Wednesday, 21 October 2020



The comparison image above shows the face of the Somerton Man as rendered by Daniel Voshart. As per previous posts, the post that follows is not in any way a criticism of Daniel or his responses.

As indicated in the image by the two arrows, there are two canine teeth when, in a normal set of teeth, they ought to be lateral incisors.

Here's an image of what they should look like:

...and here's the comparison:

On the right is the render of the Somerton Man and on the left us the comparison. You can see in the render that the two lateral incisors have been replaced by two canine teeth, no incisors are present.

Next, here's the image of the diagram created by Dr. Dwyer after the autopsy on the Somerton Man alongside the wax impression made to match the diagram:

And finally, below is an image of how these two missing teeth look in a real human subject:

The gaps are where the two lateral incisors would normally be but are missing, as numbered and indicated by Doctor Dwyer in his statement about the Somerton Man.

It is this effect that Doctor Dwyer was talking about in his statement to the coroner, here's the excerpt:

That statement is unambiguous, you cannot interpret it in any other way, when the man smiled you would notice the missing teeth.

I exchanged emails with Daniel Voshart, the man who created the render shown at the head of this post and pointed out the issue. He responded and here are the copies of the emails, I wouldn't normally do this but the situation demands that it be called out. Once again, this post is in no way to be interpreted as reflecting on Daniel's integrity. I am really saddened that he has been brought into this issue, it's unavoidable as you will read in the email extracts below:

Email 1.

Email 2. 

Email 3.
Professor Abbott's quotes in highlight. Note the exact words, 'If you were to see the man smiling you would not see any gaps in his teeth'.

Now compare them with the words in the next email below this one marked Email 4. In the court document there is absolutely no mention of him smiling, talking yes and laughing yes. But, 'Anyone looking at him in the ordinary way, if he were to laugh, would notice the teeth were missing.'

 Email 4.

This is wrong, these emails show that the truth has not only been twisted it's been deliberately misrepresented, I can see no other explanation. 

Why would Professor Abbott say something that is so clearly and obviously untrue? He has a reason.

What do you think?


Monday, 19 October 2020



I am not the first to mention this but as far as I can see, there has been either very limited discussion or none at all on the subject of the Somerton Man's teeth shown in this image from Daniel Voshart.

Before I start, I want to make it very clear that none of what I am about to say is in any way a criticism of Daniel Voshart. To the contrary, I think Daniel has done a superlative job on creating the render you see above and have written to him saying just that.

The problem is that this image, created by Daniel using information supplied by Professor Abbott, shows the two canine teeth, according to the Inquest documents and the diagram produced at the time, the two canine teeth were missing.

Here's the relevant testimony from Doctor Dwyer at the inquest:

As you can read, the teeth were missing, not just growing in the wrong place.

Here's a download link to the Inquest document, click here . The page number within the PDF is P.35, the number at the top of the relevant page is 11.

And here is the diagram made by Dr. Dwyer, the numbered teeth are the missing teeth:


My understanding is that this is a cast translation of Doctor Dwyer's testimony and his diagram, so it was not taken from the man himself. When Mr. Lawson inspected the body prior to making the bust, he mentioned that the man's mouth was either glued or wired shut. That was apparently normal practice during the embalming process.

You can clearly see the spaces on either side of the upper two central teeth. 

As you can see he had a total of 18 teeth missing that's out of a total of 32 adult teeth.


The burning question of course is why was Daniel given the wrong information and who gave it to him/ Was it, Professor Abbott? This information together with the fact that the ears that were asserted to be of a rare configuration by Professor Abbott turned out to be a family trait in that Jestyn's daughter, who came along after the Somerton Man's time, had a son whose ears are of that same type.

This means that statements made that he was the son of a relationship between Jess and the Somerton Man based on the evidence of the teeth and the ears are completely wrong.


Saturday, 17 October 2020



First cut code cracking attempt of the Somerton Man code.


 First cut results from uncovering the code letters. It is a very difficult and time-consuming task, the letters are very small and are still a little obscured by darker surroundings but I think I have the fix for that.

You'll notice that both of these letters appear to have 5 separate components, each one has been arrowed. you'll also notice that this is a 'first cut', I will have to revisit these two letters and it may be that, dependent on lighting, some of the characters revealed will need to be changed, it's imprecise as it is.


When I put the M under a large magnifying glass with lighting:

1. I noticed that in the line marked 1., that it is not a straight line, some of the characters are set at an angle, specifically at the top of that stroke. At the base of line 1, there are in fact two parallel lines of characters, very small. There appears to be a total of 15 numbers and 1 letter X and 1 letter R. My understanding is that the letter X was meant as a delineator, marking the end of one group and the start of another, 5 characters are indecipherable: 

135032 X 35432 72343 R

2. The line marked 2 in the letter M looks to be straight with 12 numbers, no letters plus 3 characters that are indecipherable:

624245 242724

3. The line marked 3, has 8 numbers and no letters:


4. The line marked 4, has 8 numbers with one letter, X

310255 X 25

5. The line marked 5, us different in that it is in fact 2 parallel lines in the main, it has 18 numbers and one letter, X, with 4 characters indecipherable:

23154485 X 8543235235


Again we have 5 components to look at, I don't think there is any significance in that there are 5, other letters I have briefly looked at certainly don't have that many.

Part 1. A small group of 5 letters/numbers mixed:

 234 X O

Part 2. This is, in fact, the straight line of characters that extends into the centre of the elliptical part of the R. This part seems to be made up of letters and numbers:

WRC 28 X 22V RA X 2

Part 3. This is the semi-elliptical 'loop' that forms the upper part of the letter R. One letter and numbers, and quite a few of them:

2443452725 X 2652

Part 4. This part has the first 4 characters written from one direction and the balance from the other, closest to the join of the loop and the upright,

44129 X  5533 X 256225344

Part 5. This is the straight-line that extends from the join of the loop and downwards:

042392 X 504


At least it is a start! It is the first cut and I can see that some of these characters will be changed when I revisit the letters next week.

The questions I have now are 1. Is this a code? 2. Is it a set of telephone numbers? 3. Is it meaningless? Could it be another training exercise just like Alf Boxall's version of the Rubaiyat? Right now, I honestly don't know but I hope that others will take a close look for themselves. In the next few days i will post just how the fine detail is recovered especially just what fluid is used to soak away the upper layers of ink. I found it a fascinating process.