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)