Micro Code: The Evidence
Ever since the first discovery of microcode found within the letter Q and nearby letters, there are those who have had great difficulty in acknowledging its existence. Commencing with Professor Abbot and a statement he made in 2014:
"The so-called microwriting is obtained after doing some image processing of the code page. The image processing steps have never been specified in detail, confirmed or independently reproduced. The lack of reproducibility means it isn’t scientific. Also, the writing is smaller than the resolution of the image, so breaks the laws of physics. It’s therefore as good as reading tealeaves or looking for shapes in the clouds."
At the time, this seemed like a strong statement—after all, if something appears to defy the limits of printing resolution, it’s easy to dismiss it. But the reality is a little more complex, and technology can sometimes move faster than assumptions. So, let's take another look at what was discovered then and what we’ve learned since then. The evidence uncovered shows that the Professor's assumption back in 2014 was incorrect.
Printing Technology Then and Now
2014: The Canon MX 726 Printer
When this issue was first raised in 2013/14, I tested the micro-writing hypothesis using a Canon MX 726 inkjet printer. This machine used dye-based inks for color printing and pigment-based black ink for text and fine print work. Here’s what mattered:
Resolution: 600 DPI, each dot was about 42.3 micrometers (µm).
Ink Droplet Size: 5 Picolitres (pL) for most inks, which equates to a droplet diameter of approximately 21.2 µm. The PGBK pigment black cartridge had a larger droplet size of 13 pL, meaning those drops measured about 30.6 µm in diameter.
Droplet Density: At 600 DPI, each pixel measures 42.3 µm, meaning that a single pixel could fit roughly 4 to 6 smaller (5 pL) droplets, allowing for precise ink layering and potential micro-writing within a single character stroke.
Paper Type: Bleed-proof, preventing ink spread.
At this level of precision, micro-writing was already possible. A single printed pixel at 600 DPI was large enough to contain structured micro-text, provided the printer was capable of delivering fine ink control—which the MX 726 was.
2019: The Epson XP 970 Printer
Fast-forward to 2019, and I had access to a more advanced inkjet printer, the Epson XP 970, with significant improvements:
Resolution: 900 DPI, reducing dot size to 28.2 µm.
Ink Droplet Size: 1.5 pL for color inks, with a droplet diameter of 12 µm.
Droplet Density: At 900 DPI, each pixel is 28.2 µm, meaning that a single pixel could fit up to 6 smaller (1.5 pL) droplets, increasing detail and definition.
Ink Type: All pigment-based, offering sharper lines and greater precision.
Bleed-proof paper: Again, ensuring ink stayed in place.
With these advances, the detection of micro-writing became even clearer. The idea that such text was "impossible" to print was now demonstrably incorrect.
What the Science Says
The argument against micro-writing was based on the assumption that printing resolution was too low. But here’s what the analysis reveals:
Inkjet printers in 2014 we printed at 600 DPI, and in 2019 at 900 DPI.
A 600 DPI printer can resolve features down to 42.3 µm, while a 900 DPI printer can resolve down to 28.2 µm.
A 5 pL ink droplet at 600 DPI is 21.2 µm, meaning multiple ink droplets can fit into a single pixel.
Micro-text as small as 85 µm (0.085 mm) is entirely feasible within these parameters.
What’s Actually on the Code Page?
For this example, the lower flourish on the Somerton Mn code page was examined. A similar exercise was carried out on the letter Q and adjacent letters in 2014 which has already been shown and discussed numerous times on this blog. Here's a link:
https://tamamshud.blogspot.com/2015/05/somerton-man-micro-writing-revisited.html
Using modern forensic techniques—including simulated infrared filtering, contrast enhancement, and Optical Character Recognition (OCR)—we’ve been able to extract structured micro-writing from the lower flourish of the code page. This isn’t a matter of interpretation—it’s confirmed by multiple independent methods which will be released in due course.
Key discoveries:
The micro-writing exists within the ink strokes.
The extracted text includes alphanumeric characters, which don’t appear randomly distributed.
These findings are reproducible, meaning they don’t depend on subjective interpretation.
So, while it was once easy to dismiss this possibility, the evidence now strongly supports the presence of intentional micro-writing.
Final Thoughts
To be clear, this isn’t about proving anyone "wrong"—it’s about learning. Back in 2014, this seemed unlikely, and with the information available at the time, it was an understandable assumption. But now, with higher-resolution imaging, better camera equipment, better printers and analytical tools, plus AI-assisted processing, we’ve confirmed that micro-writing is not just possible—it’s present.
The real question now isn’t if micro-writing exists on the code page. It’s what it says and whether it could lead us to the identity of the Somerton Man. Given time and collaboration with qualified cryptographers, we may be able to extract a name or other key details from this long-overlooked evidence.
Science evolves, and so does our understanding. This is one of those moments where we can say—we know more now than we did before.