Cramer says one thing, Feltus another.

Update at end of post

~~~~~

This is biblical, Luke 16:10-14. If you can’t trust a bloke with small things then you can’t trust him with big things.

A fob pocket is a small thing, this is common knowledge, the fob pocket containing the Tamam Shud slip was also a small thing, this is also common knowledge but here we have the Rotarian (aka Cramer) trying to sell us his version of SM’s fob pocket.

Cramer would have us believe it was a ‘SECRET’ fob pocket because describing it as such adds allure to his grand theory about the Somerton Man.  Problem though is he’s wrong and he knows it and the fact that he perseveres with the deliberate mistruth puts him squarely in Luke’s sights.

Nobody knows more about the Somerton Body Case than Gerry Feltus. He also knew about the fob pocket … I can quote him as follows

’The fob pocket on the inside of the waist band of trousers (where the slip was found) was very common in that period.’

Common is not secret.

~~

And while we’re on the job we should mention that the code wasn’t found to be indented on the back cover, that’s another small thing Cramer has deliberately got wrong time and time again, probably because it segues neatly into his micro-code theory where in fact and as described in the previous post, the code was written in faint pencil. Feltus again.

Faint Pencil = No indentations (especially when written on the back cover of a book)

And of course it’s worth remembering that only a few days ago Cramer radically changed his position on the relationship between Boxall, Harkness and the Rubaiyat she gifted him: they weren’t exchanging secret  information at all, it was just a training manual.

There we have it .. Three strikes.

But wait, there’s MORE

Today, in Cramer’s new post he writes ‘her (Harkness’) phone number on the back of a copy of the Rubaiyat came to the attention of SA police. Detective Brown, as he was at the time, said he saw her number on the back of the book in ‘really tiny lettering.’
Once again, he’s attempting to lay a patchwork of false leads in the hope they will support his overarching theory of a micro code written within the original code.

Cramer claims that a phone number is hidden in that (arrowed) smudge.

Feltus however writes that ‘Leane soon noticed what appeared to be a telephone number written in pencil on the rear cover of the book.’

Who do you believe? Cramer or Feltus?

Cramer also boasts of working with SAPOL on the identification of the Somerton Man … perhaps they should be warned.