Detective Brown's Rubaiyat: A NEW CODE PAGE PHOTO EMERGES Part 4. UPDATE 1

 The Fact That An Opinion Has Been Widely Held
Is No Evidence Whatever That It Is Not Utterly Absurd...

...Bertrand Russell...

A new image of the Somerton Man code page has emerged. I came across it some time ago while reviewing the information from the Stuart Littlemore files related to his 1977 documentary on the Somerton Man case. The photograph is slightly larger than the one that has been widely distributed for some years.

I took the opportunity to test the photograph against the other recent find of a Collins version of the Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam which contains the same stylised font from which the words 'Tamam Shud' were formed and found on the torn slip of paper that had been concealed in the Somerton MAn's waistband fob pocket.

It was astonishing to find that we had a Collins publication of the Rubaiyat as per the evidence of Detective Len Brown in the 1949 Inquest and the correct version of the Somerton Man code page to work with.

Readers will recall that the code page itself was made of indentations found on the back page of a Rubaiyat and it was erroneously thought that the Rubaiyat was a Whitcomb & Tombs version. In earlier posts, it can be seen that the code page does not fit well for the Whitcomb and Tombs book.

I measured and tested the Collins Rubaiyat and the rediscovered Code page found among the Stuart Littlemore documentary records. The image below shows the result:

I have used the back page from the Collins edition of the Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam.

The dimensions of the newly discovered code page are Width 117 mm and Height is 92. 5 mm.

The dimensions for the Collins book are Width 130 mm and the height is 180 mm.

It would be true to say that you could rotate the code page on the book and it also would fit but it seems more than coincidental that the orientation shown here is precise.

Where To From Here?

There is a good chance that SAPOL may still have the original, larger photograph of the code page a copy of which had been sent to Stuart Littlemore in 1976. In all fairness, the inquest is in progress and it may be more difficult than usual to obtain that image under FOI. I will make the inquiry.

Here's the comparison of the two code pages which indicate just where there are differences in the dimensions:

You might see that apart from the different width of the photograph, the lower 'flourish' at the base of the page appears to be cut off in the Littlemore photograph. 

When you look at the Code page in place on the back of the Rubaiyat, it makes you wonder what might have been found beneath the indentations>

The image below is of an analysis of the Code page. Amongst other things it shows the size of the image in pixels andit also shows the resolution. If you wtudy it, you will see that the image size is 1802 px X 1440 px

The resolution of the image is 400 dots per inch. To get a physical size you simply divide the pixel totals by the resolution.

In this case, the width is 1802 px now divide that by 400 and you get 4.56 inches, that's the width of the photograph. To get the height you divide the 1440 px by 400 and you get 3.6 inches.

And that means that the code page fits almost exactly, in fact, the code page is just little smaller,  into the shape of the back page of the Collins Rubaiyat.

So what's the point of doing this exercise? Firstly, it gives us a 'TRUTH' not a guess, not an estimate but an actual TRUTH.

The question becomes, why then wasn't the truth told in the first instance? What was it about this particular version of the Collins Rubaiyat that made it so special that a decision was made to keep it from the public and not only that but to allow a known false statement along with images to be published? Did they hope to set a trap? Had they someone in mind that they wanted to question and who might inadvertently refer to the Book as a 'Collins' publication? That's a possibility of course but will we ever know?