CLPEX Chat Board

I have been following the Fingerprint Dogma Final Exam with interest but with some frustration for not having the name of the actors disclosed. On another list, I came across the "Houston we have a problem" message (see below) poster by Micheal Cherry.

Is the person posting under the pseudoname Dogma (formerly Guest) Micheal Cherry? I would enter a debate only when I know the actors.

Regards

Christophe Champod

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Michael Cherry <mpeg2@optonline.net>
Date: 17-Nov-2005 11:41
Subject: [Biometrics] Comments - posting is from fingerprint listserv
To: The Biometrics Discussion Group <biometrics@listserve.com>


Most of us practitioners in fingerprint science are aware of the
attacks on our practices and the underlying science and
methodology dealing with the identification of fingerprints.
(Sorry, individualization just has too many syllables and offends
the poet in me.) So, here was my idea: articulate the perceived
deficiencies and post them on the internet. Not just anywhere,
mind you, but in a place where all the greatest minds of
fingerprint science meet to confer, debate and discuss the issues
affecting the discipline. I would then collect all the great ideas
and compile them into a definitive defense of fingerprint science.
Last week, the questions were posed in three installments
accounting for over 1,000 views by forum visitors. Here are the
results:

1. Who was it that first suggested this principle of biological
uniqueness?
The survey says: "Many theories have been applied in explanation
of this law in relation to friction ridge skin. Alfred Hale's
Theory of Differential Growth is the one referred to above, by
Shaheen. Both Chaos and Fractal theories can be applied to
biological growth throughout nature, not just to friction ridge
skin. I admit that we do need to research more fully how these
various theories do explain the Law of Uniqueness, but just as I
believe that the Law of Gravity holds without a supporting theory,
so I believe the Law of Uniqueness holds true." (Thank you, Mr.
Fairhurst)

2. At what level was uniqueness first observed?
The survey says: ?????

3. Where was this principle/theory first published?
The survey says: ?????

4. What experimentation was conducted to verify this observation?
The survey says: ?????

5. Who first applied this principle to fingerprint ridge detail?
The survey says: ?????

6. How do we define sufficient? The implication is to an amount.
How much? How do I know when I have enough to proceed?
The survey says: ?????

7. How do we define quantity? Again the implication is to an
amount. How much? What value can I assign to what I observe?
The survey says: ?????

8. How do we define quality? If we are to judge the quality of a
print, what are the criteria? What are the differing levels of
Quality? Choice? Prime? Grade A? At the very least, there is a
quality level which is unacceptable. What is it? Can it be
described in words?
The survey says: ?????

So, I'll grant partial credit for question 1. Questions 2 through
8 went unanswered so no credit for those. The fingerprint
profession scores a remarkable 6.25% on their final exam. Houston,
we have a problem!

Christophe -- I, too, avoid discussions with anonymous persons. At one point, as I recall, "Dogma" mentioned having been trained by the FBI in 1970 and having been present at the NEDIAI conference in Vermont a couple of weeks ago. That would severely limit the list of suspects and, I believe, would eliminate Mr. Cherry. Was Mr. Cherry trained in fingerprints by the FBI in 1970 and was he present in Vermont? Or was "Dogma" misleading the readers with the reference to FBI training and conference attendence?

My distrust was aroused by "Dogma's" first anonymous posting in which he/she asked a list of questions, the answers to most of which can be found in any basic textbook on fingerprints. What discussion on these topics could be so earthshaking? And what effect would a totally unscientific poll for consensus have on these topics? Unless, maybe, "Dogma" is so steeped in dogma from 1970 and from the FBI that he/she actually is confused by it all.

If "Dogma" is Mr. Cherry, or whoever "Dogma" is, I believe the discussion would have attracted for more considered response had several things been different: 1) had the original posting not been anonymous, 2) had personal attacks been avoided, 3) had "clever aliases" been avoided by responders and real names used all around.

I realize ideas should be independent of the participants' names, but I still distrust people who hide behind anonymity when posting.

Pat Wertheim

My guess is that Michael Cherry posted this without attributing its original source.

I would enter a debate only when I know the actors

So, Professor, the idea is subordinate to the one who proffers it? An unusual position for a Philosophiae Doctor.

the answers to most of which can be found in any basic textbook on fingerprints

So, PW, are we to be confined to old rhetoric which your friends Ms. Steele and Dr. Cole have rejected? Or shall we search for new ways to explain what we do so that our challengers can finally understand that which we take for granted?

And what effect would a totally unscientific poll for consensus have on these topics?

My goal was to seek new ideas and original thinkers (found a few, too), not a regurgitation of the same old dogma.

I do not post anonymously. Did any of you fingerprint scientists bother to perform your own WSQ experiment?

Michael Cherry

Christophe Champod KNOWS I posted the following on the biometrics listserv two minutes later:

Henry,
1. I believe you are giving me credit for something I did not author. The author was an anonymous post on the major fingerprint listserv.
2. US-VISIT (approx. 40 million fingerprints) gives everyone their very first large-population insight into the uniqueness of fingerprints.

Michael Cherry

Note: the subject line from the posting Chris is referring to says - posting is from fingerprint listserv :
Subject: [Biometrics] Comments - posting is from fingerprint listserv

Dear Micheal,

I just have seen your reply to the biometric list. Thanks for the clarification. Sorry for having brought you in.

Christophe

I'm sure the post wasn't by Cherry - it was coherent.

George