purple line on the far side touched the ridge (and your red line in direct line with the spike/not inkspot. It also was the same location the orange arrow touched in the other prints.

Then, I drew the shoulder line. This being the Green line. And here was another amazing connection. The other shoulder was at Location 4!! Which is also the same location I thought should be the Delta (you remember my purple dot?)

...

Patti, it is also important to notice that 2.10a only represents the RIGHT side of a loop (= the 'parabola'):

This implicates that the 'tangent at intersection' (of the RIGHT side of the loop) will cross the other 'tanget of intersection' (of the LEFT side of the loop)... at some distance from the 'top' of the recurve. And you should also be aware that the 'top' of the recurve is found close to the end point of the 'central ridge line'

But your purple lines do not cross at all!
And you actually have drawn your upper purple line almost through the 'top of the recurve'!!

Again you should have drawn the lines at positions with angles which relate to the situation described fig.2.10a... which is the only picture of the two that relates to the loop.


PS. This reminds me again about that you once described that a 'right angle' could also relate to an angle of 45 degrees... that comment was a clear misinterpretatioin of how a 'right angle' is described according mathmatics.

And compared to all angle-issues mentioned in the F.B.I. book, the Penrose method presented by Loesch is far more complex - because for understanding those pictures... proper understanding of the mathmatic rules for angles is required.


PPS. Regarding your association of a 'parabola' with a banana, that was a funny, but also... an accurate comment! (Unfortunately it might have been the only comment in your last post that I am able to support)

Patti wrote:

Oh!

I'm sorry!

I forgot to add the illustration for the proper method to locate the shoulders.

Patti wrote:
Once you draw your lines, the location of the shoulders is obvious and simple to find.