CONCEALMENT & DECEPTION
IS 90% OF ESPIONAGE
In all fairness the skill used in both writing and concealing the code is exceptional as you will see in the images below:
 |
ALF BOXALL: CODE BOOK COPY |
Micro writing is clearly seen in every location of the grapes image found on the Boxall Title page.
COMPARISON: 3 RUBAIYATS
Here's a comparison using two additional copies of the exact same edition of the Rubaiyat as the Alf Boxall copy:
The first image on the left of the group above is marked BT and the third image on the far right is from my own copy. All three were taken using a macro lens with flash. You'll notice that all three have different paper stock. In the BT copy it appears to be a heavier, textured, stock whilst in my own copy, the stock is quite smooth. It is believed that the Boxall copy also has a smooth paper stock.
And here are more images from the Title page, this time a selection from the Printed Title information:
There will be a PDF made available of all the images taken from the Alf Boxall Code Book when the current series of posts have been completed. But, for now at least, you can see clear incontrovertible evidence that micro writing is a reality and it is found here in the Alf Boxall/ Jestyn copy of the Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam specifically in the introductory pages.
IS THE BOXALL VERSION A SPECIAL PURPOSE BOOK?
The fact that micro writing has been found raises two most interesting questions.
As you have seen in the illustration images related to this version of the book, micro writing is visible whilst in the comparison versions, the very same illustrations, the lady with the Fez and the Grapes, are merely black line drawings and filled shapes in the case of the grapes.
Similarly, the typeface is blacked in for the comparison versions but once again, the micro written code strings are against a plain paper background.
Does this mean that the book itself was specially printed in a short run specifically for this kind of task? This particular book is, in my view, a training manual of sorts. I believe that Alf was training Jestyn and quite possibly others, in the tradecraft art of concealment and deception.
We at least know who the publisher of the book was. 'AUSTRALASIAN PUBLISHING CO. PTY. LTD, SYDNEY, NSW'. However, it was not common for the publisher to also be the printer of books, that work was generally farmed out, but the question is to whom?
The answer to that question is critical if this was a recognised printer of good repute such as a Government Printer, then all is well, and we could assume that Jestyn was working for the Australian Intelligence services. However, it is known that the Communist Party of Australia, apart from having numerous clandestine printing presses throughout Australia, also had, sometimes, controlling interests in mainstream printing companies. If indeed it was one of the latter printers that printed this book, then we have quite a different scenario.
My personal view at this stage is that Jestyn was trained by and worked for Australian Intelligence services.
The answer might lie amongst the 4000 + ASIO files available on the NAA website.
UPDATE
17th Century example of micro writing:
 |
Portrait: Philip Jakob Spenner
This is an image I have had for some time. It shows amongst other things various fruits with micro writing, with birds and people all created with words. In fact, every part of this image is in micro writing.
Micrographic Illustrated Omer Calendar [Dov Margolioth, Germany, ca. 1830]
|
This piece was sold at Sotheby's approximately 6 years ago for $185000 USD.
NEXT POSTS
The next post will be quite short, it's a video clip showing just how, I believe, the microwriting found on the code page was done. After that we have two more posts, one is the Somerton Man Code page with microcode revealed and the second is the torn Tamam Shud piece. Both are very revealing, in fact, they'll blow you away.
Tags
Australasian Publishing Co.
Jessica Harkness
Jessica Thompson
Jestyn
Lieutenant Alf Boxall
micro code
Microwriting
Rubaiyat of Omar Khayam
What sort of tools would they have needed to read this microcode? Is it something they would do in the field, or would they need to go home to other equipment?
ReplyDeleteThe Boxall book, or rather the two pages that we see, contain a number of different concealment techniques. Some of it is straightforward steganography as per the grapes and the lady with the Fez, other writing is concealed against a dark background as is that found on the edge of book cover, then the writing down the centre of the two pages, that was written and then a similar shade of ink lightly applied over it, there're other techniques that he used including what looks to be special inks or deliberate indentations that may only show up under different coloured light, dusting powder or chemical treatment. So you need to try them all. The latter only shows under medium light as very faint writing, sound familiar? I was impressed with the way he used the staining that you see in various locations on the page, if you look carefully at each one, even the smallest ones, you'll see what I mean. All of this told me that the book was likely used for training.
DeleteBack to your question, given that we have different types of concealment, they will each need different types of recovery or variations. For the grapes example, strong light and a magnifying glass, the same applies for the string in the centre of the two pages, that means it was recovered at home. The writing within the writing of verse 70 would again need to be at home. The very faint examples would be similar whilst the writing in the stains could be read in the field, spectacles and sunlight would do that job if they knew what they were looking for. It's also possible that they had developed special ways to read the examples using everyday bits and pieces in which case they may be able to read it anywhere. As the great man said it's like orchids.
I'll leave you with this, take a look at the image of the two open pages. On the left page you can see where the book cover binding overlaps and sits behind the page. If you look at the title page, there is no binding overlap evident, but it is there. A test for you.
A fair question, setting up to take a macro shot takes at least 2 hours and maybe more. It is not just the camera angle, it is also the lighting angle and the direction it comes from. The angles of camera, lens setting and lighting will produce different background shades. For example if I had chosen to use some of the images with backlighting, they turned out with a yellowish background colour and the markings brown, shadows are also a variable. I took some in UV with similar result to the one chosen but not as clear and different angles to get the best of the bunch. Similar outcome with reflected IR. I don't have IR luminescence gear which can also produce a good result depending on the exact nature of the object that you're trying to capture. In this case it took about 90 minutes for the image shown. When you look at all three images under strong lighting it is immediately obvious that the Boxall image has micro writing in the grapes and elsewhere but still the shot needs to be set up and in this case about 68 pics were taken with strong lighting to get the clearest, focused shot of just some of the writing, the camera the lens, the lighting and frame size are all factors in getting the best shot given the equipment. If you want more I suggest you get yourself on a photography course with a decent section on Macro photography. In addition, you can get on a forensic document examination course, not all of it is relevant but it certainly helps. Questioned documents tend to be more focused on forged signatures, altered cheques and other documents, however they do spend time on camera and lighting techniques. In essence, you don't really know which technique will produce the best result upfront so you test them all, it really isn't as straight forward as it looks and you need a lot of patience.
ReplyDeleteAs you might have expected, Bowes and co are plagiarising your work yet again. They grab it they reword it and think they're smart. Playing chess with a pigeon comes to mind. Content thieves and old or not, Bowes is a self acknowledged plagiariser and a self acknowledged troll. Doesn't he know he's beaching your copyright?
ReplyDeleteThere are many kinds of troll, parasitic troll comes to mind with Mr. Bowes. The man with lots of questions but no answers of his own. Really sad to see.
ReplyDeleteOne comment he removed was 'I had him against the wall..' That was in his first Fox and Rabbit post hurriedly taken down, Copied. Harassment and defamation. Very naughty especially in Queensland.
ReplyDelete