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

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

The Somerton Man Case. The body of a man found on an Australian beach close to a major Atomic Testing ground, he was probably poisoned, a copy of the Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam and an unbroken Code page found and associated to him. Set against a Cold War background in 1948, was this man a spy? We think so and this blog focuses on the evidence that was left behind and in some cases missed, the Code page, Dry Cleaning numbers, A Poem and a small, torn piece of paper bearing the words TAMAM SHUD.

Sunday, 9 August 2015

Somerton Man: Micro Writing Recovery Method Validated

Example of Indented writing recovery using oblique lighting. This image is a negative
as was the Somerton Man Code page.  Micro writing is not present in this particular image.

Micro Writing Recovery Method Validated

In a recent exchange on this blog, Nick Pelling made a series of unsubstantiated claims regarding the discovery of micro writing on the Somerton man code page. Amongst his misleading statements was this one:

"Gordon: (1) I did not use your methods to analyze the letter Q. This is simply because your methods - printing out images, shining UV lights on the images, etc - are so far outside the standard image processing canon that I cannot accept them as valid. My position, though, is that if there was any microwriting there, the standard image processing toolkit should be able to reveal them reliably and repeatably"

The fact is that the method I used and still use is a standard process used successfully over many years by Forensic examiners of documents and images.  The methodology is described in numerous texts including a book by Katherine Koppenhaver, 'Attorney's Guide to Document Examination' in which she clearly describes the use of documents or quality photographs in the examination process which includes the use of lightbox/backlighting, oblique lighting, infrared and UV, (ultraviolet lighting). 

All you had to do Nick was to search for the appropriate term and you would have found the information that puts the lie to your statement. Heaven knows I mentioned indented writing enough times that even you should have woken up to it. You should have listened to Einstien's words.
"Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance"

You wrongly condemned my work without investigating my methods.

Nick repeated his stance over the last few days on Pete Bowes Blog and whilst Pete stood his ground on the images I have posted I think he incorrectly pronounced a verdict of 'stalemate' over the issue. Pete you should perhaps reconsider that position. Nick went on to state that this was pareidolia, in other words seeing things that aren't there. This has been said before and disproven. The reality I believe is that Nick may be suffering from a thing called 'Reverse Hallucination', not seeing things that are there and the cause for that would be his almost manic focus on trying to prove me wrong which could have led to that condition. His mind simply will not allow him to see what's there.

Lets be very clear on the basic issue.

1. The 'code page' was in fact a high-quality photograph taken of indentations found on the back of the copy Rubaiyatt of Omar Khayam which in turn was associated with the Somerton Man by virtue of the matching torn piece from a page taken from that same copy.

2. The original high-quality Police photograph was first marked up over the indentations purpportedly to show what appeared to be letters, it was then photographed by an independent professional photographer working for the Advertiser Newspaper at the time.

The above is a prime example of a photograph being taken of a photograph. Both high-quality images. I have done no more than that and used standard techniques to do it.

Nick you have once again been proven wrong. You didn't take the time to learn from your previous mistakes in relation to Police photography methods and indented writing recovery. As a result I believe that you are clearly not a credible/reliable person to be making comments on the work I post on this blog nor elsewhere for that matter. All of the prancing, cavorting and in my view, slithering, that you may do with your snow storm of fine sounding but unsubstantiated technical words and phrases will not make you right. You are just as wrong now as you have ever been on this topic. Only now the difference is that my approach and, by default, the image analysis method I use have been validated and your statements have been thoroughly discredited.

You had the opportunity to test the methods I used, I described them for you. Now I would not have any faith at all in your ability to produce anything like an independent result

Nick, you owe an apology but I don't think you have the right stuff to make it.

For serious researchers and blog visitors, I have some more examples being posted this week and I trust that you will drop by to view them.A few surprises amongst them.


Anonymous said...

Gordon: you have read the passage from Koppenhaver and found what you want to find.

There is no point at all in using IR lighting, UV light, backlighting or glancing illumination on a high quality photograph, because the specific point of those techniques is to make physical aspects of the original object visible *that would not be visible in a straightforward RGB scan*.

I completely agree that you are using standard forensic techniques, but you are using them on printouts of RGB scans which makes no sense. There is no secondary or concealed physical information on an RGB scan for those techniques to bring out.

Gordon332 said...

Nick, We agree, at last, on the fact that I have used standard forensic techniques. You comments on the RGB scan are not valid. There is nothing 'hidden' on the code page, it's actually in plain sight, you just need to know where and how to look and then how to recover it. One of the methods used is UV light which shows up variations in shades and colours, that provides you with a clue as to where you start looking. From there you use the techniques already described, As for your comment on the Koppenhaver passage, well, I have to tell you I read a lot more than that particular passage, in fact, some of my reading on this topic was done more than 12 months ago. You'll find the proof of that right there on your own blog, Police Photography 2 I think you called it, 79 comments in all, many of which discussed indented writing and recovery methods. Let me know if you have difficulty finding it, I have a full copy of the post and comments.

Once again, I believe that you need to get up to speed, in my view you consistently fall short of the mark, you lack the knowledge, the skill and the expertise to make the comments that you have. You really are grasping at straws Nick, artefacts, pareidolia, 'so far removed from the canon etc. (that made me smile), now this. If you have anything valuable to add and if you can substantiate some of your wild claims in plain English then go ahead because to this point you haven't substantiated any one of them.

Anonymous said...

Gordon: you claim to see cryptic microwriting written by spies, hidden in plain sight right at the limit of perception, made visible only from a print-out of an RGB scan by using UV lighting and high magnification, and which nobody apart from you has been able to replicate.

...oh, and you think that I'm somehow the one making "wild claims". Rrrrright.

If 'pareidolia' isn't plain enough English for you, then perhaps 'delusion' will have to do.

Gordon332 said...

PELLING BROUGHT TO ACCOUNT> Nick, This comment of yours somehow got overlooked but now seems a good time to respond. Firstly though, I don't 'claim to see cryptic micro writing' I produce photographic evidence seen now by thousands.

Since you made the comment, more and more of the code page micro code has been revealed with more to come. Software and methods have improved and many more people have now been able to replicate the technique. Your comments about RGB scans and UV light with high magnification are no more nor less than one would expect from you. Once again you are long on words and without anything by way substantiation. In contrast, I suggest that you look at this post:

You'll find the process laid out detailing with images the Ink H steps of ink followed by micro code in pencil, another layer of ink and then developed by bleaching. A photograph taken, and then scanned. That clearly demonstrates and proves the accuracy of the work that's been done.

Finally, in more recent times you have made a great fanfare surrounding your views on Trolls and how they operate by baiting and being abusive. Your comment above is so obviously both abusive and you clearly attempt to bait. You would do yourself a great service by refraining from such juvenile behaviour.