Re: Intro to 5 element chirology

**Martijn (admin)** Mon Sep 20, 2010 7:30 pm

Lynn wrote:
I guess we could draw up a 'phantom picture' like the ones you made for Down's syndrome etc that would show 'earth type features' 'fire type features' etc.

Lynn, that is a great idea, I expect people will very likely enjoy to see such pictures for each of the 4 elements.

**Lynn** Mon Sep 20, 2010 7:49 pm

by the way Martijn, did you understand what I meant in earlier post when I said
"Looking for a 'typical' earth/water/fire/air hand .... might even cause confusion, eg people might think that an 'earth hand' should have arch fingerprints, rather than seeing arch fingerprints as an earthy feature on any handshape"
??

**Martijn (admin)** Mon Sep 20, 2010 8:44 pm

Lynn wrote:by the way Martijn, did you understand what I meant in earlier post when I said
"Looking for a 'typical' earth/water/fire/air hand .... might even cause confusion, eg people might think that an 'earth hand' should have arch fingerprints, rather than seeing arch fingerprints as an earthy feature on any handshape"
??

Yes Lynn, I think I understand your point about the confusion - but I also think that any confusion would likely be related to (mis)understanding the difference between 'earth hand' requirements and the additional features that relate to the element 'earth'.

Obviously, arch fingerprints are not a requirement to recognize an 'earth hand'.

Correct?

But what's next beyond the 'hand shape'... ???
Only a long list of hand aspects?

For example, on page 69 in Jennifer's book there are a few guidelines for how to create an elemental 'hand chart, starting with': "Take each feature and pattern of the hands and write down your findings"... scratch

but obviously Jennifer, you and I realize that there are literally 100's of variables in every hand.

But, Oh...nooo!

... how 'practical' is this first guideline really?

(Just a rethorical question of course Basketball

)

I guess the reason why I have started discussing this issue is that there appears to be no theoretical concept nor hierarchical practical quidelines about how to evaluate the SUMMARY of individual hand characteristics. Though from your words I understand that the typical 'earth hand shape' (square palm + short fingers) is one of the major requirements.

Just to illustrate what appears to be missing... for example: in Richard's life purpose theory specified combinations of the 10 fingerprints (+ 'gift markings') are key elements. But beyond 'hand shape'... what's next in the elemental-approach?

So, Lynn I think I fully understand your point about confusion - but since you and I are willing to answer questions... I don't see much reason to fear the consequences of what we are discussing here.

**Lynn** Mon Sep 20, 2010 9:33 pm

Martijn (admin) wrote: Yes Lynn, I think I understand your point about the confusion - but I also think that any confusion would likely be related to (mis)understanding the difference between 'earth hand' requirements and the additional features that relate to the element 'earth'.
Obviously, arch fingerprints are not a requirement to recognize an 'earth hand'.
Correct?

Correct. The confusion can come between 'earth hand (shape)', 'earth hand features' and 'earth type person'.

Martijn (admin) wrote:
But what's next beyond the 'hand shape'... ???
Only a long list of hand aspects?

Yep!
Ok lets start with hand shape, 4 pure element types of handshape (discounting 'combination hand shapes).
Next maybe skin texture, 4 more element possibilities. 4x4=16, already we have 16 possible combinations.
Now maybe fingerprints (to make it easy lets assume all fingers are the same type of print), 16x4 = 64 possible combinations so far and we only looked at 3 aspects of the hand,... Next feature will bring 256 possible combinations....and so it goes on. Thousands (maybe millions!) of possible combinations.

I guess the reason why I have started discussing this issue is that there appears to be no theoretical concept nor hierarchical practical quidelines about how to evaluate the SUMMARY of individual hand characteristics.
Just to illustrate what appears to be missing... for example: in Richard's life purpose theory specified combinations of the 10 fingerprints (+ 'gift markings') are key elements. But beyond 'hand shape'... what's next in the elemental-approach?

Richard's only looking at fingerprints. Holistic hand analysis is much more complex!
You can only summarise once you have analysed every aspect of the hand. We are all individuals, so every hand analysis summary will be slightly different in some aspects. Though of course you can sum up generally which is their strongest / weakest element, which one they take for granted, which one they neglect or ignore, which one they put the most effort into, which one they fear, which one they would benefit from developing more... etc.

**Martijn (admin)** Mon Sep 20, 2010 9:58 pm

Okay, so after (1) 'hand shape' ... one can consider (2) 'skin texture' + (3) 'fingerprints'.

'Hand shape' + 'skin texture' ... I think that is a nice combination (combining the biggest elements with the smallest elements).

I think we at least arrived at an interesting + sensible point... thanks Lynn!!

PS. By the way, though Richard didn't mention the 'hand shapes' in his book, those are included in his approach as well (but I am not sure that he uses 'hand shapes' for 'life purpose' readings), see this page on his website:
http://www.handanalysis.net/beginners/handshapes.htm

**Lynn** Mon Sep 20, 2010 10:14 pm

Martijn (admin) wrote: PS. By the way, though Richard didn't mention the 'hand shapes' in his book, those are included in his approach as well (but I am not sure that he uses 'hand shapes' for 'life purpose' readings), see this page on his website:[/color]
http://www.handanalysis.net/beginners/handshapes.htm

Sorry, my apologies - when I said "Richard's only looking at fingerprints." I meant in the summaries he uses in your example: in Richard's life purpose theory specified combinations of the 10 fingerprints (+ 'gift markings') are key elements. . Of course I know that Richard is very experienced in studying all aspects of hands.

edit, I like the term Richard uses on his page about handshapes - building blocks. That is indeed what we are doing when looking at the elements - each feature is another brick in building up a picture of the person - or another piece to the jigsaw.

**Lynn** Mon Sep 20, 2010 11:44 pm

Martijn, I notice you said (about the earth hand you illustrated)
- middle finger length vs. palm length = 77% - while the average middle finger length is about 3/4 of the palm length, which implicates that the average is close to 75%
where were those "average" statistics taken? what sample?
I ask this because I think there is a difference between "average" middle finger length in a population, and "medium" finger length. eg in Western world fire hands predominate, which have shorter fingers (around 75% length of palm). Against air hand which have long fingers, 85% length of palm. So the "average" eg in Uk would be smaller than the average in a country where water or air hands predominate.
according to your stats then this finger is "average" not "short" ?
(I know you also measured it against width of palm, which in 5 element handshape only comes into secondary handshape classification for combination hands).

Sorry, I know we had this discussion before, but it was lost with Sue's forum!

**Martijn (admin)** Tue Sep 21, 2010 12:43 am

Lynn wrote:Martijn, I notice you said (about the earth hand you illustrated)
- middle finger length vs. palm length = 77% - while the average middle finger length is about 3/4 of the palm length, which implicates that the average is close to 75%
where were those "average" statistics taken? what sample?
I ask this because I think there is a difference between "average" middle finger length in a population, and "medium" finger length. eg in Western world fire hands predominate, which have shorter fingers (around 75% length of palm). Against air hand which have long fingers, 85% length of palm. So the "average" eg in Uk would be smaller than the average in a country where water or air hands predominate.
according to your stats then this finger is "average" not "short" ?
(I know you also measured it against width of palm, which in 5 element handshape only comes into secondary handshape classification for combination hands).

Sorry, I know we had this discussion before, but it was lost with Sue's forum!

Lynn, the 75% [normal range: 72%-78%]... was one of the results that I concluded during that discussion (actually, a few weeks ago I saved the full discussion with the help of google-cache).

Regarding your point, I explained why the middle finger is short with this former comment of mine:

"B - HANDSHAPE - FINGERS: Broad, short fingers:
- middle finger length vs. palm width = 80% - while the average middle finger length is only a bit smaller than the palm width: the average ratio is close to 97%.
- middle finger length vs. palm length = 77% - while the average middle finger length is about 3/4 of the palm length, which implicates that the average is close to 75% (normal range = 72% to 78%)."

I described there 2 aspects: according the first aspect (palm width) the finger is definitely short, but according the second aspect (palm length) the finger is average.

However, since we are talking about a relatively 'squarish (= short) palm'... I would be sensible to correct the average for the second aspect!

That's why the second aspect sort of can be ignored here... actually it would be wise to correct for both aspect... but obviously, even after correction according the first aspect the middle finger in my example is definitely short (80% is soóóó far away from 98%!!!!).

I hope this now makes sense?
(I guess some virtual thinking with the percentages is required to understand what I described, but I am confident on that what I described come very close to the truth in this case)

PS. Sorry, I am not familiar with how the elemental hand types vary among international populations - so I can not comment on that aspect of your thoughts. But I think my conclusions about the percentages in our former PI discussion were based on figures Western populations. But my main source was:

'Handbook of normal physical measurements' (see chapter 8: 'Limbs')
http://books.google.com/books?id=eklpJbP71msC

**Lynn** Tue Sep 21, 2010 12:49 am

Yes I "sort of" understand Very Happy

Maybe I should take more notice of finger length vs palm width in all hands, not just borderline/combination ones.

and thanks for quoting the source 'Handbook of normal physical measurements'
http://books.google.com/books?id=eklpJbP71msC
Thumbs up!

Patti Thu Nov 11, 2010 1:25 am

Lynn wrote:

Yep!
Ok lets start with hand shape, 4 pure element types of handshape (discounting 'combination hand shapes).
Next maybe skin texture, 4 more element possibilities. 4x4=16, already we have 16 possible combinations.
Now maybe fingerprints (to make it easy lets assume all fingers are the same type of print), 16x4 = 64 possible combinations so far and we only looked at 3 aspects of the hand,... Next feature will bring 256 possible combinations....and so it goes on. Thousands (maybe millions!) of possible combinations.

Lynn wrote:
I ask this because I think there is a difference between "average" middle finger length in a population, and "medium" finger length. eg in Western world fire hands predominate, which have shorter fingers (around 75% length of palm). Against air hand which have long fingers, 85% length of palm. So the "average" eg in Uk would be smaller than the average in a country where water or air hands predominate.

After reading through this thread, I think another there's another skill requirement of a good 'elemental' palm reader - math.
Smile

In readings do you take the time to actually make the measurements or do you trust your experience? (like in cooking, after a while you just know what a spoon of this and a tablespoon of that look like when you just pour straight into the pan without actually measuring)

**Lynn** Thu Nov 11, 2010 1:33 pm

Patti wrote:After reading through this thread, I think another there's another skill requirement of a good 'elemental' palm reader - math.

In readings do you take the time to actually make the measurements or do you trust your experience? (like in cooking, after a while you just know what a spoon of this and a tablespoon of that look like when you just pour straight into the pan without actually measuring)

Maths was one of my favourite subjects at school! Wink

In face-to-face readings, I can tell at a glance if it is an archetypal handshape.

If it's some fire combination hand (eg the fingers look a bit longer than standard fire, or the palm looks a bit narrower/wider), it depends on time factor. I might measure the hand print with a ruler. Or just roughly measure it against my own hand or guage the proportions using my pen as a measuring tool! Or I might not even bother with handshape. Fire combination is so common in UK & handshape is only a general indication of how they express their energy out. So I don't spend much time talking about it unless it is an obvious archetypal handshape.

**Lynn** Thu Jan 20, 2011 1:06 am

on the topic of "Hands & IQ", https://www.modernhandreadingforum.com/t522-hands-iq-guidelines-for-an-intelligence-assessment-via-your-hands#4422
Martijn said

What type of 'example' do you exactly have in mind?.....I am asking because I am very aware that any single case study might not me helpfull in this process

Exactly my thoughts when I was asked to present a "typical water hand" / "air hand" etc in this thread! I hope you understand now why I was reluctant!

**Christopher Jones** Thu Jan 26, 2012 11:44 pm

Talking about an 'earth person' is a simple way of saying someone who has dominant earth characteristics in their personality, however that is caused/manifested in their hands. Someone who is secure, stable, boring, dull, predictable, home oriented is 'earthy', as is a miner who lives in a small village in a rural area and grows their own vegetables. But they would be 'earthy' in a different way - and the hand features that reveal that earthiness would be different.

Really, to say someone is an 'earthy person' is a lazy way of talking, a kind of shorthand - and we should probably be more precise. The miner described above would have earth hand shape and probably fire skin texture and few, deeply etched lines on the hand. On the other hand, the other person described could have a large earth quadrant (ball of thumb); or a long earth finger; or 2+ simple arch finger prints (thumb & index, of course); or all of these and a water line that ends joined to the lifeline. Why they are 'earthy' of course is very different, and that is the skill and interest in handreading to find that out

**Martijn (admin)** Sun Jul 15, 2012 11:16 pm

Hi Lynn,

In my new 'finger length' project I have tried to make a connection with the elemental hand shapes - e.g. via guidelines + examples for the 4 hand shapes that are presented in the books presented by Johnny Fincham, Jennifer Hirsch and Fred Gettings.

The picture below is the (early) result that I want to share - but I will share my thoughts & observations later.

Fascinating stuff... basically, the authors appear to present each their own guidelines for recognizing each of the 4 hand shapes. But their examples together tell a story on it's own: because the examples for each hand shape turn out to be grouped in a way that is actually a bit surprising....!

Any thoughts (so far)?

Intro to 5 element chirology - Page 2 Finger-length-variations-hand-shapes

Intro to 5 element chirology - Page 2 Finger-length-variations-hand-shapes

**Lynn** Mon Jul 16, 2012 12:47 am

Thank you so much for taking into account the earth/water/fire/air hand shapes Intro to 5 element chirology - Page 2 769631

sorry, it's late here so I am too Sleep

to check it out. will reply tomorrow.
Intro to 5 element chirology - Page 2 627427

**Martijn (admin)** Mon Jul 16, 2012 9:42 am

Hi Lynn,

Basically, the picture suggests:

- Earth hand shape is typically featured with a palm shape characterized by a relatively WIDE palm breadth (because finger length is only short relative to the palm breadth... but not in the perspective of the palm length).

- Air hand shape is typically featured with a palm shape characterized by a relatively SHORT palm length (because finger length is only long relative to the palm length... but not in the perspective of the palm breadth).

So, this implicates a very significant difference in palm shape between the Earth hand shape and Air hand shape!

A likewise difference can be observed regarding the palm shape for the other 2 hand shapes:

- Water hand shape is featured with a palm shape characterized by a relatively NARROW palm breadth (because finger length is only long relative to the palm breadth... but not in the perspective of the palm length!).

- Fire hand shape is featured with a palm shape characterized by a relatively LONG palm length (because finger length is only short relative to the palm length... but not in the perspective of the palm breadth!).

I think this suggests that it is possible to present much more specified guidelines as an alternative for the rather general descriptions of the 'squarish' palm shape and the 'rectangular' palm shape that are mentioned in the works of Fincham, Hirsch and Gettings (without necessarily getting into details about measurements!!!)

Does this make sense so far?

PS. Fincham mentiones that the characteristics of the lines also a play a significant role for recognizing hand ~~shape~~ type... who knows, maybe there is even a correlation between the type of lines and this alternative proposal for recognizing elemental hand shape.

By the way, in Johnny's book I found a few clues (for air hands + fire hand only) which sort of directly CONFIRM these alternative (more specified) descriptions.

And maybe it some later stage it would become interesting for Jennifer and Johnny to participate in further discussion about these matters, etc.

Patti Mon Jul 16, 2012 4:26 pm

Lynn wrote:hi anu,
Yes, air hand has a square palm and long fingers in relation to length of palm, tho more like 85% than 80%. (edit - when I say "air hand" I am talking about air hand shape)
Measure middle finger & length of the palm from base of middle finger to top crease at the wrist. If finger is 85% or more of the length of the palm, fingers are long. 80% is medium fingers, 75% is short.
No, there is no "ether" hand. Just earth, water, fire, air and their combinations.

regards, Lynn

Hi Lynn and Martijn,
How would these new comparisons fit in the above percentages. Would it be possible Martijn to create a graph with Lynn's measurements for the elemental system and place the 3 participants you have chosen on it along with your averages?

**Martijn (admin)** Mon Jul 16, 2012 5:11 pm

Patti wrote:
Lynn wrote:hi anu,
Yes, air hand has a square palm and long fingers in relation to length of palm, tho more like 85% than 80%. (edit - when I say "air hand" I am talking about air hand shape)
Measure middle finger & length of the palm from base of middle finger to top crease at the wrist. If finger is 85% or more of the length of the palm, fingers are long. 80% is medium fingers, 75% is short.
No, there is no "ether" hand. Just earth, water, fire, air and their combinations.

regards, Lynn

Hi Lynn and Martijn,
How would these new comparisons fit in the above percentages. Would it be possible Martijn to create a graph with Lynn's measurements for the elemental system and place the 3 participants you have chosen on it along with your averages?

Yes Patti, that is one of the next steps that I have in mind.

By the way, Johnny is using sort of the same percentages that Lynn mentioned - though where Lynn mentioned 85%, Johnny is using 'seven-eighths the length of the palm' which would make 87.5%. Johnny is also using the 75%.

This implicates that Johnny's 87.5% is just above the horizontal dotted line at 0.87 in the picture (see the vertical scale), while Lynn's 85% is positioned at a larger distance below that line.

(Jennifer is defining palm length in the perspective of palm width at the location just above the implant of the thumb. She doesn't mention a percentage but I think she is working with likewise percentages that Lynn and Johnny mentioned - because she is a student of the British school as well. By the way, though Jennifer described palm shape more specified than Lynn and Johnny tend to do and sort of is using the same approach that I described, Jennifer only describes 2 different 'palm shapes'. Lynn mentioned earlier in this discussiong that palm width only becomes in issue in phase 2 of her palm shape assessment)

There are other points that I have in mind, but first I would like to see whether my proposal for making a specification regarding 4 different 'palm shapes' could potentially make sense for Lynn.

So, before presenting another picture I prefer to wait and see what Lynn's thoughts are regarding my picture.

Thanks!

**Martijn (admin)** Mon Jul 16, 2012 5:42 pm

Lynn wrote:Yes I "sort of" understand Maybe I should take more notice of finger length vs palm width in all hands, not just borderline/combination ones.
...

PS. Patti, I am hopeful that Lynn will understand the relevance of putting more value on the aspect of 'palm width', because earlier in this discussion she already mentioned that she is willing to consider that as an option (see above).

**Lynn** Mon Jul 16, 2012 5:47 pm

taking it one step at a time....

Earth hand shape is typically
featured with a palm shape characterized by a relatively WIDE palm
breadth (because finger length is only short relative to the palm
breadth... but not in the perspective of the palm length).

Martijn, I don't understand this conclusion about "finger length is only short relative to the palm breadth". In 5 element system we look at finger length compared to palm length.

E3 in the diagram would not be an earth hand, as the fingers are more than 80% the length of the palm.

**Martijn (admin)** Mon Jul 16, 2012 6:16 pm

Lynn wrote:taking it one step at a time....

Earth hand shape is typically
featured with a palm shape characterized by a relatively WIDE palm
breadth (because finger length is only short relative to the palm
breadth... but not in the perspective of the palm length).
Martijn, I don't understand this conclusion about "finger length is only short relative to the palm breadth". In 5 element system we look at finger length compared to palm length.

E3 in the diagram would not be an earth hand, as the fingers are more than 80% the length of the palm.

Hi Lynn,

Yes, let's take things one step at a time:

First I would prefer to jump to the E3 example that your mention (which relates to the first 'earth hand' example that is presented in Fred Gettings' book "The Hand and the Horoscope"):

Yes Lynn... I fully understand your problem here. However, for the moment I think we can focus on the fact that Gettings presented that hand as an example of an 'earth hand'.

Now, however, instead of focusing on any of the 12 specific examples in my picture, I would like to ask you to focuss your attention first on the three 'earth hand' examples together: out of the 12 hands those three are positioned closest to the zone 'short finger + earth hand shape'.

Now back to the words: "finger length is only short relative to the palm breadth": I only meant to relate those words to that specific zone (and not necessarily to all aspects of the three earth hand examples).

However, formally I could first add that those words do clearly apply to example E2 (which is positioned just on the left side of the horizontal 0.85 border). And secondly, I could also add that E1, E2 and E3 are all three positioned on the left side of the average values for males and females (the brown dots in the center of the picture).

Lynn, I am sort of only trying to present a 'frame work' to describe the key-differences among the 4 groups of hand shapes.

And I think only after accepting/understanding the complete 'frame work'... it could indeed make sense to QUESTION the validity of the individual examples that the authors presented!

Does this make sense?

(So, in summary: for a start I would recommend you to study the complete 'frame work'... in stead of starting a debate on whether all cases match with my proposal 'frame work'. Yes, you presented for sure a valid question, but not all aspects of the 12 cases necessarily have fit in the 'frame work'. I hope this makes sense)

Thanks!

**Lynn** Mon Jul 16, 2012 6:45 pm

Ok yes I understand what you are saying about how the examples fall on the graph into certain zones. and I understand what you said about "finger length is only short relative to the palm breadth" as pertaining to the group of earth hands plotted in the picture.

And I think only after accepting/understanding the
complete 'frame work'... it could indeed make sense to QUESTION the
validity of the individual examples that the authors presented!

Although I understand the framework that you are trying to present, I disagree with your above comment, because the framework (or the results) depends on accurate handshapes being plotted on the picture, so I think the first step is to make sure that the hands really ARE those shapes!

For example if W3 is not a true water hand, then your conclusion about

- Water hand shape is featured with a palm shape characterized by a relatively NARROW palm breadth (because finger length is only long relative to the palm breadth... but not in the perspective of the palm length!).

breaks down because the finger length in the other two examples is long relative to palm length (on my criteria of 85%).

**Martijn (admin)** Mon Jul 16, 2012 7:57 pm

Lynn wrote:Ok yes I understand what you are saying about how the examples fall on the graph into certain zones. and I understand what you said about "finger length is only short relative to the palm breadth" as pertaining to the group of earth hands plotted in the picture.

And I think only after accepting/understanding the
complete 'frame work'... it could indeed make sense to QUESTION the
validity of the individual examples that the authors presented!

Although I understand the framework that you are trying to present, I disagree with your above comment, because the framework (or the results) depends on accurate handshapes being plotted on the picture, so I think the first step is to make sure that the hands really ARE those shapes!

For example if W3 is not a true water hand, then your conclusion about

- Water hand shape is featured with a palm shape characterized by a relatively NARROW palm breadth (because finger length is only long relative to the palm breadth... but not in the perspective of the palm length!).
breaks down because the finger length in the other two examples is long relative to palm length (on my criteria of 85%).

Okay Lynn, sounds like a fine start for further discussion so far!

Yes, I can understand your argument/requirement above - and to a certain level I kind of agree.

However, please be aware that your (essential) request might be quite hard to answer for sure. Because, each author appears to present his/her own descriptions for the hand shapes... and therefore one could wonder:
- Who is going to decide which description is most accurate?
- And who is going to decide if an illustration serves as a valid example for a hand shape?

Maybe it requires some reading in the books of all three authors in order to recognize the fundamental problem here: basically, all three authors present different guidelines.

Though I am not denying that there are similarities in their approaches/definitions, for me none of the guidelines are sufficiently detailed to find clear results... probably because the attention is too much focused on the palm length - in isolation from the palm width).

So... there is the issue of 'hand width' again, that we were already confronted with earlier in this discusson: Fincham and Gettings hardly describe any guidelines for that aspect (though Fincham does mention that in a water hand finger length is required to exceed palm width... which is conform the 'frame work' that I propose).

So, yes Lynn, your requirement is valid as well...! However, each of the authors might give you a different answer regarding some of the examples. And please be aware: you are working with a 85% percentage, while Fincham (your collegue in elemental hand reading) uses a significantly higher percentage.... which actually appears to relate to 'abnormally long fingers'!!! So, I am not sure that you and Fincham would agree on all 12 cases, etc.

Now, because my fundamental 'frame work' is sort of resulting from the basics of the guidelines presented by the 3 authors... I think it would indeed make an interesting discussion to share our thoughts about individual cases. But it is important here that the 'frame work' is the result of all 12 cases together...!

Therefore I think it might not make much sense to consider cases in isolation from the 11 other eleven cases. So, if you find a problem... please try to figure out whether the problem might stand on it's own regarding an individual case, or whether it concerns an issue that is relevant for a significant number of the 12 cases.

Does this request from my side make sense?

(Lynn, for me it would not make sense for me to focus on a problematic aspect that applies to just 1 or 2 cases... because when the other 10 cases indicate that the 'frame work' produces satisfying results regarding that aspect, it would not make sense to reject the 'frame work' because 1 or 2 cases do not fit in this 'frame work' for that aspect, etc. I hope this makes sense)

PS. More specific regarding case E3 and W3: Lynn, do you have access to Gettings book? I have not much doubt regarding example W3 being a typical water hand (long finger + narrow/long palm), however... I have doubts about E3 being a typical earth hand (because the fingers are a bit slender and not short at all, though not long either - though the palm shape is for sure squarish).

Patti Mon Jul 16, 2012 8:13 pm

Martijn, would you mind sharing the page numbers of the pages you took your samples?

**Martijn (admin)** Mon Jul 16, 2012 8:27 pm

Patti wrote:Martijn, would you mind sharing the page numbers of the pages you took your samples?

Sure Patti, these are the illustrations that I featured in the picture:

- Fincham [The Spellbinding Power of Palmistry]: E1 = page 17, W1 = page 19, F1 = page 21, A1 = page 22.

- Hirsch [God Given Glyphs]: E2 = page 08, W2 = page 16, F2 = page 24, A2 = page 32.

- Gettings [The Hand and the Horoscope]: ... sorry I right now I have only access to the Dutch version of this book, not sure that the numbers are accurate but they always refer to the first illustration in the section for each hand shape: F3 = illustration 102, E3 = illustration 106, A3 = illustration 114, W3 = illustration 122.

Sponsored content