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

3) Hot pink Delta is the closest bifurcation open to the core (top of rod)

Lynn wrote:

3) Hot pink Delta is the closest bifurcation open to the core (top of rod)

Is hot pink delta the one Martijn previously labelled as "bifurcation 4" (from memory, I haven't checked back)? But that bifurcation doesn't open to the core, it opens downwards.

Patti wrote:I can't find the post now, but it was either during or before this series, where he changed the angle of the ridge between the yellow dot and the purple dot and said there was a bifurcation there. I drew it in a later image as a small purple arrow
.......
Notice the bend now drawn into this image above the yellow dot?

Lynn wrote:

3) Hot pink Delta is the closest bifurcation open to the core (top of rod)

Is hot pink delta the one Martijn previously labelled as "bifurcation 4" (from memory, I haven't checked back)? But that bifurcation doesn't open to the core, it opens downwards.

When there is a choice between two or more possible deltas, the following rules govern:

● The delta may not be located at a bifurcation which does not open toward the core.

In figure 26, the bifurcation at E is closer to the core than the bifurcation at D. However, E is not immediately in front of the divergence of the type lines and it does not open toward the core. A—A and B—B are the only possible type lines in this sketch and it follows, therefore, that the bifurcation at D must be called the delta. The first ridge count would be ridge C.

Lynn wrote:...

But I understood the bifurcation differently, I don't think I have misunderstood it. I thought in bifurcation it was the narrow angle (the V shape) that had to be open to the core, and not the 2 angles that are over 90 degrees.
(edit PS) also I can't find the rules about 'if the limb of a bifurcation is POINTING at the core'.

Hi Lynn,

Yes, I can confirm that you did not misunderstood the issue of how a bifurcation requires to 'open to the core' (as described by the first delta-rule on page 12).

What you describe is correct: the issue relates only to the most narrow angle in a bifurcation. Figure 26 indeed confirms this issue regarding point E (which is rejected as the delta because the most narrow angle opens downward - direction: south-west ... while the 'core' is obviously not found in that zone).

For the same reason can 'bifurcation 4' not be the delta in the Disney print (see the picture below - which I introduced on page 25 of this discussion.




PS. I never talked about a point between 'bifurcation 1' and 'bifurcation 4'.

But I can make the following 3 observations:

1 - I understand how Patti associates what she described as the 'hot pink dot' with the visual appearance of the 'dark 1937 print' (see below)... but the problem is that this 'impression' can easily be described as just another visual-illusion due to the horizontal CREASE (+ the slight abundance of ink in the dark 1937 print).



2 - And... my CREASE-hypothesis is confirmed by my last illustration of the 1933 print: where we can clearly see that there are even two small inkdots - but both are too narrow to be associated with a ridge line. And only the lower of the two small inkdots could match with the location of Patti's 'hot pink dot' (because the small ink dot is positioned almost at the west side of 'bifurcation 4' - while in the 'dark 1937 print' is positioned at a clearly lower positon).

Because one can clearly see in my picture how the location of the lower small indot indeed matches with the location of the CREASE... see the longest brown line in the picture below:



3 - And finally... one can not simply ignore the fact that in the 'light 1937 print' (see the picture below) there is no trace of such a... sixth 'bifurcation' at all!




...

After considering these DETAILS... I can only conclude again:

Each of the prints sort of presents basically the same details, but in order to recognize these similarities one should not deny the consequences of the clear abundance of ink in 2 of the 3 prints + the phenomena that result from the crossing CREASES.


Lynn, if these 3 observations make sense for you... than I hope that you also recognize how the two elements that I mention in my conclusion really are required to be considered in order to understand my final assessment.

And if so, then I think you and I were only not able (yet?) to find an agreement regarding the exact position of the shoulder line. Therefore I am still interested to hear your thought, observations and/or objections regarding my assessment of that line!

Lynn wrote:Patti, you illustrated it yourself quite clearly on page 25 of this discussion





You also quoted this on page 25 of this discussion: Is this the example you mention in your last post? "There is an example, that has bifurcations in both directions, in the book that they suggest we study to understand what they mean."

When there is a choice between two or more possible deltas, the following rules govern:

● The delta may not be located at a bifurcation which does not open toward the core.

In figure 26, the bifurcation at E is closer to the core than the bifurcation at D. However, E is not immediately in front of the divergence of the type lines and it does not open toward the core. A—A and B—B are the only possible type lines in this sketch and it follows, therefore, that the bifurcation at D must be called the delta. The first ridge count would be ridge C.

E does not open to the core, (ie the narrow angle is open to the outer recurving ridge)

A bifootcation or a bifruitcation?

Patti wrote:Fig. 31 has forks aiming up and aiming down, but they say none of them are open to the core. So I don't think it's the forked side heading up or down the looping pattern.

"In figure 31, A—A and B—B are the type lines, with the dot as the delta. The bifurcations cannot be considered as they do not open toward the core."

Lynn wrote:

A bifootcation or a bifruitcation?

haha I know exactly what you mean.
I walked past a gothic window yesterday that looked something like this...

and my brain said "Ah, bifurcation open to the core. But what are the implications of the bifurcation ridge lines crossing the recurve?" Then I thought "oh gawd, I'm going crazy, it's a WINDOW"

Also my recent dream about walking in a maze. In aerial view, the high hedges became fingerprint ridges. And my dream about walking the derbs in the medina of Fes, but the intricate passages & alleyways turned out to be all twists and turns of skin ridges of a huge fingerprint. (Fes has 9,500 alleyways!). It's getting into our subconscious! I think we may go crazy eventually if we continue with this discussion!

Patti wrote:At first I thought E in fig. 26, was forking off of the branch from the delta closer to the parting parallel ridges.

Another way to look at it, is that it's a fork at the end of a branch with its ends touching/abutting the ridge from the delta inside the type line. Looking at it that way, the side to the core is about 180 degrees. That's a straight line. I read somewhere else about the difference between bifurcations and triradii was the degrees over 120 and under another figure. I don't recall the degree.

<edit> (I see rising and touching the outer ridge is how you described it too)

I read somewhere else about the difference between bifurcations and triradii was the degrees over 120 and under another figure. I don't recall the degree.

Patti wrote:Any pixel in the gray areas on the 1937 prints could actually be white or black. The software couldn't tell so it made it gray.

It would seem likely the software made a lightly impressed or thin ridge gray.

White areas would probably stay white.

So any gray area could represent an actual ridge that couldn't be picked up by the technology available when the photocopy of the original was made, and then a scan of the photocopy in order to upload to the computer.

Lynn wrote:

Patti wrote:Fig. 31 has forks aiming up and aiming down, but they say none of them are open to the core. So I don't think it's the forked side heading up or down the looping pattern.

"In figure 31, A—A and B—B are the type lines, with the dot as the delta. The bifurcations cannot be considered as they do not open toward the core."

exactly, It's not about the fork 'heading up or down the looping pattern', it's about it aiming to the core. If you follow a straight line from the centre of the forks on Fig 31, the V aims outwards, it does not aim towards the core as in your diagram



where the V clearly aims to the core. If the core dot fell down, it would be caught in the base of the V. That couldn't happen in fig 31. It would disappear down the parallel lines between the delta.

Lynn wrote:

Patti wrote:Any pixel in the gray areas on the 1937 prints could actually be white or black. The software couldn't tell so it made it gray.

It would seem likely the software made a lightly impressed or thin ridge gray.

White areas would probably stay white.

So any gray area could represent an actual ridge that couldn't be picked up by the technology available when the photocopy of the original was made, and then a scan of the photocopy in order to upload to the computer.

I think I can agree with this. Similarly, any black area in 1933 print could be white or grey or black, because of excess grease in the process of creating lithograph causing excess ink in the final picture. I prefer light 1937 print, seems clearest to me.

Overall, I think we can look at these 3 prints in various different ways, depending on resolution/zoom, how we decide to place the shoulders, if we agree on delta & core, how we choose to interpret the FBI book. We are looking at hugely zoomed prints here. If I was reading this face to face I would say "radial loop". But my last see-saw in this discussion landed on "tented arch". Since then I don't understand all the maths about where to place shoulders, and as I said earlier - the shoulder placing seems critical in this particular print.

This discussion has been fascinating to me. Thanks Patti & Martjn, nobody else seems to care about it. I just wish I could leave it here and get on with other things. Tho I fear I will be drawn back in!

Lynn wrote:

Patti wrote:At first I thought E in fig. 26, was forking off of the branch from the delta closer to the parting parallel ridges.

Another way to look at it, is that it's a fork at the end of a branch with its ends touching/abutting the ridge from the delta inside the type line. Looking at it that way, the side to the core is about 180 degrees. That's a straight line. I read somewhere else about the difference between bifurcations and triradii was the degrees over 120 and under another figure. I don't recall the degree.

<edit> (I see rising and touching the outer ridge is how you described it too)

I'm a bit confused by your comments here Patti. E is a bifurcation that is open to (V shape open to ) erm,,,nothing much apart from an outer curving ridge. Nothing can fall into it, it's not 'open to the core'.

I read somewhere else about the difference between bifurcations and triradii was the degrees over 120 and under another figure. I don't recall the degree.

Bifurcation is a ridge line that splits into two. Usually one angle is smaller than the other 2 angles (& less than 90 degrees). It is the narrowest angle that we need to consider re "opening to the core".
Triradii are 3 diverging curved ridge lines (hence the name triradii - 3 radiuses, part of 3 circles). Patti - I am sure you know what a triradius is! Triradius is 3 curving ridge lines that kind-of form a triangle. Basics of dermatoglyphics! eg on mounts, fingerprints, axial triradius at base of palm etc. I am not sure why you now seem to be confused by triradius, because I am sure you know what it is!

Patti wrote:If you switch to using the medical rules for identifcation rather than the FBI's, then the fact that the triradius is centrally located makes it a tented arch. This is in Penrose. See above.