Tamam Shud Slip
IMAGES COMPARED
Collins Verse 75 Front (Recto)
Collin Vere 74 View (Verso)
|IMAGE SIZE = 4.6 cms X 2 cms
Comparing the two images above, you can see that the torn piece viewed from the front and then turned over would have printing on the back as per Detective Brown's Statement
Whitcomb & Tombs
Here's the view of verse 75 from the Whitcomb and Tombs version with an overlay to show positioning.
Image 1. Full Page Tamam Shud
Overlay 1 Showing Collins Tamam Shud before
positioning:
Overlay 2 Showing Collins Tamam Shud
positioned
The images above demonstrate that the W& T version of the torn slip would have no printing visible on the reverse side.
It's important to bear in mind, that Detective Brown had the torn slip that was found in the Somerton Man's concealed fob pocket and it is that slip that he used to compare to the Collins version, and it is that slip that had printing on its reverse side.
These are Detective Brown's actual words:
‘I was not able to find a copy which did not have printing on the back of it as from the slip of paper produced’
Apparently, John Sanders at the Cipher Mysteries blog could not understand the meaning of those words.
To help him out, I employed ChatGPT with its exceptional reasoning ability to interpret the meaning for him and here it is:
To help him out, I employed ChatGPT with its exceptional reasoning ability to interpret the meaning for him and here it is:
First, the prompt I used:
The sentence ‘I was not able to find a copy which did not have printing on the back of it as from the slip of paper produced’ suggests that the speaker was not able to find a version of the slip of paper without printing on the back.
Here is a sentence which is not clear. ‘I was not able to find a copy which did not have printing on the back of it as from the slip of paper produced’. Does the sentence infer that there was printing on the back of the slip of paper or that there wasn’t printing on the back?
RESPONSE:The sentence ‘I was not able to find a copy which did not have printing on the back of it as from the slip of paper produced’ suggests that the speaker was not able to find a version of the slip of paper without printing on the back.
This implies that the slip of paper in question had printing on the back.
The phrase "not able to find a copy which did not have printing" emphasizes that all copies examined did have printing on the back.
The phrase "not able to find a copy which did not have printing" emphasizes that all copies examined did have printing on the back.
The question is does the torn slip that has been circulated for some time, have writing on the back? Here's the slip:
This image was taken under a microscope and from one side only, there was no backlighting and no image taken of the reverse side as far as I am aware. Thus we are not able to see if there are any words on the back. Some years ago that torn slip was in existence and in Professor Abbott's possession but I have no idea of its current whereabouts.
John, I respectfully suggest that you read Detective Brown's words carefully. You will find that the interpretation that you have applied is completely incorrect and I have verified that by employing ChatGPT to interpret the words within this post and hopefully you will now be able to understand them.
ReplyDeleteWhat i see John, is that in the first instance I pointed out to you that your statement regarding this topic having been covered some time ago was in need of substantiation, I asked if you could do that and apparently you couldn't. Instead it appears you chose to launch into a personal attack to create a diversion. Sadly even then your statement was incorrect, your interpretation was completely wrong as you will read in the post, and iI have substantiated my findings, I always do and if I find I cant' I say so.
What I have been presenting here in the last 5 posts, is a new view and new evidence that supports Detective Brown's statement at the inquest. It means that the torn slip came from a Collins version, the same edition that I have shown in these posts.
John everytime you resort to personal attacks it's a sure sign that you are trying to divert attention from your shortcomings, you are consistent in that behaviour and it doesn't fool anyone, not any more.
Whilst ever you continue to behave this way, you will continue to fail, it's your choice, there's no one else that you can blame.
I didn't realise the implication of the Collins version of the book. I think I understand it now, I got a bit confused with Brown's wording but I can see what you are saying, every piece of paper he examined had words on the back. I wonder if that's why its gone missing?
ReplyDeleteIt isn't ever as straightforward as it seems, if you are seriously investigating and researching a cold case like this one, you have to cross all the 'T's and dot all the 'I's. That means re reading time and again until you are as positive as you can be that you have arrived at the correct conclusion. Some will dive right in and read what they want to read into a line or a paragraph and it almost always ends up in disaster. The concern I have that people get mislead and the truth is overlooked. I am glad that you have a good handle on it now.
ReplyDeleteWhat was the prompt that you used for ChatGPT to get that response?
ReplyDeleteSure, a good thought, I've added it into the post but here it is again:|
ReplyDeleteChatGPT
Prompt:
Here is a sentence which is not clear. ‘I was not able to find a copy which did not have printing on the back of it as from the slip of paper produced’. Does the sentence infer that there was printing on the back of the slip of paper or that there wasn’t printing on the back?
Fair enough.
ReplyDeleteTried that and got the same result but I thought I would ask a bit more to nail it!
ReplyDeletePrompt
How would you rewrite this sentence so that its meaning was abundantly clear: ‘I was not able to find a copy which did not have printing on the back of it as from the slip of paper produced’
Response:
Here's a rewritten version of the sentence for clarity:
"I could not find a single copy that lacked printing on the back, just like the slip of paper that was produced."
This version makes it explicitly clear that all copies had printing on the back. Let me know if you'd like further adjustments!
I guess that's that!
I got it, so if you had a torn slip that came from a Whitcomb & Tombs version of the book, it wouldn't have any writing on the back of it. Detective Brown's version which was the torn slip found in the man's fob pocket, had writing on the back of it so it couldn't have come from the Whitcomb & Tombs copy.And so we know that the claim that the torn slip had come from the Whitcomb & Tombs copy was untrue?
ReplyDeleteOn the money Josh. But it does leave us with another question or two. Right at this moment, we are in the position where no photographs were taken of the circulated Tamam Shud torn slip from the rear or with backlighting, Furthermore, no one seems to know where the original torn slip, which was once in the possession of Professor Abbott and Gerry Feltus, is now. That means we can't get more photographs of it. There is a slim hope of getting some pics but it's all a bit technical and I would definitely need some help with it.
ReplyDeleteMeagin, That's great! It underpins and doubly confirms the thinking. Thanks for that!
ReplyDeleteWhen you look at the Whitcomb and Tombs book, there is a triangle trademark on the back of the page just above the centreline. Consider if the back of the page where the words Tamam Shud was set and the words were supposedly torn out, and we know from other documents that the back leaf of the book was missing, that could mean that the back of the Tamam Shud page would have been where the code page indentations were found? That couldn't work with the Whitcomb and Tombs book. It can only work with the Collins version.
ReplyDeleteHow many people actually saw the Collins Rubaiyat?
ReplyDeleteOn the basis that we're talking about the copy of the Collins book handed to Police, I count five who would have seen it. I could be one out though.
ReplyDeleteI tried the torn slip with a backlight but no joy. Did they put a backing piece behind it when they photographed it at Adelaide Uni? Other than that could the bright light shining down on it stop any chance of getting a shot from the bacK? It's a wonder they didn't photograph it from the back.
ReplyDelete