Editing
Final Report 2012
(section)
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Warning:
You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you
log in
or
create an account
, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
Anti-spam check. Do
not
fill this in!
====Previous Public Investigations==== [[Image:The_Code.png|thumb|300px|right|The code found in the back of the Rubaiyat linked to the Somerton Man.]] During the course of the police investigation, the case became ever more mysterious. Nobody came forward to identify the dead man, and the only possible clues to his identity showed up several months later, when a luggage case that had been checked in at Adelaide Railway Station was handed in. This had been stored on the 30th November, and it was linked to the Somerton Man through a type of thread not available in Australia but matching that used to repair one of the pockets on the clothes he wore when found. Most of the clothes in the suitcase were similarly lacking labels, leaving only the name "T. Keane" on a tie, "Keane" on a laundry bag, and "Kean" (no 'e') on a singlet. However, these were to prove unhelpful, as a worldwide search found that there was no "T. Keane" missing in any English-speaking country. It was later noted that these three labels were the only ones that could not be removed without damaging the clothing. <ref name=TamamShudWiki>''Tamam Shud Case'', Wikipedia Foundation Inc, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taman_Shud_Case</ref> At the time, code experts were called in to try to unravel the text, but their attempts were unsuccessful. In 1978, the Australian Defence Force analysed the code, and came to the conclusion that: * There are insufficient symbols to provide a pattern * The symbols could be a complex substitute code, or the meaningless response to a disturbed mind * It is not possible to provide a satisfactory answer <ref name=InsideStory>''Inside Story'', presented by Stuart Littlemore, ABC TV, 1978.</ref> What does not help in the cracking of the code is the ambiguity of many of the letters. As can be seen, the first letters of both the first and second (third?) lines could be considered either an 'M' or a 'W', the first letter of the last line either an 'I' or a 'V', plus the floating 'C' at the end of the penultimate line. There is also some confusion about the 'X' above the 'O' in the penultimate line, whether it is a part of the code or not, and the relevance of the second, crossed-out line. Was it a mistake on the part of the writer, or was it an attempt to underline (as the later letters seem to suggest)? Many amateur enthusiasts since have attempted to decipher the code, but with the ability to "cherry-pick" a cipher to suit the individual it is possible to read any number of meanings from the text.
Summary:
Please note that all contributions to Derek may be edited, altered, or removed by other contributors. If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then do not submit it here.
You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource (see
Derek:Copyrights
for details).
Do not submit copyrighted work without permission!
Cancel
Editing help
(opens in new window)
Navigation menu
Personal tools
Not logged in
Talk
Contributions
Create account
Log in
Namespaces
Page
Discussion
English
Views
Read
Edit
View history
More
Search
Navigation
Main page
Recent changes
Random page
Help about MediaWiki
Tools
What links here
Related changes
Special pages
Page information