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.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
Derek Abbott represented a markedly different view from Lawson in his fund-raising project. Gone was Lawson's first observation that BOTH TOES were turned toward a common apex, and was most unusual in his view. It will be interesting to see if Abbott is still floundering with the concocted chemist, Mr. Francis.
ReplyDeleteGordon: Feltus mentions that Lawson's attempts to put back SM's head's autopsy stitches were thwarted .. why would an autopsy involve peeling back the forehead or facial skin of SM?
ReplyDeleteStraightforward if unpleasant answer is that it was done to gain access and remove the skull cap and then the brain. As per the above post, the image publicly shown was a composite involving a superimposed face and that's why you see what appears to be a bump in that image. The bump in the plaster bust was man made after the event in my view to coincide with the first image. Having said that, the second image supposedly showing SM just before the bust was created has no apparent bump and neither does it bear any resemblance to the bust.
ReplyDeleteI have stated my position on this a few times now, it seems to me that there were two bodies which is supported by Lawson's comment about 'disposal of the original body'.
Faked images, 2 bodies, unassigned fingerprints and the list goes on. Some more interesting pics to publish shortly, they are of the torn piece and another intriguingly called 'the_book'.
Seems that one of Pete Bowes's comments has vanished so in the absence of same I will respond to the post that I had fortunately copied.
ReplyDeleteThe torn piece had been rolled up tightly and placed in a hidden fob pocket, I say 'hidden' because fob pockets in those and even recent times were external to the trouser waistband, the SM pocket was inside the waistband I understand.
Given that you have done the homework on Espionage techniques you will know that messages were very commonly rolled up tightly and placed in positions where they would not easily be found. In fact there are documented incidents when they were rolled up and then inserted into seams of clothing, handbag handles, umbrella handles and more so they wouldn't be discovered. There are other ways of concealing messages but to reveal them all now would sadly have an adverse effect on the book I will be releasing hopefully in April :)
Bottom line, wake up guys, in the SM case you're dealing with professionals, you have to be equally professional in the way you approach it. Stop stuffing around and playing quasi 'intellectual' games. To put it more plainly, get serious fellas :)
As you know, the muscles and skin of the face lose their tone some time after death: the muscles relax, the skin is smoothed, gravity begins to act on them. Unfortunately, the bust was made LONG after death, when the facial features were changed as much as possible. The corpse in the photo is preparing for decomposition. He was very badly embalmed, thus he managed to take signs of decomposition. It was a huge mistake to make a bust a few months after death, in fact, in the face it is no longer similar to the original deceased person.
ReplyDeleteThanks for your comment and it is worth discussion. There are a few issues here but let's start with three of them:
ReplyDelete1. How do you know that the body was badly embalmed? What IU seeking is some kind of 3rd part report to that effect. If there is one, could you please share it? I personally haven't seen one and that is not to say one doesn't exist.
2. I understand how a body changes after death and have seen that at first hand but I have never seen a case where the nose, being a bony structure, increases in size and in the matrix type image comparison above, tat is the case and the mouth is actually smaller than the that of the man post autopsy.
3. A step not mentioned in your comment and it is an important one, after the autopsy the body was put in a chilled environment, On December 10th around 8 days later, the body was embalmed. After the body was embalmed it was put in the freezer at the mortuary. (I am not certain just where the embalming process took place but various items of equipment would been needed. the Police Photographer, Jimmy Durham was, according to Gerry Feltus the person who photographed the body just before the bust was made.) The freezing process would have preserved the features of the body as it looked right after it was embalmed.
I am keen to read your response to this, these are very important issues that should be resolved.