Kate

Seeing as this thread topic is about monuments, here is a picture I just put together. I found a really interesting book about Shakespeare's Town dated 1896, so then juxtaposed the Dugdale drawing and the present day monument with a picture from the book. Here it is, with some interesting old pictures. Note the change in the angle of the quill and the writing end of it no longer points to the same thing. Note also the hour-glass to torch, and the other changes - besides the downright obvious one! Shakespeare's Town

Oh gosh, now I stumbled across this re DethickThe plot thickens! While here, and talking about handwriting, it seems a good time to remind everyone of a page from AP’s paper on the Tapster Manuscript

I hear you CJ, and I think it’s great to have checks and balances. Your input reminds all ‘seekers’ not to get carried away. We should compile a list of the most indisputable finds that point towards Bacon, and do a list of ones which are open to interpretation. I agree with Rob, synchronicity (and therefore something connected to the way consciousness and pattern recognition works) is often at play here. Looking at it rationally though, to my mind things like The TempesT (either two Ts for The Tempest or three if you count the last one) are fascinating as TT (as we all know) is a known Rosicrucian/Freemasonic cipher that shows those with the eyes to see, that the hand of the ‘Invisible College’ was at work here. It’s a secret signal to all those who come across it in future ages to look more deeply at the text and it’s deeper meaning (about life’s microcosm/macrocosm duality and ultimate unity). Whether it’s T for Three Three, Tau, Triple Tau, Truth, Temple, ThirtyThree or TwentyTwo (22 bones in our Temple) is open to interpretation, but the fact that it’s also cipher for Bacon is fascinating, when looked at in the context of all the other findings pointing to him as the mastermind. There may well be some really incredibly complex ciphers in the First Folio and Sonnets (and I’ve had fun exploring some of those too) but to my mind the main things they left to be found will be something really simple and repetitive throughout. The TT mentioned above does lead to interesting things throughout. ie Sonnet number 33, pages numbered 33 and 22 (TT) or 222 etc and The Tempest at the front and To The Reader having TT in it and To and Two in acrostic. Two is the key, as it relates to Mercury and the twins. Mercury is ‘the Brotherhood’ and the twins are Light and Dark, Good and Evil, Heaven and Earth. Two have to come together to create three. I do favour the biliteral cipher for this dual reason. Anyway, this is just my response to what CJ said above. The middle way is obviously always best. See what people find and unearth on this forum, however complicated, and then it’s for each of us to take a balanced view as to whether they really would have gone to the lengths of hiding so much stuff in the texts in such a fashion.

Stupid me. I should have dug more deeply and looked for the full page. It was easily locatable on Folger. It’s not FB it’s the hand of William Dethick. https://shakespearedocumented.folger.edu/resource/document/grant-arms-john-shakespeare-draft-1 However, what this thread has done is caused Yann to find that absolutely indisputable use of the 23 at start of the word Bill and the c’s, in the Northumberland Manuscript - of which, as you say, A Phoenix wrote an amazing paper on Academia.edu - which exactly match Bacon’s hand on the signed document at inlibris below. Regarding the middle pillar - yes it was mentioned by M. Osborne I think, in the talk for the SRIA that you posted? Not the 171 though.

Hi Yann Oh my gosh, we are so tantalisingly close. Great spot with the F. We need a professional graphologist! Kate PS Yes, those were your red arrows on the left showing the Ms. Mine on the right showing the L’s.

Yes, despite what Yann is pointing out, which is indeed very, very convincing, I’m still not sure. I found this which allows a super high resolution and zoom in https://archive.org/details/cu31924029601378 and there are a number of M’s without flourish and one or two with, and I agree that writing can change. Even in here if you look for the repetition of the words ‘ for my lord of…’ half way down, directly underneath each other, the words lord are identical but for my and of are obviously by the same hand, but if we were shown them in separate books we’d say, no not close enough! So the jury is still out. I think they look like a very, very, very similar hand.

I watched. Great find, Yann! Few points. At 43.07 it shows this slide and he says ‘There is also this, in Shakespeare’s handwriting.’ There is no evidence this was Shakespeare’s handwriting. Also I was wondering what this is on the right because it’s different to the one showing the original writing, in fact this looks like someone has copied or made notes of the original, which is here: This is where it gets interesting because I had a sudden ‘pattern recognition moment’. This writing looks almost identical, imo, to the Northumberland Manuscript! You are going to have to zoom in or go and look yourself, but I think it may be the same hand - in which case Bacon! The spacing. The size. The pressure. The neatness of the motto and the neatness of certain lines in here. The flourishes. What do you think?! Where can we find the two highest resolution copies to better compare and contrast? There is also misinformation around about the sequence of events that led to the granting of Arms and the amount of applications. I’ve got lots of links but this one is interesting. https://www.theheraldrysociety.com/articles/shakespeare-part-1-the-grants-of-arms-to-shakespeares-father/ And here too https://www.whitelionsociety.org.uk/news/11-a-grant-of-arms

Elizabeth says in the replies it’ll be recorded.

🧐 Little confused here by this thread, Rob. I think Marvin’s perhaps saying that he saw it in my ebook (which he’s just finished) and that led him to think of the further implications of extending lines and the similarity to the Mormon Temple. I highly recommend visiting the work of R Knott - link in my book. There are tons of interesting things explored around the 345 triangle that can spark realisations - including why certain numbers were encoded by Bacon and his friends. It’d be interesting to draw the footprint of that Temple and see more about it - such as if it would fold to a solid shape?

I’d feel better about it if Alan Green had pointed out: 1) There are two covers to the Sonnets, both printed at the same time and having different footer text. With one of them you can’t make the same calculations re the dots, lines and angles. How would we know to look at that version he’s using? 2) The gravestone at Holy Trinity that he deciphers and says points to De Vere etc is also thought to have been changed or re chiselled. As you can see from Petter’s version of the original, Alan’s whole premise falls down (if this was the original). 3) The dedication in the Sonnets can just as easily be deciphered to point to Bacon as to De Vere. and so on and so forth. As always though, I think it’s good that more people are being introduced to the possibility of the author not being Shakespeare. When they Google they’ll find SirBacon.org!

A reminder to use the link I recently posted in A Gift of a Link. As well as 8000 books free online it also has all the Rosicrucian Digests ever printed and Manly P Halls newsletters. I’m always on the lookout for some mention or link that no one else has ever found over the years. Today I listened (well I’m at 55 mins) to this from a Jefferson appreciation society. I wonder if looking more carefully over Jefferson’s archived documents could yield something? Jefferson was a Rosicrucian and avid Shakespeare fan. The Sage of Monticello and the Sweet Swan of Avon. You may need to log in/join (free) to view.

Boom 💥 Brilliant work, Yann!

Apparently, because I’m a member of Gaia, friends can watch free but only for 72 hours. It’s now 22 May 15.30 BST. Three episodes of Shakespeare Decoded as seen in first post. Rob, episode three will be of particular interest to you. Try this link https://gaia.com/share/clhyy7wkl0025019z53aq6tli?rfd=pec6iV&language[]=en

Interesting conversation!

Hi Luis, I did a tweet about New Atlantis fairly recently and mentioned about the reason it’s unfinished, and that it was written in 1623 - the same year as the FF was published. I have a feeling (but could be wrong), that I learned this from Peter Dawkins. Anyway I felt confident enough with my source to put it in my ebook. The tweet however, led to me and AP having a discussion about whether it really was 1623. Apparently there’s some ongoing dispute. Here’s what AP wrote: “It is not known when the NAwas actually written and opinion on the date of its composition varies quite widely. Most orthodox scholars just wrongly repeat Dr Rawley and state that it was written in or around 1626. On the other hand other scholars place its composition as far back as 1612 which is prior to the publication of its coeval the Fama Fraternitatis first published in 1614. It is moreover pointed out by several Bacon editors and biographers (including Spedding and Jardine and Stewart) that FB first mentions ideas and themes later expanded upon in the NA in one of his speeches given at the 1594-5 Christmas Gray's Inn Revels, which raises the possibility that the NA might well have been written even before 1612, in fact at any time from 1594-5, nor would I rule out the possibility that an early version of it was written prior to 1594-5.” Interesting info, as always, from AP 🙏

May be of interest x

It is being assumed that time is linear. It could all be happening at once and only our consciousness perceives time as a progression. There may not even be anything but our own consciousness - no one else out there at all except for the people we’ve brought into our play* and perceive to be separate and real. It’s a hard one to wrap our heads around, but it’s a theory I’ve seen a number of documentaries and articles about. What I dislike about Elon Musk is he’s got a God complex. I don’t have any negativity towards much of what he says and does, he’s a fascinating chap, but he’s disregarding the truth that some creative force which was able to create a universe where the Moon exactly aligns with the Sun, and covers it precisely at Solar Eclipses (despite their different sizes) and create all the conditions that are on Earth and in the universe to sustain human life (the chances of which are apparently infinitesimal) and grow babies from a tiny sperm and egg that all have the same number of bones and parts, is not going to hope we (or some billionaire) assume responsibility for how it unfolds from here on in. Everything rises, everything falls in perfect order. - even if we don’t like the way it does it. Civilisations rise and fall. The big lesson in life is to stop trying to control it and just live by example, do our best and accept what is. 😇 Let go and let ‘God’ The entire message/teachings of the Rosicrucians was about higher consciousness and this oneness and a form that survives death. *We see the world not as it is, but as we are

I may have tweeted this link last year, but it’s sure to be buried now under a mountain of posts, so I’ll give it a topic of its own as it is so special. http://iapsop.com 4.13 million pages. Rather than selecting a red link you can go to the search and type in Francis Bacon (or whatever you want) and it lists every reference. I’ve been, and will be, posting a few on Twitter. Thanks AP for helping increase reach. I appreciate it x

👋 Hi Luis, great to have you here and I look forward to your posts. Thanks for the very interesting intro too. Kate

That’s very self-reflective of you Rob to name jealousy and feeling life is unfair. I wouldn’t worry. The thing is that slick presentations can only get you so far, truth resonates in people’s hearts. Wrong info has a dissonance. I do feel you are stereotyping ‘movie stars’ and people with material wealth and assuming they are all rather debauched, unintelligent and easily led - not true. I hear where you are coming from though, your time will come! Anything that starts people even hearing about the authorship question and then digging has to be good. You’ve contributed greatly to ‘the work’ over decades. Hang on to that! ❤️

My pleasure. So interesting about another 287. Just to be clear though, I don’t think for one minute that Alan is lying. I’m sure he believes what he says.

I have watched the first two episodes. I will reserve full judgement until the end. I never want to speak badly of other people in search of the truth about Shakespeare - we should surely all be in this together and remain friendly. However, I will just say that my blood pressure went up a notch or two watching this. One thing we have to be really careful about, whether Baconians or Oxfordians, is trying to make things fit, simply because it fits our preferred view. Cherry picking etc and how we deliver information. There were things in these two episodes that just don't stand up to scrutiny. The delivery also, in my opinion, felt a little patronising, like it was made for kids. Let's see what comes next. Let's also remind everyone that the word Verulam has Ver in it, and on carvings like this one below the statue of Francis Bacon in St Albans, if we were putting an argument for De Vere and D'vere (see the Gaia Episodes) forward we could take an e from a diagonal and find it in here and many other places. It means nothing as e and r are such common letters and words like every are so common too. Other things which made me uneasy: 1)John Dee was likely the 'muse' for Flemings 007 but it was not a 7 as Green says, it was a letter from his Enochian alphabet that equates to E because he was the eyes (the two 00) for Elizabeth. He seems to indicate it was a 7. Here is Dee's alphabet. 2)He also refers to the dots in the dedication and asserts that the dots must mean it's Dee's work. What a leap when (as I've shown elsewhere on this site) printing with dots after each word was commonplace at that time, as was triangular printing. Plus it's surely 534 not 624. Indeed you only need to look at Bacon's statue in St Michael's for another example of triangular text. 3) I also believe he is incorrect in where he reports the T for Tau comes from Calvary crosses. Tau means 'Mark' and originally came from the mark of the rising, culminating and setting sun which forms the T cross. (which mirrors the shape of man with his arms outstretched). It's from way before Jesus. Look at the Ankh. The three Ts together form the Triple Tau. The NIL NISI CLAVIS DEEST on the Royal Arch jewel showing this symbol refers to the fact that the key to the Universe lies in the numbers derived from the angles in the Triple Tau (explained elsewhere recently). It's all about Nature, Geometry and the movement of the ages. 4) Alan Green also puts the dedication into a grid form and comes up with de Vere, but I've shown that using the Biliteral cipher the dedication repeatedly points to Bacon. Which is right? Future episodes will undoubtedly show his measurements from a circle on the cover of the Sonnets. Will he mention that there were two covers to the Sonnets printed at the same time? I'm always willing to say, 'Gosh that's interesting' and to alter my view if Alan delivers info that seems unassailable, but critical thinking and scrutiny has to be paramount in this search.

I've been coming across books in a way that feels a little like I'm being led. This one seems like it may hold some, hitherto, unexplored gems. https://archive.org/details/dli.ernet.235759 By the way, I was led to this from here. Looking through things from Stratfordians can be interesting!

Thank you. Really looking for an online digitised free version. Failing that, what does it say? Is there anything revealing/noteworthy in it? What is this talk of Lichfield? Thanks again

I have stumbled across a few books today. One of them is this: The death mask of Shakespeare : Norris, Joseph Parker, 1847-1916 https://archive.org/details/deathmaskofshake00norr But the one I'm really looking for an online copy of is The Secret Grave of Francis Bacon at Lichfield by Walter Conrad Arensberg, also known as: The burial of Francis Bacon and his mother in the Lichfield Chapter House : an open communication to the Dean and Chapter of Lichfield concerning the Rosicrucians by Walter Conrad Arensberg HAs anyone read this or has anyone got an account where they can download it? https://lib-cat.trin.cam.ac.uk/Record/98d13017-9f39-411c-a3d8-8913f635cb23 many thanks