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

**Lynn** Thu Mar 03, 2011 11:40 pm

Patti wrote:
Patti wrote:
Lynn wrote:We can sure see why the person who identifed Walt's prints put both t and \ (tented arch and loop). It's a close call!

Lynn!!!
They did not put loop!!!!!

I have quoted twice from the FBI's "The Science of Fingerprints" that that is just a formality. And not related to a loop!!!

"When interpreting a pattern consisting of two ending ridges and a delta but lacking a recurve, do not confuse the ridge count of the tented arch with that of the ridge count for the loop. 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 on the web and top of page 37 in the book.

Lynn, did you check this out for yourself?

I wasn't talking about the ridge count. I was talking about the symbols drawn at lower right side of print. t for tented arch and \ for radial loop

X - WALT DISNEY - One of his fingerprints shows an unusual characteristic! - Page 12 Finger10

X - WALT DISNEY - One of his fingerprints shows an unusual characteristic! - Page 12 Finger10

Patti Thu Mar 03, 2011 11:44 pm

Lynn wrote:
Patti wrote:
Patti wrote:
Lynn wrote:We can sure see why the person who identifed Walt's prints put both t and \ (tented arch and loop). It's a close call!

Lynn!!!
They did not put loop!!!!!

I have quoted twice from the FBI's "The Science of Fingerprints" that that is just a formality. And not related to a loop!!!

"When interpreting a pattern consisting of two ending ridges and a delta but lacking a recurve, do not confuse the ridge count of the tented arch with that of the ridge count for the loop. 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 on the web and top of page 37 in the book.

Lynn, did you check this out for yourself?

I wasn't talking about the ridge count. I was talking about the symbols drawn at lower right side of print. t for tented arch and \ for radial loop

But they tell you it's not a loop. So it's a radial tented arch. Which martijn early on said did not officially exist. But, it's like a radial whorl. We wouldn't call it a radial loop.

**Lynn** Thu Mar 03, 2011 11:55 pm

Patti wrote:"When interpreting a pattern consisting of two ending ridges and a delta but lacking a recurve, do not confuse the ridge count of the tented arch with that of the ridge count for the loop. 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 on the web and top of page 37 in the book.

Lynn wrote: I wasn't talking about the ridge count. I was talking about the symbols drawn at lower right side of print. t for tented arch and \ for radial loop

Patti wrote:But they tell you it's not a loop. So it's a radial tented arch. Which martijn early on said did not officially exist. But, it's like a radial whorl. We wouldn't call it a radial loop.

Sorry Patti I don't understand "But they tell you it's not a loop". who? where?
The \ symbol means a loop. (in this case, radial loop).

(EDIT - OOPS again. I notice instructions in the book use oblique line only for ulna loops, and r for radial loop. So I don't understand this oblique line, as it's not an ulna loop)

the quote you've given is about ridge count for a pattern consisting of two ending ridges and a delta but lacking a recurve. That doesn't relate to Disney's print.

**Martijn (admin)** Fri Mar 04, 2011 12:33 am

Lynn wrote:
Martijn (admin) wrote:
Sorry Lynn, you now sound like you 'firmly' claim that the Disney print is a 'tented arch'... but I see no evidence for that at all:

Instead of "Because the central ridge does not reach the shoulders", I should have said what I previously said - "IF the central ridge..." (because I now see the difficulty in exactly locating the shoulder line, I can't be sure.)

Martijn (admin) wrote: Why do you think that the 'shoulder core' would result in 'no ridge count' at all?
uh-oh, I made a mistake here!! - yes I can see a ridge count of 1.

Lynn, don't worry: in this rather technical discussion we all made mistakes.

And especially since you were sort of able to discover your mistake yourself (my question only helped you to find it) there is no need to feel guilty, shamed, or whatever.

Anyway, thanks for confirming that your earlier conclusion today... was only priliminary.

Lynn, regarding the implication of what you just described:

You can probably imagine... that it is satisfying for me to see that even after considering the position of the 'central ridge line' in the perspective of the 'shoulder line', your conclusion became that the Disney print has all 3 elements (including the observation that the 'ridge count' = 1.... seen from multiple perspectives!!), which are all necessary to describe it as a 'loop'.

Can you please confirm:

Am I correct that in one of your earlier comments tonight you mentioned that the assessment would 'solely' depend on this issue related to the 'shoulder line'?

And if yes, am I correct that your assessment resulted (again) in:
a RADIAL LOOP...???

If so, then my thought is: Rock on!

... that I think you and I have found an agreement about the Disney fingerprint based on a 'solid' consideration of all factors that required to be considered. And obviously, I think we can also agree that Patti's suggestions have been very helpful for both of us as well. Correct?

Patti Fri Mar 04, 2011 12:36 am

Lynn wrote:
Patti wrote:"When interpreting a pattern consisting of two ending ridges and a delta but lacking a recurve, do not confuse the ridge count of the tented arch with that of the ridge count for the loop. 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 on the web and top of page 37 in the book.

Lynn wrote: I wasn't talking about the ridge count. I was talking about the symbols drawn at lower right side of print. t for tented arch and \ for radial loop

Patti wrote:But they tell you it's not a loop. So it's a radial tented arch. Which martijn early on said did not officially exist. But, it's like a radial whorl. We wouldn't call it a radial loop.

Sorry Patti I don't understand "But they tell you it's not a loop". who? where?
The \ symbol means a loop. (in this case, radial loop).

(EDIT - OOPS again. I notice instructions in the book use oblique line only for ulna loops, and r for radial loop. So I don't understand this oblique line, as it's not an ulna loop)

the quote you've given is about ridge count for a pattern consisting of two ending ridges and a delta but lacking a recurve. That doesn't relate to Disney's print.

I'm not sure what you mean "the quote you've given is about ridge count for a pattern consisting of two ending ridges and a delta but lacking a recurve."

**Lynn** Fri Mar 04, 2011 12:39 am

Patti wrote:I'm not sure what you mean "the quote you've given is about ridge count for a pattern consisting of two ending ridges and a delta but lacking a recurve."

sorry I meant this quote:
"When interpreting a pattern consisting of two ending ridges and a delta but lacking a recurve, do not confuse the ridge count of the tented arch with that of the ridge count for the loop. 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;"

Disney's print does not have two ending ridges or lack a recurve.

**Martijn (admin)** Fri Mar 04, 2011 12:43 am

Lynn wrote:...

Disney's print does not have two ending ridges or lack a recurve.

**Lynn** Fri Mar 04, 2011 12:44 am

Martijn (admin) wrote:Can you please confirm:

Am I correct that in one of your earlier comments tonight you mentioned that the assessment would 'solely' depend on this issue related to the 'shoulder line'?

And if yes, am I correct that your assessment resulted (again) in:
a RADIAL LOOP...???
[/color]

yes I did say 'solely' - based on the latter part of this discussion. But I think there are earlier parts of the discussion that I did not take into account. So maybe wrong to have made that statement. I should go back and read the early parts of the discussion again.

I have veered several times from 'tented arch' to 'radial loop'. I keep changing my mind!
Last night I thought it was a tented arch. Tonight I'm thinking radial loop again.

Patti Fri Mar 04, 2011 12:48 am

Yes, I agree!

I included all of the reference to the ridge count of an arch to keep it in context. The last sentence seems to give the explanation as to why. Which I interpreted to mean all tented arches.

I felt they were letting us know that they couldn't leave areas in their recording blank or put a zero. I would think the radial slant to the line the drew was to add to helping in the future if they were trying to pin a crime on Walt the marking of radial would narrow down any confusion in identification. That is how I interpret their explanation.

Cummins & Midlo had ways to come up with their data. I would imagine some may have come from recorded 'code' in the old fashion form of data processing. Someone was keeping track at Scotland Yard of the number of loops, arches, whorls and all the rest.

**Martijn (admin)** Fri Mar 04, 2011 12:53 am

Lynn wrote:
Martijn (admin) wrote:Can you please confirm:

Am I correct that in one of your earlier comments tonight you mentioned that the assessment would 'solely' depend on this issue related to the 'shoulder line'?

And if yes, am I correct that your assessment resulted (again) in:
a RADIAL LOOP...???
[/color]

yes I did say 'solely' - based on the latter part of this discussion. But I think there are earlier parts of the discussion that I did not take into account. So maybe wrong to have made that statement. I should go back and read the early parts of the discussion again.

I have veered several times from 'tented arch' to 'radial loop'. I keep changing my mind!
Last night I thought it was a tented arch. Tonight I'm thinking radial loop again.

Okay, thanks for your answers.

It makes sense for me that you kept switching back to the 'radial loop'... but I understand that you will strive for not making any more mistakes before presenting a final assessment.

Sounds fine with me, take your time.

EDIT: PS. Lynn, I noticed how Patti took my italic-words as an 'offence' (see one of her later comments), but those words are a response to your plan to read the early parts of this discussion again.

Patti Fri Mar 04, 2011 12:55 am

Tented Arch:

1) Upthrusts and not a recurving loop

2) If there were a loop, it is spoiled by the spike and small upthrust on the outside of the recurving loop.

3. If it were a loop the central rod, or rising ridge is found below the shoulders. The shoulder line definitely turns inward or curves. A recurve is the location between the shoulders and is neither heading up or down, but across - usually at a curve and not a sharp angle.

My conclusion is in agreement with Richard Unger and the FBI, Tented Arch.

Martijn has shown way too much confusion in the past few days for me to give any support to his new theories on the locations of the shoulders and core.

These items have only become of concern for his proof of his theory once he realized their importance.

Lynn had correctly recognized the location of the shoulders and then backed off after Martijn began his smoke and mirrors routine all over again.

**Martijn (admin)** Fri Mar 04, 2011 1:12 am

Lynn wrote:NB notified that someone posted while I was writing. I'm hitting "send" without reading the latest post

Martijn (admin) wrote:Thanks Lynn,

Great to hear that you have tried to study the details of our discussion, and I observe that your thoughts haven't really changed since the beginning of the discussion (you were able to see the 'looping ridge line' in all three prints soon after each of them were posted).

And yes, I can understand that for multiple reasons so far you were not able to make up your mind regarding our assessments.

But I have small specific request:

Would you please mind to post a thought regarding the quality of the 'LIGHT 1937 print'?
Do you see any significant problems regarding the quality of that print?

(I would really appreciate a comment from your side because I know that just like Patti and myself you are quite experienced with studying inkprints, etc.)

Hi Martijn, sorry I forgot about your request. I think originally you asked my opinion about "quality of 1937 print" (before editing to ask about LIGHT 1937 print)? Your original request confused me a little (as you said 'print' rather than 'prints') as I have no problem with 1937 prints. I wondered if you meant to ask about 1933 print which I find the most confusing because of excess ink. Anyway, now your question is clarified, I think the light 1937 print is the clearest of all 3 prints.

...

Lynn, regarding your comment from about 1 day ago regarding the quality of the prints:

Thanks for sharing your thoughts regarding the quality of the three prints, I am happy to hear you and I also agree that the 'LIGHT 1937 print' can best be described as the clearest of all 3 prints.

And that the '1933 print' is most confusing due to the excess ink (though I think we both spotted likewise problems with the 'DARK 1937 print').

PS. Regarding your further considerations, please be aware that the quality of the prints concerns one of the issue where Patti and I were hardly able to find any agreement (she suggested to ignore both 1933 prints, and our discussion only started 'moving' after I honoured her request to focuss our thoughts first on the '1933 print'. After you re-entered the discussion we soon were able - with your feedback - to pass beyond the 'white patch'... which was a MILESTONE because then it became obviously that we actually NEEDED to consider the '1937 prints' as well.

But obviously the quality of the prints is still a point disagreement, so I would recommend to focuss your further recommendations on especially the similarities between all three prints.

Patti Fri Mar 04, 2011 1:44 am

The F.B.I. "The Science of Fingerprints" Page 194 book and 191 on the website)

"The degree of enlargement is not important in itself, so long as the ridges of the latent print are readily distinguishable by the eye.

Ten diameters have been found adequate, although any enlargement from 5 to 30 will serve.

It should be remembered, however, that small enlargements are difficult to see a few feet away and that large ones lose some of the contrast between ridges and background."

The F.B.I.

Patti Fri Mar 04, 2011 1:47 am

Patti Fri Mar 04, 2011 2:01 am

Lynn wrote:
Patti wrote:
Patti wrote:
Lynn wrote:We can sure see why the person who identifed Walt's prints put both t and \ (tented arch and loop). It's a close call!

Lynn!!!
They did not put loop!!!!!

I have quoted twice from the FBI's "The Science of Fingerprints" that that is just a formality. And not related to a loop!!!

"When interpreting a pattern consisting of two ending ridges and a delta but lacking a recurve, do not confuse the ridge count of the tented arch with that of the ridge count for the loop. 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 on the web and top of page 37 in the book.

Lynn, did you check this out for yourself?

I wasn't talking about the ridge count. I was talking about the symbols drawn at lower right side of print. t for tented arch and \ for radial loop

Lynn,
Wouldn't you think the classification of a pattern that was a mix of two prints be classified as "accidental"?

Patti Fri Mar 04, 2011 2:23 am

Patti wrote:Tented Arch:

1) Upthrusts and not a recurving loop

2) If there were a loop, it is spoiled by the spike and small upthrust on the outside of the recurving loop.

3. If it were a loop the central rod, or rising ridge is found below the shoulders. The shoulder line definitely turns inward or curves. A recurve is the location between the shoulders and is neither heading up or down, but across - usually at a curve and not a sharp angle.

My conclusion is in agreement with Richard Unger and the FBI, Tented Arch.

Martijn has shown way too much confusion in the past few days for me to give any support to his new theories on the locations of the shoulders and core.

These items have only become of concern for his proof of his theory once he realized their importance.

Lynn had correctly recognized the location of the shoulders and then backed off after Martijn began his smoke and mirrors routine all over again.

I think I have learned a very valuable piece of information about the science of classifying fingerprints.

It's the same basic foundation principle we have in reading the creases.

That is, we must always consider the combinations. We must look also at the other hand to get an impression of what kind of mirroring effect is taking place.

Looking at the list I've made in the above post of specific features that causes the classification of what appears to be a loop to actually be a tented arch, it is clear that these features are all features that are found when a pattern really isn't a loop.

The more narrow the space between the shoulders, the closer the sides are to each other. If there is only one recurving ridge, then there's an indication it wasn't meant to be a loop.

The more narrow the space the higher the shoulders, not giving room for a rod or rising ridge to rise above the shoulders.

If there are spikes or upthrusts on the outside of the innermost recurving ridge, it most likely indicates a ridge was heading a different direction than the ridge it is spiking or thrusting up from.

This combination of rules for how a loop is spoiled and is classified as a tented arch all work together with the basic rules of the loop and the tented arch to add 'checks and balances' to the system.

Worth all the effort here, just for that understanding and additional insight! sunny

**Martijn (admin)** Fri Mar 04, 2011 2:24 am

Patti wrote:...

My conclusion is in agreement with Richard Unger and the FBI, Tented Arch.

Martijn has shown way too much confusion in the past few days for me to give any support to his new theories on the locations of the shoulders and core.

These items have only become of concern for his proof of his theory once he realized their importance.

Lynn had correctly recognized the location of the shoulders and then backed off after Martijn began his smoke and mirrors routine all over again.

Patti, I would like to share a few responses here:

1 - First al all, your 'theory' about Lynn's mistake is rather amusing: because Lynn clearly described how she recognized herself that she made a mistake in her analysis regarding the 'ridge count' only ... okay, I admit: she spotted that mistake after I asked her for more details about her (preliminary) assessment only.

So to me your 'theory' almost sounds like your perceived my rather simply question as an act of 'black magic'... scratch

2 - Second, let's be aware... that Richard does not use the official international criteria for fingerprint pattern assessment (as described in the F.B.I. book).

For example, he uses his own criteria for identifying a 'tented arch' (he focusses solely on: the position of the triradius + the impression of a 'tent pole' ); even if there had been a 'ridge count' of 3 or even higher, Richard whould still assess this fingerprint as a 'tented arch' or a 'loop-tented arch'.

Richard is himself very aware that the F.B.I. is using much more detailed criteria, and he designed his system for his 'life purpose' program (which does not include considerations regarding 'ridge count', 'shoulders', etc).

3 - Patti, finally... at this moment I think I have only one single unanswered question for you to answer:

Because I am still puzzled regarding the issue where you position the 'core' in your assessment of Disney's fingerprint. So far, I have noticed that you presented various pictures with 'green horizontal lines' going through the 'core'.

But I also noticed that you actually confirmed Lynn's thought when she described her thoughts about that if the central ridge line would not reach the 'shoulders line', then the 'core' would become positoned at the 'right shoulder'.

I mentioned this 'contradiction' between your pictures and your 'agreement' about what Lynn described; and I also invited you to describe explicitely where you position the 'core' in your assessment.

MY QUESTION:

Patti, can you please describe at which location your position the 'core' in Disney's fingerprint?

Patti Fri Mar 04, 2011 2:39 am

Well Martijn, since only loops have cores and we only need to concern ourselves with cores when working with loops; I never placed the core.

I have always worked with the *core* you positioned.

Although you haven't noticed, I have cooperated with many of your requests.

I have seen only a tiny amount of value in the pixelated 1937 prints. (your original source is already pixelated) Once you agree to work with the 1933 print, I fairly met you half way and worked with all 3 prints. Even added a 4th with the right index finger.

I agree with the FBI's acknowledgment that overly enlarged images lose contrast between the background and the ridges. The gray areas are unknow. Could be blacker, could be whiter. In that case the 1933 print, even with it's over inked areas, is clear in areas that are relative to it's designation as a tented arch and the qualities that spoil the possibility of a loop.

I was deeply disappointed that you have failed to even acknowledge the characteristics of the right index finger other than to question about a mirror effect.

Thank you for sharing that Richard had created his own system. I wasn't aware of that.

That would seem to indicate that even in his looser parameters than the FBI's he still saw the qualities of a tented arch and not a loop.

So, to be clear, I have never set a core. I have only used yours. Remember, not long ago I asked you why you kept bringing up core, because I didn't see how it related. It was by studying further the information, the rules, I discovered the rule about the core needing to not be set below the shoulders.

Patti Fri Mar 04, 2011 3:15 am

Lynn wrote:I would put the yellow line slightly higher, especially on the right side (my right-hand side as I look at it), so instead of being horizontal it would be oblique line. (sorry I can't draw it).

This is why the shoulders are very important, because the classification of this print seems to depend solely on whether the single central ridge reaches the shoulders. And this is where the rules are still open to some degree of interpretation ie regarding exactly where the shoulder line is.

We can sure see why the person who identifed Walt's prints put both t and \ (tented arch and loop). It's a close call!

I agree, Lynn said she thought the right shoulder should be placed higher than where you placed it.

She didn't give any reasons as to why or where she would place it. Her natural instincts were to see that you had placed the core below the shoulders before there had been any discussion of shoulders.

But she can speak for herself.

Was she speaking of your sample, if that were an accurate representation of the points of the shoulders, as having 1 ridge count? Or was she making a statement that now she not only sees the core as the necessary height but as well as 1 ridge count can be made between the delta and the farthest shoulder on the Disney prints?

I'd prefer to hear Lynn's answer rather than your reinterpretation of her response.

How arrogant, rude and condescending of you to suggest that Lynn will be careful of making mistakes before she gives her opinion. When you have blundered and barnumed all over the place!!

Thumb down

**Martijn (admin)** Fri Mar 04, 2011 3:29 am

Okay Patti, thanks for answering my question. Great to know that you and I still appear to have a point of agreement regarding the 'core' in Disney's fingerprint.

Regarding the position of the 'core', it is really a necessary aspect to be considered for any arbitrary 'complex' fingerprint that could potentially meet the characteristics of both a 'loop' or a 'tented arch'. Because, as you know: both the triradius + the core require to be located in order to assess the presence or absense of the 3rd requirement for a loop: the 'ridge count'.

And obviously, we saw earlier that Lynn's doubt was so far directly related to the issue of the 'ridge count'.

PS. A few more thoughts about the fingerprint of the right hand, please consider first the following example:

If we would have been faced with an 'ulnar loop' on each of both index fingers, then we first would have to create a 'mirror image' of one of those prints before we could study the similarities of those prints regarding the EXACT position of certain elements in both fingerprints.

Because, if do not create a 'mirror image'... and you start comparing the position of the 'core' and the triradius by drawing a line through those points in both fingerprints, then you will find that those lines are positioned in a different direction... due to the 'mirror-effect' of the right hand and the left hand.

Therefore creating a 'mirror image' is really necessary for considering the position of axes like you tried to do earlier in this discussion. But I noticed that you decided to continue to work with the original prints.

But for me it would not make sense to even start considering a comparison between a 'radial loop' on the left finger, and an 'ulnar loop' on the right finger. Because basically, then we are talking about completely different types of fingerprints: radial vs. ulnar types.

Back to the Disney example:

So, from my point of view it is not useful to even start considering the similarities/differences between the index fingers in Disney case, because the left fingerprint has a 'radial element', while the right fingerprint has has normal (ulnar) whorl.

In such a situation I would at least prefer to see that for one of both fingerprints a 'mirror image' is made to compensate the radial vs. ulnar types. But despite that you responded that you understood my point, you simply continued to use the original prints of both fingers - without any attempt from your side to explain to me why you still prefered to continue with your approach (and as a result I lost my interest... especially because we were not even close to any agreement about the three prints of the same finger).

But now there is more time to consider this issue if you want.

Patti Fri Mar 04, 2011 3:35 am

Both the 1933 print of the left index finger print at the center and the right index fingerprint have a squarish angular shape.

Can you see this similarity? The spiral is not round. This gives credibility to the angular shape of the center of the left index finger.

Doesn't matter if it is mirrored, radial or ulnar - the center is angular and not rounded like a typical whorl or loop.

**Martijn (admin)** Fri Mar 04, 2011 3:48 am

Sorry Patti, I hardly see any similarity between the left- and the right print. I don't see any 'squarish' shape.

Patti Fri Mar 04, 2011 3:52 am

If the core would be placed on Walt Disney's left fingerprint, it would first be placed on the top of the only rod, upthrust, central rising ridge - whatever you wish to call it.

I agree with this because the ridges on each side are obviously curving in different directions around the upthrust or rod.

Because of the blurry gray edges of the 1937 prints caused by enlargement of a photocopy that was scanned and uploaded to a computer years ago before our current higher grade technology....., this core should be placed at the darkest point of the tip of this rod in all three images. In the 1933 print it was noted that in your coordinates that you accounted for bleeding or overinking and placed the core in the same location as the 1937 prints.

Since this core location is below the shoulder line of the ridges you see as recurving, the core must, by the rules, move to the right shoulder. The right shoulder should be accurately placed at a point where the 'recurve' is finished and we are heading down the other side of the 'loop'.

This places the right shoulder very high on the right side. As you can see the top area "between the shoulders" over the top of the core, quickly goes from up to down the other side. There is very little, if any, distance in the recurve or between the shoulders.

When you draw the shoulder line from the left shoulder, where you have placed it at the spike (I agree) to the location I see as the right shoulder, there is no ridge count, between the delta and the shoulder. The rod is still too low to be counted as a ridge, as it is below the shoulder. And it is below the line between the core and the delta.

You seem to forget about that rule. You must draw a line from the delta to the core, if there isn't a ridge between them, no ridge count.

Patti Fri Mar 04, 2011 3:53 am

Martijn (admin) wrote:
Sorry Patti, I hardly see any similarity between the left- and the right print. I don't see any 'squarish' shape.

I didn't think you would be able to. It would mean acknowledging the biological facts.

lol!

Patti Fri Mar 04, 2011 3:55 am

You know, I'm imagining that this thread of conversation with the many times we've mentioned FBI across an international board, that we are/have been observed by the FBI.

Wonder if they are taking bets?

rolling on the floor

<the link is probably being passed along in emails by FBI fingerprint specialists - I wish one of them would just post!

Sponsored content