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

**Martijn (admin)** Sun Feb 27, 2011 1:17 pm

Patti wrote:

A bifurcation is basically a forking ridge.

If you are trying to join the top ridge to the upthrust it must be a bifurcation as you can see the ridge flowing over the top. So the top of your loop will be basically forking. One ridge continues and fades to the left and the other would have to "curve" to make a loop. At that point where it should be curving there is an angle. This angle spoils the recurve and is the main reason it's not a loop.

Dear Patti,

If I had used even more red dots in the region of 'your angle' then you had seen that in the 'light 1937 print' there is no sharp angle at all. In the picture below you can see that I have added a few more red dots resulting in that there is no sharp angle at the point of the purple arrow:

X - WALT DISNEY - One of his fingerprints shows an unusual characteristic! - Page 8 1937-l14

X - WALT DISNEY - One of his fingerprints shows an unusual characteristic! - Page 8 1937-l14

And earlier in this discussion I already explained how 'your angle' effect seen in that region could be the result of 'crossing lines'

I noticed that there is evidence in all three prints that in that region Disney probably had an 'oblique vertical crossing line' pointing to the north-north-east, I have now also included that line in the 'LIGHT 1937 print' (see the brown line).

We can only speculate about the effects of such lines, but I think it could also have created the 'angle' that is clearly seen in the '1933 print'; in the 'DARK 1937 print' we see a likewise point but there it doesn't manifest as a clear angle, though the 'oblique vertical crossing line' could explain that effect as well.

Regaring the point of 'your angle', we should also be aware that it is quite natural to see 'sharp bendings' in the narrow loops in the region where the 'looping ridge lines' make a turn. In the F.B.I. book example 183 presents a very sharp bending of the 'core ridge line'.

Finally, regarding the 'small ink dot' that appears to be connected to the ridge line at the left side of 'your angle' in the '1933 print':

1 - We can see this 'small ink dot' is clearly much narrower then the other parts, which indicates that it is probably not significant... it could even be 'lost' INK DOT, it could also relate to the 'oblique vertical line that I described'. And it is certainly NOT VISIBLE at all in the 'LIGHT 1937 print'.

2 - But even if we would have been able to describe the 'small ink dot' as a narrow line that occured in all three prints, then it is should certainly not be called an 'upthrust' because that narrow line is for sure not positioned at the HORIZONTAL PLANE. So in the '1933 print', formally that 'small ink dot' can not 'spoil' the 'looping ridge line'. This is just an example of a minor aspect in this print... that has no implications for the assessment of this fingerprint.

PS. Regarding your quote (in your other post) that you described as taken from page 44 (actually, it comes from page 41), that comment would have become relevant if that narrow line concerned the 'core' of this fingerprint - as illustrated in the examples 161, 162 and 165.

But the major difference regarding Disney's fingerprint is that the narrow line can not be described as the 'core'!!! And because it also can not be described as an 'upthrust'... it can 'fairly' bedescribed as a minor irrelavant characteristic for the assessment of Disney's fingerprint.

CONCLUSION:

Both of your observations in the '1933 print' (the 'angle' + the 'small ink dot') do not spoil the 'looping ridge line', and therefore these phenomena do not violate my assessment:

We can safely call it a RADIAL LOOP.

Thumb up

Patti Sun Feb 27, 2011 3:54 pm

X - WALT DISNEY - One of his fingerprints shows an unusual characteristic! - Page 8 Rebutt10

Rules, I suppose are such inconvenient details.

**Lynn** Mon Feb 28, 2011 1:11 am

Thanks Martijn & Patti for all your hard work in this discussion. I've learnt more about the technicalities of fingerprint recognition. (Although I have the FBI book, I hadn't read it all). It has also helped to bring me into 21st century with regard to appreciating modern digital photo technique, as this discussion shows how inkprints can be deceptive - with white spaces, black dots etc depending on amount of ink used. I've also learnt about lithograph printing technique, and wonder if the 'excess ink' in 1933 print was due to 'excess grease' on the hand.

You have both done a great job in "presenting your case". The discussion became so complex and, being away at the start & busy this week, I got lost a few times. However I've now read it all through twice (yes, all 12 pages!). I have nothing to contribute. I can see the loop on all prints. I can see the tented arch on 1933 print. I can't see the tented arch on the 1937 prints, but I note how it was officially marked t \ (tented arch \ radial loop), and can see those faint black dots that could be continuation of skin ridges. I can't make my mind up, so maybe Patti is right after all about me sitting on the fence! Wink

I thank you for your time and energy and insights Patti & Martijn. Thank you for caring about what type of print it is! hug

Not many people in the world would give a damn about it! and I'm not sure that anyone else here is able or willing to give another perspective on it. You have given us a lot of food for thought.

You have both spent a lot of your valuable time on this discussion! I think you have both presented plenty of evidence to back up your arguments. However, I don't think you are ever going to agree on it, so my friends I suggest you leave it here, for us all to see and think about.
Thumb up

Patti Mon Feb 28, 2011 2:46 am

Thanks Lynn for the acknowledgement!

I have a feeling that Martijn and I are now in agreement about a tented arch. Wink

You see, the brown line he drew this morning illustrates the rule I posted in the yellow box with blue letters. He himself demonstrated that it was a tented arch.

Funny thing is, I have thought about this so much - as you say many hours of many days! Over a few tiny dermatoglyphic ridges. I can see them in my sleep and draw the print w/o looking!

We needed to get to where we were both aware we were looking at the same details and had agreement on that. That took the longest time!

Anyway, last night after I had posted my post pointing out my reasons another time why we should classify it a tented arch and went to bed.... I woke up about 5 a.m. and couldn't get back to sleep until I got up and looked up in The Science of Fingerprints (my 1984 book version and the recent version at the website - that's why my page numbers were off - one was book another was website) and verified the rules for the ridges that abut to the outside of the recurving ridge. I started to post it last night and the only reason I didn't was because I didn't want everyone to see I was up at all hours over a dog gone finger print! Embarassed

I also trusted that inner voice that said save it for tomorrow until after you see what Martijn has posted. Laughing

I sure was surprised to see his post this morning!!

The banana humor has been a bit fun.

X - WALT DISNEY - One of his fingerprints shows an unusual characteristic! - Page 8 Egg_ba10

X - WALT DISNEY - One of his fingerprints shows an unusual characteristic! - Page 8 Egg_ba10

**Lynn** Mon Feb 28, 2011 3:41 am

oh Patti, I love the banana slipping on the banana skin!! No doubt sometime in the future this pic will be used (jokingly) in evidence against me Laughing

... unless I use it first Twisted Evil

(edit) PS I understand about waking in the night thinking about some fingerprint. Only us geeks would do that! geek

Patti Mon Feb 28, 2011 4:12 am

Lynn wrote:. I can see the tented arch on 1933 print. I can't see the tented arch on the 1937 prints, but I note how it was officially marked t \ (tented arch \ radial loop), and can see those faint black dots that could be continuation of skin ridges. I can't make my mind up, so maybe Patti is right after all about me sitting on the fence!

Lynn, did you see this remark from "The Science of Fingerprints" that I posted?

The ridge count of the tented arch is merely a convention of fingerprinting, a fiction designed to facilitate a scientific classification of tented arches, and has no connection with a loop.(page 41 - web page)

In other words - there is no mention of loop.

Patti Mon Feb 28, 2011 4:13 am

Lynn wrote:oh Patti, I love the banana slipping on the banana skin!! No doubt sometime in the future this pic will be used (jokingly) in evidence against me ... unless I use it first
(edit) PS I understand about waking in the night thinking about some fingerprint. Only us geeks would do that!

**Martijn (admin)** Mon Feb 28, 2011 11:26 am

Patti wrote:Thanks Lynn for the acknowledgement!

I have a feeling that Martijn and I are now in agreement about a tented arch.

Sorry Patti, I assume you were kidding about the agreement....?

Actually, I see an endless list of problems regarding your latest picture (your green lines + yellow square do not have matching coordinates in the various pictures where you presented them... though I could ignore that as you are struggling with your mouse, etc).

But this is my major objection against how you tried to use the quote from the F.B.I. book that you took from page 41, the quote clearly describes:

"... an appendage or a spike abutting upon a recurve at right angels in the space between the shoulders of a loop on the outsidered to spoil the recurve."

First of all, that quote is actually not applicable on the Disney print at all, simply because the 'looping ridge line' involved... is not the CORE of this print, which implicates that any appendage can NOT BE DESCRIBED AS THE CORE!!!

Again, in one of my earlier comments I already described, I quote from my own words:

"Regarding your quote (in your other post) that you described as taken from page 44 (actually, it comes from page 41), that comment would have become relevant if that narrow line concerned the 'core' of this fingerprint - as illustrated in the examples 161, 162 and 165."

So, since this now appears to be your only argument for calling 'your tented arch'... but formally that is an incorrect argument, so it provides no foundation for that assessment at all...
Banana waving

And secondly, we should also question if the small 'spike' (the little ink dot connectin to the 'looping ridge line') really meets the requirements described by the quote, regarding the 'right angle', it's position, and if it really can be considered as an 'spike' because it's width is clearly smaller than the connecting ridge lines.

X - WALT DISNEY - One of his fingerprints shows an unusual characteristic! - Page 8 Rebutt10

Patti Mon Feb 28, 2011 3:23 pm

Martijn (admin) wrote:
Patti wrote:

A bifurcation is basically a forking ridge.

If you are trying to join the top ridge to the upthrust it must be a bifurcation as you can see the ridge flowing over the top. So the top of your loop will be basically forking. One ridge continues and fades to the left and the other would have to "curve" to make a loop. At that point where it should be curving there is an angle. This angle spoils the recurve and is the main reason it's not a loop.

Dear Patti,

If I had used even more red dots in the region of 'your angle' then you had seen that in the 'light 1937 print' there is no sharp angle at all. In the picture below you can see that I have added a few more red dots resulting in that there is no sharp angle at the point of the purple arrow:

And earlier in this discussion I already explained how 'your angle' effect seen in that region could be the result of 'crossing lines'

I noticed that there is evidence in all three prints that in that region Disney probably had an 'oblique vertical crossing line' pointing to the north-north-east, I have now also included that line in the 'LIGHT 1937 print' (see the brown line).

We can only speculate about the effects of such lines, but I think it could also have created the 'angle' that is clearly seen in the '1933 print'; in the 'DARK 1937 print' we see a likewise point but there it doesn't manifest as a clear angle, though the 'oblique vertical crossing line' could explain that effect as well.

Regaring the point of 'your angle', we should also be aware that it is quite natural to see 'sharp bendings' in the narrow loops in the region where the 'looping ridge lines' make a turn. In the F.B.I. book example 183 presents a very sharp bending of the 'core ridge line'.

Finally, regarding the 'small ink dot' that appears to be connected to the ridge line at the left side of 'your angle' in the '1933 print':

1 - We can see this 'small ink dot' is clearly much narrower then the other parts, which indicates that it is probably not significant... it could even be 'lost' INK DOT, it could also relate to the 'oblique vertical line that I described'. And it is certainly NOT VISIBLE at all in the 'LIGHT 1937 print'.

2 - But even if we would have been able to describe the 'small ink dot' as a narrow line that occured in all three prints, then it is should certainly not be called an 'upthrust' because that narrow line is for sure not positioned at the HORIZONTAL PLANE. So in the '1933 print', formally that 'small ink dot' can not 'spoil' the 'looping ridge line'. This is just an example of a minor aspect in this print... that has no implications for the assessment of this fingerprint.

PS. Regarding your quote (in your other post) that you described as taken from page 44 (actually, it comes from page 41), that comment would have become relevant if that narrow line concerned the 'core' of this fingerprint - as illustrated in the examples 161, 162 and 165.

But the major difference regarding Disney's fingerprint is that the narrow line can not be described as the 'core'!!! And because it also can not be described as an 'upthrust'... it can 'fairly' bedescribed as a minor irrelavant characteristic for the assessment of Disney's fingerprint.

CONCLUSION:

Both of your observations in the '1933 print' (the 'angle' + the 'small ink dot') do not spoil the 'looping ridge line', and therefore these phenomena do not violate my assessment:

We can safely call it a RADIAL LOOP.

Wow Martijn! Before I respond to your most recent post, I need to address some things you have failed to notice in this post.

1) "And earlier in this discussion I already explained how 'your angle' effect seen in that region could be the result of 'crossing lines' "

Ridges do not cross and are not considered "crossing lines". They abut. Check the rules. All the ridges associated with crossing lines are abutting.

2)"I noticed that there is evidence in all three prints that in that region Disney probably had an 'oblique vertical crossing line' pointing to the north-north-east, I have now also included that line in the 'LIGHT 1937 print' see the brown line").

Obviously you have observed this feature in all three patterns as have I.

3) (your #2) "But even if we would have been able to describe the 'small ink dot' as a narrow line that occured in all three prints, then it is should certainly not be called an 'upthrust' because that narrow line is for sure not positioned at the HORIZONTAL PLANE. So in the '1933 print', formally that 'small ink dot' can not 'spoil' the 'looping ridge line'. This is just an example of a minor aspect in this print... that has no implications for the assessment of this fingerprint."

This is completely inaccurate information. Again, check the book. You seem to think that a tented arch can 'only' be formed via the horizontal plane.

Sorry, Martijn. You have failed to understand the rules involved in the tented arch.

In this post, you completely identified a tented arch. You even drew it.

You were mistaken when you tried to describe the minor features as insignificant. The FBI takes into consideration all features.

You also haven't taken into consideration the importance of the developmental process behind what formed the fingerprint pattern.

I was fairly gracious yesterday but at this point I think you are either ignorant or just can't bare to acknowledge you were caught with:

X - WALT DISNEY - One of his fingerprints shows an unusual characteristic! - Page 8 Egg_on10

X - WALT DISNEY - One of his fingerprints shows an unusual characteristic! - Page 8 Egg_on10

If you believe that I have misjudged you here, please use "The Science of Fingerprints" to point this out. Because I right now have no problem with absolutely showing you your major errors.

Patti Mon Feb 28, 2011 3:28 pm

Martijn unfortunately you need to see that there was too much ink or too little ink. That markings are too small to have any significance.

In other words you have to make adjustments, changes and give excuses to create a valid radial loop here.

A tented arch is apparent without imagination or alterations.

Patti Mon Feb 28, 2011 3:37 pm

Martijn (admin) wrote:
Patti wrote:Thanks Lynn for the acknowledgement!

I have a feeling that Martijn and I are now in agreement about a tented arch.

Sorry Patti, I assume you were kidding about the agreement....?

Actually, I see an endless list of problems regarding your latest picture (your green lines + yellow square do not have matching coordinates in the various pictures where you presented them... though I could ignore that as you are struggling with your mouse, etc).

But this is my major objection against how you tried to use the quote from the F.B.I. book that you took from page 41, the quote clearly describes:

"... an appendage or a spike abutting upon a recurve at right angels in the space between the shoulders of a loop on the outsidered to spoil the recurve."

First of all, that quote is actually not applicable on the Disney print at all, simply because the 'looping ridge line' involved... is not the CORE of this print, which implicates that any appendage can NOT BE DESCRIBED AS THE CORE!!!

Again, in one of my earlier comments I already described, I quote from my own words:

"Regarding your quote (in your other post) that you described as taken from page 44 (actually, it comes from page 41), that comment would have become relevant if that narrow line concerned the 'core' of this fingerprint - as illustrated in the examples 161, 162 and 165."

So, since this now appears to be your only argument for calling 'your tented arch'... but formally that is an incorrect argument, so it provides no foundation for that assessment at all...

And secondly, we should also question if the small 'spike' (the little ink dot connectin to the 'looping ridge line') really meets the requirements described by the quote, regarding the 'right angle', it's position, and if it really can be considered as an 'spike' because it's width is clearly smaller than the connecting ridge lines.

Why do you bring up "core"? That doesn't change the fact this is a tented arch. FBI refers to the 'shoulders' of the recurving ridge. It you put a loop over a human being and made the area of the head the core, then you can see where the shoulders are. They are saying the spike or upthrust from the outside of the loop if not found on the shoulders, but are along the sides do not make it a tented arch. If found in the area between the shoulders then it is a tented arch.

I think a spike would represent something smaller than a normal size ridge. You perfectly drew a brown spike. In your attempts to draw a loop, you yourself have pointed out that you see the core at the top of the single ridge inside the recurve. I have no argument with that. Then it's pretty obvious that the shoulders are on both sides of this core in the recurving ridge.

Patti Mon Feb 28, 2011 4:34 pm

The idea of the crossing ridges is what helps confirm that the developmental aspect of this fingerprint was not about forming a loop.

"In connection with the proper classification to be assigned to those borderline loop-tented arch cases where an appendage or spike is thrusting out from the recurve, it is necessary to remember that an appendage or a spike abutting upon a recurve at right angles in the space between the shoulders of a loop on the outside is considered to spoil the recurve.

The spike or appendage is indication that the ridge in question was developing to continue in the direction it was pointing but was interrupted by a ridge entering from another direction.

The FBI analysts also study the embryology of the fingerprints.

"If the appending ridge flows off the looping ridge smoothly in such a way that it forms a bifurcation and not an abutment of two ridges at a right angle, the recurve is considered as remaining intact. 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."

Martijn, you already pointed out this wasn't a bifurcation. The idea of 'crossing lines' as you have recently described, is the description for abutment.

X - WALT DISNEY - One of his fingerprints shows an unusual characteristic! - Page 8 Fig16410

X - WALT DISNEY - One of his fingerprints shows an unusual characteristic! - Page 8 Fig16410

The examples that show "cores" are relating to the spike or appendage being a recurving ridge itself.

164, 165, 166 and 168 have similarities to how you have drawn the ridge lines in your coordinates.

**Martijn (admin)** Mon Feb 28, 2011 5:25 pm

Patti wrote:
Why do you bring up "core"? ...

Patti, you missed the essential point:

The comment that you quoted from page 141 + all related pictures (examples 161 to 178) are focussed on identifying the 'core' of the pattern!!! (Though the 'core' is only described for examples 172 to 175).

In these tented-arch examples we can see that only example 177 includes a likewise 'single central ridge line' which represents the core, but in that example we see that the surounding ridge line is 'spoiled' via the appendix that is connected to the next ridge line - which is obviously not a 'looping ridge line' either.

So in our example there is one major difference with all these examples: because there is a clearly identifiable 'core' + an 'sufficient' recuving ridge line, resulting in a 'ridge count' = 1.

Simple as that!!

And There is no way you can deny that!! Banana waving

(This clearly demonstrate.... how you made again made a fundamental mistake in your considerations )

Patti Mon Feb 28, 2011 5:28 pm

The spike or abutting ridges spoils the recurve.

Patti Mon Feb 28, 2011 5:34 pm

Figure 149 is a tented arch because of the upthrust present at the center of the pattern. The presence of the slightest upthrust at the center of the impression is enough to make a pattern a tented arch

A plain arch does not have a horizontal plane - it's all horizontal. No core either.

X - WALT DISNEY - One of his fingerprints shows an unusual characteristic! - Page 8 Fig14911

X - WALT DISNEY - One of his fingerprints shows an unusual characteristic! - Page 8 Fig14911

Patti Mon Feb 28, 2011 5:42 pm

X - WALT DISNEY - One of his fingerprints shows an unusual characteristic! - Page 8 Fig17610

176 and 177 are examples of tented arches that are similar to Walt Disney's Tented Arch.

177 especially follows the same rules.

A recurving loop.
A single ridge inside the loop - 1 ridge count

But, notice that tiny upthrust on the outside of the only recurving ridge.

Loop is spoiled and it is classified a Tented Arch.

Patti Mon Feb 28, 2011 5:52 pm

Detail of 177:

X - WALT DISNEY - One of his fingerprints shows an unusual characteristic! - Page 8 177_cl10

The only difference is that the upthrust is "abutted" by a ridge from the right. The upthrust still classifies it as a tented arch.

Loops can be so easily spoiled.

Patti Mon Feb 28, 2011 5:59 pm

Martijn (admin) wrote:
Patti wrote:
Why do you bring up "core"? ...

In these tented-arch examples we can see that only example 177 includes a likewise 'single central ridge line' which represents the core, but in that example we see that the surounding ridge line is 'spoiled' via the appendix that is connected to the next ridge line - which is obviously not a 'looping ridge line' either.

The core is not a ridge, it is a *spot*. A designated location. It confuses the subject when you use specific terms that relate to specific features in a generalized way.

Patti Mon Feb 28, 2011 6:23 pm

Essentials of a loop
● A sufficient recurve.

● A delta.

● A ridge count across a looping ridge.
"A sufficient recurve may be defined as that part of a recurving ridge between the shoulders of a loop. It must be free of any appendages abutting upon the outside of the recurve at a right angle.

Appendages—Some explanation is necessary of the importance attached to appendages. Much care must be exercised in interpreting appendages because they sometimes change the shape of the recurving ridge to which they are connected. For example, a loop with an appendage abutting upon its recurve between the shoulders and at right angles, as in illustration 56, will appear sometimes as in illustration 57 with the recurve totally destroyed. For further examples see figures 161 to 184."

X - WALT DISNEY - One of his fingerprints shows an unusual characteristic! - Page 8 Fig05610

X - WALT DISNEY - One of his fingerprints shows an unusual characteristic! - Page 8 Fig05610

X - WALT DISNEY - One of his fingerprints shows an unusual characteristic! - Page 8 Fig_5611

X - WALT DISNEY - One of his fingerprints shows an unusual characteristic! - Page 8 Walt_d10

Patti Mon Feb 28, 2011 6:34 pm

Explanation of the use of the word "angle":

"The Science of Fingerprints"

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.

I think it is safe to say that the FBI's rules indicate that the angle should be between 45° and 90° to result in a tented arch.

Patti Mon Feb 28, 2011 8:36 pm

Oh and by the way contrary to your claim "you can't deny that"

Banana waving

Well, here's what I say to that.

I think you've hung yourself here. lol!

X - WALT DISNEY - One of his fingerprints shows an unusual characteristic! - Page 8 Egg_ba11

So sorry for your loss.

**Martijn (admin)** Mon Feb 28, 2011 9:36 pm

Patti wrote:...

Wow Martijn! Before I respond to your most recent post, I need to address some things you have failed to notice in this post.

1) "And earlier in this discussion I already explained how 'your angle' effect seen in that region could be the result of 'crossing lines' "

Ridges do not cross and are not considered "crossing lines". They abut. Check the rules. All the ridges associated with crossing lines are abutting.

Patti, you completely misread my words:

I was clearly talking about the 'crossing lines' ... not the ridge lines! (See the brown line in the picture).

Banana waving

**Martijn (admin)** Mon Feb 28, 2011 9:58 pm

Patti wrote:
3) (your #2) "But even if we would have been able to describe the 'small ink dot' as a narrow line that occured in all three prints, then it is should certainly not be called an 'upthrust' because that narrow line is for sure not positioned at the HORIZONTAL PLANE. So in the '1933 print', formally that 'small ink dot' can not 'spoil' the 'looping ridge line'. This is just an example of a minor aspect in this print... that has no implications for the assessment of this fingerprint."

This is completely inaccurate information. Again, check the book. You seem to think that a tented arch can 'only' be formed via the horizontal plane.

No Patti, this is just another example of you 'misread' my words:

I did not describe that a 'tented arch' can only be formed via the horizontal plane - I only described that the 'small inkdot' is not a 'upthrust'. So your conclusion incorrect. Simple as that.

Banana waving

PS. Actually, your words indictate that you simply would describe any 'spike' as an 'upthrust'. But 'upthrusts' are much more rare than 'spikes':

Because an 'upthrust' could also be describe as a 'spike that is found on the horizontal plane', but 'spikes' can be found anywhere in the print. Usually they have no consequences; only when they are found on the most inner 'curving ridge line' then they could make the difference between a 'loop' and a 'tented arch'... but the F.B.I. book clearly describes on page 41 that there are other factors to be considered, including:
1) the exact position of the 'spike',
2) the angle of the 'spike',
3) and whether the 'spike' actually represent the 'core' of the fingerprint.

Only when the 'spike' is (ad 1) BETWEEN THE SHOULDERS, and (ad 2) AT A RIGHT ANGLE, and it should (ad 3) represent the 'core' of the print.

If any of these 3 requirements is not applicable on the 'spike', then it doesn't spoil the 'looping ridge line'!!

After these theoretical considerations, I will desribe in my next post why the 'spike' in the '1933 print'... does not spoil the looping ridge line....

**Martijn (admin)** Mon Feb 28, 2011 10:40 pm

Patti, now I will demonstrate with some visual illustrations why for multiple reasons the 'small ink dot' in the '1933 print' can not be described as an element that spoils the 'looping ridge line'.

In one of my earlier posts, I presented a new layer describing the 'looping ridge line' with more red dots than I used in my 'bananana-post'.

STEP 1 - I have first created a new 'layer' for the 'light 1937 print' with the red dots:

X - WALT DISNEY - One of his fingerprints shows an unusual characteristic! - Page 8 1937-l10

X - WALT DISNEY - One of his fingerprints shows an unusual characteristic! - Page 8 1937-l10

STEP 2 - I have copied-and-paste this layer into the 'dark 1937 print' and the '1933 print':

(In both pictures we can see that the 'right angle' does not manifest with the same coordinates: in the '1933 print' the appearant 'right angle' has shifted a 10 degrees clockwise... so, this indicates that any appearant simililarity regarding the 'right angle' in both pictures could be described as visual-coincidence, since the 'right angle' does not manifest in both pictures in the same 'coordinates'.)

X - WALT DISNEY - One of his fingerprints shows an unusual characteristic! - Page 8 1937-d10

X - WALT DISNEY - One of his fingerprints shows an unusual characteristic! - Page 8 1937-d10

X - WALT DISNEY - One of his fingerprints shows an unusual characteristic! - Page 8 1933-d10

STEP 3: Then I have created a 'silhouet' of the 'little ink dot', and when the details are considered... then we can actually notice that the 'little ink dot' can not be described as a 'spike' because it APPEARS to be connected with the other surrounding black zones.

You can see the shape of the 'silhouet' in the picture below:

X - WALT DISNEY - One of his fingerprints shows an unusual characteristic! - Page 8 1933-d11

X - WALT DISNEY - One of his fingerprints shows an unusual characteristic! - Page 8 1933-d11

As you can see, I have also added the direction of the 'small ink dot' with a light green pointer, and the direction indicates that even if the 'small ink dot' was not connected to the surrounding ridge lines... it doesn't appear to be positioned in the zone between the 'shoulders' of the 'looping ridge line' (the 'spike' is positioned at the LEFT SHOULDER), nor does it meet the requirement regarding 'right angle' (the 'spike appears to be at an angle of about 45 degrees).

CONCLUSIONS REGARDING THE 'SMALL INK DOT' IN THE 1933 PRINT:

1 - The width of the 'spike' is narrower than the 'looping ridge line';
2 - The shape of the 'spike' is not clear at all (there are connections with surrounding black zones, so we are here confronted again with the problem related to the abundance of ink in this print;
3 - The position of the 'spike' is at the LEFT SHOULDER of the 'looping ridge line';
4 - And the angle of the 'spike' appears to be about 45 degrees.

THE MAJOR CONCLUSION REGARDING THE 'SPIKE' IS:

All four earlier conclusions indicate that this 'spike' does not spoil the 'looping ridge line'.
And this s also SUPPORTED by the fact that the 'spike' is not identifiable in the other 2 prints.

And regarding the similarities between Disney's fingerprint with the symbolic pictures in page 42 of the F.B.I. book, I think the essential characteristics in the Disney fingerprint could be summarized with the black line in the picture below:

NOTICE: The red line concerns the 'spike' that is only seen in the '1933 print'.

A symbolic representation of Walt Disney's left index fingerprint (the red spike is seen only in the '1933 print', and it's width, position and angle do not meet the requirements to 'spoil' the looping ridge line):

CONCLUSION: the triradius, looping ridge line, and the presence of 'ridge count' (=1) indicates that this fingerprint type falls under the classification 'loop'.

X - WALT DISNEY - One of his fingerprints shows an unusual characteristic! - Page 8 Walt-d11

X - WALT DISNEY - One of his fingerprints shows an unusual characteristic! - Page 8 Walt-d11

**Martijn (admin)** Mon Feb 28, 2011 11:15 pm

Patti wrote:

Patti, what you described as your 'abutting ridges' ... are actually INK-traces of a LINE; we can see this clearly confirmed in especially the 'LIGHT 1937 print' where all lines manifest as WHITE LINES (but we can a likewise line in the 'DARK 1937 print', though in that print it manifests as grey-spots in the ridges).

Banana waving

In this discussion you 'cherish' a delusion... and obviously in that proces you demonstrated in your picture that you 'mixed-up' essential elements in your observations.

I think this process probably the resulting from that in the beginning of this discussion you even disqualified both '1937 prints'.... while later you discovered that we actually needed those two other prints to identify the problem regarding the white path in the 1933 print + the problems related to the abundance of ink.

Patti, I have tried to answer all your questions with detailed observations. And it now even becomes quite funny how you described me as the 'illusionist', but from the fact that even after a week of detailed discussions you still even MIX (confuse)... the 'lines' (which manifest in the '1933 print' as ink dots) with the 'ridge lines'.

This example simply illustrates that your observations were not always credible - because in your consideration of certain 'appearant facts' you lost quite a few times the perspective of those details.

flower

Sponsored content