The Carl Webb story has always had a ring of doubt around it, for me at least.
Something was very wrong about several things including the ear shape not matching that of the Somerton Man and the facial features had the same issue, Carl Webb's face simply does not match the face of the Somerton Man.
Recently I watched a documentary on Aerial reconnaissance from WW2. Specifically, this documentary was about German V2 and V1 rocket sites. I watched and listened as the movie progressed and the 'mechanics' of the technology were explained.
One aspect was how they calculated the wingspan of a small 'aircraft' on the ground. Via intelligence operatives, they already knew the wingspan of this particular aircraft type, it happened to be a V1 rocket, and that wingspan was 20 feet. The aerial photography showed several objects on the ground and a sharp-eyed WRAF lady picked out a small object, it had an aircraft shape and she was able to calculate the wingspan of 20 feet.
The calculation was made based on the height of the aircraft camera from the ground surface. The term used is 'photogammetry'.
In a way, we are in a similar position with the photograph of the Webb family which includes Roy, Charles, and Grandpa While Grandma is as important as all of them are, we will not include her height details as they're still being determined. However, we do know the height of Roy Webb, 5 feet 8 inches, and I believe that somewhere we have the height of Grandpa Webb. Carl Webb the man claimed by Professor Abbott to be the Somerton Man, would be, according to the Professor, 5 feet 11 inches tall. This latter measurement applied to Carl Webb which we are about to prove needs to be corrected.
Using Roy Webb's military photograph shown here:
I have actually set for our purposes the datum point as being the top of Roy’s head. This would make Roy closer to 5 feet 8 inches as shown in this photograph. I am using millimeters as the metric.
ROY WEBB METRICS
1. Roy Webb's Height as per this image is 5 feet 8 inches = 1727.2 mm2. This height was applied to the family image and, as per the photo-reconnaissance example, the height of the object, in this case, Roy's head, was taken and measured on the image, being 52 mm from the top of the head to the point of his chin.
3. The next step is to use the helpful tool found on the Researchgate website that shows how a person's overall height relates to the height of their head which is estimated to be a factor of 8 times head height to full height.:
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Body-proportions-the-height-of-a-person-is-about-eight-times-his-her-heads-height-the_fig2_224674276
Obviously, the family photograph at the head of this post is much smaller consequently Roy's head measurement of 52 mm needs to be 'scaled' against the actual height such that the 52 mm on the photograph becomes 215.875 mm in reality which gives us a scale of 4.15:1
So, multiplying the 215.875 mm by eight as described in the Researchgate example, we get our 1727.2 mm, Roy's actual height as explained earlier.
2. Next we need to apply the scale factor of 4.15, thus 416 mm X 4.15 which gives us a total of 1726.2 mm (rounded) or 5 feet 8 inches, this is Carl's height based on the family photograph.
3. This measurement would make Carl the same height as Roy, as in 5 feet 8 inches. There is a question as to whether Carl and Roy are effectively standing next to each other or whether Carl is a little further back than Roy. This is about the distance between the camera and the subject. An allowance should be made for that factor and I suggest .5 to 1 inch in additional height for Carl. That makes Carl 5 feet 9 inches tall.
I am more than happy to accept input on this technique, all that anyone needs to do is to test it.
Given that the Researchgate method is correct we have shown that Carl Webb was 5 feet 8 inches tall. The Somerton Man was 5 feet 11 inches tall.
This calls into question the claim that Carl Webb was the Somerton Man.
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Body-proportions-the-height-of-a-person-is-about-eight-times-his-her-heads-height-the_fig2_224674276
Obviously, the family photograph at the head of this post is much smaller consequently Roy's head measurement of 52 mm needs to be 'scaled' against the actual height such that the 52 mm on the photograph becomes 215.875 mm in reality which gives us a scale of 4.15:1
So, multiplying the 215.875 mm by eight as described in the Researchgate example, we get our 1727.2 mm, Roy's actual height as explained earlier.
CARL WEBB METRICS
1. Using the same formulae as we did for Roy Webb, we multiply Carl's family photograph head measurement of 52 mm by 8 which equals 416 mm.2. Next we need to apply the scale factor of 4.15, thus 416 mm X 4.15 which gives us a total of 1726.2 mm (rounded) or 5 feet 8 inches, this is Carl's height based on the family photograph.
3. This measurement would make Carl the same height as Roy, as in 5 feet 8 inches. There is a question as to whether Carl and Roy are effectively standing next to each other or whether Carl is a little further back than Roy. This is about the distance between the camera and the subject. An allowance should be made for that factor and I suggest .5 to 1 inch in additional height for Carl. That makes Carl 5 feet 9 inches tall.
I am more than happy to accept input on this technique, all that anyone needs to do is to test it.
Given that the Researchgate method is correct we have shown that Carl Webb was 5 feet 8 inches tall. The Somerton Man was 5 feet 11 inches tall.
This calls into question the claim that Carl Webb was the Somerton Man.
How confident are you that the method you used is accurate? It seems simple why hasn’t anyone else has done it?
ReplyDeleteI am quite confident that the methodology is good. It’s been tried tested and it appears to be accurate in most cases. You’re right, when you break it down, it’s pretty simple and based on many years of development as per the aerial reconnaissance example. I didn’t have the distance from the subject that they had of course but I did have the metrics of one of the subjects, Roy Webb. I worked from that information and it all came together. You’ll see that Grandpa Webb is of shorter stature and that’s reflected in the height of his head. I think he was about 5 feet 6 inches tall but stand to be corrected on that.
ReplyDeleteEarly days yet but coincidentally, Carl Webb the once was candidate for being the Somerton Man, now shares the same name, age and height with Able Seaman Carl Webb of the SS Golden Sun.
ReplyDeleteI can’t claim credit for spotting the apparent closeness in height of Roy and Carl in the first instance, it was Pete Bowes that brought it up several months ago. At the time I put an image or two together which put Carls height at around 5 feet 8 or 5 feet nine but I didn’t know how to substantiate it at the time. It’s been in the back of my mind ever since and it was the aerial reconnaissance documentary that triggered it, and here we are with some substantiated information.
ReplyDeleteHoly Moley, huge find. Shudder to think what the CM crew will do now. Pretty much redundant threads. Oh dear, do you think they understand the implications? Jo and Poppins and everyone. They’ll probably have to change their pseudonyms at the very least. And what about the Professor? Goodness me, what will the Club make of it… And all those speaking engagements, golly gosh. Maybe even a book and video or movie rights. All gone. Whoosh, in the blink of an eye… Let’s see if you let this ‘un through GC. :)
ReplyDeleteCharlie wasn't even in the original photo. He's just been photoshopped in Someone got caught out doing that and that's further proof of it
ReplyDeletePete B. I looked at the arrest record and it gives a Richard A Webb arrested for break and enter offence in St Arnaud, as 5 feet 8 inches in height. There are two problems with the record though. The Richard Webb in the Police record, arrived on the Nuremberg in 1889 and his wife, unnamed, was living in St Arnaud.
ReplyDeleteThe record of a Richard A Webb's application for citizenship dated in 1914, states that he arrived in Australia on Nuremburg but in 1888, a year earlier than the prison record. There is no mention on the application form of his ever having lived in St Arnaud. The nearest he lived to that location was Shepparton some 211 kms away. That suggests that this is a different Richard Webb. I see that John Sanders has raised questions about the records in the past, but I found no mention of the arrival year disparity unless I missed it.
In the post you will see that Richard's face metric is 48 mm, I had incorrectly entered 45 mm yesterday but now corrected as you can see. On that basis, this puts Richard's overall height as 5 feet 3 inches +/- 1 inch. A visual comparison of the photograph shows that Richard does look shorter than both Roy and Charles.
As mentioned yesterday we do have a slightly different angle and position for Richard to take into account. the unknown factors would relate to the shoes worn by the men. If Carl and Roy were wearing flat tennis shoes and Richard was wearing more formal shoes which would match his formal clothing in this image, that could make a difference of an inch or so but we couldn't know that for certain.
Can you just run that calculation past us again?
ReplyDeleteSure.
ReplyDelete1. We know and can substantiate Roy Webb's height from his service record, he was 5 feet 8 inches (1727.2mm) tall.
2. We have a photograph that includes Roy Webb and I physically measured the height of Roy's head on that photograph from the top of his head to the tip of the chin. That measurement is 52 mm.
3. We know from the Researchgate documents that the ratio of height between a person's head and their full height, head to toe, is 8:1
4. To calculate the measurement of Roy's head to toe height based on the measured height of his head on the photograph, we need to first multiply theat head measurement by 8 as described in the Researchgate document. That calculated measurement equals 8 X 52 mm = 416 mm.
5. Having calculated Roy's full height based on the 416 mm result from the photograph, we can now calculate what the scale of the photographic image to Roy's actual height of 5 feet 8 inches. We do that by dividing Roy's actual; height by his photograph height which we will convert to mm as follows:
Actual height: 1727.2 mm /416mm = 4.15 (two places)
The scale of the image of Roy on the photograph therefore is therefore 1:4.15
That calculation then proves the accuracy of the Researchgate 8:1 ratio.
Having done that calculation, the nest step was to apply the same approach to Charles Webb's height which appears to be equal to Roy's height and the measurements and subsequent calculation confirm that Roy and Charles were very close to being the same height, I have suggested that we use a + or - figure of 1 inch. as a guide.
Hope this helps.
OK, that's much clearer for me, pretty much faultless logic. I got a bit concerned over the Researchgate method but it makes sense and it does actually work well. I agree that the 'Charlie' Webb in the photograph can't be the Somerton Man, he is a good 2 to 3 inches shorter than the Somerton Man. Where to from here?
DeleteIn the interest of keeping on track with this post, I have deleted some comments.
ReplyDeleteSo, reviewing this stuff, the key to accurately getting to Charlie's height is the fact that you have the known and confirmed height of Roy Webb. If you didn't have that what would you do instead?
ReplyDeleteThat's the bottom line, without having Roys proven metrics, it would be a whole different scenario. Frankly, I don't know what I would do in those circumstances, although the way that technology is advancing especially in the area of imagery, it would only be a question of time before a solution would be available. For all we know it may already be there? I'll let you know if similar circumstances arise in the future :)
ReplyDeleteDid you resolve if the Charlie in the family photo is the right one?
ReplyDeleteI haven't doubted it, but another Charles Webb was put forward by Pete Bowes, that person, a cousin of the real Charles Webb, was born in 1917, the Charlie in the family pic is in his mid 20s when the pic was taken and there's no way he was born in 1917. Just a Furphy I think :)
Delete1- Roy’s height is defined by his war record where he was asked to stand against a standard measurement scale used by the army. You might check this in the archives.
ReplyDelete2 - The June1929 date of the group photo, as determined by Stuart Webb is predicated by the photo of the woman he states as being Amy Webb who died the same year after a long illness .. another view is that the woman is her daughter, who looked much like her mother.
Thanks for your comment. The NAA files are a wealth of quality information and it is where I obtained Roy’s photo but I neglected to mention that. I appreciate your correction.
DeleteA few people have asked about the Video I mentioned that covered the aerial reconnaissance operations in WW2. I should tell you that it is a compilation of some very interesting videos that includes guided rockets, first fighter jets, da reconstruction of the defusing of a German magnetic mine and some amazing information about Enigma, when the first machine was handled by the British and exactly how the Bletchley Park 'BOMBE' worked. It is one lengthy video, almost 5 hours. I watched in 4 sessions, well worth the effort. Here's the link:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLUSaY6Kbwp-_7MyLyDZ6Av4ljXsz0h_By