tented arch like loops

hiii everyone;The other day i saw tented arch like loops on a hand.They r technically loops as u can c ridges forming a loop.But triradii were not displaced to the left or right ,rather they were centred.Secondly only two or three ridges were forming a loop while other ridges were making a tented arch.It looks like a loop enclosed in a tented arch.I was wondering how to interpret them;If they r technically loops , should we interpret them as loops or a combination of qualities of loop and tented arch as the number of ridges recurring to form the loop is very low.i wish i had pics to share.
regards,
sajid nadeem.

Hello sajid nadeem,

Technically, it is not possible that a 'loop' plus a 'tented arch' is combined in one single fingerprint - simply because the 'tented arch' requires the ABSENCE of a 'loop'.

The exact position of the triradius is not of any concern for a classic fingerprint classification.

But I would like to invite you to present a sample of the fingerprint that you have in mind... maybe that I can explain to you why your example... is probably a 'loop'!




PS. I am aware that in the IIHA system of fingerprint classification the position of the triradius is treated as a crucial element, but I would recommend that BEFORE using that alternative approach one should be very aware that this approach doesn't meet the well defined detailed criteria as described in for example: The Science of Fingerprints

NOTICE: The position of any triradius is always a 'relative' parameter (ink fingerprints can present an inaccurate impression about the position of the triradius).

hii martijin,
Thank u for views matijin.Firstly i m talking from an interpretation point of way.Should a well defined loop, in which more than 10 ridges are forming a loop with tri radius not centred and a loop with three or four ridges forming the loop with tri radius almost in the middle, be interpretated in the same way.i dont have actual pics but what i saw is somewhat like the picture below.

http://i24.servimg.com/u/f24/15/64/44/39/archlo10.jpg

Hi sajid,

Thanks for presenting a specified example.

In general, I would recommend not to attribute any meaning to one single tiny detail of a fingerprint. For, I think fingerprints always show some unique characteristics.

So, whether a loop has 3 'recurves' (= loopings) or 10 'recurves'... I think the interpretation should basically be the same. Others may have different opinions about that.

And once again: attributing value to the position of the triradius is even more speculative (for one would need to SEE the full finger of a person in order to judge the exact position of a triradius: even a photo of a single finger can provide misleading info regarding the position of a triradius, etc.).

I hope this now makes sense!?




PS. I also would like to point out here that in the perspective of scientific studies, there has NEVER been any study presented which has provided any single clue that the difference between 3 'recurves' and 10 'recurves' is really a decisive element for any health matter and/or personality characteristics.


PPS. Regarding the picture example that you presented (see below):

Formally, according the guidelines as described in The Science of Fingerprints
(source: FBI), the example below should be described as a 'tented arch' - and this example relates to the 3th subtype: tented arch approaching the loop type.


NOTICE:The example below is a 'tented arch' (3th subtype); the label 'arch with loop' has formally never been recognized as an independent fingerprint type.



...By the way, I recognize where you found this picture (Ed's article, where he refered to the work of Beverly Jaegers)... but for sure: this visual example does not related to the 'three or four ridges forming a loop' example that you described.

Unfortunately Ed didn't mention/notice in his article that Beverly Jaegers probably misunderstood the essentials of an arch fingerprint. For, Jaegers is talking in her book about 'arches' that may occure above- and below a loop... however, basically this is an example of fundamental-nonsense because EVERBODY has those elements above- and below the center pattern in each single fingerprint.

The pic i posted is certainly an (edit:) tented arch as the number of ridges between core and delta is zero;i posted this pic coz i didnt have a better one.It sounds a bit strange that on one hand we say dat every human being has unique fingerprint patterns but at the same time we broadly categorize them;I think their categorization in recognized patterns is necessary too but it serves the purpose for identification;As a palmist it wont be appropiate to equate a well define loop with 15 ridges between core and delta and a loop with one ridge between core and delta.For the purpose of their identification and classifcation it seems appropriate.Qualities of versatility,flexibility and receptiveness should not be equally applied to a well defined loop and a loop with very low number of ridges between core and delta.

ooooooooopss,,,,, should have written tented arch in place of arch in my previous post

thank u martijin

Hi Sajid,

I'm relatively new to this forum, so only just making my way through all these interesting topics. In case you are still watching this topic, here are my two cents' worth...

I completely agree with your views. On the one hand strict categorisation in recognised patterns is indeed necessary for the purpose for identification (as described in the FBI handbook). But this either/or classification doesn't sit well with my perception of palmistry either.

As you say, a well-defined loop with 15 ridges between core and delta and a loop with one ridge and a central triradius look like two very different things, and intuitively (if we see those patterns as manifestations of individual energies) I would agree that their "owners" would exhibit subtle differences.

Ronelle Coburn in "Destiny at your Fingertips" talks about combination patterns - for example the one you mentioned she calls a "loop-tent." Her requirements for a loop-tent are a triradius that is "dead center" and "only a little looping". This is very vague - what's "only a little"?

Here I see the fundamental difference between the FBI approach and the chirologist's approach: categorisation vs. reading/ interpretation.

I personally have four such loop-tents (three of them with a ridge count of 1) and have to say I identify strongly with the tent characteristics. With regard to the "life purpose reading" method, the results I get from counting these prints as combinations (resulting in a value of 2.5, rather than 3 as for a normal loop) also make a lot more sense to me than counting them as strict loops.

I'm still very much in the process of learning - years away from calling myself an expert reader. But seeing that you didn't get very many responses, I'm hoping this will help you on your journey! Please do share your findings if you come across anyone with a questionable print like this and get the chance to quiz them!

hi kiwihands, thanks for bringing Sajid's topic back to the top + your comments. Somehow I seem to have missed this topic before.
After 41 pages of discussion on Walt Disney's fingerprint, http://www.modernhandreadingforum.com/t469-walt-disney-one-of-his-fingerprints-shows-an-unusual-characteristic I am pretty exhausted about loops vs tented arches! But it is fascinating!
Have you posted your 'four such loop-tents (three of them with a ridge count of 1)' anywhere? ( maybe they could lead to 160 pages of discussion!)
Sajid, I think you said you don't have actual pics of the hand in question - are you able to get any? It might create another interesting discussion!

Kiwihands and Lynn,
thanks for ur respone;i dont have any pics to share;like kiwihands most of my loops have very low ridge count between delta and core;i will try to find some high resolution camera to take pics and submit.

Hi Lynn,

yes I have been following the discussion about Disney's prints, too, am utterly fascinated by the whole topic. I downloaded the FBI handbook and have studied most of it - the scientist in me relished the very clear-cut criteria for print identification, and I now finally understand what all this talk of deltas and cores was all about.


But it also made me think about the vast difference between the two approaches (classification vs interpretation), and it made me wonder in how far categories used in law enforcement can be transferred to hand reading. Should there be no mixed types of prints in chirology only because the FBI says so?

I can also see a parallel with hand types here: most people have a combination of "elements" and no one would insist that it would have to be one or the other. To have this flexibility with regards to hand types, but not with prints seems illogical to me. But that's just my opinion...

I wonder what other forum members think about this?

My own prints are on my flickr account, and one in particular (right middle finger http://www.flickr.com/photos/58152183@N03/5443093876/) ignited a 4-page discussion here: http://www.modernhandreadingforum.com/t591-life-purpose-reading-please-from-fingerprints.
According to the FBI criteria it is definitely a radial loop, which was Martijn's position, but at first glance it does look like a tented arch (Patti's position). After having read everything I could get my hands on about the significance of both, I have come to the conclusion that both patterns apply to me in part, but not to their full extent. To the radial loop I would say a resounding "Yes" re being an innovator, but a disappointed "I wish" to the ability to control bodily functions such as heart rate mentally. To the tented arch I concede strong ambition, but I have never been a fanatic convert of anything.

All the other prints are also on my flickr. They are more obviously loops, but still have fairly central triradii and low ridge count.

In general I relate more to the tented arch characteristics: reading overall descriptions, I have to agree to everything (and then some, regarding the intensity of those qualities ), whereas reading general loop characteristics I cannot identify at all with some crucial features. Would this be the case if I really had only one tented arch (according to FBI book) plus nine loops I wonder?

Looking forward to hearing other people's opinions!

x

thanks kiwihands, I forgot we'd seen your prints before.
Will reply to some of your points later, if I do it now I'll be late for work! ;-)

kiwihands wrote:Hi Lynn,

yes I have been following the discussion about Disney's prints, too, am utterly fascinated by the whole topic. I downloaded the FBI handbook and have studied most of it - the scientist in me relished the very clear-cut criteria for print identification, and I now finally understand what all this talk of deltas and cores was all about.


But it also made me think about the vast difference between the two approaches (classification vs interpretation), and it made me wonder in how far categories used in law enforcement can be transferred to hand reading. Should there be no mixed types of prints in chirology only because the FBI says so?

I can also see a parallel with hand types here: most people have a combination of "elements" and no one would insist that it would have to be one or the other. To have this flexibility with regards to hand types, but not with prints seems illogical to me. But that's just my opinion...

I wonder what other forum members think about this?

hi, sorry it took me a while to respond. Yes of course there is a difference between the two approaches (classification vs interpretation). FBI is mainly for identification of who commited the crime! (hence the minutae are so important!) But their "rules" are important guidelines in differentiating the various fingerprint types, for all of us, no matter what approach we take to hands.

However, in our day-to-day work, palm readers do not have the luxury of discussing for weeks about a 10x zoom of the print ;-) so we just have to 'plump for' whatever print it appears to be in the moment. In my case Disney's was instantly a radial loop. Patti brought in some good arguments to make me question that in FBI method it could be a tented arch.

re "I can also see a parallel with hand types here: most people have a combination of "elements" and no one would insist that it would have to be one or the other. To have this flexibility with regards to hand types, but not with prints seems illogical to me"

That's a different thing really. Fingerprints are just one feature of the hand, and each classification of print is ruled by one element (or maybe a combination of two elements).
"Hand type" via the elements, involves looking at all features of the hand. eg a person might have fire hand shape, air knuckles, water skin, air length water line, air line going into water quadrant, earth & water fingerprints ...etc. We are all various combinations of all elements.

Hi Lynn,

thank you so much for your reply. You approach, to just plumb for what the print appears to be at the moment, seems much more feasible to me than spending ages poring over each questionable print to determine ridges and deltas.

Regarding my remark about prints and elemental hand types, of course you're right, you can't compare the two. It was just the first thing that came to my mind, but a bad example to make. I wasn't so much referring to elements as to the fact that in other aspects of palm reading it is quite rare to find a feature that fits perfectly into one category - instead there is a continuum along which we try to interpret signs. In contrast to that, the FBI classifications put each print in a very neatly defined box, making the decision either/ or
rather than considering combinations.

A better example may have been something like the length of the head line: we read in our books that we can encounter a straight or bent line, but when we see one with only a slight curve we wouldn't give the same interpretation as for one that dips down deeply into the lunar mount.
I find it slightly illogical that there is no such flexible spectrum of interpretation for prints as well, i.e. can't really believe that a well-developed loop of 15 ridges should be treated the same as a single ridge loop with a central triradius. Sticking with the elemental lingo, the latter would, to me, express at least as much fire as water. When you say "perhaps a combination of two elements" I think we are of the same opinion here.

I do realise that I'm really just a spring chicken in this field, with not a great deal of experience. Would love to hear what others think about this!

Thanks for your time Lynn!