 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
Lynn Gold Member


| Joined: | Sun Apr 15th, 2007 |
| Location: | Torquay, Devon, United Kingdom |
| Posts: | 606 |
| Your Age: | 46 - 55 | | Palmistry Skills: | Professional | | Your current mood: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |     |
|
Posted: Wed Aug 27th, 2008 08:59 pm |
|
I have followed the discussions on the thread about Den's prints, regarding Loop/Tented arch combination prints, and Arch vs Tented arch identification. http://internationalcollegeofpalmistry.com/forum/forum126/3620-1.html
I find this fingerprint discussion very interesting. Dermatoglyphics has always been my main passion in hand analysis. Now I would like to talk more about tented arches, to try and understand them and also Richard's system better.
Until last week, when Martijn posted this link, http://www.forensicitc.com/tented_arch.htm I was not aware of the three types of tented arch. I previously only classed upthrust type as tented arches. But now I am aware of the 'loop type' and 'angled type'. It seems Richard also only uses upthrust types by his definition that "Tented arches have a single, centralized triradius and a vertical tent pole."
Ronelle pointed out that the incorrect drawing for Loop/Tented arch on page 22 of Richard's book was printers error. Now I want to ask about the ink prints shown for tented arches on pages 20 - 21.
The first one on page 20 and the one on page 22 fit the criteria for loops. The three Essentials of a Loop. 1) A sufficient recurve, 2) A Delta, and 3) A ridge count across a looping ridge.
http://www.forensicitc.com/loops.htm
Can anyone explain to me please, why they are classed as tented arches in Richard's system? Or are they also printer's error? Or am I wrong in my classification?
This is from pages 20-21 of Lifeprints.
Attached Image (viewed 322 times):
 Last edited on Wed Aug 27th, 2008 10:40 pm by Lynn
|
Lynn Gold Member


| Joined: | Sun Apr 15th, 2007 |
| Location: | Torquay, Devon, United Kingdom |
| Posts: | 606 |
| Your Age: | 46 - 55 | | Palmistry Skills: | Professional | | Your current mood: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |     |
|
Posted: Wed Aug 27th, 2008 10:22 pm |
|
To make it easier to see, I've enlarged the prints.
First ink print of tented arch on page 20
Attached Image (viewed 324 times):
 Last edited on Wed Aug 27th, 2008 10:25 pm by Lynn
|
Lynn Gold Member


| Joined: | Sun Apr 15th, 2007 |
| Location: | Torquay, Devon, United Kingdom |
| Posts: | 606 |
| Your Age: | 46 - 55 | | Palmistry Skills: | Professional | | Your current mood: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |     |
|
Posted: Wed Aug 27th, 2008 10:27 pm |
|
oops, sorry mistake!
Now I enlarged them, I just noticed the print on page 21 is the same as the first one on page 20! so it is only one picture I am talking about. Can anyone confirm whether it is a loop - or did I get my ridge count wrong?
Last edited on Wed Aug 27th, 2008 10:31 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: Mon Sep 1st, 2008 02:12 pm |
|
Lynn wrote: I have followed the discussions on the thread about Den's prints, regarding Loop/Tented arch combination prints, and Arch vs Tented arch identification. http://internationalcollegeofpalmistry.com/forum/forum126/3620-1.html
I find this fingerprint discussion very interesting. Dermatoglyphics has always been my main passion in hand analysis. Now I would like to talk more about tented arches, to try and understand them and also Richard's system better.
Until last week, when Martijn posted this link, http://www.forensicitc.com/tented_arch.htm I was not aware of the three types of tented arch. I previously only classed upthrust type as tented arches. But now I am aware of the 'loop type' and 'angled type'. It seems Richard also only uses upthrust types by his definition that "Tented arches have a single, centralized triradius and a vertical tent pole."
Ronelle pointed out that the incorrect drawing for Loop/Tented arch on page 22 of Richard's book was printers error. Now I want to ask about the ink prints shown for tented arches on pages 20 - 21.
The first one on page 20 and the one on page 22 fit the criteria for loops. The three Essentials of a Loop. 1) A sufficient recurve, 2) A Delta, and 3) A ridge count across a looping ridge.
http://www.forensicitc.com/loops.htm
Can anyone explain to me please, why they are classed as tented arches in Richard's system? Or are they also printer's error? Or am I wrong in my classification?
This is from pages 20-21 of Lifeprints.
... yes Lynn, I see what you mean.
Obviously, this example has the 3 basic characteristics of a classic 'loop'.
However ...
The feedback from Ronelle and Pamelah indicates that Richard uses a fundamentally different approach to the fingerprints. And now I can understand why Richard and his students classify this 'loop' as a 'tented arch': merely for the triradius is positioned in the center of this fingerprint.
But I agree: very strange to see that Richard appears to ignore the presence of the loop.
By the way, the 2th 'tented arch' example on page 20 also has a loop!!! And the confusion goes on ... for obviously in the 2th example:
THE TRIRADIUS IS NOT POSITIONED NEAR THE CENTER AT ALL ... (see the right picture in the illustration below)
(so I would say that regarding the vocabulary in Richard's book, BOTH 'TENTED ARCH' EXAMPLES might also be described as a 'loop-tented arch')
Lynn, I think these examples illustrate (again!) that SOMETIMES in Richard's approach some very basic characteristics of the fingerprint are being ignored.
More specific: sometimes the presence of basic 'loop' characteristics appears to be ignored ... I hope that somebody can explain this incomprehensibility?
Attached Image (viewed 402 times):
 Last edited on Mon Sep 1st, 2008 03:54 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: | 606 |
| Your Age: | 46 - 55 | | Palmistry Skills: | Professional | | Your current mood: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |     |
|
Posted: Mon Sep 1st, 2008 03:55 pm |
|
Thanks Martijn,
regarding
By the way, the 2th 'tented arch' example on page 20 also has a loop!!! And the confusion goes on ... for obviously in the 2th example:
Yes I could see a loop there with core high up, but wasn't sure if the ridge count was more than one, so I didn't mention that one. Thanks for confirming that the other print does fit the loop criteria. I guess my confusion is arising from Richard's way of classifying prints, which is different from what I'd learnt before.
Ronelle I'd be grateful if you can clarify if the ink prints from page 20/21 are illustrating tented arches in the Lifeprints system, or if it is another printer error?
Thanks.
|
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: Mon Sep 1st, 2008 04:42 pm |
|
Lynn wrote: Thanks Martijn,
regarding
By the way, the 2th 'tented arch' example on page 20 also has a loop!!! And the confusion goes on ... for obviously in the 2th example:
Yes I could see a loop there with core high up, but wasn't sure if the ridge count was more than one, so I didn't mention that one. Thanks for confirming that the other print does fit the loop criteria. I guess my confusion is arising from Richard's way of classifying prints, which is different from what I'd learnt before.
Ronelle I'd be grateful if you can clarify if the ink prints from page 20/21 are illustrating tented arches in the Lifeprints system, or if it is another printer error?
Thanks.
Lynn, great to see that we have kind of the same questions! (even after the feedback we received in the other discussion)
Yes, I find it very hard to see why ...
... this fingerprint is classified as a 'loop-tented arch':

... and these 2 fingerprints are classified as a 'tented arch':

By the way, I think I can describe an aspect which could be part of the explanation:
... for in the 'loop - tented arch' example above (upper image) the 'core' of the print is very normal (a single ridge line). And in the 2 'tented arch' examples above (lower image) the 'core' of the print is more complex.
(But if this is a crucial point .... why was THIS ASEPCT of the prints never been mentioned in the other discussion?)
One more point:
I would say that the triradius in the 'loop - tented arch' example (in the upper image above) is positioned more closer to the center of the print, compared to the RIGHT example of the 'tented arch' in Richard's book.
Pamelah and Ronelle,
I would love to hear your thoughts regarding the major differences in these 3 examples. Could you please point this out for us?
(And what are your thoughts on the 'looping-ridges' in all 3 examples'? And what are the major differences related to 'pole' in these 3 examples - can you describe them with objective criteria?)
Last edited on Mon Sep 1st, 2008 05:16 pm by hand_research
____________________ Martijn van Mensvoort
The latest news about palmistry & your hands:
http://www.handresearch.com
|
Ronelle Coburn Member


| Joined: | Mon Aug 25th, 2008 |
| Location: | Portland, Oregon USA |
| Posts: | 28 |
| Your Age: | 36 - 45 | | Palmistry Skills: | Professional | | Your current mood: | Loving the life I live! |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |     |
|
Posted: Mon Sep 1st, 2008 08:33 pm |
|
Hey Lynn and Martin:
All I can do is again, point out that in the Life Prints system, it is not the individual fingerprint that is important, but how individual fingerprints compare to all the other ten. So the highly detailed discussion you're having about the fingerprints is one, in our view, that isn't even relevant to what we do and how the system operates. And again, if you go look at a bunch of people's prints this will all become clear as a bell, but it's ivory tower theory until put into practice.
Please don't get me wrong, it sounds like, from a forensic point of view, what you're talking about is interesting and completely valid, but it it's like your minds are so involved in what forensics is about that you're having a hard time pulling up and seeing things from a different perspective. One that is actually much less complicated. I wish I could have you throw out everything you know, just for a short time and then come back and look at what we do with a beginner's/clean mind.
I don't mean to be offensive here. You are super smart people who know a lot about the forensic identification for fingerprints and I respect that completely, but it doesn't actually seem helpful in this case. It's like not being able to see the forest for the trees and missing the point.
As Pamelah pointed out, we are not doing forensics. We are looking at how fully developed or less fully developed a fingerprint is so we can compare it to its neighbors to see who has the "most points" and who has the least. That's all. We don't count ridges. We don't use rulers. In fact, when looking at anything in the hands we don't get out a tape measure to measure it, but always look at the scale of any individual thing in the hands in reference/context to the hands in which it is occurring. This applies to the fingerprints or whether a finger seems large or small or a mount is weak or strong.
Again, in the case of looking at how loopy or how tented-archy a less-than-full-loop fingerprint is will utimatly depend on the context of the other nine prints. Since they are not very common prints, when introducing the fingerprints to newbies, it makes most sense to teach them to just call a half-and-half print a tented arch because, most likely, it will be sitting with higher ranking prints (most commonly full loops) and needs to be noted as the lower ranking/less fully formed print.
For us, the end-all-be-all, when looking at a chart is to answer the question:
Which are the highest ranking prints? (for Life Purpose)
Which are the lowest ranking prints? (for Life Lesson)
Period, end of story. It is an unusual day when we have to get picky about just how centered this tri-radius compared to another one on another finger (because they are very close to tying for low-ranking). If they are very close, we simply count them both toward Life Lesson. This will almost always be a chart with one or two "tented arch-loops" with the balance of prints being loops. It happens over and over and over again. Nine full loops with a straight tented arch or a loopy-tented arch on left Jupter. And in many charts these prints drop out of the ranking entirely becasue they aren't high and they aren't low. Somtimes you have to slice and dice them a bit in terms of determining the Life School.
I actually have two of these loopy tented arches in my own prints. Technically they just drop out. End of disussion.
My chart is:
Loop|Arch|Loop-Tent|Loop-Tent|Arch
Loop|Arch|Arch|Tented Arch|Tented Arch
In points this is:
3.0|1.0|2.5|2.5|1.0
3.0|1.0|1.0|2.0|2.0
Who's the highest? Both thumbs=Master of Results
Who's the lowest? Double Jupiter, Left Saturn, Right Mercury=Not Enough Communications
When I speak-up I get results and make my living. Voila!
Strictly speaking the loop-tents drop-out. That's it. It doesn't matter. What matters is my thumb loops are the highest and other prints are lower.
Capiche?
____________________ Ronelle Coburn
http://www.RonelleCoburn.com
|
Lynn Gold Member


| Joined: | Sun Apr 15th, 2007 |
| Location: | Torquay, Devon, United Kingdom |
| Posts: | 606 |
| Your Age: | 46 - 55 | | Palmistry Skills: | Professional | | Your current mood: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |     |
|
Posted: Mon Sep 1st, 2008 11:24 pm |
|
Hi Ronelle,
Thanks for replying. Sorry I seem to have exasperated you. 
I'm really not trying to be picky, just trying to understand. I am not a 'super smart' person - actually I'm probably not very smart, as I had to look up what 'Capiche?' means! . I'm not even aware that I know anything about forensics! I only know about fingerprints from where my interest in hand analysis has led me to read around the subject. The same basis that brought me to Richard's book.
You said
it is not the individual fingerprint that is important, but how individual fingerprints compare to all the other ten.
But surely the first step in this process is to identify all 10 prints individually, then compare them?
You're asking me see things from a different perspective, and that's exactly what I'm trying to do! But at the moment Richard's system seems more complicated than the established methods of fingerprint identification, as I am finding it hard to understand the rules. I am looking at what you do with a beginner's mind, as I am a beginner in Richard's system, but it's not so easy to 'throw out everything' I've learnt so far!
I'm sorry if I'm making you go I used to drive my tutor nuts with my constant questions until eventually the lightbulb goes on above my head and I grasp it! If you (or any other Lifeprints specialists) have the patience, would you mind explaining the following to me ? (the 'idiot's guide' please!)
First of all, I still have my original question - why the prints on page 20-21 classed as tented arches in Richard's system? What is it about them that makes them a tented arch?
Ronelle said
For us, the end-all-be-all, when looking at a chart is to answer the question:
Which are the highest ranking prints? (for Life Purpose)
Which are the lowest ranking prints? (for Life Lesson)
That's exactly why I'm asking the question.
I understand what you're saying about mid-ranking prints dropping out, and that would be ok if I'd mistaken a loop/tent for a tented arch & vice versa. But the tented arch pics on pages 20-21 look like loops to me. If I use them as loops, then it alters the Lifeprints analysis, as Tented arches and Loop/Tented arch have a lower score than loops.
For example, if your prints are like those illustrated, my (mis-)classification would have given you a score of
3.0|1.0|3.0|3.0|1.0
3.0|1.0|1.0|3.0|3.0 instead of
3.0|1.0|2.5|2.5|1.0
3.0|1.0|1.0|2.0|2.0
They don't drop out, they add to highest ranking. I'm not sure how that would affect your Life Purpose reading, but I guess it makes a difference? So I was just trying to figure out why the pics are classed as tented arches (not even Loop/Tented arches).
Ronelle said
So the highly detailed discussion you're having about the fingerprints is one, in our view, that isn't even relevant to what we do and how the system operates. And again, if you go look at a bunch of people's prints this will all become clear as a bell, but it's ivory tower theory until put into practice.
Surely fingerprint identification is at the very heart of what you do and extremely relevant to your system, the system couldn't exist without identifying fingerprints?
oh and I'm not an academic sitting in an ivory tower. I'm a hand reader who is passionate about hands and trying to learn more about the subject.
Lynn
Last edited on Tue Sep 2nd, 2008 10:49 am by Lynn
|
Lynn Gold Member


| Joined: | Sun Apr 15th, 2007 |
| Location: | Torquay, Devon, United Kingdom |
| Posts: | 606 |
| Your Age: | 46 - 55 | | Palmistry Skills: | Professional | | Your current mood: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |     |
|
Posted: Tue Sep 2nd, 2008 12:48 am |
|
Sorry I ignored Martijn's posts above Ronelle's. I see you have some similar questions to me and also trying to figure it out. Thanks for trying to explain some things Martijn, & for pointing out explanations already given. I understand all this, and your reasoning, but I am not really much wiser! I hope that Richard or his students can explain our confusion & clarify things for us.
P.S. why don't I learn to read my posts and correct mistakes before posting, instead of always editing my msgs ;-)
Last edited on Tue Sep 2nd, 2008 12:51 am by Lynn
|
Ronelle Coburn Member


| Joined: | Mon Aug 25th, 2008 |
| Location: | Portland, Oregon USA |
| Posts: | 28 |
| Your Age: | 36 - 45 | | Palmistry Skills: | Professional | | Your current mood: | Loving the life I live! |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |     |
|
Posted: Tue Sep 2nd, 2008 12:50 am |
|
Hey Lynn:
I'm not so much frustrated with you as with this format of writing back and forth because it's cumbersome (and with my sinuses which are hurting today...nothing to do with you at all...makes it hard to think and I should probably not be at my desk...I beg your pardon!). If we were actually looking at some sets of fingerprints...someone's real ones...all of this would probably be a lot easier. If I had time to scan some in I would, but I don't have much time on my hands (no pun intended) because my practice generally keeps me too busy to even participate on a forum like this. In about a month you probably won't hear much of me here again until next summer because I'll be on the road and teaching and have a booked-out client schedule. August is my back-off and re-invent my biz time and I get a little lonely, though no less busy!
The fingerprints in Richard's book (and in my book, that are tagged just the same) are classified as tented arches because the tri-radius has moved over toward the center (even if it hasn't made it all the way) of the fingerprint...making itself the "center of attention." It's as if the tri-radius, which in a full loop is sitting "off in the corner," has decided it's more important than that and is attempting to take center stage...whether there is some looping still going on or not. When the tri-radius is pushing the loop aside we consider the fingerprint to have strong tented arch energy. It's all about where that tri-radius is sitting. Location, location, location.
I just realized that Martin got this from a past post, but maybe, in all the text and pics, you didn't see this explanation.
As for having to identify them all individually first—I tend to glance over all the fingerprints first so that if something like this shows up I can decide how fussy I have to get with identification. If there are obviously higher/lower ranking prints I don't have to even look twice. Just draw the mixed symbol (the loop symbol with a tented arch under it) and move on. When I jump right in and draw a chart immediately and I hit one of these, I just write the loop-tented arch symbol down and move on then do an overall appraisal and make adjustments. FYI: I tend to be the fussiest of our crew about pegging the fingerprints down in terms of their technical characteristics and understanding when it matters and when it doesn't.
So, my answer to having to identify them all strictly first is—not necessarily. It depends. A tented arch with no looping will get the upside down "T" symbol and 2 points. A tented arch with some looping will have to await judgement depending on the other nine prints.
And I am sure you must be a super smart person because I haven't found anyone in 10 years who isn't who has the faintest interest in hands and deciphering them!!!
Is this explanation any better? If you have any sets of real prints you want to post, where you have questions, please do and we can walk through them together. If you do post some I'd beg you to label the paper before you scan and scan the labeling with the print so we can avoid the kind of confusion that's been going on with Den's and Vijay's prints. And if you have to post individually go in the order of right thumb first through the right hand's fingers in order and then repeat with left thumb first on through the left hand's fingers. Since this is the way the print chart gets constructed posting in that order makes things a whole lot easier!
Hope you're having a good day!
____________________ Ronelle Coburn
http://www.RonelleCoburn.com
|
Lynn Gold Member


| Joined: | Sun Apr 15th, 2007 |
| Location: | Torquay, Devon, United Kingdom |
| Posts: | 606 |
| Your Age: | 46 - 55 | | Palmistry Skills: | Professional | | Your current mood: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |     |
|
Posted: Tue Sep 2nd, 2008 01:29 am |
|
Thanks for your reply Ronelle. I appreciate you taking the time from your busy schedule. Hope your sinuses feel better soon.
You are right, if we were all sitting around a table with some prints in front of us, all this would be so much easier to discuss & understand!
Yes I did see the explanation about triradius moving to the centre, but that didn't explain the looped ridges to me, nor did I understand how near the centre it should be. But now I understand that the location of the triradius is what you are focussing on.
I also understand about the constraints of doing a live hand reading and having to "plump" for something, maybe go back to it and reconsider, in the end maybe even giving both options - it is not possible to analyse in as much depth as we have here with the advantage of extended time to think and 200% enlarged fingerprints.
Actually I do have a set of prints to post - a guy I read for a few weeks ago who travelled all the way from London to Devon and back in one day (more than 9 hours travelling & a 14 hour day), just to have his hand read. I asked him if he would like to be my guinea-pig for a Lifeprints reading, and I would send it to him later. Then I found out I'd bitten off more than I could chew! He has a loopy tent arch and a peacocks eye kinda loop. I have been trying to extract his fingerprints from his full hand ink print, using photoshop, for a couple of weeks but I'm not great at using that technology, hence I still haven't posted them on the forum.
(and now you've given me extra instructions on how to post them in the best order ....I'll try!) I'd better get a move-on as you are going away soon (so am I, at the end of the month).
Thanks.
Lynn
Last edited on Tue Sep 2nd, 2008 01:40 am by Lynn
|
Ronelle Coburn Member


| Joined: | Mon Aug 25th, 2008 |
| Location: | Portland, Oregon USA |
| Posts: | 28 |
| Your Age: | 36 - 45 | | Palmistry Skills: | Professional | | Your current mood: | Loving the life I live! |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |     |
|
Posted: Tue Sep 2nd, 2008 01:40 am |
|
Lynn:
What's your "best-guess" I.D. of his prints? Just take a look and give it a shot and send back in words.
____________________ Ronelle Coburn
http://www.RonelleCoburn.com
|
Lynn Gold Member


| Joined: | Sun Apr 15th, 2007 |
| Location: | Torquay, Devon, United Kingdom |
| Posts: | 606 |
| Your Age: | 46 - 55 | | Palmistry Skills: | Professional | | Your current mood: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |     |
|
Posted: Tue Sep 2nd, 2008 01:42 am |
|
| Thanks Ronelle, time for zzzz now but will get back to you soon!
|
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: Tue Sep 2nd, 2008 11:40 am |
|
Lynn wrote: Hi Ronelle, ....
You said
it is not the individual fingerprint that is important, but how individual fingerprints compare to all the other ten.
But surely the first step in this process is to identify all 10 prints individually, then compare them?
You're asking me see things from a different perspective, and that's exactly what I'm trying to do! But at the moment Richard's system seems more complicated than the established methods of fingerprint identification, as I am finding it hard to understand the rules. I am looking at what you do with a beginner's mind, as I am a beginner in Richard's system, but it's not so easy to 'throw out everything' I've learnt so far!
Yes Lynn, this is the basis of our discussion. And I have no doubts that identifying the correct individual fingerprints is of course also the 'basis' of Richard's fingerprint system.
____________________ 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: Tue Sep 2nd, 2008 12:55 pm |
|
Ronelle Coburn wrote: Hey Lynn:
...
The fingerprints in Richard's book (and in my book, that are tagged just the same) are classified as tented arches because the tri-radius has moved over toward the center (even if it hasn't made it all the way) of the fingerprint...making itself the "center of attention." It's as if the tri-radius, which in a full loop is sitting "off in the corner," has decided it's more important than that and is attempting to take center stage...whether there is some looping still going on or not. When the tri-radius is pushing the loop aside we consider the fingerprint to have strong tented arch energy. It's all about where that tri-radius is sitting. Location, location, location.
I just realized that Martin got this from a past post, but maybe, in all the text and pics, you didn't see this explanation.
As for having to identify them all individually first—I tend to glance over all the fingerprints first so that if something like this shows up I can decide how fussy I have to get with identification. If there are obviously higher/lower ranking prints I don't have to even look twice. Just draw the mixed symbol (the loop symbol with a tented arch under it) and move on. When I jump right in and draw a chart immediately and I hit one of these, I just write the loop-tented arch symbol down and move on then do an overall appraisal and make adjustments. FYI: I tend to be the fussiest of our crew about pegging the fingerprints down in terms of their technical characteristics and understanding when it matters and when it doesn't.
So, my answer to having to identify them all strictly first is—not necessarily. It depends. A tented arch with no looping will get the upside down "T" symbol and 2 points. A tented arch with some looping will have to await judgement depending on the other nine prints.
And I am sure you must be a super smart person because I haven't found anyone in 10 years who isn't who has the faintest interest in hands and deciphering them!!!
Is this explanation any better? ...
Ronelle, thank you for your efforts. Now I have a more specific idea of how you approach the fingerprints. The 'location' of the triradius appears to be a key-factor in your approach of classifying fingerprints.
Very, very unusual!
For in the history of fingerprints this has NEVER been a key-factor. Of course, fingerprint experts from all over the world will confirm that in the classic 'tented arch' (classified according the historical fingerprint system presented by Edward Henry: ), the triradius is positioned in the center of a fingerprint.
However, this characteristic (a triradius in the center) is usually also observed in a 'loop' with a low ridge count. And sometimes also in a 'loop' with a high ridge count. Therefore one can question your 'location' strategy from a fundamental point of view - for this approach might lead to inconsistent classifications.
(by the way, in the other discussion I have been referring to the position of the finger and the quality of a fingerprint ... which is another problematic aspect in your 'location' approach)
Ronelle, the best illustration of what I am trying to say here concerns one of the 'tented arch' examples in Richard's book - the right example below:
One can say that in the right 'tented-arch' example, the 'looping pattern' is actually in the center of this fingerprint!!!
And this right 'tented arch' example also presents a triradius which is more off-centered than for example the 'loop - tented arch' example in Richard's book (see the picture below):

So, from my point of view:
The 'location' approach (regarding the triradius, AND the pattern) doesn't explain the 'inconsistencies' we (Lynn and I) observed in Richard's fingerprint examples. More specific: we have no problem with Richard's words, nor his drawn pictures, but we do have a fundamental problem with (only) some his fingerprint examples - merely related to the 'tented arch' examples.
By the way, I also want to point out that Richard's description of the fingerprints in his book and his website do not contradict the basic characteristics of the fingerprint types described in the Henry-system:
http://www.fingerprinting.com/fingerprint-patterns.php

Ronelle, thanks again for your efforts. I will contact Richard about these 'tented arch'-related matters.
PS. For those who are interested to read more about the details of the Henry fingerprint classification systems (the basics of this system are included in far most Palmistry, Hand Analysis, and Chirology systems in the world), I can recommend the following sources:
http://www.fingerprinting.com/fingerprint-patterns.php (the 12 basic types described by the Henry fingerprint system)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Classification_System (the Henry fingerprint system described at wikipedia)
http://ridgesandfurrows.homestead.com/early_pioneers.html (early fingerprint pioneers)
By the way, the 12 basic types in the Henry fingerprint system are described as follows:
1. Arch
In arches, the ridges of the finger run continuous from one side of the finger to the other with no recurving. There are two sub-groups that further define the arch pattern:
- 1a - Plain Arch---this pattern has a consistency of flow to it. It starts on one side of the finger, and then the ridge cascades upward slightly, almost resembling a wave out on the ocean. The plain arch then continues its journey along the finger to the other side. The plain arch is the simplest of the fingerprint patterns to discern.
- 1b - Tented Arch---this pattern is similar to the plain arch in that it starts on one side of the finger and flows out in a similar pattern to the other side. However, the difference in the tented arch lies in the ridges in the center, which are not continuous as in the case of the plain arch. The ridges, which adjoin each other in the center, converge and thrust upward, giving the impression of a pitched tent.
2. Loop
In loops, the ridges make a backward turn but do not twist. This backward turn, or loop, is differentiated by how the loop flows on the hand and not how it flows on the card on which the imprint is taken. The imprint on the fingerprint card is similar to the reverse image we see when we look in the mirror at ourselves. There are two sub-groups that Henry identified in this category:
- 2a - Radial Loop---these are loops that flow toward the radius bone of the hand or, in other words, when the downward slope of the loop is from the direction of the little finger toward the thumb of the hand.
- 2b - Ulnar Loop---these are loops that flow toward the ulna bone of the hand or, in other words, when the downward slope of the loop is from the direction of the thumb toward the little finger of the hand.
3. Whorls
In whorls, there are patterns in which there are two or more deltas (first ridge nearest the divergence point of two type lines) and there exists a recurve preceding each delta. There are four sub-groups of whorls:
- 3a - Plain Whorl--- in these whorls, the ridges make a turn of one complete circuit and, therefore, are circular or spiral in shape. The plain whorl is the simplest form of whorl and the most common. There are at least two deltas and a ridge whose circuit may be spiral, oval or circular in shape.
- 3b - Central Pocket --- in these whorls, one or more of the simple recurves of the plain whorl recurves a second time.
- 3c - Double Loop--- in these whorls, there are two separate loop formations. In each of these formations, there are two entirely separate and distinct sets of shoulders and deltas.
- 3d - Accidental Whorl--- in these whorls, the composition of the pattern is derived from two distinct types of patterns with at least two deltas. Whorls which contain ridges matching the characteristics of a particular whorl sub-grouping are classified as accidental whorls.
4. Composites
In composites, there are patterns found in fingerprints which are combinations of arch, loop and whorl. Henry subdivided the composites into four sub-groups:
- 4a - Central Pocket Loop---these loops recurve a second time forming a pocket within the loop.
- 4b - Twinned Loop---also referred to as the Double Loop, these loops consist of two separate loop formations.
- 4c - Lateral Pockets Loop---these loops are similar to the Twinned Loop except that their ridges bend sharply down on one side before recurving, actually forming a pocket. The F.B.I. finds it too difficult to locate these two loops, and classifies both kinds as Double Loops.
- 4d - Accidental Loops---these loops are a combination of any two types of pattern with the exception on the plain arch that basically has no pattern.
Last edited on Tue Sep 2nd, 2008 02:45 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: Tue Sep 2nd, 2008 01:02 pm |
|
(quite a lot of content in my former post, so I repeat: )

Ronelle, thanks again for your efforts. I will contact Richard about these 'tented arch'-related matters.

(Hmmm ... now I see ... these litte yellow-people are actually creating a 'tented arch'!!!!!)
Last edited on Tue Sep 2nd, 2008 02:28 pm by hand_research
____________________ Martijn van Mensvoort
The latest news about palmistry & your hands:
http://www.handresearch.com
|
Ronelle Coburn Member


| Joined: | Mon Aug 25th, 2008 |
| Location: | Portland, Oregon USA |
| Posts: | 28 |
| Your Age: | 36 - 45 | | Palmistry Skills: | Professional | | Your current mood: | Loving the life I live! |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |     |
|
Posted: Tue Sep 2nd, 2008 08:15 pm |
|
Martin:
As I've said, trying to "talk" about all of this via writing is cumbersome.
As for the fingerprint examples you're looking at where there is some looping, our answer to it, again, | | |