...COATED PAPER...
...The interesting feature appears next to the signature just beneath and to the right of the inscription. You will see there is a ‘tear’ where the surface coating of the paper was pulled away from the page. This is the position where a blank piece of paper had been taped down over the signature purportedly to conceal the identity of the person who wrote the inscription. As you can see in the screen grab from the interview the signature was covered at that time.
The addition of the number 70 after the interview is proof that Alf was skilled in the use of the INK H technique of ‘writing within writing’ with a twist. The number 70 shows no sign that I can see of a pencil being used to inscribe the really tiny lettering. Instead, it appears that he simply used the pen to put it in place. I will be showing that image later. I was the first to notice that the number 70 was not present in the Alf interview video, I believe that would have been in 2014.
The tear mark clearly shows the removal of a coated layer. In fact, it appears to show us more than that. The markings that you see within the torn area have the appearance of a watermark. Coated paper was the preferred type f paper in use by the intelligence agencies as it was far better for writing and concealing information purposes.
Those who have researched paper and paper types will know that watermarks were used to authenticate documents and, in the context of clandestine communications, to complicate the detection of concealments.
There is more to this page than meets the naked eye as you will be able to read in the upcoming book.
Here's a slightly sharper image of the torn area showing the edge between the paper and the upper coating.
That tear is obvious now, didn't notice it before. Wouldn't normal paper tear that way though?
ReplyDeleteAs you can see, it has torn a layer off the surface of the paper, that I think is evidence that the paper was indeed coated.
DeleteOk, tried it out with a strongish tape on a page of an old book which looked to be plain pressed paper. It didn’t take any surface layer off as your photo shows.
ReplyDeleteThanks Gary, I've done some research into the issue and found that plain paper is porous and as such adhesive tape doesn't grip well to the surface so that when the tape is removed it comes away fairly cleanly. Coating on paper provides a solid layer and in this case the adhesive can form a bond with the surface. That means that when the tapes is pulled off, it will take that coated layer with it. As you can see in the photograph, there is an edge visible around the torn area. The next issue is whether or not there is a watermark there. It could just be residue from the adhesive tape although I think that's unlikely given that the tape was only in contact with the coating and not the paper beneath it.
ReplyDeleteIn this instance, the coating is odd is because paper was in short supply in 1944/45. Fancy finish paper in a common book like the Boxall ROK would have been most unusual, watermarked paper even more so. The watermarking may just be the thing that gave the game away, I posted some time ago on how watermarked papers were used to confuse an enemy and make it more difficult to read or see any concealments and that's what we have evident in this Rubaiyat. If I am correct then this was a special purpose book and that in turn would make you think that they wouldn't have gone to this trouble for just one book, there would have been more. I know of one more such copy of this ROK which I am unable to discuss at this time.
The way I see it was that Alf was perfectly positioned to run a deep pen op into the Soviet Embassy in Sydney or Jessica was perfectly positioning herself to run a deep pen op into Australian Signals on behalf of the Soviet Embassy in Sydney. Coincidences are obvious. But what does it mean? Which is the direction of flow of information. Was Alf running an interference op? How long had the Soviet Attache's wife known the nurse at the hospital where she had given birth to their child? Did the attache who had previously been in another East Asian country working with one of the most famous Soviet Spies that was executed by the Japanese already know Jessica before his wife met her? Clearing up these questions may resolve whom was killing whom in the network. Although Hemblys-Scales involvement in SM'S case might already suggest an answer, but it also raises the question as to whether Hemblys-Scales was a mole or a mole hunter?
ReplyDeleteSmashed it out of the park again GC!
ReplyDelete