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

Patti wrote:Lynn, I don't think being open to the core represents the narrowest side, as I just illustrated.

...

It really isn't the narrowest side, it's the side that is open. Show me where it says it's the narrow side. It can appear that way in some loops because the two parallel lines coming into the looping pattern (and there is only 1 of the 3 pairs that enter from the side, the other two diverging parallel lines are surrounding the pattern) is sort of Y shaped. Rather than 120 degrees from branch to branch.

Patti, we already have pointed out to figure 26 - which is presented as the MAJOR EXAMPLE for the first delta rule (see page 12):

The book clearly points out why point E is 'not open to the core':

There is only one reason: the smallest angle - the RED ANGLE - in the picture below is the only angle related to point E that is smaller than 90 degrees. And the red angle is obviously not opening towards the core.

The size of two other two angles is irrelevant - because they are both larger.
Only the smallest angle matters because the branches involved in that angle represent the 'splitting' branches that result from the 3th branch.

And because in point D the only angle is 'open to the core', therefore point D is identified as the only option for the location of the DELTA.

It is quite simple...


PS. Patti, I have noticed in some comments that you are even considering the 'issue' regarding fingerprint examples which have a clear triradius; but this doesn't make sense at all... because the F.B.I. book clearly describes that the 'issue' only matters regarding fingerprints that have multiple 'bifurcations' - without the presence of a triradius.

If there is a clear triradius then that is always the DELTA. If there are two triradii... then it is very likely that there is also a whorl (or traces that could be related to a whorl).

Patti wrote:Lynn, I don't think being open to the core represents the narrowest side, as I just illustrated.

...

Patti, there is nothing confusing about figure 26!

But regarding your comment in the picture that you just posted - it is 'correct' (yes, an angle of 180 degrees results in a straight line)... but I think your ARROWS in the same picture do not make sense... what are your arrows pointing at? And how do your arrows relate to point E???


I noticed that earlier you tried to explain your theory with triradius-examples... but that doesn't make sense either - because the theory about 'open to the core' only relates to 'bifurcations'.... NOT to triradii. (Just like Lynn pointed out as well!)


Therefore, I think... ... you keep struggling with the concept of what an 'angle' really is. Your earlier assocation that a 'right angle' could manifest as an angle of 45 degrees was a troublesome 'early sign'.


Patti, if I would ask you to 'measure' the GREEN LINE that I added to the picture in my former post; would you be able to describe the size of that angle...?

Or maybe it would be helpful to share your answer via this little QUIZ:

edit: What is the size of the 'angle' between my two green arrows?

a) 110 degrees
b) 145 degrees
c) 175 degrees
d) 210 degrees
e) other... (please specify)

Patti, if do you understand the concept of 'angles' and 'right angles' ... then you should be able to find the right answer to this quize within seconds. If not, that would probably proof my point.

Patti wrote:...

Can you tell where they put the delta in fig. 83 to get 20 ridge counts? Definitely can't be the narrow opening of a bifurcation.

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.

Martijn (admin) wrote:

Patti wrote:...

Can you tell where they put the delta in fig. 83 to get 20 ridge counts? Definitely can't be the narrow opening of a bifurcation.

Sorry Patti, I think you are asking the wrong questions:

Again... the issue related to the words 'open to the core' (as mentioned in the first DELTA-rule on page 12 in the F.B.I. book), do NOT relate to situations where there is a clear triradius... NOR should it be applicated to fingerprints where there is only one 'bifurcation' that could be described as the DELTA (which is obviously the case in figure 83).

Therefore your question regarding fig 83 is irrelevant to the issue that we are discussing (again, because there is only one point where the DELTA can be positioned).

Patti wrote:...

does that mean you don't know the answer?

No, I have no problem to answer your question... see the picture below:



Only point D is 'open to the core' (point E is obvously 'not open to the core' because the smallest angle is found between the two downward pionting branches)... and counting from point D result in exactly 20 ridge counts.

Simples...


PS. But Patti, now that I answered your question... I asked you a question about the example that we were discussing. Can you describe the size of the angle between the green lines? Or... are you avoiding to answer that question....

Patti wrote:The earliest example of a loop shows the narrow angle not pointing to the core.

fig. 5

Patti wrote:...

I really don't think that there is any rule that states that only the narrow open side of a triradius or bifurcation can be open to the core. I haven't seen anyone quote from any source yet. Seems more like an opinion or a theory.

Patti, it is not 'option', nor a 'theory'... it is only common sense! But admit, this issue does require a proper understanding of HOW TO MEASURE the angles in a 'bifurcation'.


Therefore I presented my question - featured with my little quiz - ... ... but it appears that you don't want to answer my question. Is that correct?

Martijn (admin) wrote:





Patti, if I would ask you to 'measure' the GREEN LINE that I added to the picture in my former post; would you be able to describe the size of that angle...?

Or maybe it would be helpful to share your answer via this little QUIZ:

edit: What is the size of the 'angle' between my two green arrows?

a) 110 degrees
b) 145 degrees
c) 175 degrees
d) 210 degrees
e) other... (please specify)

Patti wrote:

Martijn (admin) wrote:





Patti, if I would ask you to 'measure' the GREEN LINE that I added to the picture in my former post; would you be able to describe the size of that angle...?

Or maybe it would be helpful to share your answer via this little QUIZ:

edit: What is the size of the 'angle' between my two green arrows?

a) 110 degrees
b) 145 degrees
c) 175 degrees
d) 210 degrees
e) other... (please specify)

I don't have a protractor handy - still probably packed away in one of the many unpacked boxes from moving. But, I can use the 90 degree corner of a piece of paper to tell which angle is the largest.

Patti wrote:...

For instance, using my trustly little paper square, I can tell that the delta shown below has the smallest angle not open to the core.

...

Correct... but I wonder why you still avoid to answer my quize-question.

Lynn wrote:OOPS Patti I seem to have just hit 'edit' instead of 'reply' & accidentally edited your msg!!!
SORRY! I'll fix it!!

Patti wrote:What about the image I just posted. I would call the delta location a bifurcation. The smallest angle is open to the NE.



p.s. and yes, I keep trying to point out that the 180 degree sides are a straight line.

Lynn wrote:

Patti wrote:What about the image I just posted. I would call the delta location a bifurcation. The smallest angle is open to the NE.



p.s. and yes, I keep trying to point out that the 180 degree sides are a straight line.

do you think there are two possible locations for the delta?
(edit PS) erm...I'm not sure exactly where they have placed the delta? ;-)
is it a bifurcation or a recurving ridge, or is it on the end of that rod?

yes of course 180 degrees is a straight line, but, sorry, I don't understand the relevance of you saying that.

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.

A white space must intervene between the delta and the first ridge count. If no such interval exists, the first ridge must be disregarded. In figures 53 and 54, the first ridge beyond the delta is counted. In figure 55, it is not counted because there is no interval between it and the delta. Notice that the ridge running from the delta toward the core is in a straight line between them. If it were not, of course, an interval would intervene as in figures 53 and 54.

Patti wrote:There is only one delta location.