The comparison image above shows the face of the Somerton Man as rendered by Daniel Voshart. As per previous posts, the post that follows is not in any way a criticism of Daniel or his responses.
As indicated in the image by the two arrows, there are two canine teeth when, in a normal set of teeth, they ought to be lateral incisors.
Here's an image of what they should look like:
...and here's the comparison:
Next, here's the image of the diagram created by Dr. Dwyer after the autopsy on the Somerton Man alongside the wax impression made to match the diagram:
And finally, below is an image of how these two missing teeth look in a real human subject:
The gaps are where the two lateral incisors would normally be but are missing, as numbered and indicated by Doctor Dwyer in his statement about the Somerton Man.
It is this effect that Doctor Dwyer was talking about in his statement to the coroner, here's the excerpt:
That statement is unambiguous, you cannot interpret it in any other way, when the man smiled you would notice the missing teeth.
I exchanged emails with Daniel Voshart, the man who created the render shown at the head of this post and pointed out the issue. He responded and here are the copies of the emails, I wouldn't normally do this but the situation demands that it be called out. Once again, this post is in no way to be interpreted as reflecting on Daniel's integrity. I am really saddened that he has been brought into this issue, it's unavoidable as you will read in the email extracts below:
Email 1.
Email 2.
Email 3.
Professor Abbott's quotes in highlight. Note the exact words, 'If you were to see the man smiling you would not see any gaps in his teeth'.
Now compare them with the words in the next email below this one marked Email 4. In the court document there is absolutely no mention of him smiling, talking yes and laughing yes. But, 'Anyone looking at him in the ordinary way, if he were to laugh, would notice the teeth were missing.'
Email 4.
This is wrong, these emails show that the truth has not only been twisted it's been deliberately misrepresented, I can see no other explanation.
Why would Professor Abbott say something that is so clearly and obviously untrue? He has a reason.
What do you think?