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

Patti wrote:Martijn, this is how I would mark the shoulders and other focal points on your presentation:

Sorry Patti, your 'tangent lines' do not meet the key-characteristics described in figure 2.10a presented by Loesch, because e.g. they are required to meet at a short distance...!

I will now try to explain this to you via picture 2.10a that was presented by Loesch....


This requires a consideration regarding how we should use figure 2.10a - again this picture only deals with ONESIDE of a looping ridge line:




But if we make a 'mirror-image' of the INCOMING looping ridge line, and put it against the original image... than the implications of the image become much more obvious.

Because we can now see the full looping ridge line:



This picture describes two important fundamental characteristics for the tangent lines (= purple lines):

1 - The tangent lines meet at a point not far away from the TOP of the looping ridge line [SPECIFIED: the exact distance depends on the specific characteristics of the 'curve' in the looping ridge line, but one can expect to find the meeting point of the tangents at a distance slightly closer than the length of the shoulder line (= light green line)];

2 - The tangent lines do not cross the looping ridge line (= red line).


NOTICE: None of your attempts so far meet the first characteristic, and in you attempt to draw tangent lines in my picture... we can see that your attempt violates characteristic 2 as well.


Patti, I told you... when I presented my new picture I mentioned that it took me quite some time to find the tangents + the resulting shoulder line. Because the picture presented by Loesch relates to a 'perfect parabola'... which you associated correctly with the shape of a banana!

But in the Disney print we are confronted with a much complex situation at both sides of the TOP of the recuve...!


You assumed that it became easy for you to the find the shoulder lines, but I immediately recognized that in your (edit:) 3 attempts so far to find the tangents lines... all 3 attempts do not the MAJOR CHARACTERISTIC for tangent lines in a fingerprint: the tangent lines typically meet at a short distance.

It might take you some time to understand the details which I described, and I think the following introduction to a parabola tangent should be helpful - just in case my words + pictures are not enough for you:
http://www.tutorvista.com/math/parabola-tangent




Now, back to my tangent lines + my shoulder line:

If we take another look at my pictures (I present one again below)... then we can see that my tangent lines do meet both tangent-characteristics that I just described!

Patti wrote:There is nothing in the rules that tell you to follow the direction of a rod to find the shoulders.

..

Patti wrote:Yes, Martijn, I have considered this angle you are showing. You quickly removed it last time I pointed it out.

You see it proves an earlier point I made about angles and abutting ridges:



nice try, though.

Patti, it appears that you have attributed value to the 'angle' between two of the bananas in my picture... but I NEVER attributed any value to the 'shape' of these bananas, nor the angle between how they are positioned. They only served once to point out for YOU the 'looping ridge' + the large triradius... because you told me that you could not 'see' them!


Obviously, ridge lines NEVER manifest in the shape of bananas. So, I had only used the bananas once... as a funny illustration only.

This illustrates that during this discussion you worked too much with your 'eyes'... without consulting your 'brains'!



PS. Thanks for make this comment, because it is only now that I understand why you presented those pictures with the yellow squares. You related them mistakenly to my bananas!

My apologies that I never asked you about your 'yellow squares'... but I have never 'quickly' removed anything in the way you suggested!

Patti....the RED ARROW that I added perfectly follows the ridge line ... and therefore I conclude that your attempt failed completely regarding various point... because your YELLOW shoulder line does not even meet the only definition that the F.B.I. presented in their book at page 14:

This illustrates that during this discussion you worked too much with your 'eyes'... without consulting your 'brains'!




Patti's yellow shoulder line (I have only added the red arrow)

Patti wrote:

Martijn wrote:...

Patti's yellow shoulder line (I have only added the red arrow)

Martijn, I've looked really closely.... earlier today and couldn't *see* the red arrow. Maybe it's a *brain* issue, I thought. I'm checking back now and *see* or *think* that I still can't *see* the red arrow in my illustration where you said I should *see* one. Therefore, am I right in saying that I'm *seeing* there's still a *brain* issue...? Or is it that it's really not there at all????

Patti wrote:Hi Martijn,

If you wouldn't mind, could you explain why you feel it is now a requirement to use Penrose's formulas?

The illustration for how the FBI locates shoulders was in my post this morning. Two basically parallel lines.

It looks to me that the more rounded the recurve the more parallel the lines that illustrate the locations of the shoulders. The more narrow the recurve, the more angular.

I only extended my purple lines to show how they perfectly lined up and enclosed the entire pattern.

...

Patti, did you spot any 'tangent line' in the F.B.I. book? (Sorry, I can't find one).

So... if you want to continue using the 'tangent lines' to find the shoulder line... then you will have to consider the underlying rules - no doubt that the F.B.I. used the same method (I am not aware that there is any another educated approach available).


My point is... that it doesn't make sense to strive for 'tangent lines', because a 'perfect fingerprint' includes PARABOLA-like characteristics!

You started considering figure 2.10b... but that picture only relates to a 'triradius' (see the title of that picture). So it appears that this mis-reading was your first mistake regarding the issue of the tangent lines.


There is no way out... please consider the issues which I described in the picture below regarding especially the 'tangent lines' - based on Loesch & Penrose's work). It doesn't make sense to 'wave' away the details of their work by making associations regarding volar pads & ridge formation. Because you already started implementing their work in your method of fingerprint assment, with the use of the 'tangent lines'.

(Otherwise I am sure that you and I will also not be able to agree about the exact position of the shoulder line, and as a result the related implications regarding the assessment of the Disney print)

Lynn wrote:... I think it may come down to different "ways of looking". No matter if we follow all the rules, there still seems to be some allowance for how we perceive them. I'm not sure we are ever going to agree!
I am tired of it, or maybe I am just tired.....

Martijn (admin) wrote:

Patti wrote:Hi Martijn,

If you wouldn't mind, could you explain why you feel it is now a requirement to use Penrose's formulas?

The illustration for how the FBI locates shoulders was in my post this morning. Two basically parallel lines.

It looks to me that the more rounded the recurve the more parallel the lines that illustrate the locations of the shoulders. The more narrow the recurve, the more angular.

I only extended my purple lines to show how they perfectly lined up and enclosed the entire pattern.

...

Patti, did you spot any 'tangent line' in the F.B.I. book? (Sorry, I can't find one).

So... if you want to continue using the 'tangent lines' to find the shoulder line... then you will have to consider the underlying rules - no doubt that the F.B.I. used the same method (I am not aware that there is any another educated approach available).


My point is... that it doesn't make sense to strive for 'tangent lines', because a 'perfect fingerprint' includes PARABOLA-like characteristics!

You started considering figure 2.10b... but that picture only relates to a 'triradius' (see the title of that picture). So it appears that this mis-reading was your first mistake regarding the issue of the tangent lines.


There is no way out... please consider the issues which I described in the picture below regarding especially the 'tangent lines' - based on Loesch & Penrose's work). It doesn't make sense to 'wave' away the details of their work by making associations regarding volar pads & ridge formation. Because you already started implementing their work in your method of fingerprint assment, with the use of the 'tangent lines'.

(Otherwise I am sure that you and I will also not be able to agree about the exact position of the shoulder line, and as a result the related implications regarding the assessment of the Disney print)

Lynn wrote:Sorry, I missed about last 9 hours of this discussion and only quickly read previous 17 hours or so, now I am completely LOST in the maze of skin ridges (further complicated by tangent lines, maths etc). Not sure I can contribute any more to this discussion, it's gone beyond my capabilities. And I don't want to be dreaming about skin ridges any more!

In the end, I think it may come down to different "ways of looking". No matter if we follow all the rules, there still seems to be some allowance for how we perceive them. I'm not sure we are ever going to agree!
I am tired of it, or maybe I am just tired.....

Angles are never formed by a single ridge but by the abutting of one ridge against another.

The tented arch
In the tented arch, most of the ridges enter upon one side of the impression and flow or tend to flow out upon the other side, as in the plain arch type; however, the ridge or ridges at the center do not. There are three types of tented arches:

● The type in which ridges at the center form a definite angle; i.e., 90° or less.

● The type in which one or more ridges at the center form an upthrust. An upthrust is an ending ridge of any length rising at a sufficient degree from the horizontal plane; i.e., 45° or more.

● The type approaching the loop type, possessing two of the basic or essential characteristics of the loop, but lacking the third.

Figures 122 to 133 are examples of the tented arch.

Figure 144 is a tented arch combining two of the types. There is an angle formed by ridge a abutting upon ridge b. There are also the elements of the type approaching a loop, as it has a delta and ridge count but lacks a recurve.

Figures 145 to 148 are tented arches because of the angles formed by the abutting ridges at the center of the patterns.

The core, as the name implies, is the approximate center of the finger impression.

Patti wrote:
...

When I simplify your approach and line up a square, an oval, and a circle and lean lines against them at the widest points that allow the lines to cross, it's obvious that the more narrow the "recurve" the closer the place where the two lines cross.

That is obvious if you use precision math or if you just sketch it out.


.

Sorry Patti, your SQUARE + your CIRCLE drawings in this picture made me speachless... (for just a moment ).

Because they do not relate to the situation of a fingerprint at all.
Only your oval does!

Actually, you made a few serious mistake with your square + circle tangents; let me explain....


First of all, you tried to describe the 'tangents' of a square, but then you should have drawn them inside the SIDES of the square!

So if you had drawn them properly you would have noticed that it doesn't make sense to even try to draw 'tangents' in a square... simply because a square does not have any CURVATION at all!

Squares do not have any 'tangent' - simply because a square does not show any curvation!




Second, you also tried to draw a 'tangent lines' for a circle... must that is not very 'smart' either because the CURVATION in a circle does not vary at all!!!

Which implicates that one can always draw 'tangent lines' at any location of a circle!! The picture below is an illustration which shows 3 different 'tangent lines' for a pair of circles (the 'tangent lines' vary with the distance between the circles).

A circle has an infinite number of tangents!



...These fundamental mistakes from your side, remind me again of the example where you described that you assumed that an angle of 45 degrees could be described as a 'right angle'.

I conclude from these new mistakes, that you probably hardly have any educated knowledge about how to deal with issues that relate to 'angles'.

And I am wondering... did you ever learn at high-school how to measure angles - with for example a geo triangle? (If not, your mistakes would make sense; else you have probably forgotten about how to apply the mathmatic angle rules properly).

Wikipedia explains the meaning a 'tangent':
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tangent


Maybe the following picture will become helpful for you in the future as well:

Patti wrote:Thanks Martijn.
I was in advanced algebra in high school, but what I remember about geometry was the elderly and slow to answer teacher who was nick named Halitosis Harry, may he RIP.

Thank you for the protractor, I put it to good use.

We've done an excellent job!

Martijn, I've you to thank for being my catalyst. It was the discussions with you and Christopher nearly ten years ago that pushed me into studying macrobiology. (but I don't feel spurred on at the moment to take a calculus course )





(that's Lynn on the left)

... Funny how you used the 'protractor' picture to (edit:) pimp-up decorate your former posts that include pictures which do not follow the angles as seen in the 'protractor'.

Anyway, I appreciate the positive spirit that you shared via the birds!


PS. By the way, I know hardly anything about macrobiotics - so it must have been Christopher who talked you into that direction. I have never promoted macrobiotics, since I prefer to use a more simple diet: I don't reject any (healthy) foods that are known to include nutrition.

Martijn (admin) wrote:
... Funny how you used the 'protractor' picture to pimp-up your former posts that include pictures which do not follow the angles as seen in the 'protractor'.

Anyway, I appreciate the positive spirit that you shared via the birds!


PS. By the way, I know hardly anything about macrobiotics - so it must have been Christopher who talked you into that direction. I have never promoted macrobiotics, since I prefer to use a more simple diet: I don't reject any (healthy) foods that are known to include nutrition.

Patti wrote:


Well now that makes sense, because right after I was sitting down for lunch and thought to myself, did I say macro or micro?

I was just hungry and thinking of food.

Food for thought.

So, thank you, I made the correction.

I'd be pleased to see how you would place the protractor over the angles at both centers of Disney's index fingerprints.

Patti wrote:
...

There is an illustration for calulating angles in the book. But, it's in a place you have been avoiding, I think. Spikes.

...

I think that you have page 29 in your mind.
Despite that on that page some of those lines may look like 'tangents'... but the angle of those lines is actually directly related to the direction of the central ridge line; the other lines are positioned at 90 degrees to the central ridge line, but not at the surrounding looping ridge (though I don't dispute that they may appear as a 'tangent').

If you had another page in mind, I wonder why you choose not to mention it.


You assumed that I 'avoid', but I don't think that gave reasons to make that assumption .... anyway, for some reason you avoided yourself to simply share the page.

Patti wrote:
Perhaps there is one possible way to place all the essential components of a loop in an order that allows this finger to be classified a radial loop. There are a number of ways to see it fits the description of a tented arch. Working with pixelated, zoomed photocopies of prints for the 1937 set and a heavily inked print, but high quality for the 1933 print, made it difficult to find agreement.

"The Science of Fingerprints" gave us many rules, relating to angles, upthrusts, cores, shoulders, type lines, and ridge counts and at each place, Disney's left fingerprint could only qualify if it were in a limited area. Each attempt to move the key elements to slightly different locations to find the appropriate ridge counts brought a new or different rule into play. Blocking each attempt and spoiling the loop.

Therefore, as the name of this thread implies, Disney has a rare fingerprint. Especially, if it takes micro measurements, mathematical calculations, and some imagination to make it into what it may only appear to be, a radial loop.

---

Yet it is, as I see it, after much study, still a Tented Arch.

---

* Tented Arch *

---

Patti, you have introduced the brilliant idea regarding using 'matching coordinates'; unfortunately you were not able to apply that idea yourself very well..Because if I take a look at the details in the 4 pictures above... I think your final result does not match with the preceeding pictures that you posted; all 4 pictures present 'coloured lines' in different positions and pointing in different directions.

Regarding your suggestions that I kept 'moving' & 'adapting' while this discussion progressed - I admit that I have adapted my shoulder line twice. But it was only when I started studying the details of the shoulder line - by using 1800% ZOOMED pictures... only then I conclude that the core in this print should be positioned at the right shoulder in this print. But for example...the DELTA in my final attempt was already in that positioned when I posted the following picture... at page 1 of this discussion (it was actually the 3th post that I made).

(Picture below is taken from my 3th post in page 1 of this discussion)



But I already mentioned the possibility of a 'ridge count = 2' at page 16; after you adressed the issue of the 'shoulder line' (actually, it was the comment in which I made probably the biggest 'blunder' in this discussion: my mis-interpretation of the words 'core of the loop type' at page 14 in the book, you know: the one with the... 43 emotions!).

This illustrates that my position in this discussion has hardly moved, because from the beginning I had positioned the DELTA + the 'looping ridge line' in all three prints at the same location - I never made any changes regarding those aspects at all.

It was only after we had considered other details of this print, that I realised that I had made a significant mistake... regarding the position of the 'core' only: which should formally - based on the details of the Penrose approach - be positioned at the right shoulder of the 'looping ridge line'.

So, I dare to claim that even my pictures illustrate that my position hardly moved during this discussion!


Patti, after describing (with some historic facts) how my opinions about all three prints only have moved slightly, and basically only became more refined during this discussion.

I hope - in order to finish this discussion with a proper consciousness - that you are now able to withdraw personal 'personal accusations' (you questioned my motives - and I have not taken those words lightly) that you posted earlier in this discussion.

?

(Because I did not take your accusations lightly, it would for sure be helpful if you can show a 'sporting gesture' by withdrawing those words - a simple confirmation is enough for me, no need to edit your messages if you can confim.)

(Because I did not take your accusations lightly, it would for sure be helpful if you can show a 'sporting gesture' by withdrawing those words - a simple confirmation is enough for me, no need to edit your messages if you can confim.)

NOTICE: I presented the details of my final assessment (see the picture) at page 31 of this discussion