Jump to content

RoyalCraftiness

Members
  • Posts

    707
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    15

RoyalCraftiness last won the day on December 27 2023

RoyalCraftiness had the most liked content!

Recent Profile Visitors

2,719 profile views

RoyalCraftiness's Achievements

Experienced

Experienced (11/14)

  • One Year In
  • Posting Machine
  • Dedicated
  • Very Popular
  • Conversation Starter

Recent Badges

1k

Reputation

  1. Here's a circle. Here's a circle divided in 24 (hours or time zones on a globe or letters in an alphabet indexed to it). I've signaled out the letters that spell Bacon and have highlighted the possibility of drawing a line incorporating the P which would complete a set of three symmetrical lines. The line which is perpendicular to it and through the center involves involves the I/J. Some immediate observations that come out of this are the presence of 15, 30, 60 and 90 angles that are involved. Out of curiosity, and from recollection, I remembered that this is similar to an existing suggestion that has been made involving the Sonnets title page (the Chi Rho suggestion) where the 30 and 60 degree angle figure with a circle diameter projecting to a P. If you recall that was seen here: The obvious thing to examine here is what that diameter going through P looks like when the images are overlaid. This is a reasonably good overlay considering that the title page image has some obvious skewing going on. There's a visible offset in the line going through P that disappears when the image is rotated to have that diameter line go through the period after 1609 (which is not on that line otherwise). What is very thought provoking is how the periods after "By G", "Aspley" and "Imprinted" fall on the alphabet. The "By G" period is in fact found by G at the position of the letter F, which one could imagine is to go with the rest to give F. Bacon. The period after Imprinted would signal the S. The I is reasonably well suggested. One could potentially tease out Sir F. Bacon with some more gymnastics. The entire thing can also be transferred onto a globe looking down at the North pole which has longitude displayed. To somehow reference the globe to this overlay one could easily suspect that the prime Meridien might be suggested by the vertical in the image going to P. So why the period to the right of it at 1609? One might prefer to think that as a longitude difference between close points, here London and Paris (2 degrees and 8 minutes) come to mind. This would allow a final overlaying: Now we're getting somewhere suggestively, as the period after Aspley gets located at roughly 33 degrees East of Paris and point G gets located at 66 degrees W of it. P can be taken to mean Paris longitude of Paris Meridien. 33.3 East of Paris is Jerusalem's longitude. 66.6 W of Paris is the Mahone Bay point of coincidence's longitude which involves the two great circles I've shown before that relate to alignments employing the pillars of Hercules using two different but equal map projections. Nice coincidences. What is G? That's a very Masonic question. We might imagine it to be a symbolic expression of what lies at the heart of the compass and square which are the tools given to us to find our bearings in the figurative and practical sense.
  2. If I had written a book of such things, like Kate has, I'd be openly promoting it to her and to you who might be interested enough to pay to read it out of a desire to be outraged. The world according to RC is just a pile of suggestions coming at us, some of which are neither "true" nor "false" and will remain "yet to be determined" for eternity. Digest them as you will using whatever you feel delivers objective truth to you. You're only now seeing that this action you suggest might work to humiliate me by setting me apart. Go ahead and show me what you are capable of with the connections that loyalty confers. I should have to pay for offending you. If you were King I would expect to be drawn and quartered. Please do stop prodding me with your curt sputterings if it is not too much to ask. It is taking much away from the congeniality here. You have the functionality to block my entire output, so perhaps use it. To be fair, that's not what will appease an amateur propagandist. A propagandist will worry that his efforts may be short-circuited, and he'd rather know and intervene if that is possible. We have institutions we still call Universities that were developed to do this where professors of the faith could intervene in the process of forming suggestible people on behalf of their Christian benefactors. This isn't quite that is it? I don't feel I should pretend I'm at University again and be formed by professors of some imagined Baconian faith that extolls suggestions of multiple personality disorder. Most of what I write here is a response to Rob directly, isn't it? It's the way he interacts with me and with others on this forum. I've seen you like his very long winded musings full of odd ideas not intended for you. I've not seen one occasion of any of you telling him to shut up and go elsewhere. It's a very good thing he's not offending you. I've reciprocated in the fashion I have seen displayed in threads where you don't even appear. It's a similar sort of exchange between two individuals in those, wouldn't you say? You have the freedom to be a voyeur and to consume it. You apparently do, and you do like to gossip about it. I "get" that it is hard to control one's self. It's only because of the generosity of two people who are gifting this platform with content it is begging for that you can be offended. The 5 or 6 of you that have their panties in a bunch can't help yourselves. You are worried silly about what consequences this could have on this networking project to recruit using whatever means are possible. Do keep it up if you think you will get what you desire. Where there is a will there is way. You are less likely to get a response from me if you beg for one. I'll give you a hint. If Rob wasn't so interested in exchanging in the way he does I do not know what the point of being here would be. Because he interacts there appears to be a point in reciprocating. There's a mechanism in that which is available to you to try and modify his behavior instead of mine if you want to attack the root of this "problem". I'd love to see you try and push him around. It's bad enough that you guys get to scrub the comments from your Youtube videos to make it look like the entire world is in love with your suggestions. Bacon was not Champlain hiding in Quebec you know. Give it up. Come back down to reality. Work against that sort of thing instead of filling the world with intellectual pablum. "Abracadabra" and "hocus pocus" to you. Magic is about the acceptance of suggestions. The way to negate a casting of a spell is to objectively label all attempts at it as that. I will never stop pointing out that people ae interested in performing feats of magic here. No belief equals no magic.
  3. Here's an example of someone who writes that Rawley is in possession of something that should see the light. This has been taken literally by some when in fact it could very well mean that there was much that was unprinted lying in Bacon's papers. One could chase this suggestion to Oak Island by further interpreting various texts just just as ripe for the pickings by one's imagination. Here someone is also telling us that Francis is of Baconian stock when others will tell you that this isn't the case at all. How can some be so wrong?
  4. Does it resonate with you because you are overly caught up in the search for the physical manifestation of these type of stories that use these archetypes? It's the quote at 7:13 that gives a proper context for me. Magic is what sinks into the subconscious from the past attitudes. Those are, in fact, beliefs that were once suggestions widely and unconditionally accepted that have ceased to be that. Even if one were to chase these things all the way back to a "prima theologia" there would only be old attitudes there expressed by stories whose archetypes we would recognize. We'd recognize them because they were first summoned from nature in a way that anthropomorphizes the forces of nature which are the first unknows. We know ourselves enough to always know how an anthropomorphized concept works. We have referenced the unknown using the only thing we do know. History has been full of role players who have been acting out these stories. Where Merlin is fictitious and true to the archetype, Dee is an impostor who is merely acting to influence. They are not the same thing. So would be any person today who walked around claiming to be a magician. One must not try and live the lives of characters in stories to try and suggest that the stories are literal. The place for a magician is in a story or on a stage where there is a subject and a suggestion to be made and to be accepted (for our entertainment). It's not just Dee who is an impostor. So is the priest or the shaman who steps outside of the role of being a storyteller that is in it for universal "good". We should know magicians from reading about them, not by interacting with one. The powers of the magician are fictitious. If there is any power at all it is in you who is God like. You are Hermes the three-in-one. So, piercing the veil is nothing more than travelling back in time to see how the stories looked back then. It is not a journey where we are discovering any knowledge that is lost to us which has inherent value. There are themes there which we can see as universal. We can coax them out of the stories in such a way that they are useful to us to craft new stories with today. We will remember them from the subconscious (whatever than may mean). I maintain that what is essential is that we still be writing stories which are informative of the state of our current attitudes about our shared well being. These stories must be free of anything resembling ego pursuits. These are very unlikely to come out of anything like our ships of State. We're clearly in an age of propaganda where so much is about influence and self interest (selling and recruiting). Some of that stuff is what future historians will look back on this time to single it out. It will appear that we were massively confused exactly as we have gained the ability to share stories better than ever. We should know better, but we don't. In fact, there probably already is an archetype for this type of person if you look into it. He'd be doing black magic. We're also collectively smarter in the breadth of our knowledge. When we try and use traditional storytelling techniques it often comes across as cliche. Perhaps we have grown too wise for our own good if we can short-circuit the benefit of a good story. Too many conflicting stories have probably numbed us. Religion is an obvious waste of time to those of us who'd rather not be patronized with morality tales. We are, unsurprisingly, suspicious of all motives today. We probably should be. Quality of information matters. We can sniff out fraudulent role player today better than ever.
  5. Royal Craftiness is just a euphemism for "that which is epic storytelling". It's how I have come to make sense of human pursuits. It always comes with a story. The epic storyteller has always used what already existed and has sought to broaden it in an effort capture things that may be relevant to his time. Each age has had its concerns. We have some today that are unlike any from past ages. These concerns will end up being captured by stories that later generations will see as being relevant to our time. Unfortunately, some of them will be bad movies. What you describe is play: play with words. It's meant for entertainment as well as to expand our conceptual vocabulary since it is an attempt to attach symbol to evolving ideas. It's part of a way magic evolved in medieval Europe. I do not know if the algorithms have reached you with this yet (It's just a day old), but have a look at this. It's right up your alley and mine.
  6. Everything in the past is some sort early attempt at something that is part of some evolving story.
  7. Are you alleging John Dee coined the word century now and that it doesn't come from the Latin "centuria"? You just won't stop playing the "there's still a chance this applies" card. This is simply an example of you finding a counting scheme that works in one instance and using it to make a suggestion with. Century has 7 letters. Based on the distribution of letter frequencies and their simple gematria value you should expect to find other words that will sum to 100 that have nothing to do with 100 of anything. What does one, two or three mean to you? Would any of them mean 100 if the gematria produced 100. It does happen that there are numbers whose gematria values equal their underlying meaning. That is a coincidence. You can ask an AI to write you a Python code to do that. It will spit it out in a few seconds. Any and all instances of that working are a coincidence. It could do the same for number spellings that would sum to a number you allege is William Shakespeare in disguise. I do not know why you'd want to know that, but knowing it would open new doors of suggestion for you. Part of the issue here is that you don't prefer to think in terms of "coincidence". You'd rather see the world as "synchronicities". You have been sold on the idea that everything happens for a reason. Someone successfully planted that bias in your head. I suppose we can blame Carl Jung for that. Did you know that Jung' was opposed to Sigmund Freud's "Jewish science" of psychoanalysis and promoted his own? He once suggested Jews had inferior psyches (female ones) and that they were thinking up things to compensate for their shortcomings. There's a reason why this guy was never taken seriously. He owes much of his own success to Hermann Goering's cousin from the time his views were promoted by the national socialist party within Germany. The obsession with myth and meaning went deep into German politics in the 1930s. Unfortunately, Jung's ideas have persisted with the esoteric crowd who have no reason to place him in the dustbin of history.
  8. It has. The bilateral cipher has bene tackled. Where it appears to possibly be in play (in the add-on to the plays) it doesn't say what some would want. Rob, and others, won't let his gematria go. It's too much fun, and it is very accessible. That's all they have Peet. It has the possibility to suggest that Bacon was Jesus Christ, but they have settled on less than that. To ask them to stick to things that one can, at the very least, defend with reason is something they don't feel they have to do. Bacon knew how to encode a message in such a way that it could be decodable faithfully. And he was adept at hiding those in plain sight using simple binaries. No one has found one that says that Bacon wrote Shakespeare or was the heir to a great imaginary title. If they found that then they would have an argument to present with some consistency. But they are stuck here on the fringes where like minded people can form cliques to try and give each other support in their efforts to recruit. It is all good and fine if it is done for entertainment purposes. But, you will find when you dig that many here are actually actively trying to recruit in other places. Recruiting is really all that matters to some. They see the way to getting to a point where they "win" comes from convincing people to take the plunge by accepting many hundred examples of the same old indefensible error prone manipulation of words and coincidences they call a ciphering method (one without any clear rules on how to apply it). It works where it works and that is enough to suggest that this is exactly what was intended. Some coincidences are interesting. That makes them entertaining. Everyone on this globe wants to be entertained by something. In many cases one cannot tease out a motive for the existence of a coincidence. No one could say, with a straight face, if they are seeing a truthfully relayed message either, or If they were being pranked. If they discovered the effort, they would err on the side of falling prey to it because it aligns with what they want to believe. This was Pierre Plantard's method. Teh prankster hope s that the message will be found, so he will place it where it can be found. We are here because of a significant suggestion that was made in the past which says that the works of Shakespeare were written by one man. They likely weren't. Many efforts to deal with that have also wanted to suggest that the work was of just one man. To make that compute some have needed to suggest that this one man was actually multiple literary persons. We don't know any of this. We don't even know we should be playing this game.
  9. But it wasn't, because the word, when it was invented, was not "century". It's a coincidence which is attributable to the choice of the counting scheme. It won't compute in more counting schemes than it will. You should know this. Regardless, you keep trying to make a suggestion to recruit for your indefensible belief. Furthermore, an example of it working is not proof that it will work for all words using that counting scheme. It clearly doesn't. You'd use a word which was made with two roots in Phoenician and apply a "Tudor" count if that would work, and then you would say to me that the fact that it works must mean something more than "it is an artifice". IS the root for century Latin? Do you use a Latin Gematria, a Hebrew one of a reverse upside down one where you get what you are looking for? You are trying to obfuscate to keep the possibility alive when there is no possibility for this given by reason. That would mean that favoring a myth over reason would have to be the way to go. If gooey people are prone to doing that then your message will suffice to keep some support from gooey people. Using a duality that way is how political parties work. Nobody knows who they should align with until they are told by one side how unappealing the other is. People will align themselves based on their preferences. You are going to find allies with gooey people who are told that reason os really nothing more than the work of insufferable people who think they know better than the word of a mythical God (or some other fallacy). This is a message sent to everyone, and it will recruit. This means that all the people who are clearly suffering from a condition of knowing next to nothing outside of their beliefs are prone to having a preference which biases them to aligning with one side of a duality over another.
  10. I'm prickly, you are gooey. We need each other to know what we think, otherwise we are unsure. So says MR. Watts. My wife tries the same rationale when she insults me. "Well, you deserved it!". If I do it to her she will blow a gasket and insist that there is "NEVER, and under no circumstance, a reason to insult her". This is the dynamic of a tyrant, and we must learn to live with them if we want to take what we want from them. The tyrant will always accuse you of insolence and disrespect. Having the power to chop another's head off is ultimately what it boils down to. The offended own the offense. The key is to not be offended if peace is to exist.
  11. You should just to get to the part where he talks of "prickly people" and "gooey people." lol He's a great entertainer. He was super flawed as a person, but still worth listening to. I will listen to him while falling asleep because I think his voice is perfect for that. Seldom do I get to the end of a long presentation with him...I'll nod off long before that. I also don't enjoy it as much when I am fully awake. lol The genius may be in putting you to a peaceful sleep. I'll keep him in mind on my death bed. I wouldn't have been surprise if you told me you were Alan Watts' roommate at some point. You often seem like a Forest Gump type who is one degree of separation from all the noteworthy events and people. lol.
  12. Sure, that's perfectly possible to think. You may even think that it is worth saying what you think. Some things you think may get you demerit points here. You can explore how far you can go if you want. Spend a day reading about epistemology before you conclude that anyone knows anything about what it means to know. It is a very convoluted dialogue that you will find there. What is knowing? What is meaning? How can we know what knowing is? What are the most basic concepts that we build on to arrive to our ideas about that? We don't even typically speak in the language that is used to describe these things. It's all Greek to most. If you'd rather not deal with that and assume that we have all that figured out then I am afraid I must inform you that we don't. The problem is that there is no completely squaring the circle, so to speak. We take shortcuts, mainly because we see everyone else doing the same. The world is not full of philosophers like Bacon. Trying to get into the inner vault is said to be impossible. That, if you want to call it part of an archetype story is the one that says that you simply cannot access the contents of Enoch's vault. You will trip yourself up repeatedly if you do chase it, and it will remain elusive. You'll get to the 153 foot level in a hole and the entire thing will collapse into the abyss (the more you dig the more it sinks) and you will be lucky to come out of the shaft not buried alive if you don't stop pursuing that. I have no way of knowing if this is a story that is faithful to any reality, but it would seem that we are very much stuck trying to bootstrap ourselves into a condition of knowing something about the world. You' ll recognize a version of this story was used in "Raiders of the Lost Ark" with the pursuit of the Holy Grail. When it is nearest it is still capable of dragging you into the abyss. You are never quite there. To save yourself from losing it all you must let go and be satisfied with just living in a complete mystery. We have what we have as tools to work with, and that we understand is already not giving us a faithful representation of the realty we are stuck in. That is not to say that we cannot have brilliant insights about it. Fractals have this sort of property. You can chase them into infinity on all scales. They arise from the most basic equations of give and take. That is to say one can lay down some very simple rules that can account for all of the complexity we see in the world. What are the basic rules? "To be or not to be" are two pretty basic states. If we imagine a give and take which allows for certain things "to be or not to be" then we possibly have a starting point. There are rumblings of this in our reality where detectable things pop in and out of the void/nothingness all the time. There can be something from nothing as long as there is a bookkeeping that is respected. It's fun to think about. It is also fun to think that we have designed a system of money that exploits the same properties. You can create some where there was none only if there is a rigid accounting. Borrowing money into existence is how it starts. What is created just as quickly vanishes from where it came when a debt obligation is settled. Were it not that we trust this magic there could be no economic expansion. That is true of the Universe in terms of space. Anyway, if I am nuts then I am perfectly fine with that because I do see how we were driven to question everything by being in a condition of having to just accept someone's word at face value if we don't. We all want to know the rules. What allows some to state that they know Francis Bacon is something that many others who have looked do not know? What satisfies some and not others? Do we resolve this in the court of public opinion by trying to convince people? What happens if we succeed? Have we achieved knowing then? All this is really just a form of entertainment, a la Alan Watts. Maybe that's all life is too? If we can't be entertained by living then we may want to conclude what Albert Camus reasoned and contemplate suicide. The only choice we have is really "to be or not to be". Those who decide to live will have to be entertained by their living enough to want to keep going on.
  13. Gematria was a formalism used to build words (or select them) in order that the sum of the letter values would compute with some already existing numerical representation which may very well have come from geometry and old ideas about deity (as in the case of the Sumerian pantheon of Gods where each decad had a correspondence). 40 had associations to Enki, for example. It was never intended to be a way for you to sum the character values in a word and come to a number which had a meaning that should then be ascribed to the word. If one limited oneself to having only vocabularies where that worked you'd have a problem because MANY words and expression would have to rejected by virtue of them summing to numbers already taken by some concept. That is not how things evolved. We have tons of words and expressions that sum to the same values. The thing gets even more meaningless if we allow for multiple methods of counting. When doing that we are growing the number of words and expressions that can be shown to sum to the same number. This of course favors the story teller as he has more to play with. Others were actively using Gematria? Using it unwisely in violation of logic in a way that they assumed had the power to convince? Maybe. What happened then is no different than what happens now. Go to Youtube and look up this stuff. There is no shortage of examples of people still trying to convince themselves and others of things that have no merit. The sad thing is that both the individual and his audience can succeed in creating acceptance of ANY suggestion. Not all of them get accepted widely. If Dee was talking to angels that is not unlike what some still suggest today. In many ways they feel they should be able to suggest it since they have found that someone already had. Those who take off on a voyages of discovery through what is written can find many examples of what has been discarded along the way in places where they can appear to be quite relevant (in the context of the time when the old suggestions first appeared). The Hebrew Gematria game is an example of this. It was rediscovered again in the 13th century and popularized. Efforts had to be made to stop the spread of it. It resurfaces in almost all esoteric revival period. Nobody was creating words with it times in modern that I know of. "Abracadabra" may be an example of such a thing from earlier. There is something in linguistics that is called the MERGE function. This is something humans must try and deduce about how we came to think the way that we do. This function presumably allowed us to do interesting things in the realm of set building in our mind. It's a sort of gymnastics that has rules. Sets can borrow things that are in other sets. Linguistics is the study of how we came to think. It it not a way by which we study how we communicate with words. Something very rigid is happening that allows us to communicate imperfectly. There's really nothin special in the fact we communicate. All living things do. What is special about humans has some sort of computational underpinning because we are capable of borrowing and building new sets. At some point our ancestors started thinking in a certain way that must relate to the MERGE idea we have to infer (as opposed to just knowing it). When it comes to communications between humans there's much that we may want to signal. What tends to get expressed are our preferences. If someone is making an attempt to communicate with you, and if there is no obvious collaborative intent, we can almost be certain that what is happening is that someone is trying to establish something which is preferred. I'm not sure it works that way in nature. When trees communicate they use chemicals through their root systems. They can sound the alarm and or pass on chemicals that help in combating infections or pests. It is doubtful that any tree is trying to pass on a message about which tree should be the King of all trees. It is also doubtful that a tree is tryin to trick another one into dying for another's benefit. Some of the attributes we have we are quick to call superior abilities. I suspect that our ability to convince is exactly why we have no hope as a species. We will forever convince ourselves there is nothing wrong when we are achieving what pleases us. Our thinking is the root of a lot of what we do not like about ourselves, but it is doubtful that one can have only the upside without assuming the downside. We have used myths until it was clear that myths were being used against us. We fought them back with reason. Then we almost immediately started abusing reason until it was clear that reason was being used against us. Now we will turn to myth again. We are in a time when the age of reason has let us down (the reasoning got imperfectly expressed to create advantages exactly as it recruited). The cost of that is that myths are thriving once again in an age when communication is very easy. It is very hard for men using reason to stop the proliferation of myth now. Myth promises so much. Make believe worlds are so much better than a world where one can no longer make or achieve anything he believes is. There is a myth today around the idea that things were great in the past when myths were strong. It is possible to reason all of this, but I doubt that reason is as effective as mimetic phenomena when it comes to merging minds. Our politics hinge on suggestions and their acceptance. Politicians don't even have to attempt to use reason to try and justify why some should be Gods while others clearly aren't even treated as humans.
  14. I depends what you mean by "means". If means can be replaced by "might mean" then I cannot possibly know the meaning of anything with any certainty. I could take my cue from you, not knowing from who you got your cue from. What it "is" is going to boil down to which formalism we want to treat it with. The best use is a 1:1 relationship with symbols. Here B is 2 and F is 6 works well to get us to the point where we must wonder if all occasions of F and B were supposed to point to 62, or 26, or 6/2=3, or 6x2=12, or 2/3=0.333... or 2^6=64. Depending on what we favor we ca pursue that line of thinking even further. When we go in the reverse direction and start off with F and B given, 26, does not give you the identity of anyone either. You may assume you should be looking for an individual with initials FB, but why would you? If you give me FB, I will suggest that you are referring me to the Key of F in a diatonic scale which has only one flat, B. Then I will look up what emotive quality the key of F is supposed to have and wonder whether I should feel serenity and calm from the suggestion. It is all a big can of worms. If we are willing to accept any formalism. If we are going to we must at least be able to show why the one we prefer should be the one everyone defaults to.
  15. What will be denied? Any interpretation that one gives it? He's giving clues and hiding them at the same time by using a totally unacceptable method of encryption that you take the liberty to call ciphering method? And we are supposed to know by default what is to be believed? Never! Start at the beginning with this pyramid of suggestions if you can. What is the corner stone of the suggestion? Who is the braniac that first suggested such a thing and why? The way symbols work is by a hereditary mechanism. We keep borrowing them, first from nature, and then they end up having some recognizable flavor. to us. There's no way for you to know what I have in mind right now with the number 177. It doesn't appear to have had a meaning until it is alleged to have meant "William Shakespeare" if we count this or that way. Some numbers can simply be made to appear by rather simple manipulations of counts. Other times they don't even have to. They just pop up. Case in point is the number 1881 which you have adopted as a symbol. Until the entire world has been exposed to your suggestion over and over don't expect it to float. Other things you could suggest might have a more direct path to being recognized as symbols of cyclical time. That looks merely like a date to most people. We have no clue what anyone is suggesting with the idea of masks and dispossessed Kings. If I was forced to write an essay about it I would favor suggesting that the point was to present us with the idea that each man is a version of God in his own right. You are just as entitled to be King of England as Bacon ever was. One need not be the child of a great titled whore to fit the bill. You are also just as worthy of being called a God because God is in you as much as he is in any "savage". This is what an enlightened person might conclude about the allodial rights and titles of Kings. You are a mask of God to a reasonable man. You wrote Shakespeare in another version of God, so to speak. The Shakespearean work is of no use to masks of God unless God himself is in each one. This story appeals to you because a part of you is behind it. It doesn't quite matter as much to a mushroom unless it grows on the pages of some lost folio. Others will say rather childishly: a mask means a secret identity. From there they will try and imagine a juicy secret worthy of being kept secret. "Whose identity is being hidden and why?" or "Might it be the location of the Holy Grail or the Ark?" resonates in their heads that are clearly already completely sold on the idea of the existence of these things. It doesn't even matter that it is given TO THE READER rather overtly that the Sonnets were written by God for some to disregard that as too straightforward to count as a message. It matters more what Constance Mary Fearon Pott may have thought, because she is somehow worthy of being believed in a version of some cult of personality. Never mind that some of her relatives thought she was off her rocker. She wrote books after all...popular books that resonated with uninformed persons. Sigh... Why wouldn't we favor the idea that you are the rightful King of England Rob? I think you'd make a worthy God for us too. You have all the necessary attributes of a God and of a manipulatable human that would make a great King. In fact, it is entirely within the scope of your argument that John Dee himself arranged it that we would only discover this today by way of your feigning that is was your alias Bacon that we should focus on. By tricking you he managed to inform everyone else, right? At some point we need to stop with the cleverness and ask ourselves exactly what we know. It's not much. What we can suggest is so much more.
×
×
  • Create New...