The Code Page: Cracked Open
Three different exposures of the same area from the Code page, the right hand end of the crossed lines just above the letter Q.
The process is now very straightforward thanks to the recent upgrade to the free photo editing tool, Paint.net.Step 1. is to open a copy of the code page and select and save the crossed lines from the page.
Step 2 using the colour replacement tool choose first the shade of colour you want to replace and then lighter shade of that same colour. Use the tool to work over the selected area.
Step 3 print out your processed image as above using a high quality or 'Best' print setting.Step 4. Using a strong back light, I used a 10 Watt LED inverted, and then took pics using the macro lens setting on my Olympus Digital camera.
Step 5. I replaced the LED back light with a 13 Watt CFL, UV light placed behind the photo on plain copy paper and took more pics using the macro lens setting on my camera.
THE COVER UP
What does this mean? Well for one it means that the Police or whoever took the original images of the code page must have seen what we see here, strings of numbers with letters interspersed.Next, whoever wrote this code knew of the existence of Ink H, the British Intelligence developed technique of concealed/clandestine communication. This was taught to SOE operatives and also to Australian Intelligence agents.
NOTE: Every 'letter' and crossed line on the code page is formed in this same way. In fact some of the letters are not fully formed which means the letters showing on the code page are not the real ones. More work to do as yet but it is very revealing.
This same technique was definitely used in Jestyn's Poem to Alf Boxall, Verse 70 of the ROK. as well as in the torn piece from the book. More images will follow in the next week or so.
In answer to the question was this a part of an elaborate cover up has to be Yes.
What does this mean as far as Professor Abbott and Adelaide University is concerned? I think to be kind all I will say is that they must have overlooked it despite many prompts from myself and maybe even others.
I really do hope that more will take this work on, in reality there is much more work to do on the code page, verse 70 and the torn piece, what's been done hjere is to show what was concealed, there is a significant task in finding out what these letters and numbers actually mean.
Tags
Australian Intelligence
clandestine communications
code cracked
SA Police
secret writing
SOE
Somerton Man
Hi Gordon, Great stuff! The cover up is slowly being revealed. No one can now deny, even Prof. Abbott, as to the direction your findings are pointing to. Clive
ReplyDeleteThanks Clive,
ReplyDeleteStill more work to do, will get these images sharper soon.
What this does is to cast doubt on many of the aspects of the case including the suitcase which I believe is just litter, the photographs of SM which the Prof has now agreed that they were altered 'to a degree' I think the words were, in his Californian Sunday Mag interview he acknowledged Detective Brown's comments that Jestyn's phone number was written in 'tiny handwriting'. What next I wonder?
Hi Gordon, Funny about your suitcase remark. I was only thinking a couple of days ago that the suitcase could be a diversion, planted by security services, to be found later by the SA police and touted as belonging to the SM. Clive
ReplyDeleteI agree Clive, it's all up for grabs now.
ReplyDeleteWhat aspect is real? I know for certain that we have a code page and it contains micro writing done in a particular style i.e. SOE. We also have a verse 70 written to Alf by Jestyn apparently and it also contains micro written letters and numbers as does the the torn piece. Next we have the 'laundry marks' which were to all accounts found in SMs trousers. We have Lawson's diaries containing numerous alterations and we don't have the whole set. We have a set of fingerprints with the form unsigned, most irregular. And of course the altered images of SM. Finally not one of the items of evidence from the suitcase including the suitcase itself, was fingerprinted neither was the book even though Jimmy Durham had particular expertise in the technique
The idea of this blog is to focus on the hard evidence, and I do not concern myself with the efforts of others who follow their own lines of enquiry and research.
We have consistently turned up results here Clive and I thank you and others for yours and their contribution.
I continue to watch your work with interest and, again, congrats on the effort so far.
ReplyDeleteYour arguments are getting more convincing each time, but there is still room for some critical questioning and possible challenges.
For example, if I were red-hatting this I would argue/question:
-Our cognitive biases could be creating in our minds what we want to see as we all want to find something in this mystery. Eg. We are creating letters/symbols out of markings we see, but which may not really be intended.
-The enhancements of the photographs could also be creating the above, rather than them appearing naturally or actually being there.
-How do we know that on that (or similar) paper with that (or similar) ink, it wouldn’t have run and formed such shapes.
So, is there something you can do to counter this?
Eg. Is it possible to make some replicas (writing in same/similar ink/pens and paper and writing, etc) that you can study and use photographs of these as examples to show that this is how the writing looks if done the way you argue it happened (eg. Secret writing) versus merely written on a pad with no secret writing.
For me, benefits of this would be twofold:
1. You can say that by studying the replicas, it can either further support your claims because if done normally, you wouldn’t get anything close to smaller symbols resembling letters that we see now. Thus crapping on that argument quite well; and/or
2. It may also assist you in trying to identify any secret writing on these photos as you have a real life example to play around with and test first before getting to/enhancing the photographs.
In saying this, I realise the odds of getting same/similar papers from this time would be difficult and almost impossible. But if you did this in parallel, it could cancel out some doubts. And if you’ve already tried this, and I’ve missed it – apologies.
Look forward to checking back in again soon and monitoring your progress. JP
Many thanks JP. Your points are valid of course.
DeleteIf we take your points in order:
1. I think you're referring to a pareidolic effect, seeing things that aren't there because it is what we want to see. I am sure that holds true for some but in this case I have worked with numerous groups and had many people, in the hundreds who have seen the letter Q example and without prompting were able to read that off.
2. When you start to manipulate an image in an editing package you really do need to take great care not to affect the outcome with digital artefacts etc. I took extreme care in that area and have now processed close to 7000 images of the code page over 5 years.
3. In an earlier post I was able to show how ink H worked and it involved the taking of a number of images of each stage, first the laying down of ink then adding micro code in pencil, another layer of ink and then bleaching the piece. There was no discrenible run of ink that resembled anything like the letters and numbers that I have found on the code page. Here's the link for that post:
http://tamamshud.blogspot.com.au/2015/12/somerton-man-major-breakthrough-how.html
4. I have done some work on this but not exactly as you have described so I have put together some new images from today that show the whole process of taking an image of the code, printing that out, marking over the code photograph, taking a photograph of that and then finally immersing that last photograph in a common household bleach, The results are on the new post today. I haven't had much time to do any editing of the pics as a stand alone project today but will get to it.
Many thanks for your very constructive comments and I think that you will be pleasantly surprised at the outcome.
You're obviously not working with any original materials, so how can any "results" you claim to show have any validity. Let me see if i've got it right: Your bleaching or otherwise manipulating photos printed by you from a digital picture of picture which had been written over by the police, taken from an original photo?
ReplyDeleteRidiculous!
Well, in all fairness to you, in between times I actually posted the full description of just how this is done. I can understand if you don't have the knowledge orexperience it's easy to think that this wasn't possible. But as you will see it is relatively easy to achieve as you will see if you go to the home page now.
DeleteIt is in fact a recognised method in forensic document examination. When you think about it, a digital printer interprets what it 'sees' in an image file and does so in great detail. The printer then lays down the necessary amounts of ink and shade of colour. Hence it picks up and then prints the lighter areas and the darker ones. Bleach being what it is, it removes the lighter shade firstleaving the darker areas where you will be able to see the 'hidden' writing as per the post.
I do appreciate your comment and if you would like I can easily carry out and create more examples, better still once you have seen the latest post you would be able to do it yourself.