deleted deleted

Patti wrote:I'll take a look at the example and respond later, but for now I'd like to add I don't see a problem with using Disney's little finger print as an example. In the recent past I have zoomed the prints from the 1937 prints and the upper sample clearly shows the double loop. These are official fingerprints taken for a license to sell alcohol, only 4 years after alcohol became legal again and licensing was very strict.

I haven't a problem with you not responding to my comments about the little finger.

I do think there is something to learn by counting out those 16 ridges and seeing how they came to that number. 16 ridges is a lot for a normal little finger loop.

I guess... you've got to be kidding???


Patti, if you have a better version of Walt Disney's right pinky finger than the one displayed below... then you are very welcome to share it - because I think you can only agree with me that both Disney's 1937 right pinky examples as presented below, one... can certainly not be described as 'clearly showing a double loop'.

Patti wrote:

Martijn (admin) wrote:

Patti wrote:I'll take a look at the example and respond later, but for now I'd like to add I don't see a problem with using Disney's little finger print as an example. In the recent past I have zoomed the prints from the 1937 prints and the upper sample clearly shows the double loop. These are official fingerprints taken for a license to sell alcohol, only 4 years after alcohol became legal again and licensing was very strict.

I haven't a problem with you not responding to my comments about the little finger.

I do think there is something to learn by counting out those 16 ridges and seeing how they came to that number. 16 ridges is a lot for a normal little finger loop.

I guess... you've got to be kidding???


Patti, if you have a better version of Walt Disney's right pinky finger than the one displayed below... then you are very welcome to share it - because I think you can only agree with me that both Disney's 1937 right pinky examples as presented below, one... can certainly not be described as 'clearly showing a double loop'.

If you are able to compare all three at the same time, the similarities are obvious. I can see the lower recurve on the right in both 1937 prints.

This print is from before 1938, copied from "How to Know People by their Hands"
Ranald.



It looks to me like the 16 counts take you to the second core on the right.

Patti wrote:

Martijn (admin) wrote:




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)

In fig. 232, as Kiwi already pointed out, there can be seen at least 1 ridge (red) making a complete circuit (as a spiral).

... And??? What is your point?

Sorry Patti, I now really have to make two points that illustrate that your attempts appear to go... 'nowhere'(!):


1 - First of all, I observe that likewise 'circuits' can be seen in Kiwihands' example - see for example the picture below.


2 - And second, I should add here immediately that [u]the issue of the 'complete circuit' ONLY relates to the assessment of a 'whorl'[/u].... so I don't understand why you are now using the issue of a 'complete circuit' as an argument to use again my assessment for 'central pocket loop'.


So Patti, can you please explain why you are using this argument... or are you just... ( ) ... 'thinking out loud'???

Martijn (admin) wrote:

Patti wrote:

Martijn (admin) wrote:




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)

In fig. 232, as Kiwi already pointed out, there can be seen at least 1 ridge (red) making a complete circuit (as a spiral).

... And??? What is your point?


Sorry Patti, I now really have to make two points that illustrate that your attempts appear to go... 'nowhere'(!):


1 - First of all, I observe that likewise 'circuits' can be seen in Kiwihands' example - see for example the picture below.


2 - And second, I should add here immediately that [u]the issue of the 'complete circuit' ONLY relates to the assessment of a 'whorl'[/u].... so I don't understand why you are now using the issue of a 'complete circuit' as an argument to use again my assessment for 'central pocket loop'.


So Patti, can you please explain why you are using this argument... or are you just... ( ) ... 'thinking out loud'???

The central pocket loop type of whorl has two deltas and at least one ridge making a complete circuit, which may be spiral, oval, circular, or any variant of a circle.

You and Lynn both thought that the FBI made a mistake in marking his index finger, when after all, it turned out they were correct. The issue was that none of us knew that they marked arches as a ridge count of 1.

Patti wrote:
I think it was correctly marked. " \ " ulnar loop 16 count. I'm sure that the person marking the prints was aware of the double loop nature of the print and didn't make a mistake in marking it a regular loop instead. It is us that needs to understand why and how, rather than assume a professional knows less than a nonprofessional. A professional who was looking at an original print and not a multi-generational photocopy.

It's simple just to use the "16 count \ " and apply to a better print of the same person's finger.

You and Lynn both thought that the FBI made a mistake in marking his index finger, when after all, it turned out they were correct. The issue was that none of us knew that they marked arches as a ridge count of 1. We've also learned since that patterns with low ridge counts of just 1 or 2 are counted as tented arches as well.

Patti, your words indicate that you do not appear to remember correctly how the Disney discussion really evolved:

Because, immediately after we started considering the issue of the 'little triangle' in the Disney print (with Schaumann & Alter's guidelines for e.g. figure 3.5), Lynn & I actually agreed about the position of the 'delta' (inside the 'little triangle') ... and the consequence is that the Disney fingerprint has a 'ridge count' of 2 or 3 (depending on the choice of the core)... and the ultimate consequence of this conclusion can only be that the Disney print was incorrectly 'marked' by the fingerprint observer.

(Though Lynn has just correctly pointed out that we did not really discuss the consequences of our conclusions regarding the position of the 'delta'... in terms of the 'quality' of the fingerprints observer's marks, etc.)

By the way, Patt... ... you are now also confusing the 'diagnostic value' of a loop with a 'ridge count = 1'; because there are no sources at all which describe that such small loops can be marked as an 'arch'.

(And unfortunately it is not the first time that I observe that you are conflusing the various perspectives that we have considered in our various discussions).


And a few weeks later you presented the 1933 print of the right pinky finger... which obviously indicates that the fingerprint observer made quite a few mistakes, and the poor quality of both 1937 right pinky fingerprints can be recognized as 'confirming evidence' that the fingerprint observer did not do his work very well at all.

Patti, again, your arguments are still 'going nowhere'... you keep 'phantasizing arguments' that do not induce any classification at all for Kiwihands' example.

Do you still have no opinion about 'Kiwihands' fingerprint' at all?


PS. In the F.B.I. system 'double loops' are usually marked as a 'W'... so if the fingerprint observer had been aware of the 'double loop', he SHOULD have marked it with a 'W', because in the F.B.I. book the 'double loop' is only described for 'extension purposes'.

... For me this makes sense, because both the 'whorl' and the 'double loop' pattern have 'two triradii' with a pattern that is positioned partly 'inside the pattern area' + partly 'outside the pattern area' - while in a 'composite loop' the central pocket is positioned COMPLETELY 'inside the pattern area'.

Patti wrote:When you draw in the grooves it's easy to find a contiuous circuit.

Patti wrote:

kiwihands wrote:Patti! Yes, between all of us we should be able to work out what this is if the rules are worth their salt. It's great being able to discuss this!

I knew I should have taken a pencil print - now it's too late. This particular friend is captain on a traditional voyaging vaka and has yesterday set out for an epic journey around the entire pacific - so I won't see him again for a very long time. I just quickly traced the ridges on photoshop while I had his live hand here when he said goodbye, so unfortunately this is the best I've got. I'm pretty sure my tracing is correct though - particularly those three (red) short ridges in the centre, I was surprised to see that they weren't connected to any other ridges. It would have made a lot more sense otherwise! Also, the right arm of the triradius is not actually connected (although it looks like it on the photo), but abuts onto the ridge coming from the proximal area that forms the other two arms of the triradius.

I completely agree with you when you say "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." It does look like a central pocket whorl, but without a ridge making a complete circuit or an obstruction at right angles - it can't be?

Unfortunately I can't look at the link to the pdf you've sent - have gone over our data allowance and now on dial-up speed til Thursday - it's still trying to load after half an hour's wait. I'll leave it on for the day, but ...

Hi Kiwi,
I remember dial up! I used to play solitaire while waiting for pages to load!

After reading and comparing the different web pages and the FBI book, I'm convinced because of the two deltas we are looking at a whorl.

But what is it's subcategory, if any?

We've discussed these aspects:

>The rods are abutting and do not recurve.

>There appears there might be an S pattern to the double loop aspect.

>If you follow the rule for a complete or near complete circuit for a central pocket loop or whorl, it is not clear that there is a ridge making a complete or near complete circuit.

Think we might have to wait until your friend returns for a close up of the central aspects of the pattern? Since you have seen the fingerprint up close and in person, and I think you understand what you're reading in the FBI instructions as much as the rest of us (or better) I do trust your judgement about the details you describe i.e. abutting ridges and incomplete circuits.

Patti,

After your conclusion that Kiwihands' example must be a 'whorl' variant, there are only 4 options left: (1) 'plain whorl' - (2) 'central pocket loop' - (3) 'double loop' - (4) 'accidental whorl'.

Ad 1) The first sub-category PLAIN WHORL is excluded because the following characteristic is not present in Kiwihands' example (quoted from the F.B.I. definition of a 'plain whorl' on page 45):

"An imaginary line drawn between the two deltas must touchor cross at least one of the recurving ridges within the pattern area."

Ad 3) The third sub-category DOUBLE LOOP is excluded because the following characteristic is not present in Kiwihands' example (quoted from the F.B.I. definition of a 'plain whorl' on page 55):

"The double loop formation consists of two seperate loop formations, with two seperate and distinct sets of shoulders, and two deltas."

Ad 4) And the fourth sub-category ACCIDENTAL WHORL is excluded because the following characteristic is not present in Kiwihands' example (quoted from the F.B.I. definition of a 'plain whorl' on page 57):

"The accidental whorl is a pattern consisting of a combination of two different types of pattern..."


And finally, regarding the issue of the 'complete circuit' mentioned in the definition of the CENTRAL POCKET LOOP, it does not require to have a 'complete circuit'... because even situations where one can speak of 'almost a complete circuit' is sufficient, because the definition on page 46 clearly describes:

"The central pocket loop type of whorl has two deltas and at least one ridge which makes or tends to make a complete circuit."

And Kiwihands' example also meets the other major requirements mentioned in the definition:

"The circuit may a spiral, oval, circular, or any variant of a circle."

Because an "S"-shape center can easily be described as one of those variants - because in this case it does not meet the requirements for a 'double loop'.

"An imaginary line drawn between the two deltas must not touch or cross any recurving ridges within the pattern area."

NOTICE: The 'recurving ridges' are here can only referring to the 'whorling ridges'... and not the 'looping ridges' that flow out of the pattern - because nearly EVERY peacock has such 'looping ridges' that flow out of the pattern!!!


CONCLUSION: It must be the whorl-variant: 'central pocket loop'!


Patti, I am glad that you at least arrived at the point where you can say that it is for sure not just a 'loop' (in your indecisiveness you even left that option open as a possibility - though you did not mention that as an option explicitely)... but for me it is still amazing for me to see that - despite you claim to have a lot of experience - you are still not able to make a permanent decision.

Because this example is much more simple to assess than Kiwihands' other fingerprint examples + the Disney index fingerprint.


But hey... ... don't feel pushed by my words, take your time!!

Patti wrote:Martijn, perhaps you've mistaken "discussion" for "indecisiveness".

Patti wrote:
But what is it's subcategory, if any?

We've discussed these aspects:

>The rods are abutting and do not recurve.

>There appears there might be an S pattern to the double loop aspect.

>If you follow the rule for a complete or near complete circuit for a central pocket loop or whorl, it is not clear that there is a ridge making a complete or near complete circuit.

Think we might have to wait until your friend returns for a close up of the central aspects of the pattern? Since you have seen the fingerprint up close and in person, and I think you understand what you're reading in the FBI instructions as much as the rest of us (or better) I do trust your judgement about the details you describe i.e. abutting ridges and incomplete circuits.

Patti wrote:




ummm? In your top drawing, you have traced ridges & in the bottom, the grooves.

But I see how you have drawn it so it's an "S".

Patti wrote:

kiwihands wrote:Patti! Yes, between all of us we should be able to work out what this is if the rules are worth their salt. It's great being able to discuss this!

Martijn,
Perhaps I misunderstood, but I thought we were going to work through the process together and not argue about who is right and who is wrong. That was the approach I took.

I've never bothered (or had reason to) trace a double loop pattern and choose between an S pattern, an interlocking pattern, a complete or incomplete circuit of just 1 or 2 ridges etc. Like most of us, we look and see the double loop nature or an obvious peacock appearance, make that statement and move on. From the early part of this discussion, it appears that you were in that category, too!

Patti wrote:I didn't realize until late last night that Kiwi's 2nd image was a negative, as when it was first presented all the features were colored in and I mainly could see what Kiwi had marked and not what was under where she marked. I hadn't noticed at first the one with just 3 red arrows until after you uploaded it and said ignore the red arrows.

I thought it was a new print - I noticed last night it was the same print we've been using only a negative. So be a bully and beat me up for not noticing! Duh!

Patti, I am glad to see that you now recognize that mistake.

But your words sound a bit 'provocative'... and in the perspective of your 'request' for a proper discussion, wouldn't it be more productive to admit that you made a mistake + it would also be helpfull if you confirm that by editing your first comment about my two pictures.