AFIO Disclaimer

AFIO DISCLAIMER:
The author of this blog is a member of the Association of Former Intelligence Officers and as such the views and opinions expressed here are those of the author and do not represent the views and opinions of the Association of Former Intelligence Officers, its staff or Directors.
Learn more about the Association including membership requirements at www.afio.com.

A WARNING: Those site visitors of Aboriginal and Torres Straight Islander Culture should be aware that there are photographs and images of the deceased.

Tuesday, 10 February 2015

The Somerton Man: Torn Piece High Resolution Images

Just time for a very quick post this morning, Below you will see some very high resolution, close-up images of the torn piece and also an image that was titled 'book', not sure which 'book' that might be but it certainly bears a strong resemblance to the fibre make-up of the torn piece itself.



In the image above, pay particular attention to the apparent wear marks to the left of each stroke on each letter. The last letter M is very interesting under examination. With regards to the wear marks, it does seem unusual that they appear to be restricted to the left side strokes, still examining this and other images.












Saturday, 24 January 2015

Somerton Man: The Code Is a WW2 Technique Used By SOE


Thanks to a great piece of work by Barry T. we now have supporting information that the Somerton Man Code was a technique used by British Inteligence during WW2. To be more precise this method of hiding pencil letters behind inked letters was used by the Special Operations Executive and is described in an SOE Manual released in 2014.

The method known as the 'INK H' technique is quite simple. First you select the letters you intend to use as the carriers and write them down in ink, next insert your code letters into the inked letters in pencil and then write over the lot once more in ink. The pencil letters are not visible to the naked eye.

The next step is 'develop' the hidden code and this is done by soaking the paper containing the inked and hidden pencil letters in a strong bleach. The result is that the bleach removes the ink leaving the revealed pencilled code.

The method can be used for hiding micro letters and larger letters. Readers of this blog would know that the SM code was recovered using UV light which revealed indentations whch turned out to be the code letters. These indentations showed up as the darker markings behind the overwriting in the image above as done by the SA Police. I was able to identify numerous micro letters written within the larger letters because of the indentations, sadly we do not have the original document and this post tells us that it is highly unlikely that we will ever recover that.

Now that we know this, what exactly does it do for us? Quite simply it gives us a lead that says whoever wrote the above code had knowledge of the SOE method. Personally I am not certain that SM wrote the code, however it is possible that his role may have been to recover it. It is possible that the same or similar technique was used by other agencies but at this time we have no information to support that.

This is an exciting development and one that provides us with another extremely strong indication that this is an Espionage case.

More to follow.

Wednesday, 21 January 2015

Somerton Man: Professor Abbott's Lecture Video Flawed..

Professor Abbott very kindly sent me links to his video lectures about the Somerton Man. Whilst I am grateful for the links I have to disagree with some of his statements regarding the post autopsy images of the Somerton Man and the use of images of both Marilyn Monroe and JFK to support his case.

This is a short post for now but I hope it will be enough for followers of the case to make a fair judgement on the likelihood of SM being recognisable after his Post Mortem examination.

Marilyn Monroe

First here are three images of Marilyn Monroe two taken not that long before her death and the other just after the autopsy:




                                                         


I think that if you knew Marilyn before her death and had seen her without makeup, then there is a good chance that you would recognise her after the Autopsy.

With great respect what Professor Abbott did wrong in my view is to take a widely known and publicised full glamour and heavily made up photograph of Marilyn and then compare it to a selected image from the range taken after her autopsy, no glamour and no makeup.

JFK

Now here is a comparison image of JFK, again one was taken within days of his assassination and then one at the autopsy:



My view once more is that if you had known the man when he was alive, you would very likely have been able to recognise him after the Autopsy.


Somerton Man Image Comparison

Noticeably absent from the Professor's video is the image supposedly of the Somerton Man just prior to the cast being taken for the plaster bust.

Each of the images below are purportedly of the same man, the bottom right image is the widely publicised profile view of the Somerton Man just after his autopsy and the other two are the profile image of supposedly the same man just prior to the mold being taken for the plaster bust to be made.

Points to examine:
1. No ridge mark on the forehead on pre bust
2. Longer nose on pre bust
3. Protruding chin/longer face on pre bust
4. Different shape where nose meets the forehead on pre bust



In my view, these images are not of the same man, if you look closely you will see that the image purportedly taken after the post mortem has had a face super imposed on to the original image as shown below:


If you look carefully at the above comparison image, you will note several markings and you will  see a definite line where the facial image has been imposed on the real image. And that is why he has a 'bump or ridge across the forehead.



In the facial image above you can see quite clearly that the man has a very relaxed looking face and is almost smiling. Now try and compare that to the full face image from the post autopsy pic below:




Hard to compare the two, you will see apparent markings on the face that don't match the profile, Professor Abbott will tell you that these are 'artifacts' from the photographic process. I suggest that we get a professional forensic photographer to tell us more about that. Once more if you look closely near the top of the forehead you will see a distinct line across to where it apparently overlaps on the right within the marked circle. This is another instance of a facial photograph being superimposed.

The next image I will post will be of the plaster bust, I think you will find that most interesting.