File talk:SomertonManCode.jpg

The caption -- and all sources on the case -- agree that the cryptogram was in pencil (and so faint that it had to photographed in UV to see it at all.) But if you look at this excellent hi-res picture, and blow it up a fair amount, it becomes apparent that this writing is not pencil on paper. It is some sort of felt-tipped marker writing on a smooth surface. At many points, you can see a characteristic feature of such a pen: ink pooling at a point where the pen has briefly stopped, and then a star-shaped gap in the middle of the pool where the felt tip sucks a little ink back up as it is lifted away. Quite a few straight lines show more than one such pooling within a single straight stroke, as if the stroke was drawn carefully and slowly a few bits at a time. It is also apparent that the edges of the lines are sharper than would be allowed by the texture of the underlying "paper."

In other words, it is apparent that this scan is not of the original document, but of a glossy photographic print that has been re-touched by a felt-tip pen.

In a few cases, the re-toucher's not-very-steady hand has not quite covered the original lines, and we can see what he was trying to trace. For example, the horizontal line at the bottom of the page has been done fairly crudely, and at several spots the original mark on the paper can be seen. Also the Q is drawn with the top of the loop not joining up; I think a strong case can be made that the original mark did join up. There are a few spots where there may be additional horizontal lines that the re-toucher didn't pick up, e.g. beneath ABA in the first line.

-- 202.63.39.58 (talk) 14:22, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I found out about this only today. I believe you are right about the felt-tip pen, but it must have happened the other way around. There are indeed two different *versions* of this note! The original one was written on rather rough paper, such as a book cover, with what seems to be pencil. The *second* version was traced on smoother paper, and probably with a felt tip pen. As you mention, if you look closely the letters are not at all identical, only approximately the same. 2001:9B1:8BA1:ED00:60A5:2C84:1C7F:6CE8 (talk) 12:44, 27 July 2022 (UTC)