• hmm, the graphite has more details but the ink has more definition. let's go with the ink. make sure you get as few of those blocked up areas as possible. if this means reducing pressure, that's fine, i can always darken up what i need to see with gimp. 

    the next step will be finding the crucial areas on those prints and starting to build a model that allows us to mimic those while adjusting for material properties and whatnot.

  • Ok ,I will do the other fingers later today`, for what I know the crucial parts are the ones that are around the "middle loop"
  • core, delta, ridge count. at least 5 points on each finger.

    you have loops, so you are already in the upper 60 percent of fingerprint types. this will make it easier.
  • Stumbled across this the other day - same concept but without the need of a 3d Printer. However, you need to have access to some real person's finger prints

  • I had some problems on the last days. You will have the prints on Wednesday! Sorry about that
  • Fingerprints sent!
  • I have taken the left hand prints, just in case we need them, If you need them guys let me know
  • It would probably be helpful in the long run but we need to prototype the right hand first
  • Ok, if you need them just tell me
  • Frank  Check your PM.
  • Method 3 will not work (not tried but when I was 7 I tried to see how long I could put my Fingers on the fire place and well it was a bad burn but not 3rd degree, and I still have normal fingerprints).
  • Today I found about a guy with a skin disease called Epidermolysis Bullosa, he doesnt have fingerprints. 

    Finger photo (NSFW):

  • Tested method three. It only worked perfect in the centre of the area but it half way did further away. It's been about 2 and a half weeks and is pretty much healed.
  • Jesus, can everyone stop trying to burn off their fingerprints? 
    1) It won't work. It didn't work for John Dillinger and it won't work for you.
    2) Fucked up fingerprints are just as distinctive as normal fingerprints. 

    Hoover was aware of this trend among criminals and he became wary of the possibility of success. He commissioned several surgeons and dermatologists to report on the likelihood of someone obliterating their fingerprints, and in 1934 they came back with their findings. Dr. Howard L. Updegraff, a member of that committee, had extensive experience in the area of fingerprint alterations and he reported that the only way to permanently obliterate a fingerprint is to graft skin from another part of the body over them. And in 1941, that’s exactly what Robert Phillips did when he got a doctor to graft the skin from his chest on to the tips of his fingers. Phillips, however, was caught because the ridges surrounding the graft areas, as well as on the other joints of his fingers were used to identify him.
  • Well, yes. This has been covered multiple times in this thread already. Grinders man, you can't reason with them.

    But, just to back this point up - The whole point of the scientific method is to be able to have a solid enough base of evidence that repeatablity is possible. OR to establish that something is outside of doable. 

    There have been enough tests of these methods. You are most likely not going to magically find the special way to set fire to your fingerprints. Casual mutilation in the face of overwhelming evidence isn't science, it's just dicking around.
  • Am I the only one who doesn't go "I need to not leave prints, let's burn off my damn prints" and instead goes "i'll just put on this 4 cent pair of gloves". and big deal if u don't have prints, there so many other ways to identify you and prints are only like 50-75 percent accurate if memory serves anyway.
  • I am not sure if you guys understand ANKs.  You got 10 on your hands on each fingertip.  That little center in your finger tip is the inside/center of you ank on your finger.  I can induce electrostatic discharges between my fingertips, using one of the fingers of claw and thumb.  

    Why do not you think of some other means for tricking the "system" and devices but without hurting yourself.  If you can not do it one time and one time only in split of a second I would say it is not worth of never gonna get biohack.  

    I would study ank, egyptian symbol, for what you want to do, and without hurting yourself would trick the system.  Study your prints, that you have left over, and do not hurt yourself.  Induce charge between your fingertips is my answer and see where that gets ya.  Good luck.  Stay safe.  Be smart.
  • edited June 2015

    I recall in school, kids would use white Emler's craft glue. Place a small dab on the back on their hand, wipe it in a circular motion. Do not rub it completely into absorption and let it dry. The glue drys smooth and practically clear. When needed it easily pulls off, visually resembling dead tissue.

    Not sure, this might be a no pain, low tech resolution.

  • it's also the inverse of the print. You would use that imprint as a mold for something like liquid latex 
  • Something that works ok similar to this is to press your finger into some very light weight air dry clay. Then apply a few layers of super glue inside to "Fix" the print. This isn't the reverse as spoken about above. Then fill in the space with some silicone and let it dry. The super glue unfortunately is a bit crusty and hard though with this method and wouldn't work well to press onto a reader. Also, when it dries it gets a bit mishapen at times.

    I'm going to pick up some liquid latex this week. There are kits specifically meant for making mold. I've worked with the special FX make up latex stuff and it takes a print well. I think this is probably going to be optimal an I don't think we need an intermediary step. Just paint it onto the fingers to make a mold.

  • edited June 2015
    Latex Trial 1


    Hard to show in a picture but the latex seems to have enough detail that I believe it would fool a thumb scanner. Trying to make a simple latex mold is way too time intensive. Even thin layers dry slow enough that it makes me want to pull my hair out. I went with Airstone style clay. I pressed my finger into it, then painted on a few layers of latex... thus this isn't a negative. The latex is definitely fragile so I'll take more time on the next few. I'm also going to see if I can get the Airstone clay to dry well enough to keep using it as a mold.

  • edited June 2015

    I've got a number of really great looking test prints. I'll be testing them this weekend. The scanners on Pyxis Units are particularly sensitive so while I don't think it's going to work... if it does we're good.

    Update: Uh... no. The unit I tested it on blows up the image. Looks good, but it doesn't fool the machine. Was this the point however? I mean, it clearly looks like my print and I can use it as a mold to make many many more.  

Sign In or Register to comment.