A few days ago, Australian robotics hacker Marcel Varallo (whose gladiatorial hacks making Roombas fight each other amuse me greatly) very kindly posted up two new scans of the Somerton Man’s Rubaiyat code (along with many megs of his collected Somerton Man stuff) on his blog.
I’ve put the three scans we now have on a Cipher Foundation Rubaiyat Code page, and strongly recommend that people use one of the new scans as a basis for doing any image processing work, rather than the one that has been on the Internet for years.
For example, if you put the three scans’ “Q” shapes side by side and try doing image processing experiments on them…
…what you find is that the so-called “microwriting” (found in the leftmost of the three images) was simply a quantizing artefact introduced when the original JPEG image had its brightness and contrast adjusted. With the new (slightly higher resolution, and generally much smoother) scan, all that nonsense disappears. There is no ‘microwriting’ there at all: The End.
Whodda thunk it, I would never have guessed it…. 😛
I suppose that means that same writing that mysteriously managed to infect everything from Jestyn’s notes to Felstus’ book was all baloney!
In other news, the pope is probably a Catholic.
Interestingly timed, given the recent revelation (?) on GC’s pages. AFAIK his ID does not “depend” on the micro-writing etc., but does the debunk (if that’s what it is?) make the subject a less likely candidate?
Marcel is wrong in so many ways, I don’t know where to start. But give me a day or two. Not here though, somewhere a little less strident.
Pete bowes: it’s the evidence that’s important here, attacking the messenger won’t gain you any points. And the evidence says that microwriting is a bust.
Tammy Should: I’ve known about Marcel’s scans for some time, but he only got round to releasing them recently, despite friendly prods from me. If there is anything linking Tibor Kaldor and the Somerton Man, I haven’t yet seen it. The sooner we can move into a post-microwriting era, the better.
Milongal: in other news, a better quality image of the Rubaiyat code turns up… 🙂
Yes, the ‘evidence’ … We discuss this and your unqualified approval of Marcel’s untidy post.
Not a good career move, Dome old boy, you’ve exposed a flank, and unattractive as it is, we are looking into it.
Pete bowes: Marcel has his opinions, not all of which I agree with, and that’s OK – but the two immediate issues to resolve here are…
(a) whether or not the new high resolution image contains microwriting (Having carried out some tests, my conclusion is that it doesn’t), and
(b) whether or not the new high resolution image is genuine (I believe it is, but that’s a matter for separate discussion).
The image Marcel has reproduced is an image of an image of an image that was overwritten with ink.
This is an impossible scenario.
peteb: without access to the newspaper’s archivist’s library, JPEG scans of a photograph of an overdrawn police photograph are as close as we can get for now.
What emerged from comparing the levels between scans was this: that the only image we had for a long time had already been processed. And I concluded that the ‘stepping’ (the quantization) that was introduced when stretching the levels to make the JPEG look visually ‘contrasty’ and nice also introduced the numerical artefacts that Gordon wrongly interpreted as blurry microwriting right at the edge of perception.
And so the new scans – that haven’t already been processed in the same way – give truer and more reliable results when processed. Which is why they don’t exhibit the features that vaguely resembled microwriting.
How could the Rubaiyat code exhibit features that resemble microwriting when the microwriting has been overwritten with ink?
peteb: the “microwriting” Gordon highlighted in the Rubaiyat code seemed to be in the ink used to overwrite the original photograph (e.g. the ‘Q’).
It would make no sense to conclude from this that the overwritten ink (which was very likely added by SAPOL) itself contained the microwriting, because that would mean it was added long after the Somerton Man had died. My understanding, therefore, was that Gordon believed that the microwriting was on the page itself, peering through the ink. But you’d have to ask him if that’s what he believes now.
Are you contesting a procedure that demonstrates that residue ink is left in the indentations after the overwrite is stripped back?
peteb: that’s not a ‘procedure’, that’s an hypothetical after-the-event explanation for a supposed feature we have no access to at this remove in time (and so cannot test either way).
If there is microwriting present in one scan, it should also be present in other scans, particularly if those other scans are at higher resolution and with less processing.
Given that Gordon published extensive details of the equipment he used to get his result, where is the hypothesis?
All it takes to confirm what Gordon has found is for someone to repeat the exercise using the same procedure, it’s not rocket science.
Then again, given the volatile background to this discussion, maybe it is.
peteb: the hypothesis is that there is microwriting there at all. All Gordon has demonstrated is that if you take a single image – a single observation – and manipulate heavily enough, you can produce blocky artefacts right at the edge of perception that you can interpret as microwriting. Remember, his interpretations and all his speculations are built on the back of a single observation (a single JPEG).
If he can reproduce the same results – specifically, the same microwriting – from a different scan of the same thing (particularly a higher resolution scan), then he’d be starting to do genuine science.
I’m puzzled by this statement…”How could the Rubaiyat code exhibit features that resemble microwriting when the microwriting has been overwritten with ink?”
I’ve been asking that for a long time, but GC seems to dismiss this with a “trust me, I was a policeman” – but in any event I don’t really understand how it would matter in one case but not the other.
My biggest problem with the microwriting is that despite technology that is far, far more advanced, and techniques that can apparently detect this microwriting on a photo of a tracing of pencil most likely on a totally different medium to the original text, we don’t seem to get anything more valuable than “SEGA” – and while I used to love playing Wonder Boy and Alex Kidd, I don’t think they had the same entertainment in the 40’s. So we’re to believe that these people used small writing that they could (presumably) read with yesterday’s technology, yet we can’t actually get anything sensible out of it? If you’re writing in micro, you believe it to be secure, and so the things you write likely wouldn’t be overly cryptic.
Secondly, I think the very fact that the original text is in pencil points away from microwriting – it’s difficult (I’m tempted to say impossible) to hide microwriting in pencil (you’d notice the lines aren’t perfectly neat) and so I’d struggle to believe the cops at the time wouldn’t have noticed it. Scratching in a texta line is different (or even writing texta over pencil) – stuff like the banknotes, but managing neat undetectable microwriting in pencilled letters just doesn’t work for me.
Thirdly it just doesn’t make sense. If you’re hiding something “in plain sight”, why would you attract attention to it by having a bizarre code? A bus ticket would be noted but not investigated (it’s an ordinary item to have in a pocket); ditto for a bank note; hell, even a book like the rubaiyat is innocuous enough. Yet we’re to believe that these wily spies who had kept various governments at bay would write micro-code on what is otherwise an incredibly noticeable piece of paper. It simply doesn’t wash – and anyone who says “double blind” is just an idiot. Why? When you have a virtually untraceable method of communication that can be hidden on absolutely any everyday item where nobody would look you’re an imbicile to put it on something that stands out from the crowd and will get heavily scrutinised if ever discovered (and if it is a double-blind, then why in the rubiayat, why not on one of the blank envelopes or pieces of paper?). These are not Hollywood scriptwriters trying to create a story for an audience who will believe in anything (as long as you hide the fishing wire), but (if we believe the Micro idea) seasoned international spies who have had relative success in keeping themselves out of focus.
Fourthly (and perhaps for me the moment when it went from implausible to bullshit) is the demonstration that it worked on Feltus’ book. To me this absolutely demonstrates that it’s not deliberate microwriting, but rather something that we can find anywhere we look if we play the process enough, and I suspect confirmation bias has played a large but in finding most of the (as yet unreadable) “writing”.
Of course, whether the microwriting is bull or not, that still doesn’t exclude Pavel. Nor does Tibor necessarily link in either (with or without the codes). My skepticism there is for totally different reasons (the “similarities” between Tibor and SM are easily explained through coincidence, confirmation bias (e.g. choosing what we believe SM’s story to be to line it up Tibor; as for Pavel, we’ve chosen someone who disappeared on the opposite side of the world, looks vaguely similar to SM (personally I think there’s big differences in the two), and had no real reason to end up in Australia – if it’s Pavel, where’s his toothpicks? how common is a toothpick chewer who is also a smoker?).
Have a shot at it yourself then, prove it right or wrong, then we can all move on.
Pete: I’ve already tried to reproduce the microwriting result with the new scans, and didn’t even get close. The features of the original scan that Gordon selectively enhanced through image processing to yield vaguely lettering-like shapes simply aren’t there.
So: if the new scans are genuine, microwriting is a bust. Or (from Gordon’s perspective) anyone who thinks the new scans are genuine is obvs a muppet.
Science at its best.
Let’s have a look at the difference in overwriting techniques, the letters R and P. Over my way.
Pete: if the “microwriting” is under the overwriting, why does it matter?
Wrong answer.
Pete: right now, I’ve got bigger fish to fry than wondering whether two or more different SAPOL detectives did the overwriting.
Wrong supposition.
Pete: what next, wrong trousers?
Why not, and lose on three of a kind.
Pete bowes: by the way, your wrong supposition sounds a bit painful. You might need some cream for that.
Four, that’s two pair.
Pete: was there actually a point you were trying to make about the overwriting? e.g. that it looks as though at least two different detectives added it (the first one was very heavy-handed with the laundry pen so it ended up looking blobby, while the second one had a much lighter/smoother touch etc); or that a previous detective seems to have tried using a pencil to overwrite the indentations on the Rubaiyat itself before realizing that this was a completely stupid idea?
@Petey – I can’t prove it wrong, but don’t think it’s right so won’t invest the effort. Perhaps I’ll have egg on my face – I’m ok with that. From my view the whole notion of microwriting doesn’t warrant any effort….
I think the onus to prove the microwriting is on the proponents who believe in it (and I can see Clive and Gordon have invested significant research into it [and kudos to them for it] – but I remain unconvinced).
I don’t think SM is Pavel. I don’t think Tibor is related much. I absolutely don’t think there’s microcode on the “code” page. I don’t really thing there’s microcode on Jestyn’s scribbles to Alf. I seriously doubt any microcode on Feltus’ book.
To be honest, I’m not sure SM was at the Adelaide Railway Station that day. I’m not certain it’s his suitcase. I don’t believe either ticket in his pocket was his. I question a lot of the “known” facts…(as Gordon and Clive do). I think SM must have been incredibly ordinary to have not been noticed, and while I concede that’s what spies are good at, I struggle with the spy theory because there are too many obviously extraordinary things.
So (assuming it was aimed at me rather than Nick), I won’t have a shot at it – because it simply isn’t a plausible theory to me. It’s like me challenging you to prove the Earth isn’t flat – and forget the pictures from space, that assumes light travels in a straight line; and forget that people (claim to) have sailed around it, it might be some mobius-like shape that our minds can’t fathom.
No, I think the burden of proof for microwriting is on the people who believes it exists. And the “proof” to date is (in my opinion) not there – and if you think it’s been proven then we will forever disagree.
I must say I sort of find it odd that we argue over microcode when (as far as I can tell) it isn’t actually related to the likelihood of Pavel being or not being SM…so we’re essentially arguing over an irrelevant detail.
So (as I’m sure you’ve gathered Petey) I don’t subscribe to the microcode, despite any “proof” on GC’s blog (that doesn’t necessarily make me right, of course, but it’s not for me to disprove what doesn’t make sense when there’s not much evidence to endorse it). I don’t subscribe to Pavel for loads of other reasons (even other than the weak resemblence). Explain to me the toothpicks, and then we can talk Pavel…
NB: whatever your thoughts about Marcel, I do sort of like his idea that the texta is the media trying to make an image that will appear in the papers, not the coppers trying to clarify the text….
How I love your supercilious bullshit, Nick, you have the ability to command a majestic flow of nonsense that appears to make sense on the first read, but then deconstructs into a puddle of homemade definitions and shady comparisons. Lovely stuff, I suppose your deep background in computer games gives you the edge here.
Not to forget your standout successes with the VM and those various coded notes left by sundry rapists and murderers.
My advice: get something behind you, son, even a small success, something you can back yourself with when the going gets tough.
Remind me … what exactly have you achieved over the last seven years? I’ve been reading Cipher Mysteries that long and have seen no successes.
Anything?
petebowes: I’ve learnt some very wonderful things about ciphers over the past few years.
Just not from you.
I’ve never passed myself off as a teacher, Nick, I’m just ordinary folks.
“How I love your supercilious bullshit….”
From the condescending guy who shuts down any discussion on his own site that doesn’t agree with his point of view through increasingly aggressive taunting, and insists anyone who doesn’t agree with him is stupid, not thinking properly etc, etc, etc…..
Source: comments in almost any post on tomsbytwo
NB: I assume pete you’re getting so angered you’re forgetting which profile to use? or are some of the replies (the peteb ones) someone pretending to be you (if it is their apery is pretty good)?
No need to involve yourself Milongal, Nick and I have an understanding. I’d rather see your thoughts discussed without any personal bias.
@Pete … it’s a public forum and you’re happy to use it for dick-waving and ad hominems, so while there’s “no need” for anyone to “involve” themselves: why shouldn’t they? Especially when they’re right.
Over at your place the day was, apparently, early. We were to expect updates. All gone very quiet now though, except for the white noise that Milongal points out.
It’s almost as if you’ve got nothing to say.
Pete: If you’re not gettin any, bites that is, try a little more milk in your porridge, works for me almost all the time.
It’s funny Pete, I’d much prefer to read through others’ speculation (no matter how out there) than the personal shit too – I wonder who started it?
Let’s get back to the toothpicks.
Pavel was a toothpick chewer. Where are the toothpicks? None on SM, and none in the suitcase. Plenty of smoking paraphernalia, though – cigarettes and lighter. Is it normal for a toothpick chewer to smoke (I would have thought it would be rather hard and you’d have to get rid of the toothpick ) – in fact I sort of thought that chewing toothpicks was a habit people take up to REPLACE smoking (but that might be more recent).
According to the internet (which of course never lies) toothpick chewing is something that seems to have appeared in the mid 1940’s – at least in our Westernized world (perhaps Russia was big on it before then). While we associate it with “tough-guys”, the likely origin (I think a couple decades earlier again) is that toothpicks were often available at expensive restaurants and so chewing a toothpick outside such an establishment gave the impression of opulence (because clearly you had just eaten there). But we digress…
IMO Pavel’s nose, ears, eyebrows and chin look different; SM’s shirt appears worn higher up the neck and the tie looks a different knot. All of those things individually may be explained away (the features could be misleading because of the photos, or because one is post mortem; the clothes might be a result of being moved (or even put on) post mortem by someone else or may look strange because of what the body’s been through), and even collectively I’ll admit there’s a hint of plausibility still there….but where are the toothpicks? Did he stop chewing because he’d lost important teeth? Did someone steal them to mask his identity (shouldn’t there be more in the suitcase?)? How is it someone who is so reluctant to simply discard a used bus ticket has absolutely no trace of any toothpicks (used or otherwise) on his person?
If this guy is Pavel, where are the damn toothpicks?
The offer is there old son, you’ve been part of the Somerton furniture for a long time …. the thread is all yours. I’m banned from comment once you make an appearance.
milongal: I’m here for you. The toothpicks, you asked ‘where were they?’
I humbly propose that an agent with such a peculiar habit would be known by it. Perhaps he was known as the Toothpick Man around the traps.
Would it make sense for the individuals who stripped him of ID to take the toothpicks as well?
Are we moving on here, milongal? Is this acceptable?
… and by the way, there is only one me, though I can ape myself some days.
Pete: Don’t be too hard on yourself son, we’re all capable of acting like monkeys at times.
Speak for yourself John Sanders … you have yet to make sense of what you post.
Pete: And to think I’ve been accused of aping you, so what your saying about me must therefore make sense. Didn’t realise I was so dumb, there you go but at least I have’nt been called a conceited, egotistical clown for the better part of a week so I’ve got some catching up to do eh.
Well Pete, it’s the only explanation I can come up with (that someone took the toothpicks knowing they’d link him), yet it doesn’t really satisfy me. I’m not a toothpicker, but I sort of would’ve expected toothpicks in his luggage too – I sort of assume you take one (or a few) with you, but leave any packet somewhere else. I also would sort of expect someone to notice something when they’re checking the teeth (I don’t know, little bits of wood or something). Aaaand, I’m still unsure about a smoker being a toothpicker (I sort of assumed a reformed smoker might chew toothpicks, but it seems an incompatible habit with an active smoker (I’m sure someone will correct me on that)). We know SM was a smoker – he had smokes on him, including one (or two, depending on which account you read) that he’d smoked as he died, and apparently significant enough staining for someone to conclude he was a cigarette smoker not a pipe smoker.
So I take your point that the absence (or presence) of certain items doesn’t necessarily reflect what he would normally have on his person, but I remain stubbornly unconvinced we can explain those toothpicks away so easily.
Make a contribution, John, even a little one, that would be much better than being just a chirrup in the background noise.
milongal, you said you thought that the tickets in his pocket weren’t his, so perhaps the person who put them there lifted the toothpicks. And we may not be dealing with ‘wily spies’ so much as self-taught individuals doing some spying business who were caught out by wily spies.
Pete: My contribution & just a little one. I’m thinking it was the toothpick fairy, who also may have grabbed his hat, soiled his spare undies for spite and made off for fantasy land. Though admittedly I could be clutching at straws…chirp chirp.
That’s true Pete – I do question whether the tickets were his – and I guess if I’m insistent that the contents of his pocket were meddled with (and I can see no other explanation for the absence of a wallet (or at least some money) and the presence of tickets), then I have to concede that someone could have pinched his toothy picks. But I don’t like it, one bit.
To accept it was Pavel (and I can’t see much similarity in the photos – I’d be inclined to say the Mikkelsen picture is a better match, if the pesky little bugger didn’t have a well documented alternative demise), the total absence of toothpicks suggests (at least) one of:
1) There is more luggage (or at least posessions)
2) The suitcase at the station is not his
3) The suitcase at the station was deliberately placed to appear to be his (this requires either a lot of forethought, or some manipulation and social engineering).
So I think this is one of those “you won’t convince me and I won’t convince you” scenarios that people sometimes wage internet wars on. Perhaps I’ll end up with egg on my face if someone conclusively proves it was he – but the beauty of semi-anonimity on the internet is that when I’m proved wrong I can just become “lagnolim” or some other identity and pretend it never happened.
I won’t be the bloke chucking eggs, Milongal, too many have come my way. But I do like the internee angle, especially since SAPOL didn’t appear to bother with them in their investigation. Perhaps their records were off the state police campus, so to speak.
I googled lagnolim once, Pfizer had it for sale as a medicinal skin conditioner.
googling lagnolim now I see that someone else already uses that name (possibly more than one people). Must’ve been a popular skin conditioner.
“I’ve seen some pretty amazing images in pen skips, completely coincidental, but that does look like it might be something, numbers perhaps?”
Taken from Voynich Ninja, written by JKP – Amarius – he’s looking at the letter Q.
Pete: sure, and when JKP finds the higher-resolution images, he’ll also realize what a load of pareidolic nonsense the microwriting stuff is.
Gordon: You just came up with something rather intriguing in your ‘victory at sea through the scheming eyes of spy Surgeon Lieutenant Robson’ thread…It seems that those little W&T ROKs in the Courage & Friendship series, actually came with their own gift postage envelopes, which was a neat little touch. That gets us back to the blank cleanskin square white ones, seen with several letter cards in the suitcase pictorial thread. The envelopes had also been mentioned by Nick and perhaps also J. B. Cleland about posting dates for Xmas cards to US and UK. I’m wondering now whether the lack of accompanying greeting cards, might suggest that those particular envelopes had been supplied for mailing ROKs as Chrissy presents. And why would one person be carrying more than just a single copy in his personal kit?,perhaps he was a regional traveller for the distribution agents in Australia. If so, why no other book copies? Dunno, could be they were spares after his sales were completed…. On another matter: New, info from the one volume Edition of War in the Pacific, talks about USS Pensicola arriving with it’s fleet in Brisbane on 22/12/41. Thence getting sailing orders on 24/12/41 to do a lightning troop escort to the the north (Torres Sts); Arriving back in time for the whole fleet’s en-mass port clearance on 28th instant. So your posted orders that little HMAS Deloraine was presumably waiting for the Pensicola Fleet’s initial arrival ex Suva, off Morton Island Qld. six days too late is somewhat confusing, you’ll agree. Who’s to know; perhaps we got it wrong in that the presence was instigated as a precaution against Nip mini subs using the departing fleet as cover for their own intended clandestine entry into Brisbane Port.
We could come down a peg with our well thought out plots and go right back to Jessica’s pad at 90A Moseley Street. Has anyone considered the possibilty that she handled tenancy for the several other flats at No.90 and that Somerton man may have been her somewhat down and out tenant. She may have had an agreement, whereaby he could earn rental reduction in exchange for pushing the W&T range of books including the ROK for which she was a commission agent distributor . It would make those extra square 8 X 8 inch envelopes found in the Keane suitcase a better bet than festive cards, for which 1st December would be too late for overseas Xmas and perhaps too early for Australia. That could account for Jessica’s home number X3639 on the cover of his spare copy. If she had have had misgivings about identifying the cast later, I might suggest that things like rashion cards or other redeemable assetts in his kick at the time of his demise may have been the reasoning. Depending on how and when SM died, Prosper could have been around to cover for any wrongdoings by lodging a loaded port at the cloak room or maybe even arranging for the Pruszinski business to go down. Wouldn’t it have been a shock for poor jess, had she plied our desparately ill friend with one of Uncle John Mohr’s surefire herbal tonics and dropped the poor begger in his tracks. But quite a clever follow up act to come with the yarn about her old Clifton Gardens dealings with Alf Boxall; so all’s well that ends well and who cares about who turned the book in or how it got into somones auto.
Looking back on Prosper Thomson, it seems that he only really came across as an SM entity at about the time Jestyn was named inadvertently by Prof. Abbott. Apart from the court records, Adelaide small Ads, his love of old bikes and autos, oh yes, along with the supposed hunt club out Policeman’s Point ( strangly never varified), we know fluff all. Like where he lived at the time of SM’s death in late ’48, which is quite ridiculous considering that SM coppers like Gerry’s best mate mate Ron Thomas did. I’ve endeavoured to get some inkling from his brother’s records but to no avail, with the exception of older bro Adrian who, without (unpaid) access to his full war record we’re a little in the dark. Interestingly, he did serve in Adelaide for a short period in ’42 before being sent up to Rum Jungle NT, then to PNG and Borneo. What happened later, only Huey knows although he does not show up again anywhere deceased which is a pity. If old Prosper was in Adelaide in ‘46, as is claimed and was hooked up with assumed mafia boss Rosie Barbaro, then it beggars belief that Special Branch and Consorting squad didn’t have him in their books. Maybe he was working both sides of the park and the fuzz allowed him a degree of flexibility his shady car deals and possible fencing of ill gotten gains.
BS: Mustn’t forget, we’ve got other players up Darwin way, around the time of the Nip air raids, including a pair of Alf Boxall cousins, three Thomsons, the Herbert brothers along with their nemesis Fred Morris and our two future SM aquaintees, Paul Lawson and Doc Dwyer…Enough there to sink a bloomin battleship!…
BS: Not only did USS New Orleans enter Sydney Harbour by her stern, she apparently also left aft about, which should have exposed her Starboard (32) side quite clearly to the North ie. Georges Head. That is, if she had reverse sailed out through the heads under her own steam and not been towed from the bow.
@JS: if Prosper was known to the fuzz and played both sides of the park, then perhaps that’s why they allowed mis missus some anonymity. Don’t really want to scare a grass by having his missus’ name through the papers as a potential witness
My recent post which spoke, amongst other things, of those square unused special W&T C&F book sized envelopes, found in the Keane suitcase, was not some fantacy on my part. I really can’t see other plausable reasons for them, other than for the stated purpose. Might we not now have more confidence in our feelings about SM’s connection with case and contents? I’d like to think so, and although I had never been a detracter, I’m sure to have offered viable alternatives, which I’m now pleased to put aside.
Two items of apparel that may have given an indication of SM’s origins or former vocation were never mentioned to my knowledge, which I find surprising. Can anyone tell us what they were. I’ll give a clue which won’t come as a big surprise, when revealed and should not be difficult to identify. They are the very first items that any dilligent police officer takes possession of to ensure that they are not later used as a tool to thwart justice or use as a weapon of convenience. Dead easy.
Shoelaces and Belt (or tie, but that’s been done to death, no?)?
milongal: I see that Duroncrush raised a point re shoelacing on BS back in sixteen and Gordon responded, hardly done to death. It seems that Britishers laced their Oxford or Derby brogues all across, starting from bottom right to top left, whilst other Europeans and Americans tended to mainly cross in various forms. I don’t have to tell you how Japanese and other Asians laced up for obvious reasons.
Another thing not often mentioned, concerns the rather unkempt state of SM’s hair, especially for a man who was frequently applauded on all other aspects of his overall presentation, by all who got to know him dead. So why so lax with his grooming; the cut being rather longish and showing no signs of recent attention, or application of pomade which would have been standard drill for the well appointed fellow circa. ‘48. I have previously expressed some possible reasons for SM’s seeming lack of hair care, should anyone be of a mind to know.
John Sanders: an interesting question, albeit one that’s hard to answer. Given the lack of photographs of the death mise-en-scène on the beach, we can’t really say what state the Somerton Man’s body was in. Even the photos with the shirt and tie were staged more for the purposes of drama than for the benefit of forensic science, a tradition that sadly continues to the present day, particularly with bloggers. 🙁
Peteb: I’m definately not prepared to concede anything to do with your body swap reasoning, primarily because I have no idea what it is. But what I am prepared to do in order to find out, is to make a magnanimous, conciliatory guesture of compliance regarding your manic quest for Gordon Strapp’s striped trousers. I do have my own reasons for not standing in your way on this and, as you know, I affirmed my tentative support in respect of a body swap theory some time ago. Nothing comes gratis in this business, so if you can provide a convincing reason for the swap, I ‘should think’, I could be encouraged to do something similar.
John Sanders – The man seen alive in the evening was not the man found dead in the morning.
This has been proved beyond doubt.
I have no idea what you are talking about.
Peteb. The man seen DEAD in the evening was not the man seen dead in the morning. You have some explaining to do if you think otherwise and needless to say your response is not deserving of further explaining from where I stand. Sorry but your proofs don’t mean jack.
Peteb: Paraphrasing a witness’ statement used to be a very useful tool for investigators to elicit details from a source not too sure of themselves. Using the mighty power of suggetion, a handy cop would not have difficulty inserting a line or word more in keeping with prefered details of the matter under investigation. In young Strapps case, the striped trousers may well have been his words, after all, fashion of that time, might likely have favored some light stripes as opposed to plain brown for men’s trousers. The fact that he suggested they may have belonged to a suit, the coat of which he did not see seems a little fluffy, but who knows, perhaps we need not be too fussed about such a minor detail. Your late confident assertion that SM was wearing the possibly striped Marcos and not the perhaps unstriped Staminas, might require some explaining on your part but we’re not likely to be pushy if it’s going to cause a re hash of your own flowery version of events.
Peteb: Did you check Olive’s original statement for any non corroborative detail. The standout points to me in Gordon’s highlighted account, are that he agreed with Lyons on the SM’s (?) body position, especially in that it was on it’s back (away from the sea-wall). Then the somewhat troubling denial of not being able to see it from the waist up, which is hard to figure, unless he did not choose to reveal that he’d seen the man before. How could he possible not have had a full profile view from the stairway overlooking the spot marked ‘X‘. We all recall Olive quite clearly describing the mozzies seen buzzing about his head when the couple used the (Alvington childproof) stairs. They would have been all eyes, same as the Lyon couple, and what’s ever so clear is, all four were quite convinced that the body was deceased. Of course they were also the only people about during the time, despite Constable Moss, who was out of his own patrol area, saying that the stairs were in constant use. Somerton was the end of the road and probably not such a popular sun bathing or swimming spot at that time of day. People engaged in the body moving business, might choose such isolated location for their double dump. Especially having the dune doovers and bunkers alongside for a handy, ‘beach burial’ without frills or flowers and possibly with George as sole mourner. …..11 November, 1918. Lest we forget.
SM, wherever he hailed from, would not have been overly impressed with any of the gala festivities offered in mock celebration of rememberance day..None of the world leaders, could make it by 11 and then most were forced to suffer some pretty rough Bach or Wagner for hours in the rain while Trump and his fine lady seemed be waiting for the big game to start. Meanwhile our Frog host was crawling all over his former Kraut silver medal counterpart, as if in apology for allowing uncouth foreigners to win the 1918 world series. Of course Anzac Corp. (sic) sans All Blacks ran it’s usual splendid self serving regional fizz gig at VB (pop. 3639) in support of the good old AWM Canberra ACT circa. ‘41 extravaganza, highlight of which was a troupe of Viet era draft dodger has beens doing their Yank (Tom Waites) rendition of Waltzing Matilda… As if we’ll ever be allowed to forget the sorrow and shame of war.
“all four were quite convinced that the body was deceased.”
That’s bullshit, Johnno, and well you know it.
Peteb: I’m not so sure that we need be too hard on fellow blog commentaters, noting your particular scorn towards Voynicharoos, who as a unit, would like nothing better than for SM to be rooted & burnt; and moi with him of course. Actually most of us should share blame for the manic faith placed on alleged accredited authorities like Feltus and others for the leads that proved inevitably wrong and were bound to lead us foolishly astray. eg. Preface Unknown Man: ” In the early evening a man was seen lying against the seawall on the foreshore of…..Somerton Beach….On 1st December, (1948)……the body of a well-dressed man was found in the same position that the person had been seen the previous evening” , which contradicts the recallections of at least three eye witnesses. And that was on page numero bloody uno of the naration; It seems that as one continues on, practically all the detail taken from Police indices and those self gathered, which are fortunately limited, are tainted by the ever present imposter at large, Mr. Presumption. One certainly can’t complain about the stuff Gerry was most fortituously allowed access from Neil Munro’s ‘inside story’ gem. If only he had have been inclined to check out the detail more throughly and not bothered so much with the irrellevant historical sideshows such as Toro (sic) Toro (sic) Toro (sic).
Peteb: The nuances son, that’s where you got your stripes if you recall my lecture. Go through the three accounts of the Lyons’, then Derreck’s ‘teenagers‘ and try to peek into their inner perceptions; put aside what they were said to have said for the coroner. PS: Did you know that Gordon Strapps stood 5′ 3″ in his riding boots and was noticeably tattood at the age of eighteen, prior to being snapped up the navy. Does that make him somewhat in need of further scrutiny as to what he may have been doing at Somerton, a ways from home on a week night. Perhaps not for you and your team who might be inclined to write it up as, he being engaged in a little innocent social intercourse with a lady friend. I don’t think that way!
I’m having enough problems peeking into your inner perceptions.
Peteb: That’s ok, just keep on following my leads and so long as you don’t trip yourself up, you might just come in with the silver.
Và chúc may mắn cho bạn Sanders, tôi hy vọng mọi việc suôn sẻ
Peteb: Can you show us anywhere in the Police files where there is any mention of trouser colours period. That is apart from sharp eyed Gordon’s (paraphrased) brown striped pair. I really have not had chance to go through everything, though there is certainly no mention in the worded inquest sans exhibit details, nor it seems, anywhere else apart from the blog site ‘Anemptyglass‘. Could it be that over the years, we just took it for granted that plain brown must be correct, based on Gerry’s own flowery narative and extremely inaccurate book hard book cover. In the end, I think, be it ‘brown striped or striped brown’, it was intended merely as a relative descriptive term for standard ‘Crusader‘ lightly striped suit cloth in vogue at the time…No big deal Peter and certainly not the Holy grail as evidence goes, albeit significant in light of your brand spanking new ‘man in the evening, man in the morning’ breakthrough hypo.
No.
Peteb: So we’ll mark that down as being a negative petulant comment, directed at nobody in particular, shall we?..
You asked a question, you got an answer … [remainder deleted]
Peteb: OK, it was the post on various ‘shades of grey‘ etc. Sorry for not identifying your “No.” as an affirmative to my query; remiss of me. So there you go, the stripes have it, always have it seems and as Flash commented “Good work Pete”, sort of…
Peteb anors: We can take it for rote that our tatood young friend was either not being truthful, or was else misreported in his assisted depiction of what went down on the night. He simply could not have not seen SM mark one’s full profile as he & Olive descended, then later ascended the Alvington stairway considering what we know of the scene. In a manner, he even seems to acknowledge this by suggesting that his target was besuited. Should we not therefore be scanning all available police reports to ascertain what his ‘suit’ jacket looked like ie. colouring and pattern for instance, which might be of help somehow. I’m not into making any particular point and am as much open to positive suggestion as the next man, for my own agenda to be potentially viable or else reconsidered. Capisce?
Peteb: The ‘suit‘ jacket was not so difficult to run down, nor to determine with absolute certainty that it was a mid tone brown double breaster with discernable, albeit not so loud, greyish pin stripes. That may originally have come from Mike Daish, whom I only know by reputation, as being a reliable SM historian. I think he did go further in suggesting that Olive Neall said that the man was wearing a suit, when seen, which would, on the face of it, tend to support her beau, although that disclosure is missing from her affidavit. What’s to make of all this, I’m not at all sure, but you have to give it to our Nick, with his ‘no muff too tough’ tactics, especially when people are out to take the mickey out of him.
Looks like we may have resolved the trouser issue based on a majority concensus in favour of SM having worn a lightly striped grey/brown woollen double breasted suit in the evening and similar attire next morning. I’ve just gone through the ‘Inside Story’ notes from 1977 that merely affirms a ‘brown suit’ and no elaboration which only goes to suggest that no one was too concerned with stripes at the time. From my recollection, it may only have been Coroner Cleland who gave some consideration to an SM body swap contention; it was certainly never a part of the Sapol brief.
Gordon: We must not forget that Gordon and Olive went down to the terrace level to take up that single bench seat, not at the street level as portrayed in the docos. They got there between 7.20-30pm in the early twighlight period and when they ascended the stairway at eight, Olive asserts that the street lighting had come on by then. (no evidence of lamp poles in the pics.) Needless to say they would have had a clear view of the body profile, perhaps even good enough for her man to pickup small detail like grey pin stripes on brown attire. Anyhow whatever you do, don’t send old eagle eye Clive down to Somerton at 8.30pm, because in 1948 time it’ll be 9.30pm by my reckoning, unless they still had wartime daylight saving going (or have I got it arse about).
I think it’s the other way ’round JS….
If they didn’t have DLS in 1948 (and my recollection is that they didn’t) then 8:30 in today’s DLS time would be 7:30 in standard time.
If they did have DLS, then there’s no way 8PM in Adelaide in late November would be anything but bright sunlight….halfway through November, and Adelaide’s dusk is 8:28PM (that means without DLS it would be dark by 8PM in mid-November – but the days are fast getting longer, so by Nov 30 that’s another story)
According to the interwebs:
7:42 pm
Tuesday, 30 November 1948 (GMT+9:30)
Dusk in Adelaide SA
Not certain what dusk is – because there’s multiple classifications (as I think we’ve flagged before). If we’re talking ‘civil dusk’ then I’d imagine visibility is not that significantly impaired:
http://timeanddate.com/astronomy/different-types-twilight.html
Milongal, Johnno, NickP
I’ve lifted the dusk comments from CM, hope you don’t mind. Many thanks.
Peteb: You were doing so well, that is until Clive came along, and put the wrong question to you…You must not take for Gospell everything you see depicted in the movies, nor of witness statements that are cunningly construed to support facts that are not. One example would be John Lyons post ’48 claim that on the big day in question, he was alone and descending the Alvington stairs when he espied our man doing right arm excercises, which if true, would leave you between a rock etc.. Yet on another, this time, Helen in tow, with the couple having likely walked from their Whyte St. home to Sth Esplinade, then north to the Broadway. The couple walked back along the shore whence their man was seen flicking ash from his smoke, so you’re in the poo again. When John Ruffles took the old fellow aside in the 70s, he went on to described double arm death throes no less; so if that can be believed, SM Mk1 was not likely to get up and leave, zombie like is he?….All these things must be weighed and considered for their respective merit without jumping the gun, because they simply all can’t be fact. I know old son, I was a fair to meddling (sic) detective once, and young, as I recall. So you might like to pour yourself a Mount Gaye, light one up and do a retake, can’t hurt none and you’ll likely come away with a different point of view.
In January and February, 1949 Det. R L Leane’s favourite Italian Tailor, H. Pozza was compromised by the Prices Commission Regs. & charged with just two counts of selling men’s suits above set parity level. One might well wonder why he was not called to give expert opinion on his alleged immensely important US made claim for SM’s nifty pin striped grey/brown double breasted suit coat with feather stitching. Mr. Pozza was a very well heeled and connected gentleman about town, so no doubt would have known our two men’s tailors from 200 Hindley St. Rosie Barbaro and the German chap from 4 Marlborough St., addresses which were known to Prosper Thomson. Hugh P. was fined twenty four nicker in August, then celebrated by getting hitched a mile high, in a chartered Hercules. As to whether the new marriage was consumated at that height in accordance with the Air Fornication Regs. awaits confirmation in troves new updates.
The striped duds: I’m claiming them … Dude, read it and weep, old son.
thedude747: Are you for or agin, simple enough and I’ll go with whatever you read into the striped or plain brown deal. Does not effect my fairly flexible position, one way or another. [last part deleted]
Nick: Let me do the weeping then. Tears of mirth!..Will that pass muster?….
Peteb: It’s become quite apparent that dedicared naysayers like Nick and Milongal etc. are not likely to see the coroners body swap idea as a reasonable alternate resolution to the conundrum. Along with Clive and Gordon, you have no doubt put plenty of collective common sensical thought into your follow through hypothesis and it comes together quite convincingly. Of course we’re not to know who the tough agent was that carried the big brute Fedosimov down from The Broadway, five hundred yards or so along the Somerton beach shoreline, then presumably unassisted, set his body up for the morning shift to find at Alvington steps. It goes without saying he could only have been a clandestine operative in the services of CIA, MI6, or even the dreaded NKVD, as first proposed by postman John Ruffles, but all that will surely emerge through Gordon’s onging meticulous follow-up work on the Q code. One of old John Lyons’ ravings on his man at 7pm, having shown signs of rigor mortis can be taken as being the well documented senile ramblings of most gentleman getting on for eighty. It is also clear that his earlier testimony, of the dead man in the evening, being most assuredly the very same dead man early next morning, can be put down to the sad onset of early dementia. None of these revelations would have come together, had you people not taken a second closer look at well covered striped trousers theory, for which the sharp eyed original proposer, Byron or Derreck? can be due some credit…We’re all looking forward to developements with great expectations of course and it goes without saying, well done lads. Now go show those nay sayers what dedicated team effort, combined with true grit and a resolute determination might achieve. Especially when it’s troops with the same mind set, troops together for a common purpose, in the pursuit of a worthy own goal.
Q 39: What was the man wearing son?
A 39: Not sure, couldn’t see much from the waist up.
Q 40: How about his trousers, you see them?
A 40: They sorta matched his brown coat I’d say.
Q 41: Could it have been a suit, like with pin stripes and all?
A 41: Ain’t too sure. I shd think so.
Q 42: So we’ll say brown for the duds. with stripes ok?
A 42: I shd think so.
John Sanders: body swap spy conspiracy theories sit at the bottom of my list of things to invest any time into thinking about, just below Elvis-on-the-moon-in-his-secret-alien-base theories. But don’t let me steer your thinking in any way, that would be unwise and fascistic of me.
Nick: The lads over on the dark side seem to have quite effectively solved the problem conjointly by combining the fanciful and aptly named ‘Body Swap (BS) theory, with a deep cover clandestine identity exchange deception ploy. Such an operation should make perfect sense to the average spy enthusiast with a bent for flare..Agreed your own best effort, ‘Grand Theft Auto‘ which used the TS slip rather ingeniously to get one over on Prosper, could not be faulted in its proposed proof of vehicle ownership, trust etc. Though you’ll accept that it did offer consequences of fairly extreme nature should the conditions of sale not be adhered to by one or either transaction party…You’ll be interested to know that my own means for the mandatory 10pm disposal was uncomplicated in it’s quite ingenious method of execution. My Arno was simply conveyed a short distance along the beach at low tide towards Hove sand dunes and laid to rest within one of the numerous ‘doovers’ used by local beach louts for nefarious purposes. Whether he was later re-intered or simply left to self dispose, would be a matter for the script writers to refine. You will note that my evening body also had a name and although not quite as imaginative as Fedosimov, it is of itself somewhat distinctive and would be remembered by theatre goers. I did entertain brief thoughts about having Dr. Douglas Hendrickson and his boy digging for the remains in the nearby Minda dunes using the Beaumont case search pattern as a ruse, but that might be viewed as somewhat extreme, tasteless and of no purpose, in light of the eighteen year time lapse.
Peteb: Yes, we still have Olive’s mystery man at the railing, who she described as around fifty, not tall but stocky and wearing a navy blue suit with a grey hat, according to Gerry. Rather a confident description from this plauable witness, almost like someone she may have been familiar with. Also makes one wonder why she didn’t follow Gordon’s fairly vague lead on the dead? man’s pants. The street lights she mentioned had staunchions roughly fifty yards apart, well over on the eastern street verge, being of early Claude Neon strip type. Period photos suggest that they might not have been useful to the couple as they ascended the Alvington stairs to leave at eight in the evening.
@JS: I’m ok with a body swap on the beach (or at least I’ve long agreed that there is a lack of proof that the man in the evening was the body in the morning, and that there may even be circumstantial evidence to the contrary – not least being him being almost dead at 8PM is problematic for time of death closer to 2AM – of course, there’s also the option he wasn’t near death at all, but had had a couple too many brewskis, sobered up a touch, and stumbled off …then we can make our own adventure – perhaps some nasties (Olive’s man at the street?) had seen the drunk lying there and tought it perfect to dump a body as long as they could get the poor chap to move along . Millions of theories on the exact hows and whyfores).
As for Fedosimov….For mine (predicatbly), the existence of a Pavel I Fedosimov after SM’s demise, who seems to have left the public service about the time our Fed would have been of retiring age is quite telling. Although I’ve heard plenty of assertion that we must assume they’re different, I’ve seen very little (read: none) evidence to suggest more than one PI Fedosimov even existed, other than “It’s rather inconvenient for our theory, therefore there must be two of them”; and to me logic would dictate that without compelling evidence to the contrary we should default to the assumption that they’re one and the same (if it was John Peter Smith (I’ve forgotten whether John Peter Smith or John William Smith is more common, but you take the point) I might be more likely to see the possibility of 2 of them, but in this case I think our default view should be that they’re the same).
NickP – what might be an explanation of the markedly different ‘quantizing artefacts’ in other letters of the code?
Assuming they were all marked up at the same time.
Dusty – Happy NY, masterful bastard you are.
Stripes: Got a great pic of my dear old mum sliding down Pitt St. on a block of ice with a Yank sailor. she was such a great sport back in ’44. Can’t share it out of respect for the swabby and my dad.
Just recapitulated on Marcel Varallo’s simple whither/whence opinion on the code page which didn’t impress Peteb, original ‘Gordon Scoored’ letter ‘Q’micro writing . proposer. Also just noted that Mr.Cramer took his time in replying as one might expect from a “Charlatan” (Bowes opin.) caught with his striped duds down. It was May ’20, a mere three years and three months after the MV post, about the time GC decided that a stint of home Quarantining would not hurt his flagging image one iota. True to his oft exhibited form GC’s response to Marcel was polite to a fault yet betraying a supersilious all knowing manner, ending up by suggesting that the micro crap whistle blower protect his family (from impending disaster) and to keep safe…Great thread Nick, they were the days when words ‘without fear or favour’ really got things moving towards solution.