...THE CARL WEBB CLAIM...
.jpg)
'A FALSE CONCLUSION ONCE ARRIVED AT AND WIDELY ACCEPTED IS NOT EASILY DISLODGED; AND THE LESS IT IS UNDERSTOOD, THE MORE TENACIOUSLY IT IS HELD...'
GEORG CANTOR
1845 ‐- 1918
At some stage in the Carl Webb story, a false conclusion was reached and widely circulated around the Globe as being the truth. This post and others that follow will show the systematic nature of that process.
THE IMAGE COMPARISONS
The images below are comparisons between the left ear of the younger Carl, the older Carl, and the Somerton Man:
YOUNG CARL Vs OLDER CARL
In this comparison, you can clearly see that the entire shape of the left ear of young and older Carl is very similar in shape, in fact, they would be identical if you make an allowance for the age difference and slightly different photo angles. In both images, the inner and outer helix taper into the jaw.
YOUNG CARL Vs SOMERTON MAN
In this comparison. the outer helix of the younger Carl clearly tapers into the side of the jaw whilst the inner and outer Helix of the Somerton Man is parallel and square cut to the side of the jaw. The point of inflection of the inner helix on younger Carl is noticeably higher in the structure of his left ear.
OLD CARL Vs THE SOMERTON MAN
In this comparison between the older Carl and the Somerton Man, the difference in ear shape is striking. the inner and outer helix of each man is quite different in shape. Carl's left ear is tapered into the jaw approximately halfway up on the outer helix whilst the Somerton Man's left ear is squared off and not tapered.
A RECENT REMINI COMPARISON:
...The immediate and very noticeable difference is seen in the shape of the entire left ear in particular you will notice the lobe on the left ear of each subject. Carl's lobe appears to be detached and not squared off, his outer helix is definitely tapered into the jaw and not squared as you can see on the Somerton Man. It is quite possible that the detached lobe on Carl was the result of the AI image enhancement.
Carl is sharing what appears to be a crooked smile. With regard to his teeth, there is no sign of anodontia which was claimed by Professor Abbott in his earlier attempt to claim that the Somerton Man was his wife's grandfather.
More to follow...
AGE PROGRESSION PHOTOGRAPHS
August 9th 2023
A few years older, possibly around 9 years of age.
Carl Webb in his mid-30s
Carl Webb, early to mid-40s
Carl Webb a young child. There are good similarities between this and the Soccer playing Carl who would have been a few years older, see next image.
Carl the school soccer team photograph, aged around 11 years.
Carl from the original black/white photograph of the family of 4 group photo. In his mid to late 20s?
This was the base photograph uploaded to the Age Progression software.
For those interested, here's the link to the age progression software:
There are more photographs yet to upload but they will be on a separate p[ost. Fair to say we have found something 'unusual' in the next set.
Tags
Age progression images
Older Carl Webb left ear comparison
Somerton Man ear comparisons with Carl Webb
Somerton Man Mystery
Young Carl Webb left ear comparison
What you say is true
ReplyDeleteIt can be criminal deception if you get money by a falsehood and didn't care
I understand what you are saying, I think the key issue would be 'Knowingly' generating false information and gaining some kind of pecuniary advantage by doing so.
ReplyDeleteThe image evidence is strong and that plus the apparent admission that 'Imputation' was used to back up the claim when from accounts, imputation is possibly only 75% accurate. I would call that sailing close to the wind.
The fact that he made a previous claim which turned out to be totally incorrect shouldn't be missed. Didn't he send you an altered document as well?
ReplyDeleteNow get the height of the older Carl. Is that possible?
ReplyDeleteThe height has been at issue for some time as no doubt you know. If there was a formula it would be easy.
ReplyDeleteHowever there are some guides that may help.
The Mayo clinic has a guide for calculating expected adult height of a child yet to be born.
The guide suggests that you add together the height of the mother and father and then for a male child add 5 inches to that total. Finally you divide the new total by 2. That works reasonably well for Roy Webb because we have evidence of his height. According to Mayo then Carl should be around the same height.
But it is a guide only and it doesn't explain why some male children from the same family are much taller than others.
Having now read further and deeper on the issue of height and have found that it is perfectly possible for two short parents to have tall children. It's down to genetics, there are genes associated with height; tall genes and short genes for want of a better term.
ReplyDeleteBut, what is interesting is that the norm described in the Mayo clinic example of adding together both parents height plus 5 inches then divide that by 2, the male child would be thought of as having more tall genes than short. That tends to support Roy Webb being tall relative to his parents and that's because he possessed more tall genes.
Now the question is, how tall does that make Carl Webb?
As I read it, it is more 'likely' that Carl would be either the same height as Roy or shorter rather than taller.
It may sound a bit convoluted but in essence, Roy had his full measure of tall genes and it is unlikely that his parents had any more to contribute. Thus Carl as shown in the original and untouched photograph of the family of four photograph, is more than likely to be around 5'8" in height.
When it comes to Able Seaman Carl Webb on the SS Golden Sun, he is still a good possibility though not a certainty. His height and age would appear to match and the sun bleached hair and somewhat tanned appearance add to the possibility.
I read the IEEE article by the Professor and I'd like to see more details on which SNPs were sequenced and which were imputed. The accuracy of each SNP's imputation will depend on how close it is to the target SNP on the particular chromosome. Ancestry does an amazing job with only 1/1000 of the genome but you must have regard to chromosomal crossing-over which is directly determined by the distance apart of the 2 SNPs and determines the imputation accuracy. All the genomics companies specify this accuracy in their reports when they are not dealing with Whole Genome Sequencing.
ReplyDeleteIrrespective, I would bet that the hair DNA and dentition doesn't match the exhumed corpse. It probably matches the "other body".
You're on it
ReplyDeleteThe other body
Thanks for your comment regarding Salomonson. There are a few things related to the fingerprints that you may not be aware of. firstly way back i 2012 I think it was, I pointed out to everyone that the fingerprint record had not been signed off, it wasn't certificated as it should have been. It is known from the inquest documents that Jimmy Durham took the fingerprints and I believe that they were presented to the court as an exhibit but I must check that out. the lack of a signed of fingerprint form means that in legal terms at least, that form is valueless. We cannot be at all sure that those fingerprints were those of the Somerton Man.
ReplyDeleteBut supposing that a new image suddenly became available, which is always possible, and they were the same as the ones we now have only the form was properly signed off.
Take a look at the fingerprints here: https://tamamshud.blogspot.com/2014/10/somerton-man-fingerprinting-somerton.html
The right thumb, right index finger and first finger all have wear marks not present on the left hand fingerprints. Those marks, in my view suggest that the owner of those prints was in the first instance, right handed. Secondly, those wear marks, which effectively contradict the evidence given at the inquest which said that the man had not done any manual labour, suggest to me that this man used a small hand tool and that the tool was probably an engraving tool. I must point out that whilst I have, in years past, taken fingerprints and been present when they've been taken from a corpse, I do not consider my self as a fingerprint expert. That takes many years of experience.
There you have the issue from my perspective.
I am puzzled as to why you haven't pursued the matter directly yourself?
With regard to Henry, there is a mass of information about his family as you are probably aware. He was not born in London but In Norwood, Croydon, Surrey UK. The actual address for the family was 34. Holland House, Highfield Hill, Norwood, Surrey, England. A Henry Salomonson turned up in Michigan in 1940 when his age was put as 35 years old and he was the head of the household according to the census information, he was baker by trade.
Could have fooled me Gordon, Norwood, is in the burrough of Croydon which in turn be part of greater London. Best you look at the map and you'll agree I'm sure. As for Henry Salomonson of Michigan, you'll find quite a few scattered around America but my Henry was doing service in England in 1940 far as I'm aware.
ReplyDeleteYes, Croydon is a borough of London (and in the County of Surrey). But pre 1965 that wasn't the case? Or gave I got that wrong?
ReplyDelete