Jump to content

Light-of-Truth

Members
  • Posts

    713
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    58

Light-of-Truth last won the day on June 23

Light-of-Truth had the most liked content!

Recent Profile Visitors

692 profile views

Light-of-Truth's Achievements

Mentor

Mentor (12/14)

  • Posting Machine
  • One Month Later
  • Very Popular
  • Week One Done
  • Reacting Well

Recent Badges

1.2k

Reputation

  1. Ir appears he was a probably Baconian: https://researchspace.auckland.ac.nz/handle/2292/718 Vladimir Nabokov's 1947 novel Bend Sinister has long been considered problematic and over-ambitious. ... It is my contention that Nabokov employs the crackpot theories of Sir Edwin Durning-Lawrence, a proponent of the theory that Francis Bacon composed the works of William Shakespeare, as an outlandish tool for reconciling the novel's contradictions, a makeshift mechanism for incorporating the deistic narrator, ghostly Olga and Vladimir Nabokov, the true author, into a metaphor for an otherworld that, Nabokov insisted, was unimaginable. Maybe something to read: https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7591/j.ctt1g69xb9.14?seq=1 This looks interesting to on a quick scan, but my eyes are SHOT tonight: http://web.utk.edu/~sblackwe/new-or-little-known.pdf In Bend Sinister Bacon is evoked primarily as a token of cryptography via alleged acrostics in Shakespeare (and secondarily as a cipher for science), while in Pale Fire he serves, concealed, as an icon for hidden things that may be discovered by the careful and curious. There is no lack of cryptograms in Lolita, either, and Bacon’s presence along with the “paper chase” and its Shakespearian overtones brings on a double-edged concern. On the one hand, it encourages the continued quest for concealed messages in Lolita and perhaps other works as well (most such quests have been successful in varying degrees); on the other, Nabokov’s disparagement of Baconian acrostic-seekers in Speak, Memory (20) (thanks to Jansy Mello for reminding me of this passage)—they serve as his analogue of Freudian symbol-hunters!—combines with the paper chase’s ultimate futility to suggest that such code-breaking may be beside the point. There is no doubt that anagrams, cryptograms, and acrostics play a significant role in several of Nabokov’s works. To the extent that all of these in some manner hark back to Bacon, they remind us of hidden secrets, of the deceptive simplicity of the visible, and the quest for true knowledge about ultimate sources. Humbert’s situation is much clearer: he could, if he wanted, come to know something of the true Dolly Haze. But his obsession makes it impossible for him to do so; we readers are left to view what we can of her through the bars and cobwebs of his mind.
  2. That is clearly referring to Bacon!! Lethe, I had to look it up. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lethe In Classical Greek, the word lethe (λήθη) literally means "oblivion", "forgetfulness", or "concealment".[3] It is related to the Greek word for "truth", aletheia (ἀλήθεια), which through the privative alpha literally means "un-forgetfulness" or "un-concealment". He is saying Shakespeare was Bacon's "beloved Lethe".
  3. Here at the B'Hive Cipher Department, we strive for discovering and promoting the Truth. The biliteral cipher is one that could be proven scientifically and also present a Truth. All of the ciphers we kick around here can not be denied by science. Anyone can duplicate what we do using the same techniques. So as a first scientific test they all pass. The hidden messages we often see are not provable by science. There are infinite possibilities. But science would prove that the one theory we interpret is possible. It works by rules, so it is possible. Then we think about all the ciphers we've seen and shared. Some scientific probabilities of other interpretations shrink. We see ciphers and patterns and know where to look. Bacon left clues and it is obvious. He left them where it mattered, and there were some rules we follow. The Friedmans teach a lot of those techniques and rules while deceiving the Starfordians. I think it's time Stratfordians start to pay attention if they don't want to be embarrassed the day the Truth is provable. 😉
  4. Since Friday morning I have been pretty much in full web development/administrative mode solving serious issues and technology with a new client. It is usually the hat I wear every day. But I have had a slow few months and have been all about Bacon. Funny, I stop in the B'Hive all day when I can, thinking in the back of my brain. But the Baconian "scientific" rigid hat for computer work changes my mind processes and it takes the Shakespearean/Rosicrucian "creative and imaginative" hat to seek ciphers. Obviously it is not a switch that I can flip and go from one to the other in an instant! 🙂
  5. Kate, the Bacon birthday nails it! Great anagram and looks like even more in the Keats poem. But Jan 22 is a powerful "relevent" clue to back it up. Great discovery!
  6. The Short cipher of SIX is 22 at the very top of the page. 🙂
  7. As long as either Lawrence or I am alive, SirBacon.org will survive. And we'll make certain it lives on after we are gone. So I don't see it "folding", unless the NSA takes it down for sharing too many secrets. 😉
  8. Strange day today. Three website crises which is very unusual. One was a big popular website that the host shutdown claiming it was using too many resources, which it was not. At one point someone mentioned something with the poles was happening, then I remembered five planets were in conjunction peaking when I woke up this morning. I said, "There we go! We know what's happening now!" LOL I'm sure that is totally off-base, but funny you bring up Astrology as I was thinking about you, Kate! 🙂
  9. OK, how about this: The two T's are Thirty-Three, but also two Pillars that begin the first two lines into page 157. Perfect Rosicrucian/Bacon layout. We set forth and pass beyond the Pillars into the RC page about what a genius Bacon was. The only other upper-case letters (even if the first line is all caps) are O and G. OG is 21 Simple cipher. And 2=B and 1=A. So we have: F BA Con
  10. The big 6 at the top could be F. Then two lines and "Consider..." We can find "B" and "a" easy enough (see below). But I feel like those two lines contain B and A that I am missing. So far numbers are not jumping out enough to be them.
  11. THE ORIGINAL GENIUS is 176 Simple cipher, add the big 6 above it and get 182. ONE EIGHTY TWO is 157 Simple cipher and 287 Kaye cipher, on page 157. The Original Genius? TO is 33 Simple cipher, G is 33 Kaye cipher, on page 157. I'll be back later for more fun... 😉
  12. Thank you!! It is a dream come true for us. SirBacon.org turns 25 in October. 😉 And we love all of you!!
  13. GOOD GENIUS = 111 Simple cipher. 😉
  14. Based on the stats, there are about 100 lurkers for every one of us who are active. Google is indexing pages fairly quick as well. To share a thought, often we put up images that contain valuable text content and keywords that Google does not index since they are in images. Google certainly can "read" text in images, but it doesn't appear in searches. When possible, if something of importance is posted in an image, adding some actual text with some content or keywords will expand our reach. Even just titles or a brief description would be valuable. No pressure on anyone, but something to keep in mind to attract more attention. 🙂
  15. It would seem to me the "Royal" secret could be the reason why the NSA might be involved. Think about it; Bacon, Bond, Dee, 007, and the factual history of Bacon's role in the British Secret Service make it a "sensitive" topic. Nobody with secret clearance would want to embarrass the Royal family, especially when they may be privy to the secrets already. I like to think one day Prince William will share the Truth, and mention he was named after Bacon (William Tudor). 😉
×
×
  • Create New...