SEE LATEST POST HERE:
https://tamamshud.blogspot.com/2023/08/somerton-man-fake-photo.html
...THE WEB FAMILY GROUP
PICTURES OF CHARLIE...
A TRUTH REVEALED
The comparison pictures are from the same basic photograph and at first glance they may appear to be identical. However, a closer look shows some significant differences as you can see in the marked-up image below:
IMAGE 1.
- Note that the left ear as marked on the left photo is quite clear, you can see the outer and inner helix and the shape of the inner ear. You can also make out there is a small lobe on the left ear, the ear is not attached.
- Next, let's look at the mouth. In image #1 on the left, we can see that Carl has a 'twisted' smile. It is not a fault in the image, he just happens to smile that way and there is no sign of any digital artifact at play. Some of the teeth in the lower jaw are not visible. The upper teeth are clearly visible.
- The face itself looks to be quite tanned, it is certainly not pale and the skin is smooth apart from the wrinkled forehead which may be a result of the AI enhancement but as you will see further below, there are indeed signs of wrinkling on the original photograph.
IMAGE 2.
- The left ear in this image is noticeably different, the inner ear shape is smaller and not well-defined, and the ear appears to be longer than that shown in IMAGE #1. You can also see that the lobe is now missing and the lower part of the ear appears to be square cut into the jaw and it is attached. The upper part of the ear has been modified and has a pronounced semi-circular appearance. The ear in this image looks to have been photoshopped.
- The mouth is totally different in shape from that found in the first image, with IMAGE #1 having a 'twisted' smile and IMAGE 2 being more regular in shape and the lower teeth are now visible. There is no sign of a smile. The upper teeth are barely visible.This part of the image appears to have also been photoshopped
- The face has an almost metallic finish to it and whilst there are signs of wrinkling, they are light and do not look natural. Once more the impression is that the face has been deliberately photoshopped.
THE FAMILY GROUP PHOTOGRAPHS
Below you can see both versions of the same photograph that were published by ABC in Australia. The first version is the plain black-and-white image of the group. The second image shows the same group but with different coloured inks showing the names of each person and the locations of the name tags on the image have been changed from their original position.
INITIAL/ORIGINAL BLACK AND WHITE PHOTOGRAPH:
The names are all written in a grey colour which might be a pencil and they are located as seen in this image, near the top of the image.
MODIFIED IMAGE PUBLISHED LATER
In this image, you can see that the name tags have not only been moved but the colours have been changed.
At the sizes shown, the changes that were made were quite minor until you enhance and improve each image and it is then that you see the significant effects of the changes that have been made.
The clothes worn by each person are the same as those worn by the same people in the larger family group, this shows that Carl at this time was in his mid to late 20s which would put both photographs as being taken in 1930 or thereabouts.
Here's the large family group:
The clothes worn by each person are the same as those worn by the same people in the larger family group, this shows that Carl at this time was in his mid to late 20s which would put both photographs as being taken in 1930 or thereabouts.
Here's the large family group:
There is a history of such manipulation of images emanating from the Professor Abbott camp. Some time ago I published an example that clearly showed that fine details of an image had been deliberately altered. Is this the case with the Webb Family photographs?
The devil, as they say, is in the detail.
You be the judge.
The devil, as they say, is in the detail.
You be the judge.
NEW PHOTO MARKED UP SHOWING ODDITIES:
These are a some of the oddities in the family pic. You can see the different shadow angles, the feint square outline of the clone stamp, the huge left arm , the smudge marks.
There's been a lot of fraud
ReplyDeleteto make it look like they have found Somerton man.
For notoriety and money
It's: they all think it's Carl Webb and we family members get a whole pile of money from it. It's just a fraud.
That's quite a claim that you've made. You would add credibility to it if you could substantiate that in some way. If you have additional information you can either contact me through the contact form or add another comment here.
DeleteA bit of a bombshell for everyone to think about. I have been reliably informed that the link to Carl Webb came as a result of a follow up on a Keane family connection In Victoria and the DNA info came later. Holy Moley...
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteYou missed one
ReplyDeleteThe blob in the middle of his forehead
What a sham
Thanks for the prompt. My view on the 'blob' is that it is a distortion along with the rest of that particular image. The right ear is larger, the left ear is an entirely different in structure and appearance the whole image in my view has been poorly photoshopped for whatever reason. The image on the left as you look at it is much sharper.
ReplyDeleteSo instead of letting everyone see that Carl Webb doesn't look like Somerton man there has been some photoshop work to create the impression that he does. Is that your take on it?
ReplyDeleteMy take is this, there is a single source for the photograph of the family group of 4. When it was first released by ABC, I and others no doubt, examined it and then used an AI tool, Vance AI to enhance the existing features of the image. You will have noted that on that first image the name tags were located in different places on that photograph and were written in dark ink.
ReplyDeleteThe second iteration of that initial photograph had the names relocated and Charlie's name was in red ink. The actual image of the names were identical hence photoshop was used to do that and then to copy and move those names to new locations whilst at the same time removing any trace of them from their original locations. That's more evidence that photoshop was used on that original image.
I again used Vance AI to enhance the second image and it produced a startlingly different result as pointed out in this post. To get that sort of difference strongly suggests that facial features on the original image had been altered again the specific changes are indicated in the post.
Bear in mind that Professor Abbot once sent a copy of the Verse 70 written by the nurse into the copy of the Rubaiyat that she gave to Alf Boxall, on close examination the copy he sent me had been heavily modified.
This is the same Professor Abbot who, when he was campaigning on a platform that the Somerton Man was his wife's grandfather not that long ago, dismissed the evidence provided by Dr Dwyer, his evidence was in the form of a detailed dental chart of the Somerton Man. That chart was evidence that the Somerton Man did not have the dental condition, anodontia, that was claimed by the Professor. In that instance the Professor's comment was , 'Dwyer got it wrong'. Dr Dwyer was a well respected individual with a distinguished career and professor Abbot had no compunction, he trashed the man's reputation in just 4 words.
The Professor also claimed that the ear structure of the Somerton Man was extremely rare. Research at the time showed that Jestyn's grandson whose mother was born after the Somerton Mans time, had the same type of ear. I produced the photograph and provided the name and the information I gave was simply ignored. I delved deeper and found that statistically on the night of 30th November 1948, there would have been around 100 males in Adelaide who had that ear structure. Again the information was ignored.
I have no confidence at all in whatever the Professor has to say in connection with the Somerton Man case and yes I think that the photograph that was later produced by the ABC was deliberately altered.
In the end the Coroner, who now has a significant amount of evidence, will no doubt inform us of his findings.
Provided the Coroner has the correct evidence and not misinformation
ReplyDeleteAnything can happen
Evidence can't be altered
ReplyDeleteIf there are originally no names on the photo
they could be anybody
We need to see more photos of Carl Webb
Why aren't we seeing them?
I think that the initial photograph had names on it. The changes were done ahead of the ABC programme. The question is, why make changes?
DeleteAny evidence that goes before the Coroner has to be substantiated, that's the job of the Major Crime Squad. After that, as you say, it's up to the Coroner.
ReplyDeleteDo you think the image of Charlie in the family group
ReplyDeleteis the same image of Charlie in the group of four?
Might add to my earlier comment. The large group image of Charlie is not as sharp as in the group of 4 or maybe 3. The other thing I noticed now is that he looks much younger in the large group and has aged considerably in the small group pic. The shirt detail etc is the same but the face has aged.
DeleteYes, I feel sure that's the case.
ReplyDeleteIt's not a genuine group of four but a cut and paste with a fourth added?
ReplyDeleteNo, I don't think so. It is more likely that it was modified in place. But it's a good point that you make. It is possible that they grabbed the original face, modified it a little and put it back/layered it in place.
ReplyDeleteThe position of the clothes and shadows for Charlie are the same in both pictures
ReplyDeleteand the shadow on Charlies body is at a different angle to the others in the group of three.
The sun was higher in the sky when the group photo was taken
The photo of the three was taken a bit later
Looks like Charlie was cut and pasted behind the three
The shadows are the same for the three
and different angle to them for Charlie
It's in the detail as you say
Looks like a fake and what else is
Check out SW's top notch creative AT skill credentials on Linkedin and like sites. You may find your answers as to how fake overlay images might have been created, it's a no brainer
ReplyDeleteGood assessment. I took a closer look and noticed the points you raised and agree with you. Also saw that Charlie's shadow did not cast onto his father which you might expect if he was standing that close behind him given the angle of the sun. What's your take on the father's left arm? Seems to be in 2 parts of differing widths? The positioning of Charlie's hands on his parents shoulders seems odd but can't put my finger on it precisely. Good observation!
ReplyDeleteGrandpa's left arm looks like where grandma's shoulder was and she was moved to her left to fit Charlie in. There's no background scenery. It all looks like a fake which means heights are not relevant or anything else
DeleteRe the left arm, that's a good possibility. It certainly doesn't look correct as it is. Would you take on the task of reversing that process?
ReplyDeleteWith grandma back in the correct position grandpa would have his comforting left hand on her shoulder. The hand on grandpa's right shoulder is bigger and looks like a fake
DeleteI can see that removing Charlie from the image is a point and click exercise. The skill would be in the detailed work needed to rework the fathers left arm which, on the face of it, has been botched. WIll put another image on this post.
DeleteTry rewarp.me, its IOS i think. Detects image alterations. Not sure how good it is.
ReplyDeleteRewarp is just for faces, a bit limited.
ReplyDeleteGood stuff! Will see if I can recreate that here but it looks more like a probability than a possibility. Thanks for the input. If anything else occurs to you please comment.
ReplyDeleteThat photo of four was said to have been in a family album
ReplyDeleteABC News says of that photo: The answers to the Somerton Man mystery were sitting in the Webb family album for 74 years.(Supplied: Stuart Webb)
That's correct, ABC nominated it but what we know now makes the photograph questionable.
DeleteCorrection Admin. From what we know of his education, computer skill levels and applications thereof, means that SW's input, eg., photo enhancements, claimed identities and other FB online input on the family history be for most part self serving.
ReplyDeleteThanks for that John
DeleteThe family of 4 photo looks really grainy, the big group photo looks much clearer. What's with the oversized shirt that Charlie's wearing in the large group pic?
ReplyDelete