MICROCODE:THE EVIDENCE, PROCESS AND PHOTOGRAPHS...

 

...Jestyn Signature from the Boxall Rubaiyat...

Originally posted February 8th. 2016

This post, slightly modified and updated from the original, shows the test and results of recovering microcode details from a photograph of a photograph that was then scanned, and still, we can recover the code hidden by ink just as occurred in 1949 when the letters of the original code page were inked over.

By way of background, the original Police photograph of the code page was taken using Glass Plate photography, this method is known for its very fine detail.

The letters found as indentations on the original photograph of the code page was not inked over. It would have been a negative image in the first instance as was the case with 'Glass Plate' photographs. Thus it was that having inked over the indentations, another photograph was taken 

 An original image would have been kept on file and a black and white photograph was kept with copies being sent to the press including the Adelaide Advertiser who kept that copy until 1997 when they digitized all their photographs including the Somerton Man code page image. It was scanned and set to 400 DPI for printing purposes, 300 DPI is regarded as the norm for a quality photograph. 

It is a copy of that file from the Adelaide Advertiser which was given to me by ex-Detective Sergeant Gerry Feltus that I have used in other posts to show the presence of micro-written codes. In this post, you will see the process I used to recover the hidden codes.

A SIMPLE METHOD OF REVEALING HIDDEN WRITING

This demonstration shows just how the details of hidden writing be recovered from a photograph To be more precise,

You will see that whoever it was that inked over the original photograph would have seen what was really there before it was released for the public to see. 

The methods I have used are based on the exact methods used by SOE and other agents to hide and then later retrieve concealed messages, the one difference being that they were working with the originals whilst here, we are working with photographs. This particular method is that which was described in a 1943 SOE manual, it was called INK H. This method involved the use of cursive written words which had very small penciled code added to the individual letters of a word or words and which were then inked over

At the risk of boring the many who have read this here before, the process was devastatingly simple, write normal-sized letters in ink, add microcode in pencil in some or all of those letters, and add another layer of ink to all of the letters to properly conceal the microcode and that's stage 1. The reason the second layer of ink is added is that if you did not do that and a sharp-eyed enemy used oblique lighting on the page containing your letters/code, they would pick up the tell-tale glint from the pencil marks. 

The additional layer of ink prevents that. The final step in this clandestine method of communication was for the recipient to 'develop' the message which they did by immersing the page containing the letters and code into a strong, 14%, solution of Sodium Hypochlorite, bleach in other words. In those days a 14% solution was normal, today the norm is considered 10% for less for household use, and 14% is known as industrial strength. This immersion had the effect of gradually removing the ink but leaving the tiny penciled code visible. 

Step 1. Penciled code inked over, this is a photograph of  a photograph of

the original demonstration image:

Step 2. Immersed in bleach for about 15 seconds, code began to show.

Step 3. 1-minute immersion. You can see how the ink is breaking away and dissolving leaving the penciled code coming into view. Notice how dark it is?

Step 4. 3 minutes immersed, the code is now clearly visible and this is the photograph:

Step 5. Using the photographic image above, the code is again inked over, the nib on this pen is around .7 mm in width. Having made an extensive study of the page for some time now, I think that the actual marking of the larger letters on the original code page photograph was done with a brush, a very skilled job:

Step 6. The image is of the revealed code after it had been inked over in the picture below. You can see the ruled edge showing sub 1 mm for most of the coded letters/numbers. It is this picture, the photo of the photo, that we will use to develop the code and make it visible again:

Step 7. Image from step 6 is immersed in bleach, the image shows the effects of 2 minutes after immersion:

Step 8. The image is developed and the code once again becomes visible. Please bear in mind that, even though the code page was written many years ago, the tools and techniques used by Police and Intelligence services were extremely good. Glass plate photographs were capable of producing extraordinarily fine details and the use of various chemicals, including Iodine vapour,  would reveal every single fibre in a document and if it had been modified in any way.

This image is a little hazy but legible, and with more time I would have improved the quality but I think you can get the picture.

What this post did  8 years ago and has done again today is to clearly demonstrate that by using a digital image of another image in fact the final image above was a scan taken at 400 DPI, you are indeed able to recover concealed code/messages or signatures. And the Somerton Man documents contain such concealments.

This is exactly what I have been able to do with the Somerton Man code page as well as the torn piece and Verse 70 from Jestyn's book inscription to Alf Boxall.

this demonstration underscores the claim that the Somerton Man was involved in clandestine communications and espionage.

NOTE: The printer used for this demonstration was a Canon Pixma model, an inkjet printer and it was set to fine-quality printing. Bleedproff paper was the stock used. A Laser printer will not produce these results. Dye-based inks produce a better quality outcome. I have since used Epson and Brother inkjet printers for the same demonstration with similar results.

I would like to acknowledge the impetus for writing this post received from JP who commented in a very constructive manner back in 2016.