deleted deleted

Patti wrote:

This is how I trace the ridges. I cannot find an enclosure or pocket.

kiwihands wrote:Hi Martijn,

Thanks for your detailed explanations! Good to know that on a fingerprint only the ridges closest to the triradius count. Also, looking at your top arrow (being inserted at a 45 degree angle to the ridges), I see I must have misinterpreted the your definition with regards to the requirement that the arrows have to be at right angles to the flow.

The example you mention as a similar pattern in the FBI book I can't really follow though - 232 has at least two ridges making a complete circuit inside the pattern area, whereas my example here has none? Also in 232 there are no short abutting ridges inside the pattern area? Sorry, there may be something I'm just not seeing here ...


Thanks for your help Martijn, much appreciated!

Kiwihands, regarding the degree between the red angle, the ridges and the 'light blue lines'... if you follow the path of the ridges - and if you ignore my 'light blue lines' - than you will notice that my 'red angle' is positioned almost at 90 degrees to the path of the ridges.

Thanks for pointing out this aspect in my earlier drawing, I apologize for the confusion created by my 'light blue lines': you can consider that as an 'imperfection' in my drawing.

Your thought about the 90 degrees proofs that you very well understood correctly what I described in my definition!



PS. Especially, if you ignore the first 'ridge snippet' about the inner triradius... then you will see that the direction of my 'red angle' is positioned at about 90 degrees of the ridges involved.

Patti wrote:

Martijn (admin) wrote:

Patti wrote:

This is how I trace the ridges. I cannot find an enclosure or pocket.

Patti, if you think it is not a 'central pocket loop'... then what is you alternative when using the F.B.I.'s pattern classification?

(So far you you haven't shared an alternative classification, so I am not sure in what direction your 'arguments' are going as an alternative...?)

I'm hoping we can all work out together what we should call it - based on FBI rules.

That's why I uploaded Disney's print. It has an obvious large 'double loop' (to me) and the FBI labeled it a loop. One of my little finger's has this same type of print which I always thought was a variety of a whorl - I didn't see the complete print until I used the pencil and tape method.

I think this pattern is somewhere between a double loop and a loop pattern. There is no contained (pocket) whorl or pattern. The pattern enters and leaves from the same side of the finger. The second triradius should give it a whorl category.

The FBI guidelines state:

The fact that there must be two separate loop formations eliminates from consideration as a double loop the "S" type core, the interlocking type core, and the formation with one loop inside another." - FBI book page 55

The images last night looked like an "S" type, when I outlined it today, I found it to be what I think they are calling "interlocking".

Although I think it's much 'fancier' than a plain loop, I think the FBI's rules will mark it a loop. I have no final opinion, yet.

Maybe Kiwi could get her pencil and tape out again?

Hi Patti, thanks for answering my question.

... Maybe I am not really surprized to hear that so far you don't even have an opinion yet about Kiwihands' S-shaped example, because... I think I observe that you 'mixed' some elements which could even PERMANENTLY prevent you from making up your mind. ( )


But first of all: yes, I do agree with you that in the 1933 print of Disney's right pinky finger we see a clear 'double loop'.

However... additionally, I would like to point out here that in the two 1937 prints of the right little finger we can hardly see the double loop - because the quality of those fingerprints is quite disturbed at the ulnar side.


So... ... what I am saying is the following:

The 'ridge count 16' could be a mistake due to the poor quality of the print in the right zones; however... there is another posibility!!

Because there are actually multiple methods for making ridge counts! - And some methods only require the use of the ridge count of the outward positioned 'delta'.

(And maybe you should also be aware that this Disney prints probably was not made by an F.B.I. official - because Disney's fingerprints only served as a requirement for getting a driver's licence)


MY CONCLUSION: We better not continue this discussion about Kiwihands' new fingerprint with these 'arbitrary' observations from Disney's pinky finger.

(And Patti, if you do prefer to continue considering these 'arbitrary observations'.... sorry, then it might soon no longer make sense for me to continue to provide you further feedback about your thoughts, etc. Because I have shared my reasons for questioning some of your 'assumptions' regarding the Disney pinky finger example)


However Patti, I do have an interesting alternative print for consideration....

Because as an alternative for the Disney example, I would like to invite you to take a closer look at figure 232 in the F.B.I. book (which I already mentioned earlier in this discussion).

I am looking forward to hear if you recognize the similarities with Kiwihands' example.

NOTICE:

In figure 232 we don't see any 'complete whorling ridge' either (just like in Kiwihands' example), but there is a likewise S-shaped pattern (not a 'double loop' either, because the shoulders involved are connected)... and it is classified as a 'central loop pocket'!

Again ... I am looking forward to hear your thought about that example!

(Actually, I hope that you will recognize what I just described about figure 232... because that should make you able to 'jump of the fence'... and formulate a permanent opinion about Kiwihands example as well)

Patti wrote:

Patti wrote:

...

Patti wrote:

Posting Kiwi's image here so it's easier to see.

Kiwi, your image also shows an interlocking pattern, too.

I think the double loop is spoiled by this.

Martijn (admin) wrote:

Patti wrote:

Patti wrote:

...

Patti wrote:

Posting Kiwi's image here so it's easier to see.

Kiwi, your image also shows an interlocking pattern, too.

I think the double loop is spoiled by this.

Patti... I don't see any 'interlocking pattern' at all (like the ones described in the F.B.I. book at page 16, figure 46-48).

All I see is an 'S-pattern' with connected shoulders, and I can see it in the original photocopy + the reversed image.


NOTICE: I used a very thin purple line to outline how the 'S-shape'... without taking away the visibility of the 'ridge + groove flow'.


(By the way, Patti you are making the same mistake as Kiwihands did: you are trying to study the 'ridge flow' in a far too large zone of this fingerprint... and regarding your example with the light blue lines - it is a bit of a mystery to me why you did not simply focuss on the ridges just outside the area of the inner delta.... instead you ONLY considered ridges that are quite far away from the inner 'delta'. So your choice do not makes sense in the perspective of that the goal of such an analysis should really ALWAYS befocussed on the ridge surrounding the 'delta'.)



NOTICE: Please ignore the 'dark red arrows' in the picture below.... those are the result of Kiwihands' first attempt to draw arrows that reflect the 'confluencing' aspect of the ridges surrounding the 'delta'. Only the green and purple lines make my point.



[strike]