Jump to content

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 05/29/2022 in all areas

  1. THE FRAUDULENT FRIEDMANS BY A PHOENIX In 1957 The Shakespearean Ciphers Examined by the Friedmans was published that changed the course of Shakespearean scholarship. This is the story of the secret of the greatest literary fraud in history concerning the concealed authorship of the Shakespeare works. ‘This book is probably the most astonishing collection of deceit and deliberately calculated falsifications that have ever been crammed between the covers of a book. Did some person or organization with a vested interest in the perpetuation of the Stratfordian myth commission the Friedmans to write it?’ The Friedmans secretly knew that Francis Bacon was Shakespeare and publicly lied to the world about it throughout their lives. It was a secret they took to their graves but not byeond it. The tombstone of William F. Friedman and Elizebeth S. Friedman using Bacon’s Simple Cipher System conveys the concealed truth which they had secretly known all their lives, one they wished to reveal to posterity in a way befitting two Bacon-Shakespeare cryptanalysts, that for whatever reason while they were alive, they could not or dared not, say openly and out loud: FRANCIS BACON IS SHAKESPEARE. For the video trailer: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1I-hIZPortXAgMupMTs89bcmlq4zzxO2D/view For the video that explores the full story see: https://youtu.be/fc2ErlSmmjI For a detailed paper on ‘The Friedman Fraud’ see: https://aphoenix1.academia.edu/research
    5 points
  2. Something stirred in me A.P. by your appropriate Kenneth Patton quote. It was the same feeling after having read Nieves Mathews Vindication book, "FB History of a Character Assassination." You have synthesized the loose ends from many competent Baconians over the decades who offered valid criticism of the Friedman book. Back in 1957 no one would challenge a WWII codebreaker certainly not the media. Like AthenA you brandished a Spear with a Thunderbolt smashing the curse of the Friedman's legacy in one fell swoop. Your impeccable research and consistently outstanding presentations have brought forth a voice of Clarity that can now end the frustration, the inexpressible disbelief and confusion and the paradoxical nature of the Friedmans' intentions. Friedman has been fried and It's been a long time coming. Your research is a victory for not just Baconians but for everyone who has a passion to see Honesty and Truth restored to for all those who have been ridiculed unfairly by those who blindly trumpeted their many falsehoods upon those who had a sincere and dedicated passion for cipher and truth. So many people have been fooled by the Friedmans who did not know any better and could not make the distinctions to see thru the limitations of their research. People gave their allegiance to a world renowned cipher authority and his puffed up credential based on his work in helping save the world from evil despots. Critical thinking was bypassed in favor of a belief that this man based on his war record knew what he's talking about so we should just accept his opinion as the work of God. Most people especially in the media didn't question his results and just accepted it as he must know what he's talking about after all he's William Friedman, hero code breaker. But now Friedman is no longer a hero in the world of Shakespeare and Ciphers thanks to your astute research. His reputation is now tarnished and his name will be synonymous with all the small time hustlers and Shakespeare forgers like William Henry Ireland, and the low life slander critics like Macaulay. The questions remain on how a respected authority in his field of cipher would betray his own mind by refuting his prior convictions that Shakespeare ciphers exist and keep it hidden from the public record. What motivated him to play his Jekyll to his Hyde? Would he and his publisher, Cambridge University, find greater revenue from book sales by supporting the false narrative of the Stratford myth? Does it come down to that? Money over Conscience and Truth? How can it be possible for a man to play both sides of the coin, to publicly dismiss an idea while practicing that same idea into action? How can the same man once with a conscience who held the keys to quickening the end of a World War and it's evil perpetrators and having endured sleepless nights, long bouts of depression eventually sell out his reputation and all that is Good? We now have Vindication from your research and we still need Closure from this Tragic miscarriage of a trusted man's conscience gone awry. Some how some day maybe we can see the Comedy of the Friedman Folly.
    5 points
  3. https://www.afb.org/HelenKellerArchive?a=d&d=A-HK02-B223-F10-001.1.6&srpos=1&e=-------en-20--1--txt--Shakespeare+authorship------------------------0-1 Thank you, Lawrence. I have always wanted to read this, and it is a missing piece in a puzzle for me. The "digital transcription" (i.e., scan?) made in 2016 seems to have not been made with sufficient care, for you can easily read the typewritten pages, one by one, when you click on each of the 34 images (with typed pages above, digital transcription below), zooming in. Where the transcription reads "h" as "l", you can clearly see that Keller typed an "h." (Prior written permission is needed to use "any image" from the site.). What a fascinating site! You can also read her letters with Mark Twain at this site. No transcription problem here! https://www.afb.org/about-afb/history/helen-keller/letters/mark-twain-samuel-l-clemens/letter-miss-keller-sl-clemens-0. Thank you, thank you, thank you. What a beautiful soul she was! She died in 1957, in the same year as the publication of the Friedmans' book. If it comes up jabber-wocky, "click on item," to go to the typewritten pages which are easier to read.
    5 points
  4. THE SECRET CHILD OF PRINCESS ELIZABETH AND THOMAS SEYMOUR. The circumstances surrounding the scandal of Thomas Seymour and Princess Elizabeth as subsequently recounted by conventional historians and numerous biographers was invariably conveyed to posterity through the concealing prism of euphemisms and hints with no serious intention of ever wanting to get to the heart and truth of the matter. They were naturally content to only fleetingly touch upon the scandalous subject of a possible sexual relationship between the fourteen year old princess and Thomas Seymour, a man at the time married to her stepmother and old enough to be her father regarding a secret established sexual relationship widely rumoured to have produced a child. There were however two other sources which carry the subject of sexual intimacy and rumoured pregnancy further, both going as far as to affirm not only was Elizabeth pregnant but a child was secretly stillborn or destroyed. The first of them is found in a manuscript life or memoir of Elizabeth’s contemporary Jane Dormer, afterwards Duchess of Feria (1538-1612). Born second daughter of Sir William Dormer and his first wife Mary, eldest daughter of Sir William Sidney following the death of her mother in 1542 Jane was placed under the care of her grandmother Jane, Lady Dormer with whom she remained until she was taken into the household of Princess Mary. In her younger years Jane was the frequent companion of the young Prince Edward whose tutor and her grandfather Sir William Sidney encouraged her to read, dance and sing with his royal pupil.1 From the time she was admitted to the household of Princess Mary the two of them formed a strong bond and a lifelong friendship. Living with Mary in whose intimate trust she was taken, Jane Dormer was privy to the fact that following the death of Henry VIII Seymour had sought to marry Elizabeth and the two of them closely followed the unfolding scandal at the Parr-Seymour household. Naturally Princess Mary had a personal and political interest in any intended royal match with her sister Elizabeth. As the next in line to the throne Mary reacted with great alarm at Seymour’s intention to overthrow the government of his brother the Lord Protector, which if it succeeded, may very well have prevented her own succession. Aside from what was being done in public, Mary through official and diplomatic back channels was certainly the recipient of news and information of what was taking place in private between her sister Elizabeth and Seymour. Perhaps if anyone outside of the Parr-Seymour household would have known if Princess Elizabeth was pregnant and had secretly given birth to a child her sister Mary would have, information she would likely share with her trusted lady-in-waiting Jane Dormer. It is certainly the case, talk of Princess Elizabeth’s pregnancy and subsequent birth of a child was current in the household of Mary, and afterwards the household of Jane Dormer, then and many years thereafter. In 1603 Jane Dormer, then Duchess of Feria, took into her household a Henry Clifford who she soon took into her confidence. Under her direction Clifford wrote a memoir of his mistress one which remains the principal authority for the known facts of her life. The surviving manuscript, as we have it, was written in 1643 however it was evidently prepared and drawn up at a much earlier date.2 For two hundred and fifty years this manuscript preserved in the possession of the Dormer family at Grove Park remained hidden from view before it was first published in 1887 under the editorship of the Rev. Joseph Stevenson, S. J., entitled The Life of Jane Dormer, Duchess of Feria. In this Life of the duchess a statement is found that the Princess Elizabeth gave birth to Seymour’s child that did not survive childbirth, and was subsequently destroyed or disposed of: A great lady, who knew her [Elizabeth] very well, being a girl of twelve or thirteen, told me that she was proud and disdainful, and related to me some particulars of her scornful behaviour, which much blemished the handsomeness and beauty of her person. In King Edward’s time what passed between the Lord Admiral, Sir Thomas Seymour, and her Doctor Latimer preached in a sermon, and was a chief cause that the Parliament condemned the Admiral. There was a bruit of a child born and miserably destroyed, but could not be discovered whose it was; only the report of the midwife, who was brought from her house blindfold thither, and so returned, saw nothing in the house while she was there, but candle light; only she said, it was the child of a very fair young lady. There was a muttering of the Admiral and this lady, who was then between fifteen and sixteen years of age. If it were so, it was the judgment of God upon the Admiral; and upon her…The reason why I write this is to answer the voice of my countrymen in so strangely exalting the Lady Elizabeth, and so basely depressing Queen Mary.3 The statement Elizabeth gave birth to Seymour’s child is also apparently hidden in a cipher introduced by Francis Bacon in the Shakespeare plays and inserted in several of his acknowledged works and his various masks. This hidden communication in the arcane form of a word cipher was discovered by Dr Orville Owen and published in Sir Francis Bacon’s Cipher Story in 1894. According to these revelations brought forth by Owen, in a fit of anger and rage Queen Elizabeth blurted out to the fifteen year old Francis Bacon the true nature of his own concealed birth. Dismayed and distressed and still in a state of confusion Francis immediately confronted Lady Bacon telling her what the queen had screamed out and tearfully demanded she tell him whether it was true or not. Since Queen Elizabeth had breached the secret pact between them never to reveal the nature of his true birth Lady Bacon now freed from the constraint of secrecy in the course of explaining the true nature of his origins proceeded to relate the events of Elizabeth’s passionate love affair with the Lord Admiral which involved, she said, “the secret of a very terrible crime, which, led on by the great but licentious Se[y]mour, she committed when a girl.”4 Lady Bacon, then Anne Cooke, maid-in-waiting to Princess Elizabeth told Francis how she tried to prevent these encounters but when she hinted as much to the princess how unseemly it was for the lascivious and adulterous Seymour to “ascend nightly to her chamber” the princess “did strike me” scolding her “will you then, wench, lesson me? Knowest y-not his looks are my soul’s food? He is full of virtue, bounty, worth and beseeming qualities, and I would be his wife; but alas! alas! he is the husband of my stepmother.”5 In the several weeks that followed the pregnant princess confessed her condition to Anne and begged for her assistance for it “is a secret” that “must be locked within the teeth and lips. I fear death, for my conceptious womb will soon give birth to a little child. It almost turns my dangerous nature wild when I dwell upon my fear, for the law of England doth work summary vengeance on the joint partakers of this youthful offence, to have my wrist and shanks fettered and carried headlong to the magistrate a prisoner, to have sentence of death passed.”6 Her trusted maid-in-waiting Anne was reluctantly being drawn into a dangerous conspiracy but she assured the princess that she would keep the matter secret and help conceal her pregnancy. In the winter of 1548-9 according to the word cipher the court resided at Windsor Castle and Anne on advising her mistress to feign sickness and stay in bed in order to conceal her condition applied paints to whiten her face and advised her mistress to deny access to her person. On a cold winter night the princess gave birth to a child and in the absence of a doctor with no experience Anne was forced to perform the part of a midwife and on delivery was unable to help the child to breath who with “fury sprung selfborn, and yet unborn” the “sweet soul in speechless death lie’st in bed as in a grave” lamenting “I was not skill’d enough to play the nurse” to “aid the poor child” who “passed in silence to the fountain of final causes, namely God.”7 The overwhelming urgency and stress of the situation took on a different dimension. She was now faced with the compelling necessity to conceal the body of the “young girl” and with no option for a decent burial or any time to dig a grave, in fear of being discovered by royal attendants Anne was despatched into the cold night to bury the stillborn child wherever she could. Wrapping the “poor cold dead baby” up in her arms she silently crept through the castle and into the garden beyond which lay the vineyard until she finally reached a fish pond covered in thick ice. In a panic she scrambled over the ice to the centre and with some sort of stick or knife to make an opening for the child to sink into. In the process the ice gave way plunging her into the darkness of the freezing cold water terrified and gasping for breath she struggled to the surface but the ice once again broke beneath her. Numbed and enfeebled by the cold with her will to live fading her feet found the bottom and she managed to push up and breathlessly drag herself out of what she feared was to be a watery grave. With no other option available in a terrible state and predicament she plunged the body of the infant into the pool and returned back as speedily as she was able to the apartment of the princess herself still in a terrible state of fear and confusion, who welcomed her return with sobs of joy and enormous relief. Frantically hugging Anne in her arms she asked “Where did you conceal the body-in the earth I hope?” To which she replied “In the water, your highness.” Without any weight attached to corpse came the response. Yes your highness Anne replied. “O God” the princess exclaimed “Others will know my shame”. The weeping princess convinced the body would be chanced upon screamed “Stupid, away in haste and put in the earth.” In despair Anne returned to the pool hoping to recover the tiny corpse but nothing could be found and in vain she returned to the princess to tell her she was unable to find the body. The princess wept bitterly “O woe! O fortunes spight! King Edward will hear I am a common stale.”8 Comforting her mistress Anne removed her bloodstained garments and put a warm shirt on the princess now drained and exhausted they both fell into a fitful slumber only to be awoken at nine in the morning by King Edward standing at the foot of the bed. With an austere look in his face, with bracing tone he asked “Mistress, what body did you bear forth from the castle and, ’twixt eleven and twelve last night throw into the spring adjoining?” The question shook her to the core and initially rendered her speechless “But my love for the princess was stronger than my fear of him.” Hesitating, “Since I knew not what he had heard or seen” Anne at first dissembled “Great Sir, said I, begging your pardon, what body talk you of? I know of no such body” The young king wryly replied “Fair lady, have you made a sinner of your memory as to credit your own lie? What is between you two? Give me up the truth.” Still trying to brazen it out Anne bravely told him “As I do live, my honoured lord ’tis true.” With his patience at an end the king put pay to the pretence “Here porter, here I say! Hast thou brought hither the little child?” yes, the porter replied, passing the tiny copse to the king. With anger and repugnance the king cried out “Thou’rt damned as black-nay nothing is so black-thou art more deep damned than Prince Lucifer. There is not so ugly a fiend in hell as thou shall be, if thou hast slain this child.” Anne mortified at even the suggestion of it “Do but hear me, sir” she roundly begins “Let hell want pains enough to torture me if I by act, consent, or sin of thought be guilty of the baby’s death.” He looked at her and said “I do suspect thee very grievously. Methinks the sentence of damnation sounds; but this deadly plot in thee I’ll pardon if thou wilt deliver the unholy man that hath my wanton sister in shameful, cunning lust enchained.” Still, heroically, trying to shield the princess a resurgent Anne raised up her head “My honoured lord, thy sister is so good a lady no tongue could ever pronounce dishonour of her. But my life she never knew harm doing.” The king was having none of it “Fie upon this compelled falsehood” his anger now returning “Thou hast both but one bare hour to live, and then thou must perpetually be damned; and her paramour, he that wooed her without respect or high regard, I will crop his head. He that hath made the court his mart and turned it into a loathly stew, he shall expound his beastly mind in hell.”9 Begging for forgiveness the princess cast herself before him “O spare me! kill me not! Make me not the laughing stock of the kingdom, I that am the daughter of a king and a queen!” Kneel not down before me he commands her “Rise, I’ll pardon thee thy life, but in perpetuity I’ll conceal thee, as best befits thee, in some reclusive and religious life, out of all tongues, eyes and minds; but by the flaming light of that celestial fire which kindleth love, I will advance the partaker of thy hateful, wicked love as high up as a scaffold.” With quite breathtaking audacity she turns to the king and scornfully asks him “With whom am I accused?” Even more astonishingly, faced as she was with the corpse of her stillborn child she now descended into blatant mendacity “If I be condemned upon surmises (all proofs sleeping else), I tell thee it is rigor and not law. This brat is none of mine; it is the issue of some rotten callet.” Incensed and outraged by her sheer bare-faced denials he violently retorted “Look, reprobate!” I “know the name of thy worthless concubine. He hath confessed, and I am resolved to have his head. Look here he comes. He did betray thee to me.” Just as the king was thundering up his revulsion from the bottom of his bowels a cowed Seymour crept in before them. With fearful countenance “He sues to Edward to let him breath a private man in foreign land” and prays “my lord be good to me! Your grace is accounted merciful and kind, let me live in Athens.” But the king was adamant “No sir,” he said “I’ll not pardon thee. Consenting too ’t would bark mine honour and leave my trunk naked. The discoverie of the dishonour of my sister and the corrupt man saved would make all men abhor us. Hope thou not. It is impossible.” Contemptuously snarling at the disgraced Seymour “Darest thou not die?” telling him for what it was worth “Thou shall have thy trial” before summarily dismissing him from his presence. And “without farewell or sign of peace, His Highness did depart and leave us to our deep despair.”10 Following his conviction for treason Thomas Seymour was condemned to death and executed on 20 March 1549. Princess Elizabeth went on to become the Virgin Queen ruling England for forty five years in which time she gave birth to two other children known to the world as Francis Bacon and Robert Devereux, second Earl of Essex. 1. A. V., Jane Dormer, Dictionary of National Biography and M. J. Rodriguez- Salgado, Jane Dormer, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004-22). 2. Henry Clifford, The Life of Jane Dormer, Duchess of Feria by Henry Clifford Transcribed from the Ancient Manuscript in the possession of the Lord Dormer By The Late Canon. E. E. Estcourt And Edited By The Rev. Joseph Stevenson Of The Society of Jesus (London: Burns And Oates Limited, 1887), pp. xiii-xiv 3. Ibid., pp. 86-87. 4. Orville W. Owen, Sir Francis Bacon’s Cipher Story (Detroit And New York, 1894), I, p. 109. 5. Ibid., I, p. 109. 6. Ibid., I, p. 110 7. Ibid., I, p. 113. 8. Ibid., I, pp. 116-117. 9. Ibid., I, pp. 118-121. 10. Ibid., I, pp. 121-124.
    4 points
  5. I made a video to introduce people who still think de Vere or Shakespeare wrote the plays to the most obvious ciphers. Hope you like it
    4 points
  6. Hi Ryan, Not only did Lord Bacon write Leicester's Commonwealth it is emphatically demonstrable. I briedfly touch upon it in my paper 'Was the Very Mysterious Death of Sir Nicholas Bacon the Result of Poisoning' (2021), see pp. 6-9. https://www.academia.edu/81741710/Was_the_Very_Mysterious_Death_of_Sir_Nicholas_Bacon_the_Result_of_Poisoning I have also written a much more detailed 30 page account of Lord Bacon's authorship of the Commonwealth that I have not yet published.
    4 points
  7. Surprising it took me 25 years to find out about the genius of Francis Bacon and J Bate. Would love for Bate to take the bait and read AP's groundbreaking book on the Fraudulent Friedmans
    4 points
  8. Here are the two inscriptions on the 'Twin' Westminster and Wilton Memorials, side by side. I must just say Rob and Lawrence, that it is absolutely brilliant that we are able to amass all this wealth of information pertaining to Francis Bacon and his Rosicrucian 'brotherhood' and the Works of Shakespeare in one place. - all thanks to you. Even though it's only a small group of us posting I can see the numbers of people reading are large and it's providing a wonderful service to open people's minds across the globe. Thank you again
    4 points
  9. I was working today juggling a few things, all the while with Bacon in the back of brain. My wife at her computer said, "I see a picture of Shakespeare, something about AI." I had to look, but was busy yet still HAD to look. https://singularityhub.com/2022/06/19/ai-shakespeare-and-ai-oscar-wilde-debate-machine-creativity-at-oxford/ I read the article real quick. And saw BACON letters in the first line even before I started reading, in a hurry. Nay, Nay, I say! This cannot be, Yea, I know, I am good at finding Bacon anywhere even when it is my imagination. AI, Artificial Intelligence, I do have an interest in it. I learned binary math in the 9th grade (1974), at 18 in 1978 was in training with NCR on computers where knowing binary was required. Every bit had a purpose. They taught us, "Computers are really dumb, they can only count up to one. But they can do it fast." Seriously, for a computer, even AI, there is no two. They can only think to one. 1+1=10. There is no 2, so you carry the 1. 111+1 is 1000. Carry the 1, carry the 1, etc. In 1978 we discussed the day computers will be smarter than us. Whew, quite a concept. That was a long time ago. I am not afraid of AI, I know computers and how they work. But in 1978 there was another lesson we learned, "Garbage in, garbage out." We program the computers. The above image of line with a loose BACON was not by Bacon, nor was it by any human. It was by an AI program that was fed with every line of Shakespeare, every word and letter analyzed. The programmers edited and adjusted their code to allow a super computer to "kind of" think and speak as Shakespeare. The computer can only add to one, but when you have billions of ones floating around and you can add them in a microsecond, you can use "logic" to come up with an answer that we humans may not get. Really, 1 or 0, on or off, up or down, all duality "two's", but since there is no 2, you have a binary string that has everything. 1 or 0, a or b. Thank You, Francis Bacon for bringing the binary math to our attention. We would not be able to survive today in the modern world with out it's power, and magic. So a first public Shakespeare AI (Artificial Intelligence) experiment and the letters of BACON are in the first line. I know why, some of you do too. If a program analyzing the works of Shakespeare, remembering every letter, arrangements of letters, words, phrases, especially in important places, BACON will come up. DUH. Fantasy thought: We devote our lives to Bacon's Truth, living and breathing it, a few of us here daily on the B'Hive seeing the latest Knowledge we did not Know while sharing what we do Know, and a Super Computer ultimately comes up with the proof that we all combined were unable to produce. The Stratfordians finally finished by the "scientific" and indisputable calculations of an AI computer that analyzed every letter, word, phrase, and cipher number in Shakespeare only counting to one per Bacon's "Bilteral Cipher". And even the Fraudulent Friedmans were not able to "prove." NAY, NAY is 74 Simple cipher the same as TUDOR and WILLIAM. So not only BACON in the first first line, but the Artificial Intelligence learned the number 74 comes up as well. Does the AI actually know who Bacon was? No, it is a just a dumb but really fast computer number cruncher that can do what what it is programmed to do. Is AI alive? Another subject altogether... 😉
    4 points
  10. This screen capture almost entirely demonstrates the Friedmans wicked blow to the Baconian cipher argument. "As to the main issue---" : The schizophrenic duality of this book is that the Friedmans using the very techniques they describe and bash at the same time states "postively" who wrote Shakespeare. I've noticed from what I've seen the Friedmans will describe ciphers by Baconians, giving good examples from methods that some of us have already learned. But as they promote them and bash them they never share the context, or the "relative" about where they appear. But they knew. That is so important! Above in the lines that were the Stratfordian boot that kicked all Baconian cryptologists at the time, they demonstrate one the best Baconian examples of what they meant to destroy. "Who wrote the plays". Then two obvious BACON anagrams/acrostics. Two that is, not one. One with an "f" to make "F BACON." Starting from the "B" of both BACON's counting the letters to include the second "CON" we have 103 letters, the Simple cipher of SHAKESPEARE. Did you notice the Friedmans did not say "who wrote Shakespeare", they said "who wrote the plays." Odd. OK, a Stratfordian who totally missed the cipher would tell us, "It is an accident! A coincidence!" Two realities: First is that the Friedmans tell the world who wrote Shakespeare in cipher while lying to the gullible Startfordians about their "findings". Second is that it IS an accident, and a coincidence. That we Baconians who see what appears so obvious is not real. OK, on the Second option for a moment. The Friedmans wrote this book, were likely paid well to do so. They read what they wrote, and even after the printer had finished they would read the important parts, such as the Intro and Conclusion. To make sure it was right. If they "missed" this cipher accident, then they were not nearly as skilled as they promote themselves to be. They'd be lost on the B'Hive, not able to keep up. LOL But I bet they were good, very good, knew exactly what they were doing. Two BACON ciphers? Remember the cover page? Half of page 62 on Henry IV, Part I that is hidden, cut off, has a double BACON with the word "hang." Two BACONs. "Hang" is also in the very plain text first words of this entire book. And at the end, on page 288 is a "hanging paragraph". That is a printer term. A "hanging word" is a word that does not fit on the previous page, or sometimes even on the previous line. Printers make them fit, it is professional and the way it is done. I know, I did typeset and layout on a few print magazines. "Hanging words" and "hanging sentences" are not allowed, embarrassing to a designer and printer. Plus it is costly. A "hanging paragraph" is bad, but sometimes happens if the previous pages are already packed and you can bring letters together. In the Friedmans book it appears to me that the letters are actually spread out in the Conclusion, not packed at all. Where that last paragraph could easily be brought into page 287 with minimal effort, it was purposely left hanging. That is an extra page to print, has cost, and is not a perfect design. Why was page 287 NOT the last page with an unnecessary "hanging" paragraph on page 288? Page 287 was the last "full" page, but myself or any decent typesetter could have brought in the kerning of the letters on a few pages with no noticeable crowding to get rid of the "hanging" paragraph. That would be professional. Crazy book.
    4 points
  11. Boteswain! A tremendous labor of love and a new Comprehensive masterpiece jewel by the a.phOeNix team. Congratulations to them and to the rest of us for now being able to read and enjoy the Videos of it's long awaited contents and understand the hidden complexity of the Friedman's on a deeper level. It seems that the Friedman's were unwittingly or not practicing the double sided nature of the "Janus" head motif. On one hand they obfuscate the truth (the Fraud) and on the other hand as demonstrated by APhoenix team the Friedman book is embedded with intentional Bacon related ciphers (Hidden Truth) along with their own gravestone design including a famous Bacon quote! This leads to further inquiry to Re Examine whether or not the Folger Library the resource center for the Friedmans book is really a Rosicrucian institution with a concealed agenda? This is the heart of Bacon's mentality where he sees the Antithetical nature in all things and processes. Knowledge is Power!
    4 points
  12. Oops, Rob. I see what I did there. Using the phrase ‘light of truth’ was unconscious. My apologies! I've now watched the video and read 3/4 or more of the paper. I actually started towards the end (last two chapters) then went back to the start. The phrase “Fraudulent” Friedmans is clearly taken from the quote by the Professor about their “deceit” but were they fraudulent? I agree with comments above, this sounds a little like when people slap modern-day NDAs (gagging orders) on people. It was censure 1957 style! Why else would they have gone to so much effort to encode the truth in the book and on their gravestone? Why did Folger suddenly seem to change his view? I think (and I am the antithesis of a conspiracy theorist) it does appear that pressure may have been applied on them to produce a result that would not cause ructions, for whatever reason (commercial or political). I believe that times have changed enormously in many ways, but not in others. Control and abuse of power are timeless tools of the un-evolved, but there are young cryptographers/cryptanalysts who have been born into an era of greater truth and some of them will be cheering this paper on (but are unable to speak openly due to contracts they signed). I don’t doubt that they will find clever ways to anonymously support your findings though. The most obvious reason why this has to remain suppressed, and why you are likely to come under some form of attack from the Stratfordians and maybe even Folger for publishing this, is commercial and political. As to the commercial angle, to admit or endorse any of this to the world at large means people and families all over the world, but especially in Stratford Upon Avon, would lose face, custom, jobs and livelihoods. No one wants to be the one who pulls the plug with the result people in the Will Shakespeare industry are unable to feed their family, so they’ll continue to try and find ways to say you (all Baconians) are wrong or deluded. With my damage/crisis limitation hat on, if I were a Stratfordian who does realise they may have misjudged the situation, I’d be trying to think how to parse this so that it’s a win/win for all. Keeping Will in the loop as a co-writer would help. The most obvious route though would be to slowly begin re-bigging up Francis Bacon and introducing a huge tourist industry around him, which could include Twickenham House, Gorhambury, Grey’s Inn and even by extension Kenilworth Castle ....and obviously America! Which brings me on to the political angle. In a world full of David Icke conspiracy-type “nuts” you can’t just land the truth on a country already in turmoil that a Rosicrucian/Freemason masterminded the colonisation of America and wrote Shakespeare. A Lord Chancellor is one thing but it’ll just be seen as fodder for the “Illuminati” conspiracy brigade. It could backfire and be dangerous to Freemasonry too. People in America are already trying to burn down lodges, convinced they are all evil. For all these reasons, and more, the powers that be who know the truth, know this has to be handled slowly and carefully, not via some overnight expose (from the Friedman’s in 1957 or now), exploding onto the world. I’m pretty confident that looked at through this lens, the hidden truth will indeed by brought forth by time- at the right time. Well done again AP. It’s a riveting read and each person who becomes individually enlightened to the truth will one day become a part of a force that can’t be stopped. x
    4 points
  13. Thank you, A. Phoenix for exposing the Fraudulent Friedmans for exactly who they are and what they did. And why they did what they did. We all experience the loneliness and despair of being a Baconian at times, frustrating indeed. Yet the rewards we enjoy are not Fame nor Reputation, the rewards are about revealing the Truth about Francis Bacon. Too bad the Friedmans sold out for selfish reasons and quick yet empty recognition by "scholars" who the Friedmans were well aware had no idea what they knew as Truth. They may have grabbed a lot of attention, but a life built on deception must have been haunting them. They did leave their clues on who Bacon was. They must have known someone like you and your team would expose them someday. This is a fascinating work done very well. Thought provoking, and will be a great service for all Baconians.
    4 points
  14. So Bacon is brilliantly using metaphor as a device in Winters Tale with the subject of naturalization and the fate of infants.
    4 points
  15. Good evening A Phoenix, each of your posts is a Lotus Flower ! Thank you for the stunning Bouquet that you offer us ! ❤️
    4 points
  16. Christina, you said: Two of my favorites lines are in Sonnet 66: And arte made tung-tide by authoritie, And Folly (Doctor-like) controuling skill, Bacon had to hide his identity even though so many people knew who he was, even Elizabeth. Yet done with style and skill, he was able to speak. But he could not be himself, Francis Bacon, even though anybody in the loop 400 years knew and did not question who Bacon was. It was a secret, but everybody knew, anybody who needed to know. Bacon was wise enough to know a generation later very few would know who he was. So he left his clues and ciphers, with many of his friend's helping. Not for a generation later, but centuries later. It is so sad, but also very exciting for we who 400 years later bring his Truth to Light. And you, Christina Waldman, are one of us who are the future voices who Bacon knew would pop up in just the right time. Granted we are a well over a century into the latest movement, yet the Light is shining and Will show soon.
    4 points
  17. Excellent and clear research on M 4 M , Thank you A. P.!
    4 points
  18. FRANCIS BACON AND THE UNPUBLISHED SPEECHES OF HIS FATHER LORD KEEPER SIR NICHOLAS BACON IN MEASURE FOR MEASURE WHICH FRAMES AND INFORMS ONE OF THE CENTRAL THEMES OF THE PLAY. In the recent groundbreaking chapter ‘The Assize Circuitry of Measure for Measure’ in her work Legal Reform in English Renaissance Literature (Edinburgh University Press, 2019) Professor Strain frames and commences it with the policy words set out by Lord Keeper Sir Nicholas Bacon in his parliamentary speeches: In his closing oration, the Lord Keeper [Bacon] addressed the country’s provincial magistrates, admonishing them to put into practice the statutes that were especially prioritised by central policy. He warned of the dangers of bad justices who failed to enforce the law, and especially of negligent and corrupt officeholders who posed the most insidious threat to order by inviting the contempt of all authority…At the turn of the seventeenth century, the court of Assize was responsible for overseeing and reforming the execution of local justice and governance throughout the country. The court was an itinerant tribunal that convened twice a year, generating a cyclical representation of central authority in which judges from the Westminster courts brought legal expertise, the voice of the sovereign and the Privy Council, and imposing ceremonial grandeur to their sessions in the English counties. Through its operations, the national policies of the Privy Council were disseminated and corrupt or incompetent local officers were identified and reformed (corrected, fined, shamed or removed from office)….The Assizes, I argue, supply a historical analogue through which the representation and reformation of legal administration in Measure for Measure can be newly analysed.1 The major features of the Assize system-the stages of its cyclical structure, the aspects of legal spectacle, the alternating surveillance and exposure of local office holders, the expectation that justice and legal process transformed private into public knowledge, the tensions between central and local authorities, between Assize judges and JPs, and between the rule of law and its execution-all inform the plot and the characterisation of legal officers in Measure for Measure.2 …This limitation of central government inspired Bacon’s most ambitious proposal for legal reform, a system of regular provincial visitations to evaluate the performance of local officers. As an advisor to James I, to his favourites and as Lord Chancellor, his son Francis would take pains to advocate and institute the investigation of local officers as a vital function of the Assize judges who were already responsible for holding court throughout the country during law-term vacations…I argue that the Assize judges’ responsibility for the oversight of local justice informs the structure and ethics of Measure for Measure.3 In a letter of advice to the king’s favourite the Duke of Buckingham [Francis] Bacon explained to him in a section ‘touching the Laws (wherein I mean the Common Laws of England)’, of the importance of the Assizes which if rightly administered serves as a balance between the prince and the people, and a benefit to the kingdom. He tells Buckingham that King James would be well advised to take advantage of his circuit judges, and make use of them as important sources of information and intelligence for the purposes law and order and the well-being of his kingdom and people: …that the Judges of the Law may be always chosen of the learnedst of the profession (for an ignorant man cannot be a good judge) and of the prudentest and discreetest, because so great a part of the Civil Government lies upon their charge; and indeed little should be done in legal consultations without them, and very much may be done by their prudent advices, especially in their Circuits, if right use were made of them: Believe me Sir, much assistance would be had from them, besides the delivering of the gaols, and trying of causes between party and party, if the King by himself (which were the best) or by his Chancellor did give them the charge according to occurrences at their going forth, and receive a particular accompt from them at their return home; They would then to the best intelligencers of the true state of the Kingdom, and the surest means to prevent or remove all growing mischiefs within the body of the Realm.4 The same advice presented here by Bacon informs the modus operandi of the Duke of Vienna in Measure for Measure via the device that frames from its outset the central plot of the play, one which runs throughout its entirety to the final act, when the Duke who has been secretly surveilling his state, legal officials, and citizens, finally reveals his true identity: The same coupling of local surveillance and legal spectacle that was orchestrated by the Assize judge is easily observed in Shakespeare’s Measure for Measure, in which Duke Vincentio secretly surveys the operations of the Viennese justice system and then exposes its corrupt elements in trial.5 1. Virginia Lee Strain, Legal Reform in English Renaissance Literature (Edinburgh University Press, 2019), pp. 133-4. 2. Ibid., p. 146. 3. Ibid., p. 18. 4. Spedding, Letters and Life, VI, pp. 18-9. 5. Virginia Lee Strain, Legal Reform in English Renaissance Literature (Edinburgh University Press, 2019), pp. 139-40.
    4 points
  19. 🤦🏻‍♀️Of course! How did I miss that? Brilliant! And look, I just went to the passage and it reads To Two from top down left with two as an anagram 💥 To WTO Photo by Georgelazenby. Courtesy Wikimedia Commons.
    4 points
  20. To The Reader T W O Two=B Two B or Not Two B (To Bacon or Not to Bacon)
    4 points
  21. Ok then, if that is so then here is the transcript from dictation of the part I thought most interesting on pages 31/32/33. It covers the question, Why would Bacon have concealed his authorship? “Underlying Bacon's anonymity we may look for a variety of possible motives. We have already seen in the “Arts of English Poesie”. The implication that a literary dilettante might be regarded by those in power as unfit for important service. In those days the poet’s gown was indeed a “despised weed.” A young man seeking advancement in law and politics and mediating serious philosophical works would not have wished to be known as the author of “Venus and Adonis” and “Lucrece.” Even today lyric gift would hardly be an advantage to a candidate for the office of district attorney. The matter-of-fact dullard, upon whose suffrage the men of practical affairs depend for his position and authority, finds in artistic genius, the sign of an unsound judgement. The people will not respect the law if the Lord Chancellor is reported to be a writer of love-verses and stage-plays. The learned professions are jealous of their dignity. Dr. Holmes thought that a young physician with literary aspirations ought to establish himself securely in his practice before he betrayed his fondness for the muses. In the Elizabethan age the conditioning of the theatre was such that a person in a high position suspected of anything like professional association with it would suffer in his moral reputation. In 1597, when the greatest of English plays were being produced, the Lord Mayor of London denounced the theatre as “a place for vagrants, thieves, horse-stealers, contrivers of treason, and other idle and dangerous persons.” A political enemy could construe any of Shakespeare's historical plays to prove the author a contriver of treason. Essex had it played forty times in London to stir the populous up to sedition. At the trial of Essex a member of Shakespeare's company, Phillips, was summoned to give evidence about the performance of the play; but Shakespeare was not summoned! And here is a more surprising thing. In his account of the trial Bacon refers to a seditious pamphlet of the reign of Henry IV, the period covered by the play of Richard II. It was allotted to Bacon to make the charge relating to this pamphlet, and he replied that he was reluctant to undertake this charge because “I having been wronged by bruits before, this would expose me to them more, and it would be said that I gave in evidence mine owne tales” (My italics and bolding throughout) On one side of Bacon were king and nobles upon whose favour his advancement depended, and on the other side Puritans like his mother, to whom the theatre was abhorrent, and who expressed fears lest her son be corrupted by the proximity of his lodgings to such a den of iniquity. Even in later days when free speech and free printing had placed literature in a more secure position, some writers found it expedient to conceal their identity. The most famous case is that of Janius, whose brilliant letters against the British Government in 1770 remain to this day an unfathered mystery. The author must have been known to many in the inner circle of politics and literature; but none betrayed his secret. Scott concealed his authorship of the “Waverley Novels” for several years, and this great- hearted gentleman did not hesitate to meet suspecting inquiries with flat denial. It may be asked why, if Bacon did not wish to be known as a poet, he did not forego the publication of poetry altogether. He has, we suspect, answered this himself. In the “Advancement of Learning” He says, “Dramatic poesy, which has the theatre for its world, would be of excellent use if well directed; for the stage is capable of no small influence both of discipline and corruption. Now of corruption in this kind we have had enough; but in our times the discipline is plainly neglected, and, though in modern states play-acting is esteemed but as a toy, except when it is too satirical and biting, yet among the ancients it was used as a means of educating men’s minds to virtue. Nay, It has been regarded by learned men and great philosophers as a kind of musician’s bow by which men's minds may be played upon.” (My italics and bolding) – Helen Keller I have tried to keep the dictation faithful to what she wrote so the punctuation is hers. There may be a tiny error here and there as it is dictation so please check the originals if using. https://www.afb.org/HelenKellerArchive?a=d&d=A-HK02-B223-F10-001.1.1&e=-------en-20--1--txt--Shakespeare+authorship------------------------0-1
    4 points
  22. FRANCIS BACON [WHO FEIGNED HIS OWN DEATH IN 1626 WITH THE HELP OF HIS ROSICRUCIAN-FREEMASONRY BROTHERHOOD] AND THE 1,679 REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO THE 1632 SECOND SHAKESPEARE FOLIO. Unlike the Shakespeare First Folio which is the primary focus of orthodox scholars and those interested in the true authorship of the Shakespeare works which has been forensically scrutinised from almost every conceivable perspective, comparatively the Second Shakespeare Folio has attracted very little critical attention, and what attention it has received, little of it has entered into the mainstream of the Shakespearean canon. Following its publication in 1632 for the next three hundred years the vast majority of Shakespeare editors and scholars repeatedly misinformed their learned readership that it was merely a reprint of the First Folio. It was still possible for the distinguished and celebrated Henrietta C. Bartlett in her work Mr. William Shakespeare Original and Early Editions of his Quartos and Folios (Yale University Press) in 1922 to say of the Second Shakespeare Folio: ‘This is merely a reprint of the First Folio, 1623, and has no new readings which are of interest to the scholar.’1 Similarly Professor Sir Sidney Lee at the time widely regarded as the greatest living authority on Shakespeare in his Life of William Shakespeare (1925) states ‘The Second Folio was reprinted from the First; a few corrections were made in the text, but most of the changes were arbitrary and needless, and prove the editor’s incompetence,’2 which only served to expose and confirm his own ignorance and incompetence. Matters at the very least began to move in the right direction with Professor Pollard in his Shakespeare Folios And Quartos with the recognition ‘it was in 1632 that a start was made in re-editing the First Folio, and thus no survey of the history of Shakespeare’s text can be complete which does not take into account the work of these anonymous compositors and correctors.’3 The fullest and most detailed summary thus far came from Professor Allardyce Nicoll who believed that there were several correctors at work including the printer who may have been responsible for the syntactical changes that abound in the Second Folio. He also pointed out that metrical alterations run through much of the 1632 edition ‘several of them exceedingly felicitous’ with the syntactical and metrical changes made for the ‘purpose of elucidating the sense…and for the purpose of making clearer the actions of the characters on the stage.’ Many of the plays in the Folio he correctly observes ‘have been carefully worked over, and we note a tendency to pay particular attention to stage directions and to classical names and references.’ Besides the printer he concludes three separate men carefully examined the comedies one of whom he states ‘was a student of both Latin and Greek, a man moreover with a considerable sense of the fitness of things’, pointedly adding ‘this man, anonymous as he is, must be regarded as Shakespeare’s first editor.’4 It was however only when M.W. Black and M.A Shaaber in their truly monumental Shakespeare’s Seventeenth-Century Editors 1632-1685 (London: Oxford University Press, 1937) subjected the First and Second Folios to a detailed comparative analysis, did the true enormity of the differences between them finally begin to emerge into the light of day. According to Black and Shaaber there are 1,679 changes in the Second Shakespeare Folio in what was an attempt to clarify, correct and improve the text: They are fairly evenly distributed among the categories of thought, action, etc. Alterations of grammar are most numerous (459) and changes pertaining to the action least (130). Changes affecting the thought, meter, and style are very nearly equal in number-374, 359 and 357 respectively.... …We have also collected here a number of passages in which the editor corrected inconsistencies of fact and circumstance by closely following the action of the play…. ...The changes pertaining to the action of the plays are nearly all indications of entrances and exits and reassignments of speeches….the most noteworthy accomplishment of the editor in this department is his care in marking a character’s entering or leaving the stage. Seventy-three entrances and exits are correctly added and one is correctly omitted…. …The changes affecting the meter are among the most remarkable features of the work of the editor…There are 360 of them in F2…. ...There are a few passages in which he converted prose into verse. It may be noticed, too, that in some of the changes in our other categories care is taken not to spoil the rhythm in making the change. Occasionally for instance, when a change affecting the thought or the style robs the line of a syllable, the editor will insert a compensating syllable elsewhere in the line. ….The changes which we classify under the heading of style have to do chiefly with matters of taste and propriety, the choice and the form of words. The chief matters of taste concerned are the preference of one word or form to another and the order of the words...the editor of F2, who was not in the least deterred by the scruples which forbid modern editors to alter the text unless they think they are restoring what Shakespeare wrote, evidently had definite ideas about certain matters of usage which, in justice to him, must be called intelligible…. …The rectifications of the orthography of scraps of foreign languages in the plays and of proper names are also interesting and sometimes clever. The editor’s Latin was evidently good, good enough, at least, to recover quotations from Mantuan, Ovid, Virgil and Horace ..his Italian and French less good, though he made some partial corrections in these languages too.…5 The very suggestion that the enormous 1,679 amendments, revisions, corrections and improvements concerning the dramatic action, stage-craft, metre, verse, language and style in the Second Shakespeare Folio were executed by a combination of the printer, anonymous compositors and correctors or some unknown editor is simply absurd. Not only would these imagined individuals needed to have been classical scholars and linguists (Greek, Latin, French, and Italian-languages familiar to Bacon) they would have had to possess a necessary sophisticated comprehension of English grammar and syntax. They would also have needed to possess a practiced and superior literary skill to write and rewrite lines and exercise stylistic preferences. The printer, compositors, correctors, or the editor (or any combination thereof) would also have needed to have been seasoned poets and dramatists and have professional and practical experience of the theatre to equip them with the knowledge and skills to introduce the appropriate speech prefixes and various stage-directions. Perhaps most importantly, the revisions, corrections and improvements required the unnamed and unidentified individuals to inhabit the very structure and architecture of the plays as well as possess an intimate familiarity with their fictive world, the kind of course, known and understood by the author himself, Lord Bacon, the very person responsible for them. 1. Henrietta C. Bartlett, Mr. William Shakespeare Original And Early Editions Of His Quartos and Folios His Source Books And Those Containing Contemporary Notices (New Haven: Yale University Press; London: Oxford University Press, 1922), p. 51. 2. Sidney Lee, A Life of William Shakespeare Fourth Edition of the Revised Version (Rewritten And Enlarged (London: John Murray, 1925), p. 570. 3. Alfred W. Pollard, Shakespeare Folios And Quartos A Study In The Bibliography Of Shakespeare’s Plays 1594-1685 (London: Methuen and Company, 1909), p. 158. 4. Allardyce Nicoll ‘The Editors of Shakespeare from First Folio to Malone’, in H. H. Spielman, et al, with an introduction by Israel Gollancz, Studies in the First Folio (London: Humphrey Milford Oxford University Press, 1924), pp.164-6. For a more detailed account of the above from which I benefited see Matthew W. Black and Mathias A. Shaaber, Shakespeare’s Seventeenth- Century Editors 1632-1685 (New York: Modern Language Association of America and London: Oxford University Press, 1937), pp. 1-5. 5. Matthew W. Black and Mathias A. Shaaber, Shakespeare’s Seventeenth-Century Editors 1632-1685 (New York: Modern Language Association of America and London: Oxford University Press, 1937), pp. 32, 36, 42-3, 44, 47, 48.
    4 points
  23. Hi Yann et al, What do we know about Vladimir Nabokov? Second stunning coincidence of the day, I came to post what I’m about to post here earlier and decided not to as I don’t know who to credit. I had screen shotted a tweet with 2 pages of Nabokov entitled Shakespeare, but didn’t note who posted it. Anyway, I had seen the word genius in it and then thought I saw Bacon’s name. I don’t know anything about Nabokov though or if he’d be doing this(?) The coincidence is that I just checked my Twitter feed and the first tweet to meet my eyes was from a guy who AP and I know who is caught between de Vere and Bacon (but tends to side with de Vere) asking who wants to talk about Nabokov! Anyway, here’s the screenshots (I will remove if there’s an issue about no link). What caught my eye as we’d been discussing ‘genius’ was the lines: ”concealing for all time your monstrous genius beneath a mask” F Bacon is in those words.
    3 points
  24. This is SO synchronistic words fail me. I just logged in to post this image and saw that Ryan had just posted the above and this is a forum topic that has largely been unvisited for months - at least by any of us who regularly post. What are the chances? Anyway the above is fascinating and I was going to write to say I take it all back about deciding there was only a slim chance, due to the printing press procedure, that they were using sacred geometry on the cover and dedication of the sonnets: look at this. It’s in a book I just purchased today. It should/must be credited to Wooden Books and the author Adam Tetlow. Here is where you can purchase your own copy of Harmonic Geometry and others in their amazing series. https://www.amazon.co.uk/s?k=wooden+books&crid=1HRISVPB10R4M&sprefix=wooden+books%2Caps%2C67&ref=nb_sb_ss_ts-doa-p_2_12 This method dates to the 1200s!
    3 points
  25. THE TECHNICAL AND BACONIAN RIVERBANK PUBLICATIONS.
    3 points
  26. Hi Rob (Light-of-Truth), very well spotted !!! Were the Friedmans aware of the importance of the number 188 ? If it was the case, it could be a way to hide the number 287 as you suggest, and a way to "hang" FRANCIS BACON (100 simple cipher) for ETERNITY (188 simple cipher) 🙂 A crazy book indeed !
    3 points
  27. Farrington has an excellent article about Bacon and the Presocratics, I will attach Bacon and Presocratics.pdf
    3 points
  28. Thanks Rob, that sounds great. I’ll go and look now. Yann, your English is excellent and so are all your finds. Thanks for sharing them. X
    3 points
  29. Francis Bacon and the Earl of Southampton and the first Shakespeare poems Venus and Adonis and The Rape of Lucrece.
    3 points
  30. Hi Rob and Yann, I thought I would put up the pages covering the Great One's discussion of ciphers in his De Augmentis Scientiarum which begins on page 277 simple cipher for Francis Bacon (100)/William Shakespeare (177) in other words conveying the concealed cryptographic message that Francis Bacon is Shakespeare. The same message repeatedly conveyed by the Friedmans in The Shakespearean Ciphers Examined and on their tombstone!
    3 points
  31. I woke up with excitement that the Friedmans knew a cipher will end the authorship argument and say it as the last line of their book. The Strats celebrate that the Friedmans make it appear they destroy the Baconian cipher theories and hope that ends the discussion. But they are blind, and by choice. It may be that a biliteral cipher will be the cipher that does it. That is one that would be considered "scientific" and any professional cryptologist could verify. I believe way too much emphasis has been put on Bacon's example with two different font styles. It makes a beautiful example and it is a method he demonstrates, but the biliteral cipher could be anything binary. Bacon understood that. For example, I plan to try this key which I've had in mind a while: We have anagrams, acrostics, number ciphers, telestich, visual clues in engravings and artwork, and a vast collection of other Baconian ciphers that tell the story of Bacon's life and some of those would pass the Friedman test based on examples they share of ciphers they acknowledge. If we find a repeatable biliteral cipher message, we nail it and it could "cease" the authorship debate. EDIT: replaced the Key image as I had left out a letter!
    3 points
  32. More discoveries ... The word "cunning" right above the concealed "Queen" is a clue. Francis Bacon invites us to take a look at his essay "Of Cunning". Interestingly enough, 128 - 29 = 99 the reverse cipher of WILL TUDOR 128 + 29 = 157 the simple cipher of WILLIAM TUDOR I and FRA ROSI CROSSE 🙂 But there is much more in "Of Cunning" ... https://internetshakespeare.uvic.ca/Library/facsimile/book/SLNSW_F1/5/index.html%3Fzoom=1275.html Notice that the 2 (TWO) "W" in Francis Bacon's Essays are the reverse image of the one in Shakespeare's First Folio. And interestingly enough : 127 - 72 = 55 or VV 127 + 72 = 199 or 100 (simple cipher of FRANCIS BACON) + 99 (reverse cipher of WILL TUDOR) XXII + XIIII = XXXVI ( 36) 36 can be a reference to the 36 invisibles and/or to the 36 plays of the First Folio. And talking about WILL TUDOR, let's take a look at page 126 (simple cipher of WILL TUDOR) of Francis Bacon's Essays (1625)
    3 points
  33. Hi Due to a notification I have just seen the thread and APs post from a while back about the amount of elegies that contain references to Bacon as Apollo, that’s amazing! I’ve already forgotten but it either said 11 or 18! I wish I’d seen or recalled that post when I did my video and showed only two examples. Ah well, next one (with full credit to AP). So for those who have seen my video here’s some more to continue the Ben Jonson ‘duality’ trail. Plus 33 letters (Bacon) in the line (1603). There is surely a play on words leading back to the B at the start of TT - The Tempest: To B or not TWO B! Looking at Ben Jonson’s SECOND entry at the start of the First Folio, we again see the To and Two doubling/twin symbolism that leads us to TT and 33 and therefore, Bacon Note the Am I (I Am That) has been indented to allow the TWO to be noticed. and as well as the infamous repetition of Haughtie Rome by Jonson there is also the reference to Apollo/Mercury Here’s my video link again if anyone reading wonders what I’m referring to Finally just by chance, as I had mentioned Miss Covington in my vid too, now I notice this T on the Ben Jonson page is perhaps hiding Bacon too? Not 100% sure on this, but there are some clear shapes like the letters a, n and c. There’s obviously a reason why Ben Jonson is signed Ben: Jonson. - but I’ve yet to understand it. I’d love to hear any thoughts on that. Kate
    3 points
  34. Great video Kate! You Will raise some eyebrows for sure. 🙂 Bravo!! Awesome timing as well: You put it up on 6-7-22, so 67 (FRANCIS) and 22 as you describe so well. We were in the second day (2) of Sonnet 67 (Day 158 of the year).
    3 points
  35. https://catalog.folger.edu/search?ln=en&p=Francis+Bacon&f=&action_search=Search&c=Books+%26+Serials&c=Manuscripts&c=Subscription+databases&c=Art+%26+Objects&c=Other+formats&sf=&so=d&rg=25
    3 points
  36. Interesting, F Vll. F=6 and Vll=7 to make 67 the Simple cipher of FRANCIS. 😉
    3 points
  37. FRANCIS BACON AND HAMLET AND ITS THEME OF DEATH AND HIS ESSAY AND TREATISES ON DEATH. For centuries Shakespeare critics and commentators have been devoting space to the theme of death in Hamlet as well as writing essays and articles published in scholarly journals, and lengthy chapters in their works printed by prestigious university presses and publishing houses distributed all around the world. Not one of which (as far as the present writer is aware) draws attention to the several tracts and essays on the subject of death written by Bacon, nor consequently do they provide any detailed comparative analysis with Hamlet, a play saturated with the theme of death. Of all the orthodox writings on Hamlet and the theme of death perhaps still the most direct and powerful is the chapter written by the great Shakespearean critic Professor Wilson Knight in his classic work The Wheels of Fire under the title ‘The Embassy of Death: An Essay on Hamlet’: Now the theme of Hamlet is Death. Life that is bound for the disintegration of the grave, love that does not survive the loved one’s life-both, in their insistence on Death as the primary fact of nature are branded on the mind of Hamlet, burned into it, searing it with agony...Death is over the whole play…Those first scenes strike the note of the play-Death. We hear of terrors beyond the grave, from the Ghost (i. v.) and from the meditations of Hamlet (iii. i). We hear of horrors in the grave from Hamlet whose mind is obsessed with hideous thoughts of the body’s decay. Hamlet’s dialogue with the King about the dead Polonius (iv. iii. 17) is painful; and the graveyard meditations, though often beautiful, are remorselessly realistic… The general thought of Death, intimately related to the predominating human theme, the pain in Hamlet’s mind, is thus suffused through the whole play… Laertes and Hamlet struggling at Ophelia’s grave are like symbols of Life and Death… …He is a superman among men. And he is a superman because he has walked and held converse with Death, and his consciousness works in terms of Death and the Negation of Cynicism. He has seen the truth, not alone of Denmark, but of humanity, of the universe…1 The compact ethos of Bacon’s essay Of Death serves as a kind of epitome or succinct comment on the well-known speeches and soliloquies in Hamlet on suicide and death and the relentless running theme of death in the play: Men fear Death, as children fear to go in the dark; and as that natural fear in children is increased with tales, so is the other. Certainly, the contemplation of death, as the wages of sin and passage to another world, is holy and religious; but the fear of it, as a tribute due unto nature, is weak…And by him that spake only as a philosopher and natural man, it was well said, Pompa mortis magis terret, quam, mors ipsa: [it is the accompaniments of death that are frightful rather than death itself.] Groans and convulsions, and a discoloured face, and friends weeping, and blacks, and obsequies, and the like, shew death terrible. It is worthy the observing, that there is no passion in the mind of man so weak, but it mates and masters the fear of death; and therefore death is no such terrible enemy when a man hath so many attendants about him that can win the combat of him. Revenge triumphs over death; Love slights it; Honour aspireth to it; Grief flieth to it; Fear pre-occupateth it.2 Like his divine dramatic creation Hamlet Bacon was obsessed or all-consumed with the whole gamut of human existence and the full expanse of human life and death. It is certainly the case that non-specialist scholars would only be familiar with his brief essay Of Death found in the numerous editions of his Essays and have little or no idea that he wrote two full-length tracts on the subject of life and death. The first is entitled De vijs Mortis, et de Senectute retardanda, atque instaurandis uiribus or An Inquiry concerning the Ways of Death the Postponing of Old Age, and the Restoring of the Vital Powers, which may have been according to its modern editor Professor Graham Rees, destined for Part V of Instauratio magna (Great Instauration), Bacon’s planned restoration and systematic division of all sciences of human knowledge.3 The study of death, or, bringing about the prolonging of life, epitomizes as Professor Rees points out, the aims of Bacon’s philosophical programme ‘he believed that philosophy could improve material conditions and so in part restore prelapsarian felicity. He marked out the prolongation of life as the first and highest objective of the new philosophy. Realization of that ancient dream would be an outstanding fulfilment of a programme proposing a material soteriology for this world.’4 It was to these ends that in his last known years Bacon issued Historia Vitae & Mortis published at the very time the last revised version of Hamlet was being printed in the Shakespeare First Folio published in 1623. 1. G. Wilson Knight, The Wheel of Fire Essays In Interpretation Of Shakespeare’s Sombre Tragedies (Oxford University Press, 1930), pp. 34-5, 42, 44. See also Richard D. Altick, ‘Hamlet and the Odor of Mortality’, Shakespeare Quarterly, 5 (1954), pp. 167-76; Richard Fly, ‘Accommodating Death: The Ending of Hamlet’, Studies in English Literature, 24 (1984), pp. 257-74; Michael Neill, Issues of Death: Mortality and Identity in English Renaissance Tragedy (Oxford University Press, 1997), ‘To know my stops’: Hamlet and Narrative Abruption’, pp. 216-42 and ‘Accommodating the Dead: Hamlet and the Ends of Revenge’, pp. 243-64. 2. Spedding, Works, VI, pp. 379-80; Brian Vickers, ed., Francis Bacon A Critical Edition Of The Major Works (Oxford University Press, 1996), p. 343; Michael Kiernan, ed., The Essayes or Counsels, Civill and Morall (Oxford Clarendon Press, 2000), pp. 9-10. 3. Graham Rees, ed., Philosophical Studies c.1611-c.1619 (Oxford Clarendon Press, 1996), p. xxxv. The Latin text and English translation of An Inquiry concerning the Ways of Death are produced side by side on pp. 270-359. 4. Ibid., p. lxv; and Graham Rees with Maria Wakely, eds., The Instauratio magna Part III: Historia naturalis et experimentalis: Historia ventorum and Historia vitae & mortis (Oxford Clarendon Press, 2007), p. xlvi.
    3 points
  38. Good evening A Phoenix. Thank you for your help and for bringing on the table another beautiful anagram I was not aware of ! 😀 https://archive.org/details/moralemblemswith00cats/page/160/mode/2up?view=theater (Notice the TT 😉 )
    3 points
  39. Hi Kate, https://internetshakespeare.uvic.ca/Library/facsimile/book/SLNSW_F1/573/?zoom=1090 https://internetshakespeare.uvic.ca/Library/facsimile/book/SLNSW_F1/795/?zoom=1090 https://internetshakespeare.uvic.ca/Library/facsimile/book/SLNSW_F1/573/?zoom=1090 The "Sir France is bee con" on page 287 of Tragedies is well known. However, if I remember what was found , I do not remember when nor by who. My Apologies ! A Phoenix, your help would be very welcome 🙂 ! Regarding the page 222 , the complete message in acrostic is Fast Bacon and by the past I have also already read something about it and about the peculiar 222. However, I have never read anything about the ST BACON (ALBAN) , 22 lines down . I love it ! ❤️😀 Well Spot ! And if you are interested in, here is my take on number 222, with the connection between the page 222 of Comedies and Ben Jonson's Poem " Lord Bacon Birth-Day" 🙂 https://sirbacon.org/all-is-num2er/ Lord Bacon Birth-Day 222
    3 points
  40. Hi Kate, the last two letters 'ut' of the first and second line have a numerical value of 39 in simple cipher: 39 is F. Bacon. It is perhaps also worth noting that the last 3 lines (I am not sure if Yann has already pointed this out) incorporates an anagram: All, that vvas euer vvrit in brasse. But, since he cannot, Reader, looke Not on his Picture, but his Booke. BACON. SIMPLE CIPHER A B C D E F G H I-J K L M N O P Q R S T U-V W X Y Z 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Frank and Parker Woodward in Secret Shakespearean Seals Revelations of Rosicrucian Arcana (Nottingham: H. Jenkins, 1916), opposite p. 88 provide the facsimile below in which they highlight a sum total of 287 letters which represents FRA ROSICROSSE (Brother of the Rosy Cross) in Kay Cipher communicating the concealed cryptographic message that Francis Bacon, Brother of the Rosy Cross, is the secret author of the 1623 Shakespeare First Folio. KAY CIPHER A B C D E F G H I-J K L M N O P Q R S T U-V W X Y Z 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 F R A R O S I C R O S S E 32 17 27 17 14 18 35 29 17 14 18 18 31 = 287
    3 points
  41. I've never seen nor looked at the end letters of those lines before. 🙂 Thanks for pointing them out!
    3 points
  42. Just to note, the last two letters of the 7th and 8th lines are "se" (surpasse and brasse). The last letters "tetee" add up to 53 Simple cipher, with double (TWO) of each we see tteetteeee is 144 Reverse cipher (SIR FRANCIS BACON).
    3 points
  43. It’s certainly interesting - whether the ship of state, the ship of the soul (and mind) in our voyage through life, leave not a wreck behind is one other interpretation on the obvious one that all thoughts and worries eventually will count for nothing, as all dissolves like a whisper on the wind at death.
    3 points
×
×
  • Create New...