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

Patti wrote:...
2) 1000 times the original tells me the markings are automatically altered. Use a size that is clear and not stretched. Try to use "save" rather than "save as" to help keep the quality in editing.

Question - in the 1933 what compelled you to ignore the thick ridge bridging the space between your green incoming line over to the gold line? Did it not suit your plan for a loop? Looks more like that green line should continue right on over to the gold and down to the other green. How could you miss that?

Patti, I we have no disagreement about the golden line: it is connected to the green line (you can ignore the micro-spaces in the connections). Why did you assume that I wanted to make it look like as if it is not connected?

Okay, I will honour your request again: I will make new pictures with the splitting green lines that you drew correctly in your pictures.


PS. Regarding your comment about the 1000X ZOOM I think I don't have that problem on my monitor (beyond that I think it is just another irrelevant thought from your side... just like your considerations regarding the resolution of the pictures).

Have you ever tried to calibrate your monitor with a perfect square?:

Patti wrote:Well Martijn I'd be pleased to oblige your request if only you could provide examples of your drawings with the red circled areas that also include the lower portion of the fingerprint.

The lower portion is essential to show the obvious same ridges. The ridges I had colored in green in my examples a few posts back show a fork that touches a horizontal ridge in a way that is clearly discernable in all three prints.

Well Patti,

If your objective is really to find a significant agreement... then I now ask you to confirm that you can agree about ALL ELEMENTS that I have illustrated with colour in my new following picture (see below) - which of course now includes the (darkgreen) 'fork' that you presented in some of your earlier pictures, as you requested!!



NOTICE: The colours themselves are not really important.


What do we see?

Regarding what is seen INSIDE THE RED CIRCLE: all three prints evidence that there really is a continued ridge line:

- The dark 1937 print clearly shows the presence of a 'looping ridge line' that connects between the two parts of the light green line.

- The light 1937 print cleartly also clearly confirms that at least more than half of the circle surface is closed by a ridge line.

- And even the 1933 shows clear evidence of the ridge line, though that evidence is limited to only two black spots: one small spot + a larger spot... but it is important to notice that the position of both spots corresponds PERFECTLY with the 'curve' that we can see in the dark 1937 print.


Now, I hope you now see that the 'white large zone' in the 1933 print... is for sure a flaw, because the light 1937 print indicates that in that ridge line there is probably only a very small 'hole'... but we can safely ignore such a small 'hole' because the 1937 print also shows that there is really no other ridge line that is trying to take over that ridge line: simply because the 'golden core line' + the 'blue line' go perfectly parallel at a considerable distance from OUTSIDE the RED CIRCLE.

A likewise small 'hole' is seen between the two 'golden lines' - though we can see there that all 3 prints show how the 'green line' gets connected with the 'golden line'.

MY CONCLUSIONS:

(Patti, my conclusions are what they are... but I hope you can at least support some of them... of course: after you studied the details seen in my new picture )


1 - First of all: we should start here being aware that any fingerprint will always shows some minor imperfections, but often these can be ignored. All three fingerprints have a few of those minor imperfections: in the light 1937 print these manifest especially in the absence of some ridge lines at the left side of the green lines, where various white zones occur; while in the dark 1937 print and the 1933 these imperfection become manifest as 'black spots' between the ridge lines, resulting in that there appear some 'strange' connections between those ridges lines... but those 'black dots' are only the result of the use of too muck ink, so in many cases these do not really represent connections between the ridge lines.


2 - Second: though I realize that the light 1937 print also presents some imperfections (especially seen on the left side of the llight green lines), it has no major flaws at all. And in this sample of three fingerprints the light 1937 print presents BY FAR THE BEST QUALITY because... it is the only print where we hardly see any 'black dots' occur between the ridges lines: and resulting in that in almost the complete fingerprint the path of all ridge lines is quite easily to follow!!


3 - Third, all problems related to the assessment of the fingerprint type can be attributed to the fact that in both the dark 1937 print and the 1933 print we can notice a lot of 'black dots' occur between the ridge lines: in both prints these are seen in nearly all zones between all ridge lines!!

The most confusing 'large black dot' is seen just below the 'core ridge line': I have illustrated that dot in both picture with a '?'-sign.

But the light 1937 print clearly shows that in that zone both the 'golden core ridge line' and the 'green ridge line' are very well shaped, featured with a perfectly normal curve, and there is not a single indication that there is any ridge line involved that could connect both lines in a very UNNATURAL WAY because such a line would then manifest at an angle of 90 degrees... and such lines are NEVER SEEN IN FINGERPRINTS!!!

So, the 1937 presents clear evidence that we should IGNORE the 'large black dot' in both the 1933 print and the dark 1937 print. Just like for example the other dots that are only seen in the 1933 print between the 'golden core line' and the 'green line'.


4 - Fourth, regarding the classification of the fingerprint: the common lines that I have drawn in the picture above show that all three pictures include all elements which are required to assess this fingerprint as a RADIAL LOOP:

- there is a sufficient recurve (the small interruption inside the RED CIRCLE of the light 1937 print small does not change the path of the 'looping ridge line'... not a 'perfect recurve' but it is 'sufficient'; the 'large white zone' inside the RED CIRCIDLE of the 1933 print can simply be described as a flaw - so that zone can be ignored safely - though there are traces visible of the ridge line.. that is seen in the other two prints);
- there is a delta (the large triradius);
- and there is a ridge count across a looping ridge (ridge count = 1)


PS. Finally, there is a fundamental reason why the ridges in the RED CIRCLES should not be recognized as 'small insignificant interruptions' in stead of 'ridge endings'. The example (see the red dots) shows how a 'true' ridge line ending manifests: the surounding ridge lines should show also a change in direction as well!



Usually when a ridge line ends, the surrounding ridge lines will be redirected towards the path of the ending ridge line. But in all three examples of Disney's fingerprint the surrounding lines - the 'golden core lines' + the 'blue lines' - continue their path and do not converge towards the 'green lines'.

... I guess it is probably a requirement to understand these things before one can understand that all variations in the RED CIRCLES are actually... irrelevant (!) for recognizing that this fingerprint is an example of a RADIAL LOOP.

jeanette wrote:I am wondering if a Microscope would be any good for looking at fingerprints. Can somebody tell me. Thanks,
Jeanette.

Hi Jeanette,

Nope... a microscope is only suitable for studying far smaller objects than a fingeprints. Assessing fingerprints does not only require sharp eye-sight, it also requires understanding of how fingerprints typically manifest.

So studying fingerprints, and reading books about how to assess fingerprints (The Science of Fingerprints (presented by the F.B.I.) is all you need!)... should bring your further than buying a microscope.

Though using a large loop should be helpful as well!
And if necessary... don't be shy to ask more questions!!

jeanette wrote:Hi Martijin,
Thanks, but what is a large loop.
Jeanette.

Martijn (admin) wrote:

But the light 1937 print clearly shows that in that zone both the 'golden core ridge line' and the 'green ridge line' are very well shaped, featured with a perfectly normal curve, and there is not a single indication that there is any ridge line involved that could connect both lines in a very UNNATURAL WAY because such a line would then manifest at an angle of 90 degrees... and such lines are NEVER SEEN IN FINGERPRINTS!!!

Martijn (admin) wrote:


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!

Patti wrote:

Sorry, but I am weary of tracing these ridges over and over. No matter how you draw the lines and point out white spaces (and there are so many on the 1937 prints) you are missing the point.

Ridges do NOT make right angles. They abutt.

But you already know that:

...

The upthrusts are simply that and nothing more. No recurve. The upthrust is all that is needed here to call it a tented arch. It's also possible to match up the upthrusts in one of the 1937 prints.

Patti, if this purple line really had been there in the 1933 print and the dark version of the 1933... it had been positioned between TWO RIDGES LINES at a 'right angle': but that would be very unnatural - for the reason that your described: ridges do not make right angles!!

Actually there is NO WAY you can deny that the 'golden line' and the 'green line' exactly follow the path that I made them look like like... because that path is also seen in the 1933 print and the dark 1937.

... How can YOU ignore my observation!???


Finally... yes, as soon as you would also accept that observation... we could together wonder: why are we confronted with this ILLUSION of an 'upthrust' in the 1933 print and the dark 1937..???

But the answer is quite simple... because I already described that both prints clearly show many other signs that there was too much ink involved: which induced the visual illusions... such as: 'your upthrust'.

Let me explain once more why 'your upthrust' is clearly an illusion:


Patti, you have sometimes been talking about a CLEAR 'upthrust'.... but that is just another example of USING STRONG WORDS.... because such a claim would only have been 'fair' if we we able to follow all the zones right beside the ridges lines.

But as you can see in this 300X ZOOM picture of the 1933 prints: regarding 'your upthrust': we can not follow the white lines in that zone at all. We again confronts us with the poor quality of the ridge lines seen in the this picture....!

Come on Patti...

There is OBVIOUSLY way too much ink involved in the 1933 print, because we can hardly follow the ridges lines in the crucial zones. It even almost appears that there is some kind of '7 pointed ridge line star' (see the picture below)... but we both know that if would be rather foolish to even consider that as an option.


Let me explain why you were 'tricked' by that picture:

"Yes, a picture is sometimes worth a 1000 words... but a picture can also induce visual illusions."


Obviously, something is not quite right in he 1933 print. It includes quite a few optical illusions (many more than I described so far), but the clearest example probably concerns the '7 pointed star'. NOTICE: The three green lines inside that star 'illustrate the only branches of this star that are also seen in the other 2 prints...!!!:




PS. So I have 2 main arguments to reject your assessment:

- 1 You did not recognize that the large white spot in the 1933 print is a flaw.
- 2 You did not recognize that the 'your upthrust' is only an illusion that resulted from too much ink in the fingerprint... which results in certain optical illusions like the '7 pointed star'.

Patti wrote:
Please see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pixel

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pixelation

"The most common solution is a technique called pixel interpolation that smoothly blends or interpolates the color of one pixel into the color of the next adjacent pixel at high levels of zoom. This creates a more organic, but also much blurrier image."

Patti... it is a bit funny to see that you associate the blurry-problems with 'pixel problems' - while I asked you over and over again to focuss on the CLEAR signs that in the 1933 pictures there is obviously way too much ink involved to follow the ridge lines in that zone.


By the way, I can understand that assume that 'your pixel problem' is irrelevant in that 1933 picture. But obviously ... the white zones in the light 1937 print are relatively large compared to the ridge with, so I am confident that in the 1937 print we are not confronted with any signifiant 'pixel problem' related issue at all.


Instead, please consider this...

You are probably still focussed on 'your upthrust' ... but I am wondering how can you continue doing that now that I have described the 'seven pointed star'???

It is obvious for me that both 'your upthrust' and the 'ridge line star' are visual illusions, directly resulting from too much ink. Because both do not reflect the true path of the ridge lines in that zone. But obviously, this problem doesn't relate to a 'pixel problem'...!!


By the way, the same illusion-problem occurs in the dark 1937 print, but there it manifests more like a 'four pointed star'. Yes, I recognize that 'pixel problems' could play a role in that picture... but so far I would even describe that problem as irrelevant in the perspective of the obvious INK problem.

Especially, since so far you haven't described any clear clue that a pixel problem really could be a major source of confusion in our discussion...!! Your general references to those wikipedia articles, etc ... are completely 'out of the context of our discussion'.


[quote=Patti]This conversation feels like someone has been trying to convince me that square is actually round and if they just illustrate it and explain it extensively it will become obvious that square is round.[/quote]

Yes, I recognize your position in this discussion. And I guess this thought reflects your ''black-white' perception about the things that we are discussing here. Quite unrealistic from my point of view... but nevertheless it is an amusing thought.



PS. Again, I never tried to 'trick' you anyhow.


Seriously... why would I even start bothering about that, while I am observing that you refuse to really consider the consequences of the FACT that there is clearly too much ink involved in 2 of the 3 prints... ?

Anyway, thanks for your additional comments + your efforts.

Martijn (admin) wrote:
Dear Patti...

While you described that you are no longer interested in my points of view without a new print...I really hope you allow me a final attempt to find any reasonable agreement:


I would really appreciate if you share your thoughts about the following picuture, because I expect that this picture should make you able to understand why I could never agree regarding your claims regarding the quality of the 1933 print.


NOTICE: For the first element is no consideration of the two 1937 prints required!!

Lynn wrote:...

When you wish upon a star
Makes no difference who you are
Anything your heart desires
Will come to you

Patti, I just re-read Lynn's early comment and made an amusing discovery - I very much hope this will amuse you as well...


Regarding making 'holistic' thoughts & observations...

My 'holistic' thought for today is that I just noticed that Lynn included in her second reply in this discussion a Disney-picture which includes... a '8 pointed star'!

I think this is quite funny in the perspective of the '7-pointed star' in the 1933 print that I described earlier today!!!!!! I must have missed one branch....

PS. Sorry this observation made me rolling-over-the-floor one more time.... especially since I think that Lynn's comment featured with the picture, also becomes quite funny in the perspective of how our discussion developed.