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

Martijn (admin) wrote:
Hi Lynn,

I think the left middle + ring finger are both a 'ulnar loop'.

That is also what Richard described for those fingers - though in his book and his website he describes a 'whorl' for the right ringer finger... which appears to be mistake.

(I can understand why he describes the left index finger as a 'tented arch' - though formally... according the FBI's paradigma it is indeed a 'radial loop')

Patti wrote:
I recalled this thread (relative to a current discussion) and took a closer look at Disney's left index fingerprint. Interestingly Richard describes it as a Tented Arch and Martijn describes it as a Radial Loop.

His officially taken fingerprints show it labeled as a Radial Tented Arch.

...

From another source Disney's print takes on a different perspective, the looping quality disappears and you can see the radially bending radiant creating the Tented Arch pattern.

Hi Patti,

Thanks for adding that 3th fingerprint!!

Regarding the left index fingerprint: I think the 'labels' in the picture only illustrate that the observer was not able to make a decision. Because the 'radial tented arch'-label that you mentioned... is not an offical label to qualify a fingerprint!

So, I think the observer only added the signs of the 'tented arch' + 'radial loop' because he/she was not sure who to qualify that print.

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).



I think these observations confirm that this fingerprint should formally be qualified as a 'radial loop' - maybe it will be helpfull for you to take a look at no.179 and no.180 in "The Science f Fingerprints": then you will probably be able to recognize that this example has likewise characteristics.

Patti wrote:Thanks Martijn for your response.

I've looked at my larger (on my computer) image and there really isn't a single returning looping ridge. It only *appears* to be looping.
...

Patti, thanks again for your efforts... but it appears that you have overlooked 2 significant details (only 1 point relates to the inconsistancies that can be obverved in those prints).

Let us focuss first on the most clear of the 3 examples (see also the picture below):

1 - The red line clearly indicates that there is 'single returning looping ridge' (see the first picture below - the red dot = the 'core' of this fingerprints; by the way, there is also a complete ridge line outside this red line);

2 - And we should be aware that the other 2 fingerprint examples indicate that in this example in some zones the ink did not attach very well to the paper: the three green lines are an example of this; NOTICE: in the original (2nd picture below) there appears to be a 'hole' at the location of the upper of those three green lines, but the other two fingerprint examples clearly show that there is very likely not really a 'hole' at al: simply because in both other example we can see that thick lines!!!






By the way, I have another point of feedback regarding your use of colours: because your use of color suggests that the yellow line is sort of CROSSED by the two blue lines (see again the picture below)... but as you know: ridge lines can never CROSS (we both can understand this with our knowledge about how the ridge lines develop as a result of volar pad shape & size).

So your colour-choice illustrates that you have made a fundamental mistake in your observations: you have attributed value to the WIDTH of the ridge lines in that zone, resulting in that the yellow line suddenly changes it's direction (according your colours): but by fact it can simply be described as a ridge line that is positioned around my red line - featured with 2 bifurications: at the locations where your blue lines are connected!

(I can add that the other 2 examples of this fingerprint suggest that some parts of the fingerprint in that zone did not became manifest as ink on the paper... just like the 3 none-holes that I described with the green lines!!)

Martijn (admin) wrote:

Patti wrote:Thanks Martijn for your response.

I've looked at my larger (on my computer) image and there really isn't a single returning looping ridge. It only *appears* to be looping.
...

Patti, thanks again for your efforts... but it appears that you have overlooked 2 significant details (only 1 point relates to the inconsistancies that can be obverved in those prints).

Let us focuss first on the most clear of the 3 examples (see also the picture below):

1 - The red line clearly indicates that there is 'single returning looping ridge' (see the first picture below - the red dot = the 'core' of this fingerprints; by the way, there is also a complete ridge line outside this red line);

2 - And we should be aware that the other 2 fingerprint examples indicate that in this example in some zones the ink did not attach very well to the paper: the three green lines are an example of this; NOTICE: in the original (2nd picture below) there appears to be a 'hole' at the location of the upper of those three green lines, but the other two fingerprint examples clearly show that there is very likely not really a 'hole' at al: simply because in both other example we can see that thick lines!!!






By the way, I have another point of feedback regarding your use of colours: because your use of color suggests that the yellow line is sort of CROSSED by the two blue lines (see again the picture below)... but as you know: ridge lines can never CROSS (we both can understand this with our knowledge about how the ridge lines develop as a result of volar pad shape & size).

So your colour-choice illustrates that you have made a fundamental mistake in your observations: you have attributed value to the WIDTH of the ridge lines in that zone, resulting in that the yellow line suddenly changes it's direction (according your colours): but by fact it can simply be described as a ridge line that is positioned around my red line - featured with 2 bifurications: at the locations where your blue lines are connected!

(I can add that the other 2 examples of this fingerprint suggest that some parts of the fingerprint in that zone did not became manifest as ink on the paper... just like the 3 none-holes that I described with the green lines!!)

Patti wrote:I wonder why you have chosen to use the poorest quality of prints to try and prove your point??

Anyway,

one upthrust trumps your idea of a loop, (if any).

Patti, what are you trying to say here?

Sounds you call the most blurred, dark print... the best quality???
Without any doubt, the 'lightest' print presents by far the best quality... simply because we can follow the ridges line relatively well. And we can use the other two to check if all 'holes' are really who they appear to be .... and I have show that this is obviously not the case.

PS. I hope you have noticed that in my last post I have illustrated the same points that I made regarding the 'lightest' example, in one of the other two prints. So, I was never focussed on any single print: my points are based on all 3 prints.... do you really want me to post a likewise picture for the third print? (In advance: I know that there is one 'hole' in that print... but it is so obviously that that 'hole' is the result of a problem with the ink attachment to the paper!)


So, you want me to focuss on the black lines...?
No problem at all ... I have added the orange line on the (black) ridge line that I already mentioned in my former post:

(Actually, that in my writing that is where I was always focussed on... but I started to describe you the lines in between the black lines because you are putting value to 'holes' that are not confirmed as 'holes' in all three fingerprints)

Patti wrote:You still have not properly illustrated a loop.

I very clearly see a tented arch. Again, according to "The Science of Fingerprints" an upthrust is the qualifying factor.

Dear Patti, what do you exactly mean with the word "properly"...???

I have very carefully drawn the 'looping ridge line' for all three examples... so I have shared all details, and you never disqualified any detail in my drawings.

What else do you need? The loop is in inside each of the 3 drawings!

Patti wrote:You are a drawing a loop that isn't there. You have drawn at times in the white areas and not on the black ridges. You are tracing a loop that you wish to see, but isn't there. I see what you keep illustrating, but while you draw your loop, you completely ignore other ridges that are part of the pattern you have drawn from and have nothing to do with a loop.

Dear Patti,

First of all, I have explained why I have have used the green lines (which are all three indeed in the white areas). But you didn't respond on those details so I assumed that you accepted that my observations regarding the 'holes'.

But actually, did you notice that in this example there is no 'white area' at all inside the orange line? NOTICE: I only continued to use the green line for reasons of consistancy!!


But hey ... ... you ask, so I deliver:

In this example there is not a single part of the orange line written on what you called 'white areas' (see also the original picture: the 2nd picture below): do you still think it is not a 'looping ridge line'?

And if so.... can you please explain why you think it is not a 'looping ridge line'?

Martijn (admin) wrote:

Patti wrote:You are a drawing a loop that isn't there. You have drawn at times in the white areas and not on the black ridges. You are tracing a loop that you wish to see, but isn't there. I see what you keep illustrating, but while you draw your loop, you completely ignore other ridges that are part of the pattern you have drawn from and have nothing to do with a loop.

Dear Patti,

First of all, I have explained why I have have used the green lines (which are all three indeed in the white areas). But you didn't respond on those details so I assumed that you accepted that my observations regarding the 'holes'.

But actually, did you notice that in this example there is no 'white area' at all inside the orange line? NOTICE: I only continued to use the green line for reasons of consistancy!!


But hey ... ... you ask, so I deliver:

In this example there is not a single part of the orange line written on what you called 'white areas' (see also the original picture: the 2nd picture below): do you still think it is not a 'looping ridge line'?

And if so.... can you please explain why you think it is not a 'looping ridge line'?

Patti wrote:



(this print has too many blotchy spots and can not be credibly used to accurately or reliably describe any kind of pattern - or rather perhaps it could be used to describe any kind of pattern or glyph)

Patti

Hi Patti,

It took a while before I could respond but I think I am now able to solve a large part of our problem here: because I found evidence that you misunderstood how an 'upthrust' can create a tented arch (point 4).

But first, I would like to point out a few other issues related to inconsistancies in your drawings & arguments (see point 1, 2 & 3):


1) In you last comment the inconsistancy in your arguments becomes obvious:

If you are using the quality of the print as an argument to reject this print completely - which if a fair argument - then you should have done the same with the print that you introduced in this discussion.

I think it is very obvious that in large parts of that print we are faced with the exactly the same problem:




So, now it's a mystery to me why you described 'your print' as the best print. While the ZOOMED picture clearly shows that many of the zones between the actual ridges are completely filled with ink in the crucial part of the fingerprint.

Can you explain that ???


Only one print doesn't confront us with this problem: the 'lightest' example.

But in the 'lightest' example we are confronted with another problem because in that print not all ridges appear to have been 'printed' with ink on the paper completely.

Nevertheless, if we focuss on a 20x ZOOMED version:



... then we can actually see that there for sure is a 'looping ridge line'. Thought, at 5 points the ink dots connections can be described as weak... but there is no objective reason at all to assume that at any of these points one can speak of 'terminating ridge line'.

Yes, at point 5 we can see a small completely white space. However, I think that even at that point there is NO REASON at all to assume that this concerns the terrmination of a ridge line!!

SIMPLY BECAUSE: Afterall... we are only looking at 'ink dots': the amount of ink-attachment on the paper not only depends on the structure of the ridges... it also depends on the amount of ink available at those points!!



And I have add a few more line to highlight the other major ridge lines in this 20x ZOOMED prints:

Patti wrote:You are a drawing a loop that isn't there. You have drawn at times in the white areas and not on the black ridges. You are tracing a loop that you wish to see, but isn't there. I see what you keep illustrating, but while you draw your loop, you completely ignore other ridges that are part of the pattern you have drawn from and have nothing to do with a loop.

Nonsense!

During this discussion you have described many completely irrelevant details. For example: the reversed-picture of the fingerprint that you submitted doesn't make sense at all... why on earth would you want to make a reversed image of a picture that is lacking in quality on itself???

Resulting in a plate full of colour-full spagetti... including an 'orange triradius' in the center of your plate:




3) ... don't you ever get bothered by the many inconsistancies in your drawings?

For example: it is even a bit worrisome to see that you do not get bothered about the inconsistancy with your former drawings: because in one of your earlier drawings below the yellow line actually crosses the 'orange triradius' that you have drawn in the picture above.

[b] 4) ... and you wrote the following words with this picture:

The upthrusts are in blue and in green a short branch that does not clearly loop.

Patti, I now recognize that you completely misunderstood how an 'upthrust' can signal the presence of a tented arch.

Because 'The Science of Fingerprints' describes on page 33:

"An upthrust is an ending ridge of any length rising at a sufficient degree from the horizontal plane."

So, only the lower of your two blue lines could potentially be described as an 'upthrust'. But my 'looping ridge line' picture shows that none of the green lines can be described as an 'upthrust' either.

But even if it had been an upthrust, it is not involved at all in creating the 'looping ridge line' that I described!!

And therefore there really is no (clear) 'upthrust' at all in any of the three variants of this fingerprint!

So, I just 'proofed' how your comments about an 'upthrust' are not only inaccurate... but also irrelevant!! Just like it would have been completely irrelevant in a fingerprint that has many looping ridge lines with one upthrust!!!


And I think it should be obvious by now that the relatively large 'white zone' in the fingerprint example that you submitted... is not a result of terminating ridge line, nor any upthrust:



Instead it can simply be described as a result of a problem with the attachement of the ink on the paper - and this is supported by the inconsistancies with the other 2 fingerprint examples.

Finally.... after making these very specified additional observations, there is not much space left for further discussion because now it is very obvious for me that you made a few big mistakes.

But anyway. yes we can for sure disagree about the following:

- You concluded that 'your' picture presents the best quality;
- You attributed significant value to zones where the ink did not attach properly in any of the 3 fingerprints;
- And your drawings include many inconsistancies (but you appear not to have noticed them because you NEVER mentioned any of them in your analyses).

However, after looking at all details once again, I think you made quite a few fundamental mistakes regarding how to recognize a tented arch:

- Your comments about 'your uptrusts' can simply be described as unfounded because formally there are no 'upthrusts' at all in this fingerprint (I have just described why I needed to reject both examples that you described);
- And your concept of how any of 'your upthrusts' could potentially serve to qualify this fingerprint as a tented arch was incorrect, because the lower of 'your upthrust' is itself not a part of 'looping ridge line' in this fingerprint!


However, I do would like to thank you for your efforts + sharing your thoughts & observations. Because this discussion became actually very helpful for me to get a sharper understanding of how an 'upthrust' can make a tented arch.

But for sure... ... sorry Patti, not in this case!