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

IF we can agree about that the 'looping ridge line' is not spoiled... than we SHOULD agree that it is a ... RADIAL LOOP.

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.

Patti, I think I've spotted an interesting point!

The F.B.I. uses slightly different rules than what Penrose described, because while the F.B.I. always position the (edit) DELTA triradius ON a ridge line, Penrose obviously described that sometimes the triradial point can be OUTSIDE a ridge line.

But I think it is unlikely that this tiny little difference would lead to a completely different classification of the Disney print... because that would simply not make sense!


So, if we take a closer look at the line that you underlined in Penrose's work:

"If the core of a loop is directed towards the radial side of the hand it is termed a radial loop; if directed towards the ulnar side it is called an ulnar loop. If the loop has neither of these directions but the core lies on one of the radiants of the corresponding triradius, then it is said to be tented, and usually been designated a tented arch."

Then I can not agree with how you read the underlined line in this quote, for two reasons...

First of all: Patti, why do you assume that the Disney print is not directed towards the radial side? Because if we follow the ridge line from the central core, then we can see that it ends at the radial side. And if we follow the ridge line from the 'looping ridge line'... we get there as well!

Secondly, even when we would agree that the 'core' in the Disney print is on the right shoulder of the 'looping ridge line'... then it still can not be described as being positioned on the 'radiant of the corresponding triradius' (see the requirement described by Penrose) because that radius is first passing 2 bifurcations before it arrives at the 'core', so even then... the 'core' does not lie on the radiant of the triradius!

(Just like Lynn just described: a looping ridge does not get spoiled by a bifurcation!)


Oh-oh... ... but now, I must also admit that I might have made another slight mistake:


Because only now I can even raise the option that we actually have a RADIAL LOOP with 'ridge count = 3' .... see the picture below!

Lynn wrote:I think I'm about to jump off the see-saw....

... Only a day ago I thought you would never make it!!


Lynn, I could imagine that my last comment might give you the courage to make that final jump... despite that Penrose & the F.B.I. use a slight different method, I think it is now very obviously that they both would follow your jump!


I am also glad to see that we finally found that we don't have to consider any 'angle-related stuff' at all to find that - after accepting of course that the abundance of ink in the 1933 prints should not be underestimated - there can only only be one answer that fits with what is seen in all three prints + also respects all the rules described by Penrose & the F.B.I.

Now it's up to you to decide under which 'angle' you are going to jump from the see-saw... but please be aware that the girl in the picture is only able to give you one hand... so she might be too busy with to taking care of 'her own seat'...

Martijn (admin) wrote:[color=darkred]Patti, I think I've spotted an interesting point!

The F.B.I. uses slightly different rules than what Penrose described, because while the F.B.I. always position a triradius ON a ridge line, Penrose obviously described that sometimes the triradial point can be OUTSIDE a ridge line.

the delta in fingerprints, which is the first obstruction of any nature at the point of divergence of the type lines in front of or nearest the center of the divergence.

Martijn (admin) wrote:



Patti, thanks for sharing those materials!

Because the content of both sources has significant implications for our Disney print...

While the F.B.I. book does not deal with the situation where the triradius manifests as a 'large triangle'... the word 'triangle' is not even mentioned, these 2 sources do describe what to do:

Quoted from "Dermatoglyphics in Medical Disorders" (page 34):

"Sometimes the triradial point does not lie on a ridge and is determined as the point where the three angles between the innermost ridges are each as near as possible to 120 degrees (Figure 3.5 E,F)."

This implicates that we now even have a 'scenario' available in which the issue of the SHOULDER LINE... becomes completely irrelevant!

Martijn (admin) wrote:

So, this implicates that we can safely assume that there is 'triangle', and according what is described by Penrose (Schaumann & Alter refer to the work of Penrose), in the Disney print the DELTA should actually be positioned INSIDE the triangle....!!!

And whether I am right of wrong about the 'shoulder line', it is no longer an essential element to be considered in our discussion, because with the DELTA positioned in the center of the 'large triangle'...that would only result in a discussion about whether the 'ridge count = 1... or 2 (and both situations result in a 'ridge count').

Penrose's work us to position the DELTA in the center of the 'large triangle'... and therefore there 'ridge count' is for sure not spoiled by a missing 'white zone' due to the connection between 'bifurcation 1' and 'bifurcation 4'!

Martijn (admin) wrote:

Sorry, Lynn, but if you are basing your new swing on Martijn's argument, you might want to look closer at the triradii and his interpretation as I pointed out in my last posts.

Patti wrote:I disagree (of course )

Figure 3.5 F is a tented arch. Upthrust on horizontal plane. There is no opening on the side of the upthrust.
..........
This last mentioned 3.5 A, is most likely a tented arch, too. The ridges on both sides appear to rise up against the sides of the upright ridge at an angle. It's possible that a ridge loops on the right or left, but we'd be looking at a similar situation to this discussion.

Patti wrote:

Martijn (admin) wrote:

You have drawn a tented arch formation with your yellow lines.

It's part of that concept where there is a triangle at the horizontal plane with a tent pole above it. Then if there is a single recurving loop it frequently is angled very tightly, 90 degrees or less.

Also, the upper yellow rising line is pointing to the core, at the location where you did have the yellow dot, you can now see that a radiant aims to the core and it is not "open" to the core.

See in all the examples in the uploaded triradii samples, there are three open sides, and you can't tell which is open to the core, except for the tented arches.

Patti wrote:


You have drawn a tented arch formation with your yellow lines.

It's part of that concept where there is a triangle at the horizontal plane with a tent pole above it. Then if there is a single recurving loop it frequently is angled very tightly, 90 degrees or less.

Lynn wrote:

Sorry, Lynn, but if you are basing your new swing on Martijn's argument, you might want to look closer at the triradii and his interpretation as I pointed out in my last posts.

My 'new swing' just takes me back to where I started before we even began this discussion! Sorry Patti but some of your last posts aren't making sense to me!

Patti wrote:I disagree (of course )

Figure 3.5 F is a tented arch. Upthrust on horizontal plane. There is no opening on the side of the upthrust.
..........
This last mentioned 3.5 A, is most likely a tented arch, too. The ridges on both sides appear to rise up against the sides of the upright ridge at an angle. It's possible that a ridge loops on the right or left, but we'd be looking at a similar situation to this discussion.

Patti, you can't identify a fingerprint from a triradius.

For example,


is from fig 300, a central pocket loop.



The diagrams are drawn with a 'horizontal plane', but the triradial point is in the centre of a 360 degree circle (each 'arm' of the triradius being about 120 degees.) so you can't be sure it is a 'horizontal plane' just by looking at a triradius.

e.g.


has been rotated from fig 286 - a whorl

Martijn (admin) wrote:

Patti wrote:


You have drawn a tented arch formation with your yellow lines.

It's part of that concept where there is a triangle at the horizontal plane with a tent pole above it. Then if there is a single recurving loop it frequently is angled very tightly, 90 degrees or less.

Patti.... the example above is not an 'upthrust on a horizontal plane' because the upper line is simply not positioned on the horizontal plane: it is just a terminating ridge line on top of a triangular constellation - see the following example(s) from the F.B.I. book:

Especially figure 99 in the F.B.I. book has a likewise triangular configuration... but one can not ignore the context: because combined with the 'ridge count' it is simply counted as a loop! (+ figure 85 + 182 present related example)

...

Your mistake indicates that you are working with a 'tunnel vision': you appear to be focussed on details without considering the context.

Martijn (admin) wrote:

Patti wrote:


You have drawn a tented arch formation with your yellow lines.

It's part of that concept where there is a triangle at the horizontal plane with a tent pole above it. Then if there is a single recurving loop it frequently is angled very tightly, 90 degrees or less.

Patti.... the example above is not an 'upthrust on a horizontal plane' because the upper line is simply not positioned on the horizontal plane: it is just a terminating ridge line on top of a triangular constellation - see the following example(s) from the F.B.I. book:

Especially figure 99 in the F.B.I. book has a likewise triangular configuration... but one can not ignore the context: because combined with the 'ridge count' it is simply counted as a loop! (+ figure 85 + 182 present related example)

So, Lynn pointed out correctly... that you can not identify the pattern of a fingerprint from a triradius only (as you suggested regarding example 3.5F from Schaumann & Alter).

Your mistake indicates that you are working with a 'tunnel vision': you appear to be focussed on details without considering the context.


Second, regarding the Disney print, example 133 in the F.B.I. book is an example that approaches the loop (but is a tented arch because there is no ridge count). However in the Disney print there is also the looping ridge line, which explains that there is at least a 'ridge count = 1'... and applying Penrose's rule and/or the issue with the shoulder line would result in a higher ridge count.


And remember, page 41 describes that 'bifurcations' in a looping ridge line do not spoil the ridge line (because the 2 bifurcations do not show any no sharp sudden changes in direction). So, that takes away another of your arguments.

]Figure 3.5 F is a tented arch. Upthrust on horizontal plane. There is no opening on the side of the upthrust.
..........
This last mentioned 3.5 A, is most likely a tented arch, too. The ridges on both sides appear to rise up against the sides of the upright ridge at an angle. It's possible that a ridge loops on the right or left, but we'd be looking at a similar situation to this discussion.

"In the examples from Penrose and from Schaumann & Alter, which I uploaded earlier. They are all drawn so that the bottom of the triradius is at the proximal part of the print."

(eventually you'll see what I mean by 3 open sides, and 3 branches. 3 sides open to something and 3 branches pointing at something. If it's not open to a focal point, it must be pointing at it.

Lynn wrote:Patti, seems I've not explained well as you haven't understood what I was saying.

You said

]Figure 3.5 F is a tented arch. Upthrust on horizontal plane. There is no opening on the side of the upthrust.
..........
This last mentioned 3.5 A, is most likely a tented arch, too. The ridges on both sides appear to rise up against the sides of the upright ridge at an angle. It's possible that a ridge loops on the right or left, but we'd be looking at a similar situation to this discussion.

What I was trying to say is: you can't assess what fingerprint it is by looking at a 'disembodied' triradius.

If I had just shown these triradii,




would you have known that they came from

a central pocket loop and a whorl?




Would you have known where the horizontal plane was just by looking at the 'disembodied' triradius?

You feel confident to say that "Figure 3.5 F is a tented arch. " BUt how can you know that? It could have come from any print.

re

"In the examples from Penrose and from Schaumann & Alter, which I uploaded earlier. They are all drawn so that the bottom of the triradius is at the proximal part of the print."

Sorry if I've missed it, where does it say that? Or did you make assumption? ie. could you tell just from looking at the triradii I posted, that I had rotated the whorl one?

(eventually you'll see what I mean by 3 open sides, and 3 branches. 3 sides open to something and 3 branches pointing at something. If it's not open to a focal point, it must be pointing at it.

I know what you mean by it, and your diagrams in your following post confirm that I understand what you mean. BUT how is it relevant to anything? You keep mentioning it, but I don't know where you got it from. Where does it say in the FBI book or in Penrose anything about a branch or arm POINTING at the core (or pointing at anything).
The only time this might be relevant is in a tented arch where the core and delta are on the same 'arm'
The only time "open to something" came up was when a bifurcation is "open to the core". It is only the narrowest angle of the bifurcation that can be open to the core, not the 'sides' - and it doesn't apply to triradii as they are not even mentioned in FBI book.