|JPG image of Q from Nick Pelling's Post|
The image of the letter Q from the code page that I have posted here to the left above was downloaded from Nick's Cipher Mysteries website. Please note that all of the images he presented in his post were JPEG format enlargements and not close up images. The actual size of Nick's image to the left is 11 mm X 7 mm and 50 mm X 37 mm on screen. In contrast the close up image shown above and to the right has an actual close up size of approximately 70mm X 50 mm in other words the size shown on screen is the actual size. What that means is that there would have been some distortion in Nick's original image which explains the somewhat blurry UV image on the right. Even then you can make out letter and number shapes.
I printed the Pelling image out in high quality and applied a UV light as a first cut which is the image you can see on the right above. Bear in mind that I am using Nick's enlarged JPEG image, not a good format as it is a 'lossy' one and image quality is affected when you start to manipulate it as Nick has done throughout his post. But, let's stick with it for now. Observing it under UV was all that was needed even with this 'lossy' source image and as you can see there are outlines of letters and numbers even using JPEG based format as the source in the circumference of the Q taken under UV light. From this step, you get an inkling of what else might be found, this was the first step in the process. Below is the actual image I published, I used the PNG format throughout my process:
|This image was further processed following the original UV light observation step.|
Depending on how you look at it, his effort failed or he, in his mind at least, had succeeded in discrediting my work. Unfortunately for him, he failed on that account as well. What he actually did was to condemn my work without investigating my methods, he appended the results of his weak effort to my methods. Deceptive and devious? I leave that to you to decide.
I am speaking to you directly now Nick, to this point and as with your earlier failures on Police photography methods of the time, lack of knowledge of indented writing recovery techniques, micro writing and radio operators pro-signs, you have displayed a lack of knowledge, skill and experience in this area. I find it sad and disappointing that a person of obvious intelligence should behave in the way you have. You are capable of so much better than that.
With great respect I suggest that you take some steps to rectify the situation, a good start would be to acknowledge that you were wrong and that you should have followed the steps I provided you with. In this way, you might recover some credibility and more importantly gain an insight into what you could achieve if you focused.
From my perspective, from the outset and as per your early statements, you were determined to discredit the work I have done on micro writing. You had condemned my work without testing my methods and that was perhaps your biggest mistake and certainly not a scientific approach.
I will leave you with some wise words from one of the most respected scientific minds in history as well as a copy of your latest iteration of the March Post from your site today with some notes of my own included.
'Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance' Albert Einstein..
|In the image above, you should be able to|
see 'larger' numbers in the bigger
highlighted box as well as smaller ones beneath
the Police markings.
…yet as far as I can see, there is no sign there of any microwriting. (Oh! Yes There is! :)) And if microwriting isn’t there, why should microwriting be anywhere else? But I digress.
That sentence does not make any sense..:) I downloaded your image of the M and gave it some backlight and a little UV with the results as shown above. Nick, why don't you take a few minutes and put the letter M above under a UV light and test out a few angles? You will be surprised at just how much will be visible. The thing is that the whole idea was to keep messages hidden and they used to hide it in plain sight as you can see above.
Sadly Nick failed to follow the steps I provided for him, he was testing his own method and not mine. Big fail Nick!