Friday 6 July 2018

SOMERTON MAN: NEW, THE RUBAIYAT, A QUESTION OF ORIENTATION & ASPECT RATIO


ORIENTATION & ASPECT RATIO


1. ORIGINAL BOOK COVER AS PUBLISHED BY SAPOL
Size: 5.1 X 6.6 inches. Aspect Ratio: 17:22

2. A COLLECTORS VERSION

Size: 4.8 X 6.65 inches  Aspect Ratio 96:133


3. THE BOOK (TORN PAGE) AS PUBLISHED BY SAPOL

Size: 3.75 X 5.5 inches  Aspect Ratio: 15:22
The insert above was done by a member of the Adelaide University FB page organised by Professor Abbott

As you can see there is some variation in size and aspect ratios with items 1 and 2 being closest with item 3 being markedly different, in fact it is a full 1 inch shorter, could that be accounted for by the book cover being larger? It seems quite a difference.

THE COMPLEXITY

It gets more complex when you look at the dimensions of the book as described by the University Wiki, it says the book size was 5.5 inches X 4.5 inches which for them tied into the size of the code page. So far so good although we now have a third set of dimensions and it doesn't match the original size or Aspect ratio which is 11:9.

There's more:

CODE PAGE 

Whilst I don't believe it was his intention to provide any new information, JS on the Cipher Mysteries blog pointed out that I had previously stated that Gerry Feltus had told me that the phone numbers were positioned in the top right-hand quarter of the back of the book. That's true.

This conflicts with the more recent statement regarding Detective Brown's comment that the telephone number was in 'tiny lettering' beneath the code. This is true, that is what I quoted.

The question is, what was the orientation of the code page on the back of the book? We have separate issues here, the book dimensions the code page dimensions and the orientation of the code on the back of the book.


CODE PAGE IMAGE

If we take Adelaide Uni's view that the book was 5.5 inches wide X 4.5 inches tall, then we should be able to verify that information by looking at the size and aspect ratio of the code page image as found on the Adelaide University wiki, right?

Here they are: Image size: 4.5 inches wide X 3.6 inches tall. Aspect Ratio: 5:4.

That's a full half inch narrower than the SAPOL images and 1 inch shorter and the aspect ratio is significantly different.



CODE PAGE ORIENTATION

Let's look at the issue of just where the telephone number might be. In one statement it's in the top right-hand side of the book and in the other it's beneath the code as Detective Brown stated.

Could both statements be correct? I have not been able to find any reference to the orientation of the code on the back of the book: 


 CODEPAGE UNDERLAY COMPARISON 

 The above simply doesn't work, so let's look at it another way, the overlay:



To be correct, these are approximate placed images but the point is that you should be able to see from the above image just how the telephone number can be beneath the code and in the top right hand corner of the book.

Remember that you would be looking at the code page from the back of the book.

It's apparent if we are to believe the various dimensions supplied, that there's a big piece of the code page missing?

We could do the same exercise with the larger supposedly original sized images of the book and be left with an even bigger piece of the code page missing:





Even if we were to take the book and code page to the same aspect ratio as the code page, we would still have the strong possibility that the two statements 'Top right quarter' and 'Beneath the code' are one and the same position.

So thanks JS, I am absolutely certain that this wasn't what you had in mind, amusingly and if I am right here, it's the same style of error that Milongal made recently with Verse 70 :)

Certainly worth further exploration and another first for this blog I believe. Happy to share some of the glory with you JS!

 A Bonus Image
Here's a little bonus for you, it's been posted a number of times here, I suggest that you put on your glasses! it reads 2yrs 42 and beneath that it looks like Z1 Venom X4023? Note the unusual shaped X, curved rather like a mathematical symbol.









Share:

1 comment:

  1. With the question of the book cover size in question-what if, and I realize it's a big if, the SAPOL 'used' a larger cover to disguise the actual dimensions of 'the' book? Since nobody seems to have actually seen this book, to confirm the dimensions etc, is this theory a possibility? Clive

    ReplyDelete

Hi
Welcome to the Tamam Shud Blog, widely regarded as the most trusted fact and evidence-based blog on the Somerton Man case.
Visit our YouTube channel:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOamLze8PyNDafjjBGGngJQ

ABOUT US and OUR RECORD

Learn more about, when the blog started our location plus a long list of 'finds' and new evidence discovered by this blog