Kate

Very interesting, thank you. Something all OI fanatics should read!

There's the 222 again! Are you referring to the Oak Island mystery here? "guiding our misfits on their nonsense journey to a far off island with his non-existent stellar based nautical chart." and "as being attached to that ridiculous suggestion of the discovery of the fabled shaft that promises to contain the sunken vault". I've always thought the Oak Island mystery is a Masonic teaching fable that people have taken literally and may be linked to the Hiram Abiff story of burying and then raising. 3 men, 33 feet, shafts, trees, treasure, it's all allegory and metaphors.

Hi I've only just seen the rest of this thread because RC posted on it and so I've read back through it all. Great spot Peethagoras re the button shape - identical to the one on the First Folio. That's a real find. Fascinating too that you found this image elsewhere. My two-cents is that it is PS and made to look like an R to give it double meaning: probably the ROS for Rosicrucian but a guess as to the P is it could mean Rock. Petros means rock or stone, This ancient form of Petra and Peter is rooted in Greek and means "rock" or "stone. hence why Petra in Jordan, a city carved out of rock, is called Petra. It's in the Bible. Petra, petre, petrus = Peter Rock is also a euphemism for the skeleton/bones. It's linked to the Papacy through the Primacy of Peter and seen in the Chi-Rho (Rho is the P, Chi is the X) as for the S possibly something like Sancta Sanctorum, one or both? It could be any number of Latin words beginning with S but the fact that the R o S makes Ros and the P is Rho which also makes Rho- s ( as mentioned earlier) is fascinating. And this from Yann It gives P & S with P + S = 15 +18 = 33 = BACON

Crikey, people have been at it since 1885 then! 😄 Thanks Eric

Re the Doctor Panurgus picture further up And from AP's magnificent masterpiece, without which many of us would never have known about this Doctor Panurgus picture https://www.academia.edu/103102421/The_1623_Shakespeare_First_Folio_A_Baconian_Rosicrucian_Freemasonic_Illusion

That's so synchronistic that you posted this https://sirbacon.org/The-Prank-of-the-Face-Unmasking-the-Droeshout-Portrait-of-William-Shakespeare.pdf because yesterday morning, prior to reading Eric's responses, I had been playing around with the Jenssen and Droeshout portrait and made a video just for my own interest. I didn't post it as it was done quickly and crudely, and then seemed redundant given what Eric has said about how the original wasn't bald. However I'll add it in now because, just as Simon Miles says the eyes etc are the same as Elizabeth's, they exactly match here too. So I started off by lining up the tunic not the face. Then switched to narrowing the Droeshout to see if it better resembled the Janssen and concentrated on the face. Then did it vice versa. I did quite a lot off screen too and found some amazing exact matches and easily managed to make the Droeshout look like a carbon copy of the Janssen through erasing Droeshouts shading on the eyes, nose and lips. However, if Simon found matches in a completely different picture and we could also do the same with the Chandos and others, and AP showed all those exact matches in his book with Bacon too, it really dilutes it being any pointer to anything other then coincidental perspective. Keep you attention on the curvature from the nose to eyebrow and posiiton of eyes and don't get distracted by eyelid width or larger nostrils. Droeshout comparison video.mp4 I'm not claiming anything, Just decided to post it due to the synchronicity of you showing me what Simon had done. If anyone wants to try these things themselves I do it in Powerpoint. Post your pictures to a blank slide and then select the picture and press transparency. You can move one picture across the other and roll your cursor through various levels of transparency. One day someone is going to hit on something new.

Thank you! I defer to your superior knowledge on this Eric, but it is clearly a can or worms. Before I read all the info you have kindly supplied here, I had been looking around at more views (on top of everything AP had written too) and it is clearly still a matter of great dispute. The Folger have a ? next to Overbury, Chat GPT vehemently disputes it (whether that's worth anything I'm not sure!) and there's this. It just makes sense to me that they might have used, in 1623, an image of Shakespeare (Chandos, Cobbe or Janssen) and then made it look a bit vacant with a mask line around the chin to ear in order to convey that, while it may look like Shakespeare, when one looks more closely, his 'soul' is missing and he looks mask-like (because he was a mask). Because of the tunic, I favoured the Janssen. The slight weirdness of the tailoring in Droeshout's version I attributed to him not being great with perspective, as seen from this on Spiritual Warfare ( not the best perspective in the depiction of the Castle) and the guy lying down entering the kiln in the picture further up shows some difficulty with perspective too. Definitely not trying to say I am right though. Just chatting through where I struggle with being fully convinced that a) The Janssen/Cobbe is Overbury or that Droeshout didn't use one of the 'Shakespeare' pictures as a basic template. I didn't realise quite how many Janssen/Cobbe copies there are, or that it became a thing to change foreheads to look broad and bald! Thanks again for all the insight. I appreciate it.

‘When’ is reported as around 1604-1610. You could be right Rob, who really knows, but the floating head and the bald forehead in the unrestored version inclines me to think he copied it from this earlier one, not the other way round. The arrow here points to why it appears to be floating as it’s just black shadow or space, which is why Droeshout may have put his head abnormally high in his engraving - especially if he was doing a rough trace of it. Round off the chin, add a bit of detail on the nostril, take off the lace and the Droeshout is an almost exact copy. The Cobbe one has detail added at shoulder level and more hair, detailed lace and the eyes have more life. Anyway, all very interesting stuff to contemplate.

Eh? The Cobbe and Janssen are different paintings aren’t they? My understanding from having read up on this today is that the Cobbe was located relatively recently (2006) when someone saw the Janssen and thought, but hang on that must be a copy of the one I have! (The Cobbe). The Cobbe one, however, has hair. The Janssen one does too, but only after it was restored. The dating of the Janssen (unchanged version) is prior to the Droeshout. Seems Droeshout copied the Janssen. Whether it’s actually Shakespeare or not is not the issue. It’s the fact that the floating head and strange tailoring may be a false trail and actually he was just inexperienced and maybe as it was such an expensive project (according to Emma Smith it was) they tried to save money by commissioning Droeshout. it doesn’t negate the Rosicrucian plan theory though as there’s reason to believe the extra line around the face and lack of any other adornment on the Droeshout (no laurel wreath, name or heraldry etc) and the bright light on the face, juxtaposed to the dark of the tunic, (light and dark) are drawing the attention of those with the eyes to see, that this picture of “Shakespeare” hides secrets! I.e. It is indeed a front.

Okay, so what I am going to say here is probably not going to be popular, but in search of the truth this has left me scratching my head, so I'll share it. I was recently reading this pamphlet, which lampoons the Droeshout Portrait. On page 26 it is said that Boaden (presumably the portrait painter) describes the engraving as 'an abominable libel on humanity". The author goes on to say that in his opinion the Jansen portrait is the closest to the real Shakespeare. So looked that up and it turns out it is Janssen but... ....I put them side by side and got this. I thought it was interesting as in this portrait (right) the angle is almost identical as are the lines on the arms. This in my opinion, actually make Droeshout's just look like a bad facsimile, rather than back to front arms. The Shakespeare one also looks like the head is 'floating'. The eyes and eyebrows, length of nose and even the shape of the ruff (minus all the lace) are pretty similar, but it was striking that the one of Shakespeare has more hair, so he doesn't have the baldness of the Droeshout (which is also missing a pointy beard). Then I noticed this was the version of the Janssen portrait which had been conserved, so I went looking for the original. Here it is. https://luna.folger.edu/luna/servlet/s/oi467k No hair in the original. A bald forehead very, very similar to Droeshouts. I'm absolutely mindful of APs extensive coverage of this in his recent paper/book, but I can't help but wonder what is going on here. Did Droeshout copy from this portrait (badly) and the decades of people thinking there was a floating head and back to back arms really was down to his inexperience. If so, why did they use him? I have to say that I thought some of Droeshout's other early 1600s engraving were also pretty poor. It took me a while to come up with one that captured real expression on the face (Howson). Many of his early ones were a bit vacant in facial expression. The upshot is then, this is the first time ever that I have questioned whether, on this point - not on the authorship - the Stratfordians are right. As I say, I get that it will be unpopular to say this, but I can't blindly dismiss the likenesses here. Am I missing something?

Just a heads-up on a typo in here and the title, it is actually Tom Keenan not Tom Keegan.

That video is brilliant. Thanks for sharing RC. Are you on Twitter? I'm going to share it and I’ll happily credit you. Re threads, I understand they meander. Maybe an open discussion thread is the route, or more use of tags, so that interesting posts don’t get missed as they are in a thread seemingly unrelated to the title? Is there a slight chance you were misreading though. I didn’t say you were hijacking Luis’ thread, I said we. All done out of respect/concern/empathy for Luis not having posted again, rather than any dig or attack on you. ❤️

Wasn’t it Tesla who said (or is said to have said) the secrets of the universe lie in 3,6 and 9. 3 is definitely a number nature favours I think we’ve rather hijacked Luis’ thread with all this and gone off down some rabbit holes. Just to repeat what I’m sure I’ve pointed out elsewhere though, the “three” archetype arose from Nature. This is why it’s so ubiquitous throughout all the ancient wisdom teachings (way before 16/17th Century). It is because the ‘giver of all life’, the Sun, (which many equate with God) has three positions: rise, culminate and set in its daily journey and three in its annual journey. East, NE and SE ie Equinox, Summer Solstice and Winter Solstice. (Reverse in Southern hemisphere). The Sun never travels to the 4th cardinal position, the North. Since the formation of speculative Freemasonry, “Three” has been incorporated to run throughout Masonic ritual, starting with the 3 knocks by the Senior Deacon when introducing the (Entered) Apprentice. Three and Three X Three are so Masonic that I think we have to be careful with seeing every reference of 33 as cipher for Francis Bacon. Sometimes it’s probably just highlighting or hinting at ‘the Craft’ and a visual hint to ‘brethren’ to look deeper at the text, or whatever, when they see it.

Given the many references to the Stationer's Company, I thought this short video may be of interest. You can actually hire it out as a venue. We are so lucky to have so many beautiful buildings in London/England/UK

My Movie 14.mov Press! The name of the guy who made the GIF is in top right, so credit goes to him. Lots of interesting stuff on Twitter if you use the search term Arbelos Geometry. Adding in a still picture for those who can't or don't want to download. In the 'Movie' it's the moving GIF and you see the circles all moving together across the arc - it's worth a watch.

It's a stupendous piece of work. I can only imagine the hours and hours of proofreading and fact checking that went into this masterpiece. To think it's all for free as well. If you are reading this from outside the forum, please be sure to check it out and tell everyone about it. It's a remarkable gift to the world. Bacon is, without doubt, Shakespeare!

Always good to have different viewpoints! I had actually just gone and asked Chat GPT about 153. It mentioned something I had not heard of before - the Arbelos. This seems to be linked to what you posted RC/CJ? I thought the Measure of the Fish came from the intersection of two circles though, The Arbelos seems to relate to three. So, I guess you could say (at a push) 3 and 3 (seen as 33)= 153! In a geometric context, the number 153 is known for its connection to what is called the "mystical triangle" or the "arbelos." The arbelos is a shape formed by three semicircles that are tangent to one another. It is often divided into three regions, and the ratio of the areas of these regions is approximately 1:2:3, with the middle region having an area of 153/π.

Moving back to 153 for a minute https://www.masoncode.com/lost-masters-word/ Has anyone ever looked for the Masonic passwords (like MaHahBone) or their derivatives in Shakespeare? The Works of Shakespeare obviously precede Freemasonry in its organised ritual form today, but it all came from ancient wisdom and practices around this time .

This is a bit off at a tangent but I’ve just been scrolling through these replies and noticed CJ/RC say Sylva Sylvarum suggests it with experiment 222. Did you know page 222 of the First Folio has an anomaly, in that it is printed 22 and a superscript final 2? Could there be a connection? What was experiment 222? Sorry to disrupt the convo with this. Re the Great Seal, in my book I have a whole chapter on it and the USA.

Hi Not sure if this has been looked at before, but I stumbled across it and thought someone may like to see if it contains anything interesting re the Shakespeare authorship question/Bacon/Good pens. I was struck by these words from inside: “I have pointed out a few similarities of expression between Palingenius and Shakespeare” “...the book was issued by the Stationers' Company in 1616, and that on March 5, 1620, the Zodiacus Vitae of Palingenius had become part of the English stock of the Company.” “a recent anonymous Enghsh translator of the book suggests that there may be a concealed sense beneath the letter of these twelve books,” "It satisfies our vanity to believe in immortality. " But when once our life has faded into thin air, we are nothing, as if we had not been born . . . whatsoever things have arisen fall : what things have begun will see an end. Mighty cities and peoples, powerful realms, the highest mountains and the greatest rivers, time bears away, and shalt thou, vilest of dust, exist for ever ? So great is the confidence of an ill-equipped mind. Forsooth, we labour in vain in the love of virtue, by hoping dreams and by inventing vain chimaeras." The book goes on to say: This passage calls to mind Shakespeare's Tempest : "The cloud-capp'd towers, the gorgeous palaces, The solemn temples, the great globe itself, Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve. And, like this insubstantial pageant faded. Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff As dreams are made on, and our little life Is rounded with a sleep." Lots more references to Shakespeare and the fact that the author is a pseudonym inside. https://archive.org/details/zodiacusvitaeofm00wats More info https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pier_Angelo_Manzolli

I don’t know if it means anything (?)but I immediately recognised the outfit on Nicholas Bacon in this publication, to the negative picture of the Shakespeare Funerary Monument that I found yesterday, which we know is from before 1896. Look at the lapels and buttons. Different collars (and face!)

Latest episode of Shakespeare Decoded 🫣 Free for 72 hours https://gaia.com/share/clicydn6h0009019270wm9b98?rfd=pec6iV&language[]=en

Really interesting post(s), Luis. Thanks!

Yes, thank you, Tom. Could you also post the link to your ‘Wolfpack’ interview and, are there any plans to offer your screenwriting course online?

My tweet about handwriting has had 9000 + views, signalling that this is the type of info people are interested in. It also shows how on Twitter it’s all about exponential growth - if people RT it gets seen by all their followers and they RT and so it grows. Very happy that it’s turning some new people on to SirBacon.org. Re the above triple pic, I suddenly realised how, because there was once no window behind the monument, it is likely those windows will be of particular significance. Has anyone written about them. Are they the Seven Ages of Man windows? Also, like most in here I know the story about how the Dugdale sketch of 1624 was turned into an engraving by Holler and the illustration printed in 1656, and then the monument was updated (in the 1700s?)but what is the best source of reliable info as to why it looks so different? Thanks 🙏