Skip to content

Tradecraft and Killer Punches

Nick Pelling and I have occupied opposite corners of the Somerton Man boxing ring for many years. It’s been open slather like a good fight should be, but there are rules. The major one being you have to know who you are fighting. For this we examine Pelling’s moves in the ring. Look for an opening amongst his flurry of words.

“Similarly, even though political historians tend to work from a more high-end (yet slim) frame of reference (from Chifley to Churchill), it hasn’t stopped researchers from trying to read the mysterious unreadable note attributed to the Somerton Man as implying some kind of espionage-centric back-story for him: a Russian spy scouting out South Australia’s uranium secrets, or defecting from some international conference. Yet the supposed ‘tradecraft’ evidence holding this aloft is something that I’ve never found any genuine substance to.”*

Last sentence:

Yet the supposed ‘tradecraft’ evidence holding this (espionage-centric back-story) aloft is something that I’ve never found any genuine substance to.”

Last phrase:

I’ve never found any genuine substance to.”

Two words:

Genuine substance.

There are many publications available that provide Genuine Substance to the existence of espionage tradecraft and Pelling doesn’t appear to have read any of them. Given that apparent lack of knowledge, isolating his argument to the Somerton Body Case is a precocious approach – and this is coming from the man who admitted never using the word steganography in any post on the subject.

He got clipped there as well.

killer punch.jpg

2 Comments Post a comment
  1. Happy New Year to you Pete. 🙂

    To be precise I used the phrase “genuine substance” to contrast with “fake substance”, which is what I consider the microwriting claims to be. For a relevant link to Cipher Mysteries, I’d suggest the page where I show the three different scans of the letter ‘Q’:
    https://ciphermysteries.com/2017/02/26/somerton-man-two-new-rubaiyat-scans

    My conclusion there was:
    “…what you find is that the so-called “microwriting” (found in the leftmost of the three images) was simply a quantizing artefact introduced when the original JPEG image had its brightness and contrast adjusted. With the new (slightly higher resolution, and generally much smoother) scan, all that nonsense disappears. There is no ‘microwriting’ there at all: The End.”

    January 2, 2019
  2. I see them in my dreams, the wandering Voynich tribes feeling their way through a dark forest of signs, and where one might see a spark of understanding and attempt to fan it into a brighter light, another comes by and extinguishes it … leaving everything as it was.
    HNY to you too old adversary … and in the words of someone smarter than both of us – it ain’t over until it’s over.

    January 2, 2019

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s