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

Patti wrote:

I do believe the hat creates the appearance of a tent in the middle of a curving horizontal plane...don't you? Or is it just an illusion?

Good Lord... now this is getting very funny:

Patti I am going to can dispute 'your tent' observation for this Disney picture because here you made just another fundamental mistake:



1) Mickey can here better be described... as a 'whorl', and his hat is 'your tent'!

2) NOTICE: The 'whorl' (= Mickey) is STANDING on THE horizontal plane... and 'your tent' (= Mickey's hat) is standing on the 'whorl'.

Conclusion: 'your tent' is not on THE horizontal plane, and can not be called an 'upthrust'.


Patti, the fundamental mistake in your comment about this Disney picture is here that you are talking about... "a" .... horizontal plane - as is if a horizontal plane can be found at ANY location in a fingerprints.

But there is only one horizontal plane in every fingerprint, because the truth is that THE horizontal plane is always ONLY be found at the bottom-side of any fingerprint.


Therefore in this case the 'hat' becomes completely irrelevant because it is found at the position on top of the whorl. This picture is 'whorl', and an 'upthrust' can not be positioned on top a whorl...!!


PS. Let me describe why this is actually an interesting illustration to remember:

Because what I just described relates to a common mistake that is sometimes made by 'palm readers' (not you Patti)... because sometimes they are talking about that the claim to have found an 'arch' below a 'loop' pattern.

But they make a likewise fundamental mistake like you did, because 'their arch'... is actually a part of the 'loop'... for their are actually talking about the horizontal plane!

Patti wrote:p.s. For some reason I am unable to upload images via the forum. When I follow the links that disallow me it shows the rules regarding using unauthorized images. I've been banned

I've had to use another source today. But it's too many steps.

Patti wrote:"The Science of Fingerprints"

Figures 145 to 148 are tented arches because of the angles formed by the abutting ridges at the center of the patterns.

http://postimage.org/image/2fvmxnblw/




Figure 155 is a plain arch because it is readily seen that the apparent upthrust A is a continuation of the curving ridge B. Figure 156 is a tented arch because ridge A is an independent upthrust, and not a continuation of ridge B.

http://postimage.org/image/2bj65fg10/




I think this in particular example you can see that another of your above mentioned theories doesn't hold water either. Notice how the upthrust is not connected to anything at all? Both your gold and green upward curving lines fit this description.

I believe I have addressed and discounted all of your theories and hopefully have drawn your attention to additional tented arch information in the "The Science of Fingerprints".

Hmmm... Patti, your decision to include only part of the picture is sort of illustrative for how you WANT to make things look a little bit differently then what they really are:

You are suggesting that picture 156 is applicable to our prints, but if we take a look at the full picture (see below)... we can see why it is actually quite UNFAIR to make such a claim, because the difference is so obvious:


NOTICE: NOTICE - To avoid any confusion about example 155: I added the red line just to illustrate how it represent the similarities with Walt Disney's print




Patti, picture 156 does not correspond at all with Walt Disney's fingerprint, because in picture 156 we can clearly see that there are actually 2 terminating ridges (because they are not directed to eachother).

Patti, this is an example of how you are sometimes 'fooling yourself'!


And instead, Walt Disney's fingerprint comes very close to the situation in picture 155... especially if we add one more line: the red line!

My reference to picture 155 is obviously applicable to the problem with the 'large white zone' in the 1933 prints (+ the corresponding zones in the other two prints).


Regarding your claim:

"I believe I have addressed and discounted all of your theories... "


Patti, the following indicates that your claim is build with rethoric-nonsense:

My assesment is founded on the similarities between all three prints, as seen in the picture below; and obviously, the coloured line relate very much to picture 155... and to picture 156.




How on earth can anyone deny that there are similarities between all three pictures?

Or even qualify these similarities as an 'irrelevant' coincidence?
Because I think these pictures illustrates that I did not build my assessment on any 'tiny' lttle aspect in those pictures.


Patti... while 'your upthrust'-theory really requires to ignore the fact that the connecting INK DOT (between the core ridge line & the lower ridge line) is seen in only two prints that CEARLY show an abundance of ink; you also ignore the fine quality of the LIGHT 1937 print'!


Therefore I call 'your upthrust'-theory a delusion, but you showed hardly any sensitivity for the details that I have described... and now you are even suggesting that I am sort of trying to trick you by calling me an 'illusionist'. I guess you actually highlightened yourself the 'competitive nature' of your arguments.

But I noticed & pointed out where the prints & examples do not confirm what you described with words.

And for me it is stricking to see... that you never really confirmed any detail of my statetements & visual illustrations. Contrary, I have always tried to answer your questions, and give you confirming feedback on points where you were able to add an element in our discussion, and I admitted the (small) mistakes that I made regarding minor issues in my (former) drawings.


I did what can, but have never been 'catching flies' (my thoughts regarding your Mickey example include a fundametal issue) and always tried to foccus on significant mistakes.

But I think the time now arrived to take my attention away from this discussion.

Anyway... Miss , thank you for your efforts!!

( )

Lynn wrote:Returned from 2 weeks holiday, catching up on the forum.
Wow, you guys have worked hard on this! Thanks, I love these discussions where we thrash out tiny details of dermatoglyphics! It's a very complex discussion to follow .
I doubt that you two are ever going to agree on it!!

Yes I saw the first example (1937) as a radial loop. Interesting to see the 1933 example which at first looks like a tented arch! I can still see where I thought the loop was, but it's confusing...with the black spots & white patch. I thought the white patch could be a scar or cut - if you look higher up the fingertip there are white patches where bits of skin ridge are missing.

...

Hi Lynn,

Thanks for sharing a quick thought about the 1933 print.
I am pleased to hear from you that you in that picture you can see the ridge lines as well where you thought the loop was in the other two pictures.

And I fully agree... the 1933 picture presents confusing elements.


Regarding your idea of the option of a scar or cut for the white patch... yes that zone in the 1933 print looks like it could have been caused by an unnatural factor. And obviously the other 2 prints show the presence of a ridge line. That is why I described that elements in the 1993 print as a flaw.


... Lynn, your quick comment sounds to me like you and I already found at least one significant point of agreement about that 1933 print!!

... While even after 4 days of discussion I think I never arrived at a likewise significant point-of-agreement about the 1933 print with my major discussion partner so far.

(I am quite sure that Patti never explicitely confirmed that the white patch is a major issue of concern regarding the quality of that 1933 print - her consideration regarding example 156 in the F.B.I. book illustrates her approach towards the white patch; I describe it once more below)


PS. In order to take away a large part of the confusion, I think you basically can focuss on the last picture in my former post - because that picture highlights far most of the (essential) zones in all three prints that Patti and I considered in this discussion.


* An illustrative example of the disagreement between Patti and my regarding the white patch' in prints 1933 is the following considerations (see also the picture below):

- Patti suggested that my 'gold and green lines' (see again the last picture of my former post) show similarities with example 156 in the F.B.I. book.

- While I recognize the conflicting element between the 156 picture and Disney's fingerprint; and instead... I actually preceeded her 156 picture example by pointing that I observe significant similarities between example 155 and Walt Disney's print.

( )

Patti wrote:...

You have been unable to talk me into seeing a radial loop. But when I worked my way through your numbered dots last night, I noticed that some of those markings actually formed a pattern of a whorl. I mentioned that.

I think it will be of great value to study the right index finger print.

There is a small single ridge spiral at the very core of the whorl. Note the angular formation of this central pattern. See the darker horizontal ridge and the upthrust like pattern. This I believe is what we are seeing in the left index finger. Perhaps in development the core began following directions for a whorl and arch like ridges entering from the sides forced the pattern we are intensely discussing.

Patti, this proofs again how delusions are made by not considering all crucial elements:

Regarding the whorl in the right index finger: yes, I can find the terminating ridge line on the right side of the 'core of the whorl'.

By the way... I can understand your association with an 'upthrust', but in the F.B.I. book this terminating ridge line would not have been described as an 'upthrust', because that ridge line obviously does not raise from the HORIZONTAL PLANE - because the left part of the connecting horizontal ridge line... is actually a constructing ridge of the whorl!


Anyway, ... my major concern about your consideration here regarding the similarities with the right index finger 'whorl' is the following:

You are completely ignoring the MIRROR-effect that really should be considered when comparing the finger of a right hand with the finger of a left hand!!

And therefore... it doesn't make sense at all to even associate the clearly visible terminating ridge line in the right index fingerprint, with the UNCLEAR situation in the left fingerprints.


I think your example illustrates again how you are trying to find evidence in details, which is basically a fine objective... but you also make obvious mistakes.

Patti, you claimed for your experience, but in this issue of comparing the right finger with the left finger you did not include the mirror-effect in your considerations, also not in your latest comments after one night of sleep ... this could easily be described as a 'beginners mistake'.

(But most other issues that we discussed... are definitely advanced considerations; so I am not trying to disqualify your experience anyhow)



PS. I think we can easily agree about the quality of the right index fingerprint: it is excellent... especially since we can follow here the path of EVERY SINGLE RIDGE LINE quite easily. And obviously in the left index fingerprint we are confronted with a much worser quality, and I can not understand why you never confirmed that there were elements of confusion.

By the way, Lynn made only a short comment about the 1933 print... but basically she confirmed that there are multiple elements that could be described as 'confusing'. This as well contradicts your conclusion expressed with your claim:

"I believe I have addressed and discounted all of your theories.."

....

Patti wrote:By the way, you do know that you drew a qualifying tented arch in the 155 sample??

Patti, formally that is a correct observation: (edit:) with my red line it becomes a 'tented arch'.

(Yes, I know that my red line could be assess as an 'upthrust' in this picture, but only because it is just above the horizontal plan... and outside the picture it could be connect with that plane, etc.)


So we can agree about that my version of the 155 example on it's own. But there is no way you can 'ridicule' my picture, because you should not forget:

I started using the 155 example in the perspective of our disagreement about the small white spots in Disney's fingerprint, specified to the zone of the LARGE WHITE SPOT.

And I added the red line to create a major visual similarity with Disney's fingerprint.
But for the 'visual effect' there was no need at all to add more element from the Disney fingerprints,,nor to mention for example that it only makes an MIRROR IMAGE, etc.

Martijn (admin) wrote:

Patti wrote:By the way, you do know that you drew a qualifying tented arch in the 155 sample??

Patti, formally that is a correct observation.

(Yes, I know that my red line could be assess as an 'upthrust' in this picture, but only because it is just above the horizontal plan... and outside the picture it could be connect with that plane, etc.)


So we can agree about that my version of the 155 example on it's own. But there is no way you can 'ridicule' my picture, because you should not forget:

I started using the 155 example in the perspective of our disagreement about the small white spots in Disney's fingerprint, specified to the zone of the LARGE WHITE SPOT.

And I added the red line to create a major visual similarity with Disney's fingerprint.
But for the 'visual effect' there was no need at all to add more element from the Disney fingerprints,,nor to mention for example that it only makes an MIRROR IMAGE, etc.

Patti wrote:...

You have misunderstood the meaning of the horizontal plane.

Remember 156 is a tented arch.

Patti wrote:
No where does it say that the ridge that forms an upthrust must ONLY be connected to a ridge from the horizontal plane. Read the 3 types and also read the exceptions. I quoted them in black in last night's posts. Study the FBI's illustrations.

Your argument now seems to only be based on your misconception of the horizontal plane. Once you see this error on your part, you will see that I can now say "checkmate"!

Martijn (admin) wrote:

Patti wrote:
No where does it say that the ridge that forms an upthrust must ONLY be connected to a ridge from the horizontal plane. Read the 3 types and also read the exceptions. I quoted them in black in last night's posts. Study the FBI's illustrations.

Your argument now seems to only be based on your misconception of the horizontal plane. Once you see this error on your part, you will see that I can now say "checkmate"!

Patti, you just asked me to read the tented arch definition, but then you must have forgotten that I already have quoted the definition of the 'tented arch' the which e.g. says:

"... An upthrust is an ending ridge line of any length rising at a sufficient degree from the HORIZONTAL PLANE, i.e. 45 degrees or more."




This means that a 'connecting ridge' is not a requirement, but there can only be an 'upthrust' when it concerns a line that is positioned at least partly (just) above the rest of the HORIZONTAL PLANE.


Yesterday, I have used Google books to check all pictures in the book where an 'upthrust' is discussed. And I noticed that all 'upthrust' examples in the F.B.I. book show indeed this characteristic as described in the definition.

And this made me realize as well that actually that both of 'your upthrusts' (that you presented in the Disney pictures)... do not show this essential characteristic. The lines involved in 'your upthrusts' are not: '... rising from the HORIZONTAL PLANE'.


MY CONCLUSION:

All details point out that you misunderstood how an 'tented arch' is created with an 'upthrust'.

(But I can understand your misunderstanding as well... because the issue of a recognize an 'upthrust' can definitely be described as an advanced aspect of fingerprint assessment).

Patti wrote:You post isn't making sense.

Can you draw the differences you are trying to describe? What you see in 156 that you are not seeing in Disney's print when you take away the dark spot.

Martijn (admin) wrote:

Patti wrote:You post isn't making sense.

Can you draw the differences you are trying to describe? What you see in 156 that you are not seeing in Disney's print when you take away the dark spot.

Yes Patti, I could describe the essential difference as follows:

The major characteristic seen in 156 example concerns 2 aspects: we see the 'upthrust' coming from the RIGHT SIDE, and there is (1) no doubt that the 'upthrust' is not connected with the other terminating line, and secondly (2) but the other terminating line is coming from the other side: the LEFT SIDE.

While in the Disney print, both concerning lines come from the same side.
Just like in the 155 example after I added the red line!!


So, this this combination of 2 aspects is the main reason why I rejected the example 156... and instead recognized how example 155 (even without my red line) at least shows the similarity regarding the 2 terminating ridges that directed towards eachother.

That is why the lower terminating line is NOT recognized as 'upthrust', resulting in that the F.B.I. book describes it as an arch!!


Patti, I hope this now make sense for you as well.