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.

Wednesday, 19 September 2018


Page 196

This image is taken directly from the NAA file, Part 1 of 2 and page 196. Link here to Somerton Beach Story C 673 Part 1.

If you examine this carefully you will be able to see pencil indentation markings covering the entire page. These markings are letters and numbers of varying sizes from average to very small. These are not digital artifacts; they are pencil indentations.

Looking for a particular number is like looking for a needle in a haystack, well not quite!

Below I have highlighted where the number X3239 is to be located and in fact, you should be able to just make it out:

You can also see many examples of letters and numbers and in the next image I have highlighted just some of the areas that you can observe:

All that I have done here is to adjust some colourisation settings to sharpen the images, the next step is to use specific lighting and camera techniques to hopefully enhance our view. It may take me some days to get to this but it will be done.

This last image for this post, of course, shows the bottom right corner of the code page, in it, you can clearly see letters and numbers in a stack:

Working through the document again after some years, it's amazing how much more you can find. Indeed it appears that I was not the first person to think that Fedosimov was the Somerton Man. More on that in a later post.


  1. I see you're awake milongal :) Wondered whether you'd take the time.

  2. JS, a bit of a story about the prints, you should find a couple or three copies floating around. The one that shows the snipped prints was done by GF, a matter of proper display. I found the issue with the prints not being certified about 6 maybe 7 years ago, I have no definitive answer to whether or not there was a formal set but we do know that prints were sent by wire to NSW and perhaps other locations. It could be that's why there is some darkness about the public space versions.

  3. Knew there was something else! Some associates of mine, goes back to development days, really well versed in matters of the web, tracing IP addresses and proxies, you know the sort of thing. Anyway they have managed to track you both and have organised some photographs of you. So, I will put a post together and will probably post them here and maybe elsewhere, not sure just yet. Anyway, I hope you'll enjoy the exposure you'll be getting :)

  4. With the X3239 written in pencil and hardly visible, how did Len Brown discover this number? Pure chance, or something else that caught his eye? Clive

    1. Good question. Given that some thought and I guess there are a couple of options. I don't think Brown actually discovered the number it was probably found by Jimmy Durham when he examined the book under UV light although there is no record of that event that I can find, it's an assumption. Given that's the case then Len would have been shown the number under UV light. The example subject of this post certainly meets the description of very tiny lettering but not 'under the code'. The only explanation I have is that it could have been written twice and the example found here is not the one Len saw which in turn means we have to search for Len's X3239 under one of the letters of the code. I hope that makes sense :)

  5. And the second number was for a 'business' per Len Brown, but he gives no clues as to what type of 'business', but this second number must have been important enough for it to have been hidden? Clive

  6. Thanks for the contact message Matt, the corrected link details,,
    are now in the post, my apologies. I agree that the aspect ratio is different, this makes the book itself somehwat slimmer and more like a wallet shape. That conincides with Gerry's description that it was the osrt of book you could put in an inside pocket.