deleted deleted

Patti wrote:I would have made that correction last night, but when I looked closely at your drawing on the negative, it isn't clear that you have only drawn on the ridges, so I let my comment stand.

Patti, then please specify your point:

At what location do you think that I have not followed the ridges in the 'reversed' picture?

(Though I did not use a 'layer' - I think my purple lines follow a ridge path at exactly the same location in both pictures)


PS. If you decide permanently not to correct your statement about my lines in the 'reversed' picture... even while you now know that your statement is not correct at all... then that would become a clear example of that in your approach, afterwards you are even able to 'read' your own mistakes... as 'valid comments'.

And if you continue with this approach towards your own mistakes only, then you appear to create a 'phantasy-world of assumptions' where your can put any element 'upside down' at any moment in time... whenever it suits you.

(While in the real world, the same comment will only serve as a 'clear' mistake - but as a forum manager I better avoid to take any responsibility for such mistakes)

Patti wrote:

Martijn (admin) wrote:

Patti wrote:

Martijn (admin) wrote:




However Patti, I do have an interesting alternative print for consideration....

Because as an alternative for the Disney example, I would like to invite you to take a closer look at figure 232 in the F.B.I. book (which I already mentioned earlier in this discussion).

I am looking forward to hear if you recognize the similarities with Kiwihands' example.

NOTICE:

In figure 232 we don't see any 'complete whorling ridge' either (just like in Kiwihands' example), but there is a likewise S-shaped pattern (not a 'double loop' either, because the shoulders involved are connected)... and it is classified as a 'central loop pocket'!

Again ... I am looking forward to hear your thought about that example!

(Actually, I hope that you will recognize what I just described about figure 232... because that should make you able to 'jump of the fence'... and formulate a permanent opinion about Kiwihands example as well)

In fig. 232, as Kiwi already pointed out, there can be seen at least 1 ridge (red) making a complete circuit (as a spiral).

... And??? What is your point?


Sorry Patti, I now really have to make two points that illustrate that your attempts appear to go... 'nowhere'(!):


1 - First of all, I observe that likewise 'circuits' can be seen in Kiwihands' example - see for example the picture below.

2 - And second, I should add here immediately that [u]the issue of the 'complete circuit' ONLY relates to the assessment of a 'whorl'[/u].... so I don't understand why you are now using the issue of a 'complete circuit' as an argument to use again my assessment for 'central pocket loop'.

So Patti, can you please explain why you are using this argument... or are you just... ( ) ... 'thinking out loud'???

You really should read the rules yourself before posting.

The central pocket loop type of whorl has two deltas and at least one ridge making a complete circuit, which may be spiral, oval, circular, or any variant of a circle.

... I don't mind admitting that I made a mistake regarding the 2nd point that I made earlier in this discussion (see the red words above), but in the first point I had already explained that there a 'complete circuit' visible - because the 'S'-shape belongs to the category of a 'spiral' or 'circle variant'.

So, I completely mis-formulated there my second argument... instead I should have mentioned that because of the first point that I made, the aspect of the 'complete' circuit becomes simply irrelevant for both the 'plain whorl' and the 'central pocket loop', because while it is found in the definitions of both the 'plain whorl' and the 'central pocket loop'... is is also visible in Kiwihands' example!


Patti, thanks for your correction earlier in the discussion... but about 8 hours ago I had already picked-up that element in my summarizing-post:

"... And finally, regarding the issue of the 'complete circuit' mentioned in the definition of the CENTRAL POCKET LOOP, it does not require to have a 'complete circuit'... because even situations where one can speak of 'almost a complete circuit' is sufficient, because the definition on page 46 clearly describes:

"The central pocket loop type of whorl has two deltas and at least one ridge which makes or tends to make a complete circuit."

And Kiwihands' example also meets the other major requirements mentioned in the definition... "


(So, that point 2 'argument' was not much more than a formulation mistake from my side, but never became a relevant in my assessment - illustrated by the fact that in my summarizing post I actually mentioned that the 'complete circuit' is also present in the definition of a 'central pocket loop')

Martijn (admin) wrote:...

Anyway... I already described that the issue of a 'complete circuit' is actually COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT for the assessment of a 'central pocket loop'[/color]

... And of course I should have mentioned in my later comment (see above) as well that it was actually my first argument (see my former post) that made the issue of the 'complete circuit' irrelevant - because... a 'complete circuit' IS present in Kiwihands' example (manifesting as: a 'whorling ridge' + the 'S'-shape).

my version of the FBI book must be a different edition different from yours, and in its definition the "tends to" is missing. Instead it just says "The central pocket loop type of whorl has two deltas and at least one ridge making a complete circuit, which may be spiral, oval, circular, or any variant of a circle." I assume my edition is older than yours since I downloaded it for free from Project Gutenberg, and I'll amend the definition.

Lynn wrote:The Project Gutenberg version says "Release Date: August 10, 2006"
so this is the more modern version, which has the definition
"The central pocket loop type of whorl has two deltas and at least one ridge making a complete circuit, which may be spiral, oval, circular, or any variant of a circle."
(omitting or tends to make)

I didn't know an S shape can be described as a variant of a circle ...can it?

Magda van Dijk-Rijneke wrote:Hello everybody,
Has nobody heard about the little or small double loop as a fingerprint? It is a variant of the double loop. The little double loop has the same qualities as the normal double loop, dependent on which finger.

Magda van Dijk-Rijneke wrote:Hi Patty,
Yes, it is a little double loop in the center of a normal loop.

Magda van Dijk-Rijneke wrote:I know what you mean but still it is not a central pocket loop or peacock's eye? I know it is very difficult. But when you follow the ridge in the middle than you get a very small double loop in a normal loop. Sometimes the rules are too stricted, you can make it so difficult as you want. But never mind, you can see what you want. When it is to difficult explain it as an usual loop.
Love Magda