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

Martijn (admin) wrote:


Sorry Patti, can you point out for me: where exactly do your 4 new pictures present the (new) 'visual-info' that you pre-annouced???

By the way, in my screen your forum photos are displayed exactly how they are displayed via your website urls. And in all 4 pictures I can see the structure of the paper, so we agree that the quality of your pictures is excellent - though I never disupted that aspect of the 1933 pictures!


Unfortunately your new pictures do not not shed any new light on the problems resulting from the many RANDOM INK DOTS that occur 'between the ridges'; I pointed out to 10 of those RANDOM INK DOTS in that 1933 print in an earlier picture.

Patti, I think so far you haven't responded on the issue of the RANDOM INK DOTS that I described for the 1933 print in the picture below. It appears that so far you did not recognize the presence of these RANDOM INK DOTS that occure at quite a few locations 'between the ridge lines'... am I correct on that? And if I am not correct: what is your thought regarding these RANDOM INK DOTS?

Patti wrote:


1, 5 & 3 are most likely not overinked. It appears the ridges are so close to each they have merged. The color sample image above of a fingerprint shows near the whorl a place where the ridges are extra wide with a double layer of pores. This is what I see happening here.

?, is most likely a form of ridge. It is either an island - which has only one pore, or it's an interstitial ridge. An island is a valid ridge. An interstitial ridge would not count. I think I see a pore. In that groove between the upthrusting ridges, there is an evenly spaced pattern of these filling the space, as the space allowed. If there were more space they would have been larger, longer ridges.

8, I'm glad you brought 8 up. It's an interesting feature. Graphically it gives the appearance that the rising ridge if during development the horizontal ridge were not blocking the way would have continued right up the finger. There is a repeating dot in the groove in the next row up.

There are two developmental factors being observed. The code for the print to have an arch and the code for a loop. The other hand's index finger is a small whorl with two triradii close to the center of the fingertip, but lowset.

7, Could be ink. But, if you look to the left of this dot, there again are evenly spaced dots between the other ridges all the way in to the small solitary short ridge or island in the center (under the white space). Perhaps this was code for a whorl, but the arch pattern held dominance (in this case)

2, 4 & 6 look like ridges that are set very close together, could be ink. Not relevant as the pattern can still be followed in that area.

Thanks Patti,

Excellent... these are very specified observations.

Later I will consider the details & implications of your observations, and of course: if this issue could at least result in further agreement in your discussion!

Patti wrote:


1, 5 & 3 are most likely not overinked. It appears the ridges are so close to each they have merged. The color sample image above of a fingerprint shows near the whorl a place where the ridges are extra wide with a double layer of pores. This is what I see happening here.

Hi Patti,

My proposal would be to focuss our efforts to find at least some agreement about the 1937 print on the points which relate to the zones connected to the '8 pointed star'. Therefore I will now first share my thoughts regarding your observations on points 1, 5 and 3:


Okay, your assessment for points 1, 5 and 3 resulted in the conclusion that these LARGE INK DOTS most likely represent ridges that 'merge'.

In response I would like to make two observations regarding these three points:

1 - First of all, a theoretical consideration about how to recognize 'merging ridge lines':

When ridges are merging (as in bifurcations) they converge towards eachother, and at the point where they have merged the width of the ridge line should be about the same as the width of the individual ridges... at least: that would be the typical characteristic in a HIGH QUALITY PRINT.

Then, let's see what we find if we apply this theoretical consideration on for example point 3:

We can seen that the LARGE INK DOT appears to be even wider than the 'summary ridge width' of the 2 ridges involved. And a likewise phenomenon is seen in point 1 and 5.


Another theoretical option for merging ridges could be:

The manifestation of a short ridge line between both 2 parallel ridge lines. The connecting ridge line should then manifest as an extra ridge line which typically merges with both ridge lines at two different points (each point becomes manifest in a different region in the path of only one of the two ridge lines).

But such a phenomenon would take a much large zone of both ridges lines than the amount of space seen inside the three LARGE INK DOTS. So, this option is unlikely as well.

(And beyond this first fundamental argument - which stands on its own - I can an observation based on both 1937 prints...)


2 - Both 1937 prints show evidence that at point 1, 5 and 3 the ridges simply continue their path; there is clearly an open space between the two ridges involved in all three points.




Patti, all three points (1, 5 and 3) gave you the impression of 'merging ridges'. But I have just described that for the two reasons why I think it is completely unlikely that these LARGE INK DOTS reflect the presence of 'merging ridge lines'.

And from these considerations I conclude that the 1933 print provide misleading clues regarding the nature of those three LARGE INK DOTS (point 1, 5 and 3).


Patti, how does this so far sound to you? Can we find an agreement on my conclusion that the 1933 print does include some 'misleading clues'?

(And if you can not agree, can you share your argument(s)?)

Patti wrote:

"The test is to trace the looping ridge toward the appendage, and if, when it is reached, the tracing may be continued as readily upon the appendage as upon the looping ridge, with no sudden, sharp change of direction, the recurve is sufficient. Figures 161 to 184 should be studied with this in mind."

http://www.dermatoglyphics.com/sof/#fig161

Patti, I have just described that the quality of the ridge lines seen near these LARGE INK DOTS is a major point of concern. There appears to be no clear signs of 'merging ridge lines', and therefore there is only one option left:

I hope we can agree that at least at some locations in the 1933 there is too much ink involved, resulting in that we can clearly see how the ridges lines follow their path exactly.


Again, in my former post I have described how from my point of view the 1933 print presents misleading evidence regarding the path of the ridge lines in point 1, 5 and 3. This is confirmed by all 3 pictures that I shared in that post because the other prints suggest that there are empty spaces between the ridges involved, which are filled-up with ink in the 1933 print.


Now, regarding the new point that you introduce - the 'angle' of the ridge above the core - that could have been an interesting point for consideration if we had been confronted with a HIGH QUALITY PRINT.

But in this discussion I have described quite a few observations (e.g. the 'large white zone', the '8 pointed star', and the three points 1, 5 and 3) which indicate that we are here faced with print that present a questionable quality.

And therefore it is not unlikely that '90 degrees' angle - which I can observe as well - is only just another misleading clue.... especially because there is evidence in all three prints(!) that in that zone of the fingerprint there could have a VERTICAL/OBLIQUE LINE (= not a ridge line!!!) which appears to cross 3 skin ridges: in the light 1937 you can see this VERTICAL/OBLIQUE LINE manifest in a white line!!! While n the dark 1937 print is manifests as a black line which appears to continue until the 'core'.


NOTICE: I consider INK DOT 8 as a manifestation of the VERTICAL/OBLIQUE LINE that I mentioned. And we can see a likewise phenomenon - HORZONTAL LINE - which crosses INK DOT 7 (I already described that line in one of my earlier pictures, see below).


Patti, because I see the lower line travelling through your 'upthrust' - therefore we could even face three options:
1 - Is this 'upthrust' is really there (like you described);
2 - the 'upthrust' is created by an arbitrary LARGE INK DOT;
3 - the 'upthrust' is created by a horizontal line in the fingerprint that was filled up with due to the abundance of ink.

(And I observe that the 1933 prints suggests that option 3 is very likely...!!!)




Any, I hope that these considerations illustrates again that in this 1933 many characteristics are questionable. And especially concerning the characteristics that are not (clearly) seen in the other prints at all... we should better avoid using them as a decisive element for the assessment of this fingerprint.


And because the 'angle' is not seen in the two 1937 prints, my conclusion is that we better exclude that element in our considerations for the 1933 print.

Patti, can you agree with me on this conclusion?

Martijn (admin) wrote:

Patti, because I see the lower line travelling through your 'upthrust' - therefore we could even face three options:
1 - Is this 'upthrust' is really there (like you described);
2 - the 'upthrust' is created by an arbitrary LARGE INK DOT;
3 - the 'upthrust' is created by a horizontal line in the fingerprint that was filled up with due to the abundance of ink.

(And I observe that the 1933 prints suggests that option 3 is very likely...!!!)




And because the 'angle' is not seen in the two 1937 prints, my conclusion is that we better exclude that element in our considerations for the 1933 print.[b] Patti, can you agree with me on this conclusion?

Martijn (admin) wrote:
Anyway, when I look at the details of all 3 fingerprints that we collected for the left index finger (see the picture below), then I can observed a 'triradius' + a loop ridge line (around the red ridge line, the termination of that line represents the 'core' in this fingerprint: which results in: 'ridge count' = 1).

Patti wrote:

Martijn wrote:


...

Anyway, when I look at the details of all 3 fingerprints that we collected for the left index finger (see the picture below), then I can observed a 'triradius' + a loop ridge line (around the red ridge line, the termination of that line represents the 'core' in this fingerprint: which results in: 'ridge count' = 1).

Your newly drawn red lines can be seen in the 1937 image on the left. Particularly the bottom one.

Thanks Patti,

Yes, your observation also explains why on the left side of the green triradius in that center-picture some ridges appear to have disappeared...!!

But we can see here the effect of the HORIZONTAL LINE... could also be responsible for creating 'your upthrust'... which without the horizontal line only could have been there if there had been a line that is actually quite UNATURAL: see the red line in the picture below.




(Regarding your suggestions that I described a 'horizontal upthrust'... these are what they are... you suggestions only. I never suggested such a thing, but your suggestion does indicate how you probably mis-read my words.)

Patti, I know... we disagree about almost anything that we discussed.
But can I ask you one more time to read the following 4 points carefully... please?


First of all...

Patti, you appear to assume that it is just coincidence that we not see that line in the light 1937 picture, but such a line is rather unusual, because it concerns a line that is positioned at a right angle (about 90 degrees) at the GREEN LINE.

Patti I noticed: In your pictue (see below) you drew a pink line... but the slightly downward curving 'direction' of your pink line ... CAN NOT CLEARLY BE SEEN in any of the 2 pictures. But I can understand why you want to perceive the direction of that line in this way.

Second...:

I understand how the presence of the red line could be associated with the blue line... but it is quite unlikely that there can be any connection between the red line and the blue line... because the path of the green is very clear and would then be crossed by the other two lines!

Afterall... as you know: ridges do not cross!!
And triradii with 4 clear ridges involved... are never seen at all!


Third...

You mentioned proudly... that you were able to present references from 'The Science of Fingerprints'. But now I will show you that sometimes you were not always able to follow the details described in those references:

For example, you assumed that the 'core ridge line' can be described as an upthrust - but this is actually a CLEAR VIOLATION of how the upthrust is defined in the book!!!

Let me explain why...

Quote from page 33 in 'The Science of fingerprints':

"An upthrust is an ending ridge of any length rising at a sufficient degree from the horizontal plane, i.e., 45 degrees of more."


Patti, the definition in the book clearly describes that an 'upthrust' is found at the HORIZONTAL PLANE of the fingerprint!! But the oblique, upward curving green line (see the picture above) can simply not be a part of the HORIZONTAL PLANE ... for the obvious reason: it concerns an upward curving ridge!!!

So the HORIZONTAL PLANE of this fingerprint is definitely found below that green line: because obviously... this line itself does not form any part of the HORIZONTAL PLANE!!!

I can only hope that you are already aware of how the horizontal plane is described + visualized in the book (see e.g. page 40):

"In figures 159 and 160, there are ending ridges rising at about the same degree from the horizontal plane."

The HORIZONTAL PLANE concern ridge lines which follow sort of a 'horizontal' path...but the green line (see my picture above) is obviously a typical ridge line that makes a curve that is nearly always seen in a LOOP.

And of course: 'looping ridges' are NEVER EVER part of the HORIZONTAL PLANE.


Fourth...

In your lastest picture you now even claim for the very first time in this discussion that you have discovered also a SECOND UPTHRUST...


Patti, you tried to illustrate both your FIRST UPTHRUST and your SECOND UPTHRUST (which is pointed at the green line in my former picture) with purple arrows in the picture below. But your SECOND UPTHRUST does not only violate the upthrust-definition regarding that is does not connect to the HORIZONTAL PLANE... it also doesn't include the other major aspect in the definition: it does not end at all!! - And if you consider that it ends in the 'down curve' inside the red circle... I am 100% sure that example 155 in the F.B.I. book should make you understand that this is simply not how any 'upthrust' can be created.

By the way, the same example 155 also confirms very explicitely why I have suggested that we can simply ignore any small white spots in the 'curving ridge line' - If you consider that properly, then you will probably also understand that it would at least be appropriate to stop calling me an 'illustionist'!!!




PS. So far I had never quoted from the book, but I did describe with words + visual illustrations that my assessment does show all 3 aspects described in the F.B.I. book for a loop.

Patti, it was probably your focuss on 'your upthrusts' that made you use subjective claims regarding your experience... and that I was only nitpicking & sidetracking on minor flaws.

Now that I demonstrated how your observations actually violate the definition of the 'upthrust' in the F.B.I. book, I conclude that your assessment is not only build on misperceptions regarding the 'misleading' flaws in especially the 1933 prints (of course I should blame you for that because I am very aware how confusing certain elements in many fingerprints can be).

But your 'strong language' also resulted from a mis-understanding regarding how an 'upthrust' can create a tented arch:

Patti, if you had tried to find in 'The Science of Fingerprints' an upthrust that is positioned above an upward curving ridge line (the green line in my picture)... then you had discovered that such a combination is not possible at all!!




Dear partner... I honestly hope that you will be able to digest my feedback on 'your upthrusts' + the elements in the book's definition, with a balanced state of mind.

By the way, you summarized my feedback in this discussion very well with a funny, eloquent comment:

"Earlier you try to convince me the white space actually has something there. Now you want to convince me that a black mark is really because something isn't there."

Correctemundo!!


PS. Regarding your rethorics, I would never describe myself as an illusionist... because I don't like to fool-around with people's minds at all. Instead, in this discussion I actually 'cracked' some visual illusions that were induced by 2 of the 3 prints prints... strangly so far you appear to be the only victim of those.

jeanette wrote:Hi Martijin (the illusionist) and Patti (the palmreader), Beginning to sound like Walt Disney characters.
Seriously, as one of you said it is a pity no one else has come in on this, meaning some one who knows about this. However, what I am thinking is do either of you not know some one you could ask who could come in as an independant.
Jeanette.

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.

Color in the image below without ignoring the actual endings of each and every ridge at the center and show me a loop. Use transparent shading. Include the Type lines.

Martijn, I have truly tried to see the loop you draw, but it really isn't there. And yes, I do disqualify the blown up distorted, blotchy images you are presenting from the 1937 prints.




Patti