No-s, you are the one making accusations around here. You are the one making personal attacks, not me. I am merely pointing out you seem to keep missing the obvious. . . and it is obvious that a surface phenomenon such as Fingerprints does NOT carry any information about structures below the surface. The skin does not show the shape of the pads of fat, nerves, blood vessels, the distal phalanx, and other sub-cutaneous structures under the epidermis layer. They are at different depths and different densities.
I told you that Apple looked at the failings of the biometric fingerprint systems in the past and literally "Thought Different." The failings of previous "Fingerprint" systems is that they used fingerprints," something people leave reverse copies of every where they go! Not very secure at all if every Tom, Dick and Harry can literally lift a copy off of any surface you touch, reverse it, and Voilá, a duplicate of the key to your device! So, Apple asked, how do you retain the convenience of using a finger, but NOT use a fingerprint?
Apple's engineer's found a way in the anatomy of a human finger. . . which YOU apparently keep ignoring and WANT the iTouch sensor to be using a mere fingerprint, which I have been repeatedly telling you it does not.
The Anatomy of a human finger tip.
If you notice, between the epidermis layer with its distinctive fingerprint, nerves, blood vessels, sweat glands, etc, and the distal phalanx (the bone) is a bunch of fat blobs that look like a pile of cottage cheese or curds. These fat blob have ridges and bumps all over them that are distinctive and different for every human being and finger. No two are alike. . . and they do not change, barring accident such as a slashed finger. Apple's engineers found a way to measure the distance to the fat blobs and into the fissures between the blobs. . . and to map the features of the fat UNDER the epidermis, which is too thick and too coarse to show the fine grain of the fat ridges.
How do we know for a fact that fingerprints (the actual fingerprint, not a photo of one) contain no recoverable information that can be used to defeat the iTouch sensor?
Your idea that you could somehow find out anything about those fat ridges, the lobes and fissures that are measured and mapped by the iTouch sensor, with a oily residue fingerprint image, or an inked copy fingerprint, or even a casting of a finger, is akin to expecting a blind Braille expert to read a page of Braille print with a drawing or a photograph of the page, or through a sheet of leather laid on the page. Not one of those allows the data being used to be sensed by the means available.
Since you describe yourself as knowledgeable in the subject, can you objectively describe the precise quantitative and qualitative differences in the sensor used from iPhone 6 to 6s?
What is the precise depth of the "subcutaneous" finger touch sensing? How do we know this is as unique as a finger tip?
All of those questions are irrelevant. The first are trade secrets of Apple. . . and Apple has improver the iTouch sensor system since it was first introduced in the iPhone 5S, and it is also available in several models of iPad.
You can ask any good professor or text book on human anatomy what the distances to the gross layer of adipose tissue under the epidermis of a human finger is, but I doubt even those sources have the information on the depths of the fissures and surfaces of the lobes available at their, ahem, fingertips. As for uniqueness, it is unique enough to do the job at hand. . . and it is as unique as anything else that is created randomly by nature. Perhaps, there are multiple people with the same patterns of adipose finger tissue, but Apple has constructed their system so that after five failed iTouch attempts at entry, the user must use their passcode to gain entry. Trying multiple people to try and match an unknown pattern of finger fat patterns simple will not work to gain entry. The odds of hitting your mythical match are astronomical.
Looks like iPhone 6/6s already fell, so impossibility is off the table.
It hasn't . . . and I told you why the hacker thought he had succeeded. When others attempted to do it, they failed. He was using his own iPhone and a copy of his own fingerprint on the same digits it would fit. The device read the patterns through his copy, but only once out of five tries. The copy fingerprint did not work when his friend tried the copy on his finger. Others could not even get that. His "technique" failed peer review.
Now, I've spent far more time on this than arguing with you is worth . . .