| Author | Post |
|---|
Helen B
PI Registered Member
| Joined: | Sun Mar 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | New Jersey USA |
| Posts: | 296 |
| Your Age: | 26 - 35 | | Palmistry Skills: | Elementary | | Your current mood: | life is worth living |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
|
Posted: Wed Aug 13th, 2008 05:35 am |
|
Sue wrote:
Hi Helen
I have found that the majority of people tend to have thumb phalanges of pretty much equal lengths and only occasionally do I come across someone who has one phalanx noticeably longer or shorter than the other.
But they do exist!! And when you see it, it will stand out at you!
Thank you for your reply, so as a palmist quick glance usually enough to determine rather or not it is worth to put full attention to the finger lengths. Noticeable difference is already giving enough information, and if finger phalanges are equal length, then palm lines would reveal more information any way.
I guess I got it. Thank you
|
Lynn
Gold Member
| Joined: | Sun Apr 15th, 2007 |
| Location: | Torquay, Devon, United Kingdom |
| Posts: | 605 |
| Your Age: | 46 - 55 | | Palmistry Skills: | Professional | | Your current mood: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Thu Aug 14th, 2008 12:31 am |
|
Pamelah asked "what are you planning to do with the information once you have measured the finger sections?". Good question! When I was studying for a diploma with the cheirological society, not only did we study and painstakingly measure the different development of phalanges with regard to length, width and height, we also divided them into quadrants to see which was the most developed! It took hours and was very technical & hard work. So you might end up with the "fire quadrant of the water phalanx of the water finger" being most developed. I have no recollection what that might mean (guessing - addictive, adrenaline seeking, self-indulgent personality). The only time I used it was to pass my exam! Altho it could be very revealing, (and here's the hard bit.... ) *if done accurately*, I found it too tedious & time consuming to use in general hand readings.
I agree with Pamelah's observation that the lower section of Jupiter is usually the most developed phalanx on the hand. Given that the lower phalanx of all fingers is the "physical, material" and (basically) Jupiter is the finger of the self, that shows what we humans are like - most interested in our own physical material pleasures!
I think the phalange development can be quite revealing (observing not just length but width and height or 'plumpness'), but also agree with Sue who has repeatedly said here (in different ways) "minor differences found in the phalange lengths are not generally worthy of note. Only when there are obvious differences is it worth attempting an interpretation."
Lynn
|
hand_research
Gold Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 9th, 2007 |
| Location: | Eindhoven, Netherlands |
| Posts: | 815 |
| Your Age: | 36 - 45 | | Palmistry Skills: | Professional | | Your current mood: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Thu Aug 14th, 2008 03:06 pm |
|
Lynn wrote:
I agree with Pamelah's observation that the lower section of Jupiter is usually the most developed phalanx on the hand. Given that the lower phalanx of all fingers is the "physical, material" and (basically) Jupiter is the finger of the self, that shows what we humans are like - most interested in our own physical material pleasures!
"The lower section of Jupiter is usually the most developed phalanx on the hand" (...???)
What exactly does this mean??? ... I am quite sure that this not applicable to the LENGTH of that phalange. So, are your refering here to the WIDTH (+ HEIGHT)?
Regarding the LENGTH I think it doesn't need much discussion for we all know that the middle finger is usually the longest finger, and often ALL three phalanges of the middle finger are longer than any other phalanges of the hand (except for the thumb).
Regarding the WIDTH, I think one can notice that - despite the dominant length of the middle finger - the WIDTH of the middle finger is less dominant. SOMETIMES the WIDTH of the index finger indeed dominates the WIDTH of the middle finger, I would not say this is 'usually' the case.
What is usually the case? I would make the following list of 5 observations:
1 - regarding the middle finger: this is (almost) always the longest finger + often all 3 phalanges of the middle finger are 'balanced' + often all 3 phalanges are longer than any other phalange in the hand (the thumb NOT included of course!).
2 - regarding the index finger: the width of the index finger sometimes dominates the middle finger (and the width of the other fingers). This can be the case even if both the length of the middle finger + ring finger are longer.
3 - regarding the ring finger: frequently the third phalange is the shortest phalange of this finger.
4 - regarding the little finger: frequently the first phalange (nail phalange) is the longest phalange of this finger.
5 - applicable to all 4 fingers: the third phalange is often the most wide phalange of a finger.
How much agreement do we have on these 5 observations??
As a reference for discussion, we might use these 16 'famous' hands:
http://www.pdc.co.il/famous.htm
By the way Lynn & Pamelah, would you think that your point of agreement is also appicable to these famous hands? From my point of view ... my doubts are confirmed in this sample.
(I think my 5 comments are applicable to the majority of these 'famous' hands - though I didn't check if this true)
Last edited on Thu Aug 14th, 2008 07:36 pm by hand_research
____________________
Martijn van Mensvoort
The latest news about palmistry & your hands:
http://www.handresearch.com
|
Pamelah Landers
Gold Member
| Joined: | Fri May 9th, 2008 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 459 |
| Your Age: | 56 - 65 | | Palmistry Skills: | Professional | | Your current mood: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Thu Aug 14th, 2008 04:12 pm |
|
| I don't see at all that the middles are usually the longest - in fact there are so many variations on this I couldn't make any generalizations other than what I said - and it could be lower Jupiter is wider but it's also generally taller. My upper sections are actually longer than my middle sections.
____________________
Pamelah Landers, Author
http://www.HandsOnCompany.com
|
Pamelah Landers
Gold Member
| Joined: | Fri May 9th, 2008 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 459 |
| Your Age: | 56 - 65 | | Palmistry Skills: | Professional | | Your current mood: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Thu Aug 14th, 2008 04:20 pm |
|
regarding your 5 observations, Martijn, I agree but it doesn't take into account that the lower Jupiter and middle Mercury are still as I said - lower Jupiter is generally 25 larger than any other one section and middle Mercury is usually smaller than any other one section. Yes, Saturn is the longest finger usually (however on my left hand, my Jupiter is taller than Saturn and I know it's very rare!)
I have observed many famous hands and have photographs from magazines published here in the US about Hollywood people mostly and yes, the well known and successful ones have extra long Apollo fingers in general. Especially right Apollo which is creativity in the spotlight so I would expect that. And some have extra long Apollo fingers on the left hand, the innovators and again, I would expect that. People with long right Apollos need to be in the spotlight so I'm glad, in whatever realm, they are finding the spotlight.
But it's not always the upper section that takes them there. Sometimes it's the middle or lower section. I have hundreds of hand prints from 17 years of taking them and don't see a pattern of the middles being the longest. In fact, I was just updating the graphics in my book on the Apollo finger (soon to be up on my web site again) and had a hard time finding one with a long middle Apollo section.
____________________
Pamelah Landers, Author
http://www.HandsOnCompany.com
|
hand_research
Gold Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 9th, 2007 |
| Location: | Eindhoven, Netherlands |
| Posts: | 815 |
| Your Age: | 36 - 45 | | Palmistry Skills: | Professional | | Your current mood: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Thu Aug 14th, 2008 05:09 pm |
|
Pamelah Landers wrote: I don't see at all that the middles are usually the longest - in fact there are so many variations on this I couldn't make any generalizations other than what I said - and it could be lower Jupiter is wider but it's also generally taller. My upper sections are actually longer than my middle sections.
Hi Pamelah, I think we agree that the middle phalange of any finger is rarely the longest.
PS. By the way, I think that Princes Diana's hand present us an example of this rarety: the 2th phalange of her middle finger + the 2th phalange of her ring finger appear to be very long (though the photo is not very sharp).
Last edited on Thu Aug 14th, 2008 05:29 pm by hand_research
____________________
Martijn van Mensvoort
The latest news about palmistry & your hands:
http://www.handresearch.com
|
hand_research
Gold Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 9th, 2007 |
| Location: | Eindhoven, Netherlands |
| Posts: | 815 |
| Your Age: | 36 - 45 | | Palmistry Skills: | Professional | | Your current mood: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Thu Aug 14th, 2008 05:47 pm |
|
Pamelah Landers wrote: regarding your 5 observations, Martijn, I agree but it doesn't take into account that the lower Jupiter and middle Mercury are still as I said - lower Jupiter is generally 25 larger than any other one section and middle Mercury is usually smaller than any other one section. Yes, Saturn is the longest finger usually (however on my left hand, my Jupiter is taller than Saturn and I know it's very rare!)
I have observed many famous hands and have photographs from magazines published here in the US about Hollywood people mostly and yes, the well known and successful ones have extra long Apollo fingers in general. Especially right Apollo which is creativity in the spotlight so I would expect that. And some have extra long Apollo fingers on the left hand, the innovators and again, I would expect that. People with long right Apollos need to be in the spotlight so I'm glad, in whatever realm, they are finding the spotlight.
But it's not always the upper section that takes them there. Sometimes it's the middle or lower section. I have hundreds of hand prints from 17 years of taking them and don't see a pattern of the middles being the longest. In fact, I was just updating the graphics in my book on the Apollo finger (soon to be up on my web site again) and had a hard time finding one with a long middle Apollo section.
Pamelah, I could continue on more details in your comments ... but for the moment, I would like to hear some MORE SPECIFIC feedback on that '25%' regarding two points:
- You were just talking about 'hand prints'. Would you say that your '25%' is also applicable to PHOTO'S? ( ... I hope so - because I am not a fan of reading fingerlength from palm prints - but I also will be surprised if your answer is 'yes')
- Does your '25%' also implicate: that usually the 3th phalange of the index finger is about 25% larger than the 1th phalange (the nail phalange) of the index finger? ( ... again, I will be surprised now if your answer is 'yes', because I think 25% is quite high in the perspective of a comparison between the 1th and 3th phalange)
And Pamelah, would you mind to take another look at the 'famous' photo's?
I just stumbled through these famous hands at http://www.pdc.co.il/famous.htm and at first sight, and I would say that your '25%' (regarding the 3th phalange of the index finger) can only be observed in Hillary Clinton's hand.
Pamelah, can you confirm this observation? (I hope so, for then these famous photos provide us a solid 'point of reference' for this topic!)
Last edited on Thu Aug 14th, 2008 07:34 pm by hand_research
____________________
Martijn van Mensvoort
The latest news about palmistry & your hands:
http://www.handresearch.com
|
Lynn
Gold Member
| Joined: | Sun Apr 15th, 2007 |
| Location: | Torquay, Devon, United Kingdom |
| Posts: | 605 |
| Your Age: | 46 - 55 | | Palmistry Skills: | Professional | | Your current mood: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Thu Aug 14th, 2008 07:29 pm |
|
Martijn said "The lower section of Jupiter is usually the most developed phalanx on the hand" (...???)
What exactly do mean??? ... I am quite sure that this not applicable to the LENGTH of that phalange. So, are your refering here to the WIDTH (+ HEIGHT)?
Yes, width & height - 'plumpness' - maybe 'surface area'.
|
hand_research
Gold Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 9th, 2007 |
| Location: | Eindhoven, Netherlands |
| Posts: | 815 |
| Your Age: | 36 - 45 | | Palmistry Skills: | Professional | | Your current mood: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Thu Aug 14th, 2008 07:40 pm |
|
Ok Lynn, thanks for answering my question.
But can you specify a bit more? ... Does this also implicate that from your point of view the length of the 3th phalange of the index finger is usually longer than the length of the 3th phalange of the middle finger?
Last edited on Thu Aug 14th, 2008 07:47 pm by hand_research
____________________
Martijn van Mensvoort
The latest news about palmistry & your hands:
http://www.handresearch.com
|
Lynn
Gold Member
| Joined: | Sun Apr 15th, 2007 |
| Location: | Torquay, Devon, United Kingdom |
| Posts: | 605 |
| Your Age: | 46 - 55 | | Palmistry Skills: | Professional | | Your current mood: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Thu Aug 14th, 2008 11:01 pm |
|
hand_research wrote:
But can you specify a bit more? ... Does this also implicate that from your point of view the length of the 3th phalange of the index finger is usually longer than the length of the 3th phalange of the middle finger?
Martijn are you talking about actual length or relative length?
For example (can't find ruler so inventing hypothetical measurements) if 3rd phalanx of index measures 2cm and 3rd phalanx of middle finger measures 2.2 cm, then of course the middle finger's 3rd phalanx is longer comparing them side by side. But if you look at it relative to the finger they are on, if index finger measures 7cm and middle finger is 8cm then the 3rd phalanx of index is longer relative to the finger length. (I = 28.5% M=27.5%)
Re actual length, I would guess that 3rd phalanx of middle f. can be expected to be longer than any other finger's 3rd phalanx, as middle finger is the longest finger (on most hands). However I am not sure that is the reality of it. I will find the ruler and measure some prints.
PS I am not ignoring your other quesitons above, just haven't got around to thinking about them yet, looking at the famous hands etc. But I'm not sure I can agree with your 5 points. ??
Last edited on Thu Aug 14th, 2008 11:08 pm by Lynn
|
hand_research
Gold Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 9th, 2007 |
| Location: | Eindhoven, Netherlands |
| Posts: | 815 |
| Your Age: | 36 - 45 | | Palmistry Skills: | Professional | | Your current mood: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Thu Aug 14th, 2008 11:52 pm |
|
Lynn wrote:
Martijn are you talking about actual length or relative length?
For example (can't find ruler so inventing hypothetical measurements) if 3rd phalanx of index measures 2cm and 3rd phalanx of middle finger measures 2.2 cm, then of course the middle finger's 3rd phalanx is longer comparing them side by side. But if you look at it relative to the finger they are on, if index finger measures 7cm and middle finger is 8cm then the 3rd phalanx of index is longer relative to the finger length. (I = 28.5% M=27.5%)
Re actual length, I would guess that 3rd phalanx of middle f. can be expected to be longer than any other finger's 3rd phalanx, as middle finger is the longest finger (on most hands). However I am not sure that is the reality of it. I will find the ruler and measure some prints.
PS I am not ignoring your other quesitons above, just haven't got around to thinking about them yet, looking at the famous hands etc. But I'm not sure I can agree with your 5 points. ??
Relative length?? Good question Lynn!!! (and thanks for explaining your thoughts with an example ... yes, I understand what you are trying to say here and I fully agree).
In this discussion, I have NOT been talking about 'relative length' .... and neither did anyone else mention that...!
(I am still wondering to understand the '25%' statement regarding the 3th phalange of the index finger ... right now I can only understand it if I was told that the '25%' is the result of observations on 'hand prints' - not photos!)
____________________
Martijn van Mensvoort
The latest news about palmistry & your hands:
http://www.handresearch.com
|
Lynn
Gold Member
| Joined: | Sun Apr 15th, 2007 |
| Location: | Torquay, Devon, United Kingdom |
| Posts: | 605 |
| Your Age: | 46 - 55 | | Palmistry Skills: | Professional | | Your current mood: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Fri Aug 15th, 2008 01:41 am |
|
I still have to catch up on this thread, and find a ruler to measure some phalanges.
From your last point Martijn, I'm not sure you can see full development of phalanges from photographs. Photos are 2 dimensional but phalanges have 3 dimensions. I understand the difficulty in accurately assessing length of top phalanx from ink prints, but if you press down on the fingers it gives you a better idea of the width & height development - 'plumpness' - of the phalanx than a photo does.
|
hand_research
Gold Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 9th, 2007 |
| Location: | Eindhoven, Netherlands |
| Posts: | 815 |
| Your Age: | 36 - 45 | | Palmistry Skills: | Professional | | Your current mood: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Fri Aug 15th, 2008 02:01 am |
|
Lynn wrote: I still have to catch up on this thread, and find a ruler to measure some phalanges.
From your last point Martijn, I'm not sure you can see full development of phalanges from photographs. Photos are 2 dimensional but phalanges have 3 dimensions. I understand the difficulty in accurately assessing length of top phalanx from ink prints, but if you press down on the fingers it gives you a better idea of the width & height development - 'plumpness' - of the phalanx than a photo does.
Ok Lynn, yes you're absolutely right:
Photos USUALLY have the disadvantage (for the hand is usually not stretched)... and you've described the disadvantage of ink prints very well - by the way, this disadvantage is ALWAYS present.
So ... I think this indicates that only photo-scans of hands (photocopies) are suitable to be used for measurements in this matter!!!
(... I am still  about the '25%' statement ... from what kind of 'source' does this percentage come from? Pamelah? Sue? Lynn?)
____________________
Martijn van Mensvoort
The latest news about palmistry & your hands:
http://www.handresearch.com
|
Pamelah Landers
Gold Member
| Joined: | Fri May 9th, 2008 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 459 |
| Your Age: | 56 - 65 | | Palmistry Skills: | Professional | | Your current mood: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sat Aug 16th, 2008 04:07 pm |
|
hand_research wrote:
PS. By the way, I think that Princes Diana's hand present us an example of this rarety: the 2th phalange of her middle finger + the 2th phalange of her ring finger appear to be very long (though the photo is not very sharp).
Diana's hands, as you said, Martijn, are an exception, even her middle Mercury is longer than middle Mercury's are normally. And her lower Jupiter is still large compared to the other lowers by surface area, which is what I meant when talking about 25% larger - no longer, although that is part of it.
____________________
Pamelah Landers, Author
http://www.HandsOnCompany.com
|
Pamelah Landers
Gold Member
| Joined: | Fri May 9th, 2008 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 459 |
| Your Age: | 56 - 65 | | Palmistry Skills: | Professional | | Your current mood: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sat Aug 16th, 2008 04:24 pm |
|
hand_research wrote: - You were just talking about 'hand prints'. Would you say that your '25%' is
And Pamelah, would you mind to take another look at the 'famous' photo's?
I just stumbled through these famous hands at http://www.pdc.co.il/famous.htm and at first sight, and I would say that your '25%' (regarding the 3th phalange of the index finger) can only be observed in Hillary Clinton's hand.
Pamelah, can you confirm this observation? (I hope so, for then these famous photos provide us a solid 'point of reference' for this topic!)
I just looked at the famous photos again, looked at more of the hands, and I see why you are confused about what I said. Many of these world leaders or leaders in their field have longer other sections but considering their purpose in life it would make sense. Bill Gates would be driven by the middle sections of his fingers to become who he has become - the world of things, the material part of life. And still many of them had short middle Mercury sections. The ones like Leonardo diCaprio and Michael Douglas who have very plump lower Apollos - no surprise because they are actors and it is their job to be 'hams' or widely displaying their Apollo creativity in a physical way. Both have done a lot of 'physical' acting in addition to the verbal acting. And that they would be attraced to acting to express what their finger sections are asking of them by being big and plump is expected.
I think if you looked at the general population you would find that many of them don't have longer middles, their middle Mercury is the shortest section. And let me clarify what I mean by lower Jupiter being 25% larger 'to begin with'. For most people for whom I read, regular, not famous people, their lower Jupiter section starts out being larger than the other sections of the hands - in general. And I am talking surface area - length, heighth, width all included. So if it's worth mentioning in a reading, it has to be larger MUCH larger than other finger sections to be mentioned. Does that provide any clarification?
____________________
Pamelah Landers, Author
http://www.HandsOnCompany.com
|
hand_research
Gold Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 9th, 2007 |
| Location: | Eindhoven, Netherlands |
| Posts: | 815 |
| Your Age: | 36 - 45 | | Palmistry Skills: | Professional | | Your current mood: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sat Aug 16th, 2008 04:42 pm |
|
Pamelah Landers wrote: hand_research wrote:
PS. By the way, I think that Princes Diana's hand present us an example of this rarety: the 2th phalange of her middle finger + the 2th phalange of her ring finger appear to be very long (though the photo is not very sharp).
Diana's hands, as you said, Martijn, are an exception, even her middle Mercury is longer than middle Mercury's are normally. And her lower Jupiter is still large compared to the other lowers by surface area, which is what I meant when talking about 25% larger - no longer, although that is part of it.
Ok, thanks for your feedback Pamelah.
Now I finally understand what you mean: your '25% rule' appears to related to the lower phalanges of the other fingers!
I think that this rule is usually not applicable to the lower phalange of the middle finger - simply because this phalange is usually longer than the lower phalange of the index finger (including Diana's hand, for I observe that the lower phalange of her middle finger might actually be about 25% LONGER than the lower phalange of the index finger).
But I do agree that the '25% rule' is applicable to the lower phalanges of the ring finger and the pinky. And I also agree the width of the lower phalange of the index finger is 'often' (but I would not say 'usually') indeed more wide than the lower phalange of the middle finger.
____________________
Martijn van Mensvoort
The latest news about palmistry & your hands:
http://www.handresearch.com
|
Pamelah Landers
Gold Member
| Joined: | Fri May 9th, 2008 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 459 |
| Your Age: | 56 - 65 | | Palmistry Skills: | Professional | | Your current mood: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sat Aug 16th, 2008 04:46 pm |
|
| yes, I agree about the length of the lower middle (Saturn) being longer than Jupiter most of the time but the entire surface area of lower Saturn isn't always more than Jupiter's surface area - I'm glad you are asking these questions and commenting on it because it helps me identify my language more clearly when I'm making such bold comments! This forum is such a gift. I've been thirsting for interaction with other hand analysts and find this a great place to learn and share. Thank you, Sue, for starting it!
____________________
Pamelah Landers, Author
http://www.HandsOnCompany.com
|
hand_research
Gold Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 9th, 2007 |
| Location: | Eindhoven, Netherlands |
| Posts: | 815 |
| Your Age: | 36 - 45 | | Palmistry Skills: | Professional | | Your current mood: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sat Aug 16th, 2008 05:01 pm |
|
Pamelah Landers wrote: hand_research wrote: - You were just talking about 'hand prints'. Would you say that your '25%' is
And Pamelah, would you mind to take another look at the 'famous' photo's?
I just stumbled through these famous hands at http://www.pdc.co.il/famous.htm and at first sight, and I would say that your '25%' (regarding the 3th phalange of the index finger) can only be observed in Hillary Clinton's hand.
Pamelah, can you confirm this observation? (I hope so, for then these famous photos provide us a solid 'point of reference' for this topic!)
I just looked at the famous photos again, looked at more of the hands, and I see why you are confused about what I said. Many of these world leaders or leaders in their field have longer other sections but considering their purpose in life it would make sense. Bill Gates would be driven by the middle sections of his fingers to become who he has become - the world of things, the material part of life. And still many of them had short middle Mercury sections. The ones like Leonardo diCaprio and Michael Douglas who have very plump lower Apollos - no surprise because they are actors and it is their job to be 'hams' or widely displaying their Apollo creativity in a physical way. Both have done a lot of 'physical' acting in addition to the verbal acting. And that they would be attraced to acting to express what their finger sections are asking of them by being big and plump is expected.
I think if you looked at the general population you would find that many of them don't have longer middles, their middle Mercury is the shortest section. And let me clarify what I mean by lower Jupiter being 25% larger 'to begin with'. For most people for whom I read, regular, not famous people, their lower Jupiter section starts out being larger than the other sections of the hands - in general. And I am talking surface area - length, heighth, width all included. So if it's worth mentioning in a reading, it has to be larger MUCH larger than other finger sections to be mentioned. Does that provide any clarification?
Yes Pamelah, I understand now what you mean. I guess my problem is merely that you keep including the LENGTH of the lower phalange of the index finger in the rule ... for I think that your observation might be more related to the WIDTH.
Anyway, I do think that it can be very interesting to identify the most dominant phalange of all fingers.
But thinking about the practice: I also think that it usually is a 'tricky' activity - for often there is no clear point of reference (U would say that only a 'balance' in the 3 phalanges of the middle finger could provide a clear point of reference).
And the practical problems which we identified earlier in this discussion might make this often a very complicated task.
____________________
Martijn van Mensvoort
The latest news about palmistry & your hands:
http://www.handresearch.com
|
hand_research
Gold Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 9th, 2007 |
| Location: | Eindhoven, Netherlands |
| Posts: | 815 |
| Your Age: | 36 - 45 | | Palmistry Skills: | Professional | | Your current mood: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sat Aug 16th, 2008 05:02 pm |
|
Pamelah Landers wrote: yes, I agree about the length of the lower middle (Saturn) being longer than Jupiter most of the time but the entire surface area of lower Saturn isn't always more than Jupiter's surface area - I'm glad you are asking these questions and commenting on it because it helps me identify my language more clearly when I'm making such bold comments! This forum is such a gift. I've been thirsting for interaction with other hand analysts and find this a great place to learn and share. Thank you, Sue, for starting it!
____________________
Martijn van Mensvoort
The latest news about palmistry & your hands:
http://www.handresearch.com
|
Pamelah Landers
Gold Member
| Joined: | Fri May 9th, 2008 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 459 |
| Your Age: | 56 - 65 | | Palmistry Skills: | Professional | | Your current mood: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sat Aug 16th, 2008 07:31 pm |
|
