Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Kate

  1. As mentioned prev, it’s not just the inscription that has gone through many iterations over the years, but also the ‘curse’ epitaph on the ledger stone. This article discusses the ledger stone fiasco and links it to an epitaph to a Baker (or person named Baker perhaps as English surnames often reflected trade or town). https://churchmonumentssociety.org/monument-of-the-month/the-ledger-to-mary-jackson-d-jan-20-1676-at-allesley-warwickshire-and-the-grave-of-william-shakespeare Also want to suggest trying yet another cipher I’ve seen mentioned which counts a number of letters (usually shown by a key) backwards or forwards from punctuation marks. This cipher caught my eye due to the strange punctuation on the Shakespeare monument (newer one shown) incl that there is no period on the end of the second and no comma on the fourth line). Please also note, there is another thread devoted to Shakespeare monuments, here.
  2. Love it! By the way, the rest of the Oak Island pages showed up from my old box. I’ll post about it elsewhere at some point. It was the lovely Judith Lavigne (Parr) Simmons of Peacock Publishing I was conversing with over a book I was writing (but later abandoned) in 2003. In it I had written a line about how, just as Robert Devereaux was not born at Netherwood as widely believed but at Nonsuch Palace, Francis Bacon was not born at York House or York Palace, but in Windsor Castle. Judith had ticked it. I can’t find the page with any footnotes for the citation. Surely not true?! Does anyone know where I would have got that from back around 2001/3? 🤷🏻‍♀️ It’s not something I’ve seen mooted over the last 20+ years and I’d completely forgotten I’d written about this. Judith edited my ‘work in progress’. I wonder if she’s still alive? If you are reading this Lawrence, I’m sure you’d know.
  3. Thanks Yann. Very interesting. I am right in the thick of more synchronicities. One involves you. The first was I stumbled across this booklet that goes into more depth about the monuments in the Church than I’d ever found before. It’s a “must look at” booklet as even the Stratford Society who wrote it obviously are suspicious as to whether Will Shakespeare is in the Church - look at page 33(!)for example https://www.stratfordsociety.co.uk/files/A-Taste-of-History.pdf Also, see this: https://archive.org/details/howshakespearess00warw/page/n3/mode/1up The next coincidence that may be something to ponder is, when researching Ashmole recently I visited John Aubrey’s book. I think I posted about this elsewhere but it bears repetition here. In it he cites the story about Ben Jonson’s friendship with ‘Butcher’s son’, Shakespeare and lists an epitaph that (it appears) Shakespeare composed. I took a screenshot I was struck by this as it has the same sort of ‘who is really in this grave’ feel to it. Then I saw your recent post about Ben Jonson where you had added a little known poem of his, Yann. In that poem Jonson mentions scissors and Combe. Here it is: That got me thinking about Tombe and whome on Shakespeare’s monument which it turns out is right next to Combe’s monument. In fact it was while looking for details of Combe’s monument that I came across the PDF above. In the booklet the short ditty is slightly different again. (Btw, notice in it they praise the accuracy of Dugdale’s recordings of inscriptions). Also see this https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/Epitaphs_on_John_Combe The interesting thing is Combe’s full and lengthy inscription on his tomb is unfinished - according (again) to that Stratford PDF. It’s all very odd. I wonder if there’s a clue/pointer to this mystery about the monument lying in plain sight that we’ve all overlooked for centuries? Especially as Ben Jonson is linked to both. Notice too we can date this tavern meeting with Shakespeare because Combes died in 1614 and Shakespeare supposedly in 1616. That means there’s less than 2 years that this conversation above could have taken place. Does that tally with reports? As if this wasn’t lengthy enough, on top of all this, earlier this morning I decided to clear out an old box in my office. In it, not only did I find an old 2009 page of a letter sent to me from the (female) publisher of the booklet about Bacon by Marie Bauer Hall, Manly P Hall’s wife. She was talking to me about Oak Island, William Stirling and Nova Scotia (but there’s only 1 page of it and I can’t find the rest), but there was also a print out of an email from Peter Dawkins dating back 15 years. In this he was telling me about Hiram! You can’t make it up. I never went looking so it’s another extraordinary synchronicity given the conversations further above about Hiram Abif(f). Here’s the relevant bit which I’m sure he won’t mind me sharing. End!
  4. Btw an interesting little tit bit that I came across somewhere in recent months, and now can't recall where, is that the joined TH can be a way of expressing/hiding reference to Thrice Hermes i.e. an allusion to Mercury again. It's already very Masonic as the interlocking TH in the triple Tau links back to the words Temple Hierosolyma. It was very common to use the interlocking TH in that era in inscriptions though, so one has to be careful, but here on "Shakespeare's" Monument (newer version) it might (or might not) have added significance.
  5. HI FB Dec, Honestly can't recall, sorry. I'm terrible as I am constantly taking screenshots. I do reverse searches where I can - it'll likely be a Masonic book. Doesn't really matter as the Sephiroth names don't change. Most of the things they were into at that time were 'kabbalistic'.
  6. Yes, great job. I can see it is there for sure on the black and white one and can see exactly what you mean. So that's one hurdle out of the way, but still doesn't remove the others. By the 1800s the authorship questions had really gained a life of its own. I think what you and Peethagoras are saying is that if any cipher is present it may have been put there at a later date, so the newest one is the one to go with. Who knows - that's the issue. Do we go with the earlier one (s) or the later? The message is not substantially changed at all in any but in terms of decrypting it makes a world of difference if one is using all the letters and words. I did notice thanks to Peethagoras posting the very clear, newer one, the engraver has used some significantly larger letters, so perhaps we should try the biliteral cipher too. Some people spend their Sunday doing the Times Crossword, I love whiling away the time with a coffee and a mystery to solve and an inscription to decrypt! :-)
  7. Thanks for all the above posts FB Dec. One thing we’ll have to disagree on though is, I don’t believe there’s any treasure on Oak Island. I think it’s all linked to a hoax that got told and retold, until it took on a life of its own, likely based on an old Masonic ritual misinterpreted as literal. It’s made a lot of people ‘celebrities’ though! Given a lot of people hours of tv shows (Not referring to Petter here, whose you tube documentaries I’ve enjoyed). Happy to be proved wrong but don’t think I am! 🙂
  8. Hi Hen Yes, I agree. I did look today and found a whole set of Masonic ritual using just HA as well, so both were used. Looking at the inscription I was particularly drawn to a grid cipher due to the 64 words, which are only possible if the word Within is separated out - which it is. The 4 boxed Ts reinforced that grid idea… If looking at this newer one they jump out at me. Everything points to two and to doubles, Two words before each comma in each part of the first two lines. Two Ts in Terra Tegit. Two sections to the main inscription, and two lots of TT + TT in the last corner. The reason I suggested looking at a 22 space transposition is because it’s double numbers, and due to its link to Kabbalah plus TT can stand for Twenty Two as well as Thirty Three. However, Dugdale doesn’t have the 2 sets of TTs in the last line and also this afternoon I remembered something else. When I went to check it’s really thrown the cat amongst the pigeons! Firstly, here’s what John Weever is said to have written in his unpublished notes when compiling his book on funerary monuments prior to 1631 – which precedes Dugdale’s. Like Dugdale he doesn’t use plast but does have four boxed Ts to end with, an e on both whoms and has within as one word. So unfortunately that makes it 63 words not 64. There are other small differences too. I know AP has referenced this version from Weever in the past so a shout out to him. As it was unpublished by Weever it didn’t seem relevant about the slight word changes, but now it does. Here it is: Iudcio Pilum, Genio Socratem, Arte Maronem Terra tegit, populus maeret, Olympus habet. Stay Passenger, why goest thou by so fast Read if your canst whome envious death hath plac'd Within this monument Shakespeare with whome Quick Nature dy'd whose name doth deck his Tombe far more then cost, sith all yt hee hath writt Leaves living Art but page to serve his witt. ob Ano doi 1616 AEtat. 53. 24 die April It means there are 3 different inscriptions. (and It all rather throws Alan Green’s or was it Alex Waugh’s attempted decryption of the ‘Curse be’ gravestone into doubt too doesn’t it?) Good frend for Iesus sake forbeare To digg the dust enclosed heare Blest bee ye man that spares these stones And curst bee hee that moves my bones. But here’s the second thing I found. This old photograph from 1890 shows the newer bust of Shakespeare and the inscription. What I noticed is you can see the right hand side of the words in the main section all line up. They don’t line up here - the T on plast stands further out. The plot thickens!
  9. In the course of my ongoing research into the Rosicrucian and Mason, Elias Ashmole - which, amongst many things, reveals that Sir William Dugdale was his Father-in-law and he was well acquainted with Arthur Dee, John Dee's son - I came across this (which seems to confirm what is already known by most on this forum, but I'll post it for posterity). I have added it in plain text further down in case this is too blurry to read. It comes from the widely quoted Freemason, Mackey. “Bacon, Francis. Baron of Verulam, commonly called Lord Bacon. Nicolai thinks that a great impulse was exercised upon the early history of Freemasonry by the New Atlantis of Lord Bacon. In this learned romance Bacon supposes that a vessel lands on an unknown island, called Bensalem, over which a certain King Solomon reigned in days of yore. This king had a large establishment, which was called the House of Solomon, or the college of the workmen of six days, namely, the days of the creation. He afterward describes the immense apparatus which was here employed in physical researches. There were, says ne, deep grottoes and towers for the successful observation of certain phenomena of nature; artificial mineral waters; large buildings, in which meteors, the wind, thunder, and rain were imitated; extensive botanic gardens; entire fields, in which all kinds of animals were collected, for the study of their instincts and habits; houses filled with all the wonders of nature and art; a great number of learned men, each of whom, in his own country, had the direction of these things; they made journeys and observations; they wrote, they collected, they determined results, and deliberated together as to what was proper to be published and what concealed. This romance became at once very popular, and everybody's attention was attracted by the allegory of the House of Solomon. But it also contributed to spread Bacon's views on experimental knowledge, and led afterward to the institution of the Royal Society, to which Nicolai attributes a common object with that of the Society of Freemasons, established, he says, about the same time, the difference being only that one was esoteric and the other exoteric in its instructions. But the more immediate effect of the romance of Bacon was the institution of the Society of Astrologers, of which Elias Ashmole was a leading member. Of this society Nicolai, in his work on the Origin and History ofRosi crucianism and Freemasonry , says: “Its object was to build the House of Solomon, of the New Atlantis, in the literal sense, but the establishment was to remain as secret as the island of Bensalem — that is to say, they were to be engaged in the study of nature— but the instruction of its principles was to remain in the society in an esoteric form. These philosophers presented their idea in a strictly allegorical method. First, there were the ancient columns of Hermes, by which Iamblichus pretended that he had enlightened all the doubts of Porphyry. You then mounted, by several steps, to a chequered floor, divided into four regions, to denote the four superior sciences; after which came the types of the six days' work, which expressed the object of the society, and which were the same as those found on an engraved stone in my possession. The sense of all which was this: God created the world, and preserves it by fixed principles, full of wisdom* he who seeks to know these principles — that is to say, the interior of nature — approximates to God, and he who thus approximates to God obtains from his grace the power of commanding nature." This society, he adds, met at Masons' Hall in Basinghall Street, because many of its members were also members of the Masons’ Company, into which they all afterward entered and assumed the name of Free and Accepted Masons, and thus he traces the origin of the Order to the New Atlantis and the House of Solomon of Lord Bacon. It is only a theory, but it seems to throw some light on that long process of incubation which terminated at last, in 1717, in the production of the Grand Lodge of England. The connection of Ashmole with the Masons is a singular one, and has led to some controversy. The views of Nicolai, if not altogether correct, may suggest the possibility of an explanation. Certain it is that the eminent astrologers of England, as we learn from Ashmole's Diary , were on terms of intimacy with the Masons in the seventeenth century, and that many Fellows of the Royal Society were also prominent members of the early Grand Lodge of England which was established in 1717.”
  10. A thousand apologies. I was speed reading, it's the S from the first 3 words of shakespeare. I thought you'd added one. In modern Masonry the abbreviation for Hiram Abif is HAB but maybe HA is equally valid at that time.
  11. Has anyone ever run tests for these words of the Sephiroth?
  12. HI P Because snakes shed their entire skin they have always been a symbol of transformation and transmutation. As the Mystery Schools are all about transformation from ignorance to light, serpents came to symbolise this. All symbols have multiple meanings and in some cases they can be referring to the Milky Way which snakes its way across or down in the sky depending on where and when you view it. Also the constellation Serpens crosses it. Wrapped around the Tau cross though, which is a symbol of truth, it conveys the whole Rosicrucian 'mission' of Light (knowledge/truth) from Darkness (ignorance and there are deeper esoteric and alchemical symbolisms too. The Ouroborus is different as that forms a circle. Then there's the two serpents wrapped around the staff which symbolise Mercury. K
  13. Many heads together looking at this is always going to be better than one. You're doing great work and sparking all sorts of avenues of exploration. I'm going to keep working with the Dugdale version as it's so close to the date of the erection of the monument but,, as Rob says, maybe both hold something of value. Even if you came up with a perfect decryption though, it's never, imo, going to pass the 'test' if one had to add a letter to the inscription to get there. Have you tried moving the letters by 22 - or can you. On both inscriptions. Here's why:
  14. Thanks Rob. Here's a little more info for anyone here or reading from outside of the forum. I saw the reference in the thread to Hiram Abif (sometimes later spelt Abiff). Everything comes in threes in the Mystery tradition. There is Solomon, Hiram, King of Tyre and Hiram Abif. It's all allegory and metaphor. The third degree ritual of Masonry is a later introduction than Bacon's time but it's all about the death of ignorance and the rebirth /resurrection into the light of truth (!) - knowledge. Masonry is all about Light. Hiram is about light. The Mercury square is important when you understand how much myth relates to the Sun, Moon and Mercury. Masonry is not religious but there are links to Christ (Jesus) with Hiram and Christian Cabala. Hope that sparks further lightbulb moments, especially if the inscription is linked up to Hebrew Gematria. The problem is online gematria sites are not to be trusted. You can see that by inputting a phrase and then seeing what results you get on different sites. It has to be done looking at examples from the later 1500s early 1600s. FWIW, I feel there is likely a code in the inscription due to the 'Read if thou canst' line and the three final T's on the last two lines (in Dugdale's version - disputing the 4 boxed T's on the later version) which is why I have devoted so much time to it. This is the one thing which, if found and irrefutable, could finally bring this mystery about the authorship to the wider public.
  15. Hi Peethagoras, The Stratford-upon-Avon Shakespeare Monument: Cipher in the Inscription Coincidentally, since Hen W posted on the other thread that he/she has made about the inscription when first joining, I have been looking at this for a while now. It's going to take a while to explain too, so my apologies in advance for a wordy post. Here's what I found. First of all, I have always been "concerned" that Sir William Dugdale recorded an inscription that is slightly different to the one above, see my article here: https://the-power-paradox.shorthandstories.com/the-shakespeare-authorship-question-unravelling-the-mystery/index.html and the image below. The Stratfordians will excuse this away as Dugdale and/or his note-taker or engraver being bad at detail. They will cite a number of other differences in Antiquities of Warwickshire that don't match tombs in the county. However, I have discovered that Dugdale was Father-in-law to Elias Ashmole. Ashmole was a huge Francis Bacon and John Dee 'fan'. He definitely had contact with Dee's son, Arthur. Ashmole's book on alchemy is prefaced by him literally saying that information was concealed in poetry. Ashmole was most certainly a Rosicrucian and we also know for sure he was a Freemason as he told us (right down to the location, day and time). Although Ashmole was only born one year after Shakespeare died, most of his inner circle were involved in, or closely affiliated with, those who put the FF together or who were mentioned in it. Surprisingly, he never directly mentioned Shakespeare (I checked this as it's so surprising and it was confirmed by 'Claude', but I am happy to stand corrected). So knowing this, although I hate casting aspersions, I do think that if the powers that be in Stratford guessed that there may be a cipher in the inscription which might reveal Will Shakespeare not to be the author, they might, perhaps rather understandably, have tried to subtly change it as the years went on. If anyone cracked it that would present them with a huge crisis, so it makes sense. We do find that the original 'curse my bones' inscription and the one on the monument above are slightly different to those that were originally recorded. They were apparently changed in the course of updating and renovating the monument in later years. The reason given is that different engravers have different styles of lettering. One difference in Dugdale's inscription (besides Will looking nothing like the Will that's there today), is the word Plast is Plact and also he doesn't shorten the word Thy but says The. There are other small differences too that are obviously important to cryptologists. He has included the whom and whome though - so the argument he was shoddy in his recording perhaps carries slightly less weight. Anyhow, what struck me is that although the letters change there are 64 words in the inscription. 64 is a really important number in the Mystery Tradition as it is the cube of 4. It's significance dates right back to the Chinese Book of Changes, the IChing, and probably way before. In Masonry it is the size of the 64 square checkerboard floor called the Mosaic Pavement. So if we use Dugdale's inscription and use a transposition cipher (as Ashmole suggests) using the first letter of each word, we find the letters are different in the original. With a transposition cipher, as I think Hen explained, you take the number of letters and put it into a grid - in this case 8 x 8 as it makes a square (I have tried 4 x 16. 16 x4 too, I haven't tried 2 x 32, I also haven't tried swapping each letter in the grid for a number, which someone might like to do as Magic Squares contained numbers). With Transposition you write the letters in downwards columns and then a message might be instantly revealed by reading down or across or diagonally (you can even move columns). I can see no message so I asked AI to look and it ran through them all: double transposition, caesar, substitution etc and came up with nothing. What I did see though in my very first attempt using columnar transposition on the 64 letters was this. In the 3rd column you can make Sir FB bracketed by two T's so TT= 33. There is a stray C at the bottom and C = 100, so all in all, probably a good case to be made - but not conclusive. As Ashmole said: No other answer should be returned, meaning to my eyes that it'll be absolutely without doubt once deciphered. I also anagrammed, and sure enough you can make the full name Sir Francis Bacon out of the 64 letters in the grid and plenty of other words too, including Anthony and ones that "Shakespeare" is pointing to on the Wilton House Monument - Shadow Player. However, it means zero as they would need to be in some pattern. It's not enough to be randomly placed, we could make anything we choose. That said, it could point to the fact that with the correct decryption technique we could bring the letters into some irrefutable pattern. I have tried all week and got nowhere, but do hope you, Peethagoras and Hen, and everyone else will keep looking. I have also blacked out alternate boxes to make a checkerboard in case the letters that are left reveal anything. So far I can't see it. I like the three triangular T's in one of the checkerboards above though! . I'll keep looking when I have time too. Remember it may be in old English, if anything is there. They could not foresee how our language would evolve.
  16. https://archive.org/details/cryptomenysispat00falc/page/n6/mode/1up
  17. Now things are getting really outlandish in terms of cascading synchronicities. I just completely randomly (within minutes of posting above) started reading an old thread, only to alight on this below! So now we know the answer to Eric’s query from 2023. The ‘stabbing story’ was from 1936 and must have arisen from info that originated with (imo, the deluded) Dr Owen who had died about 12 years before.
  18. Here’s part of that post from Sunday on the other ‘Ciphers’ thread. Just so it’s possible for everyone to recognise the magnitude of the coincidence!
  19. I was catching up on some other threads and noticed that you mentioned Dr Owen on Sunday (in one of the threads in the ciphers section). I hadn’t seen that when I posted this topic. He’s obviously often referred to in passing on this forum, but the coincidence of me stumbling across these old newspaper clippings (while looking for something unrelated) when, within the previous 24 hrs you had been wondering what to make of him, and if you could trust his work, is fairly remarkable/noteworthy. I also see his books are up on the Gorhambury site. I wonder why he’s coming to the forefront of our consciousness now.
  20. The book I linked to elsewhere - this one is invaluable. Definitely worth a read.
  21. I am so pleased to hear you say that. I think it’s important to be able to sort the wheat from the chaff, and also when new information emerges, as it will with increasing digitisation and AI, it’s a mark of high intelligence to be able to say, okay a belief I held is clearly wrong or needs rethinking. I guess that there is always a mix of truth and fantasy/fabrication in many of these older books as they simply didn’t have the ability to cross-check their information or even be able to gather much in the 1800s - it was bad enough in the 1980’s and early 90s when trips to central libraries or scrolling through microfiche was required to check/research even the tiniest detail. I’m currently still researching Elias Ashmole and there’s no doubt in my mind that the First Folio was a Rosicruician/Masonic group effort with Bacon and Jonson at the helm, but Owen’s theories I’d (personally) discount many of them. Maybe Col Fabyan got bitten by the SAQ bug via Elizabeth Gallup, but we don’t know how much of her thoughts and beliefs he truly swallowed. Maybe she was just a catalyst that convinced him to hire the Friedman’s to try and get at the truth. As for Donnelly, I have no idea. All we can do is keep sifting and trying to piece the jigsaw together, keeping critical thinking skills at the forefront of the search.
  22. http://www.mythicdetroit.org/uploads/Main/DetroitJournal4-18-1891.jpg 🤦🏻‍♀️ The whole page wouldn’t fit in a screenshot. I wonder what’s going on here as if he’s not credible, what does that say about Elizabeth Gallup if she was his protege? Why would Fabyan and the Friedman’s have followed through?
  23. I went looking after I wrote that post and found this interesting article. Turns out Gallup was Owen’s protege. http://www.mythicdetroit.org/index.php?n=Main.DrOrvilleWardOwen Open link to see full article. There’s an interesting titbit about a missing 6th book in his Cipher story and re the Riverbank levitation machine.
  24. *I’m changing the title of this thread I started. It was originally Oak Island which was (or then became) misleading as it’s really just about Dr Owen* Someone tagged me in to an old Oak Island forum, and on there I found this extraordinary - and obviously ridiculous - article, so thought I’d share it. I’ve never heard of this story. You have to open the link and not just look at the part-image. https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/WC19110607.2.45 From memory, it was Dr Owen whose work got Fabyan in Illinois interested in the SAQ (is that right, AP?) and thus began the whole Riverbank story with the Friedman’s drafted in. Anyway, whether it was Owen or not who got Fabyan interested, Owen seems to have been “off with the fairies” to me - but it’s for each to make up their own mind. Maybe something in this article will lead to some other avenue of enquiry. Alongside this, I recently found a couple of references to Ben Jonson and Shakespeare’s relationship in Brief Lives, vol 1 and 2 by John Aubrey. It’s very intriguing as in it Christopher Beeston https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Beeston said Shakespeare was a butcher’s son who then went to London to be an actor. Now it could be that John Shakespear (Aubrey, 1626-1697, spells the name without the e), slaughtered animals for their hides for his glove-making business, but Stratfordians calling Will Shakespeare the son of a glove-maker, and someone who helped in his central Stratford-upon-Avon workshop, seems a little sanitised/different to being the son of a butcher. This has probably been widely discussed somewhere (?) over the decades, but I had never heard of this ‘butcher’ story either.
  25. This is a great book Available to read (by the hour) on archive.org
  • Create New...