Jump to content

RoyalCraftiness

Members
  • Posts

    880
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    21

Everything posted by RoyalCraftiness

  1. There are 255 common five letter words that starting with "b" in the English language. As an exercise you could count the number of bees in the First Folio and multiply that number by 2 (to account for reading vertically up and down). There are 844 421 words in the First folio text. There are approximately 5.1 letters to the word in English as a rough guide. That's 4 300 000 letters, approximately. The frequency of "b" is roughly 1.5-2.1% in English texts. You can also use that as a guide. There would be about 90 437 occurrences of "b" giving about 180 000 thousand opportunities (multiplied by 2) to read a word vertically (top or down). Assuming a single "b" is settled upon there are going to be 457 000 possible 4 letter combinations of the remaining 4 letters. You are therefore roughly seeing that there is a 1 in 3 chance that there exists somewhere in the first folio one occasion of the five letter "bacon" appearing precisely vertically (up or down). It is debatable if you have even found one occasion, but let's say that you have a single one. Is it unlikely to have existed? 1 in 3 is far from unlikely odds. This also means that there should be the same likelihood to find BACON vertically in the Bible in the same number of letters. Who would have produced it? Only the typesetter can arrange for that to appear willfully. If he had produced it willfully he could have made the alignment perfect (not even a hint of non linearity) and that would be a dead give away of his intent. What meaning would it have? That's impossible to calculate even roughly. By chance alone one cannot claim that one imperfectly vertical alignment has no business being there. It does seem to not have been placed there willfully based on the fact it could have been executed better by not demanding anything more in the way of effort. Where one starts playing with anagrams the Easter egg hunts can grow significantly in scope.
  2. "..like a Stella Maria, guides the poor fisherman from afar to his home, and recalls his wandering thoughts to that other and happier one that awaits him when the storms and tempests of this life shall have passed away for ever..." Thomas Chandler Haliburton, "The Old Judge", page 3
  3. I like it better when you describe yourself as a simple person without much education, because that, at least, contains the seed of truth which explains the error or your judgement. You are ripe for being snagged by this sort of game. It's appeal is that it is accessible to you. You see many instances of what you show and assume that it must have some legitimacy, but you' re not alone in your condition. Mimetics is guiding you. We know this because you took to this sort of thing. You did not invent it I, on behalf of everyone who recognizes the common effort to give precise meaning to words, resent the idea that words are carriers of my opinions. They existed before you or I existed. You are twisting the meaning of well defined words and opening those up to muddying opinion in order to protect your vested interests again. If I stated my opinion it would be much more damaging to your cause. Opinions are of zero use. I'm going to stick with what can be shown to be abusive of defined terms. Weakening definitions is not working towards knowledge. It is trying to lessen what we know are the meaning words to destroy certainty in order to inject possibility. If a cipher is anything that is open to any interpretation (i.e. 100 must decode back to FRANCIS BACON) then there is no use to even suggest that they can be treated mathematically as formalisms. A cipher, by definition, is a strict formalism. That means it follows two-way encoding and decoding rules. Francis Bacon equals 100 is a useless statement, but it is a fine signal IF it was intended to have been used. What does it mean? A signal is not something that comes with one possible interpretation. 33 is a possible signal and 40 is a possible signal. The many hundreds of uses of 40 in the Bible is something that anyone could have simply copied without giving you a meaning beyond what a well entrenched belief might have to say about it. Attempts to pin a meaning to signals are examples of suggestions trying to get themselves accepted. This has been going since forever. If I give you 3 I am not encoding anything with that, and I am only possibly pointing you to a trinity concept. The interpretation games are not an attempt at decoding what I mean. They are attempts at reading minds. Only I can confirm what you think if you are trying to read my mind. In showing what people here have put an emphasis on by quoting him, the Truth for Bacon is completely given and non negotiable in the religious sense and separate from the study of everything else under the Sun FOR HIM. This is beyond troublesome to those who would allege he is not signaling for those Truths he believes are unassailable. There's evidence that it is what keeps being signaled, but we do not know that. Please stop misusing the word cipher. It is as maddening as the statements that are made to suggest Bacon gave us the scientific method. On the matter of insulting and at laughing people who have every legitimate reason to point of the folly of the statements being made and the "tricks" being attempted, it's not scoring anyone any points in their favor. Its childish polarizing behavior that will get you marginalized even more. All these feeble Baconian shenanigans were put in their place a long time ago for being subjective. Its now time to play by the rules and show the world the strict ciphers you allege are there AND to call things that are possibly signals just that. After you have established what you think they are pointing to, you have to go about showing the world something which implies something or admit that you are still just guessing. The only people that matter in the quest of the betterment of our knowledge are those who can falsify the falsifiable. Dabbling in the rest is a fool's errand of trying to operate on the unfalsifiable as if that was scientific reasoned behavior. Who can disprove someone's imagination? Science refuses to touch the unfalsifiable, with good reason. The unfalsifiable is unfalsifiable. Bacon never died is unfalsifiable. Bacon was Samuel de Champlain is unfalsifiable. Quoting people who may have believed that in order to suggest evidence is not scholarship. A statement made about a cipher is opening yourself up to a beat down if you are playing fast and loose with the meaning of that. And beat downs is exactly what theorists are entitled to by virtue of wanting to play games with unfalsifiable claims. There's no way to build up to knowledge without falsifying statements. You destroy your way to better understanding of statements you attempt. If you can't you try harder. Mere efforts to convince will create nothing but a cornucopia of beliefs and positions like what Bacon harbored about the existence of God. What is opinion is that there should be an authorship question. There's a fork there which divides two opinions.
  4. Why would they not possess the work and mull it over carefully if they had a professional interest in cryptography? The work contains a description of reliable methods and improvements on existing methods. The cipher wheel and the substitution cipher are treated, both perfectly valid types of rigid formalisms which yield unambiguous interpretations. There is nothing in this work that is advancing the use of things that do not constitute proper ciphers. An example of the latter would be subjectively practicing reverse gematria which can only ever be called signaling to pattern recognition if it was used. Signaling to point to a nearby cipher is possible. Was it done? What do we have in Shakespeare which shows evidence of ciphering? Counting word values is not deciphering. Interpreting such values is akin to palm reading. Piling up coincidences is not ciphering either. That is suggestion strengthening. To be able to speak of ciphers is to be able to show them and not just allege they are there by association with ambiguous signaling. This is more of the same guilty by association type of suggestion we typically see. Bacon read books on ciphers therefore he used invalid methods of ciphering? No, in fact he developed a very good form of that which has been shown to be very powerful and useful. Credit should go to any critical thinker who points out what tricks some of the suggestions naming this work are up to. It is an attempt to appear scholarly by reaching into what can be shown and taking from it possibilities to carve out a space for other suggestions to exist. To do valuable work is to falsify suggestions, not to enlarge the space of possibility for one's views. "We are going to show what is possible" means nothing as evidence. It should always be derided. It has no place in academia. Numerologists are not capable cipher decoders. If one was willing to disqualify everything used to suggest ciphers which are not ciphers I wonder what would be left? Probably just dog whistling among people who have their minds set about what they want to show. You have to really respect the people who critically oppose this sort of thing. Here they are mocked out of mathematical ignorance by the most simplistic of tribalism which wants to paint the critic as the fool, the enemy and the "other". There's a very good reason why this ciphering suggestion business has been going nowhere for over 175 years. You have to be able to show what you allege is there, and show how it works rigorously. The age of Victorian parlor tricks is well beyond us. When a cipher gets produced the critical exercise will move on to verifying that it is in fact the case. That can't be done at this point.
  5. Of the advancement and proficience of learning IX bookes, ... 1640 : Bacon, Francis, Viscount St. Albans. : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
  6. Make the long part of the cross the diameter of the circle and see where that forces the arm ends to be to coincide with the circle also. Then report me the angle between end of arm to top of cross please.
  7. Okay Henry. No doubt from page 40, 18 lines down, to where forty is written. I've just realized something. The Summer triangle is an asterism depicting one triangle. Triangulum depicts 2 of them intertwined. That's 3 triangles which we can represent as 1/3+2/3=3/3. That is perfectly symbolized by 33.3 + 66.6= 99.9. To splice the globe in two slices along 3 Meridians that are 1 and 2 pieces respectively is a perfect correspondence. And with 3T we are talking Triple Tau (T.T.) which conceals the 4T (forty). The astronomical T you can see if your train your Jacob's staff (essentially a T) to 40 degrees if you are at the equator of the planet. Otherwise get yourself to latitude 40 and look directly over head once per day. The fourth T will be illuminating you face .. It is as I suspected, a story true on an empirical front also.
  8. Yup, that's the non religious, or empirical, take on it.
  9. I'm going to give you a secret spell Bacon whispered in my ear, but I don't want you to cast it: 5/8 = 8/5 + 1/(5x8) Don't lose sleep over why that is (like me). You can draw this spell by putting a 5 x 8 cross in a circle. The thing is an approximation of Phi and a symbol for 4T (the Holy Royal Arch).
  10. The equilateral triangle being perfect in it's high symmetry might make it be a good symbol for Anu. Don't forget that word for year has always been tied to Anu. In French it is "an". In Latin "Annum". In English you see it with "annual". Anu could have been see as being made of six parts. That would be his family which was the pantheon of Gods. Enki was associated with the fourth decad (40). He was the Good Lord of the Earth who was associated with water and magic. You just keep counting in ten units up to 60. It's like a hybrid 6 and 10 system.
  11. People have been speculating about the choice of 60 for a long time. We have clay tablet evidence that the thing may be related to the fact that the equilateral triangle was known then. 6 of them put side to side completes a full revolution that one can circumscribe with a drawn circle. It is with this six and the fact that the decad was already existing as a counting system (likely because of our digits) that one can attribute a decad to each of the six. The main pantheon of Sumerian God had a sky father, Anu, associated with 60. To be born and return to the Sky God implies 6 x 60. There are a whole lot of twists on observable coincidences that could be used to try and explain it. The cycle of 360 would be close to a solar year and attaching small cycles with large cycles would be possible. That could be so impressive that one may want to count in these units too. 360 is a highly divisible number. To express a fraction of a year is therefore easy to do with fractions of 60. In time there were efforts to make the circle be in 400 units, but 360 stuck for good reason. It's very effective at producing coincidences. In your poem the 3'oclock position is the Spring which you saw as G in the 24 position alphabet wheel. Autumn would be 9 o'clock would be T. AA would be the full cycle. Summer is 6 and it has that Summer triangle connotation to me. Where have we seen that before. lol
  12. I'm much more of the opinion that Bacon was enamored with Phi, actually. You can represent Phi as a segment length with just a circle and a square. Pi is related to Phi in circle expansions, but that relation is much more obscure to the layman. I think he explored all the aspects of that in his efforts to devise methods to determine longitude by astronomical observation (before there were reliable nautical clocks). 1.6180 in degrees, minutes and seconds is 1 degree 61 minutes and 80 seconds. That is 2.15 degrees when converted to decimal. That's essentially the longitude difference between London and Paris. I don't think it's a coincidence Bacon shifted the Meridien in his geographic considerations. By doing so he managed to get the longitude differences between Jerusalem and the Mahone Bay point to work out to 100 degrees divided in 66.6 and 33.3 tranches. That's essentially the 3:1 proportion made by shifting from a symbolic Phi amount. The 66.6 he then paired with 44.4 to be in 3/2 proportion. Absolutely nothing of elegance comes out of the numbers which are not shifted. They would not look as obviously elegant to the casual observer and; therefore, be concealed by a harmless turning of the cipher wheel. The Oak Island legends even included the mention of an offset which many have tried applying on land on lot 18. If one knows of a rumored offset and knows not what to do with that one is left with nothing but his imagination. The fact that Herge incorporated that same detail (coordinate shift from London to Paris) in his own take of the solving of the TT mystery in his Aventures de Tintin hints that the "trick" was possibly appreciated by some. To me that suggests there were Masons who knew of the link to the MB point, but knew nothing about what it could possibly be telling (they were not necessarily empiricists after all). Later Masons developed a story for what was on the end point of the line I am referring too. About a generation before Herge, Lewis Carroll seemed to understand that too, but he parodied the search for meaning in the journey there. As I've been showing graphically, the Pillars in relation to the Mahone Bay point is Phi if one makes the distance of he first part of that line equal to one. One simple, yet captivating, Mercator map based observation would allow for the use of it. On it's own it's probably not enough to define the points, as no one will appreciate a divided line without ends. That is why I suspect Rawley added the detail which included the Miter of St Peter in Sylva Sylvarum. The "Great Turk" works too if you can make sense of that when you detect the 18 degree angle of tilt that is echoed in the Sonnets frontispis geometry which is identical. So, yes, time can in this case help us to reveal a possible secret. Convert Phi expressed in degrees, minutes and seconds and observe. It still requires pattern recognition. I've looked at the clock face in that image in detail. There's somethin there to be made of the T alignments. They produce the 40, 60, 80 triangle that represents the Summer triangle. That makes a degree of sense to represent, as the the other end of the line is also a triangle (Triangulum=the Miter of St Peter). One Ground Point is East over the Nile Delta and the other is West at around latitude 40 degrees where there is the cross near the eagle. That was also Herge's solution to his mystery. You had an apostle with a cross and an eagle in that story where the island whose location was shifted was a dud. The solution was presented as having been right under their noses all along. Well, i think it is also the case with Bacon. I think he is pointing us to something we actually already know but forget to live by. There seems to be later evidence of the use of the same "Baconian" geometric consideration that works to implicate Providence Rhode Island and Washington significantly later. Again that would imply that maybe some knew how to work this gometry for symbolic effect.
  13. To use degrees, minutes and seconds would be a useful way to relate back to the sexagesimal system. Experiencing apophenia is a human occurrence in the human condition. It is certainly part of our abilities to see patterns, therefore we should expect to suffer from its pitfalls. It's not an insult to the beast; it's the nature of the beast. And by that I am not linking you to 666 even if there are ways to do so dear sinner. It's difficult to separate what is intended to have meaning and what is not. I would not want anyone to attack you for just being a sinner and fitting the behavior pattern of Satan. Coincidence has for long been used as a justification of the idea that there is someone with a plan which accounts for them. When we think we see a plan we first need to ask ourselves if that's the case. Luckily with Bacon we do know of things he did plan so we can at least stay to that if we are suggesting things. Then there are those who are convinced he planned other things we do not know he did on account of the amount of coincidences they see in a rather large book that is not known to be written by him. That being said, I have myself been insulted from head to toe for even looking at what appears to be extremely coincidental. The way I tend to look at it is that we cannot dismiss the possibility that someone before us suffered the apophenia and was guided by it in their story telling. To have seen apparent patterns in nature and in numbers and deduced from that the idea of an architect God who used number to construct the world is an example of it. We can't even deny that it wasn't the case. So, it's all fair game to look at if you ask me. Looking at the beliefs never should imply that you are becoming a believer of anything. No one can argue that you're not producing interesting things, but everyone should ague with you about them to test the arguments, as opposed to simply annoy. It's not enough to just produce and reinforce a suggestion. I wouldn't be here today if it wasn't for the fact that Bacon got put front and center in the Oak Island story in the 1890s. To satisfy myself that he had no business being there I ended reinforcing the idea that he had a possible academic interest in the area in general that stems purely from mathematical coincidences. If someone prior to me believed that then it makes great sense that they could have acted upon it and painted that picture in a way that might suggest what they believed that was about. I am always looking for the way to falsify the suggestion that accounts for the story, because the stories are real and they do circulate. The truth is a much more complex than we can ever imagine. We tend to suggest very linear chains of events which can be clearly reasoned in basic thinking steps we can show are possible. That's our attempt to deal with complexity with a much smaller number of variables. The single most common way to suggest something that exploits numbers is to count things, to see the patterns inherent to number and then transpose them back to possible words that are free of meaning until we build a story that involves them. I admire the way Lewis Carroll did it. For him it was the number 42, but it is best thought of as forty-two, the sequel to the story of 40 (4T). That is what he intended if you ask me. He made it about pi, Phi, the inverse, the mirrored plane, the irrational and the infinite too. He would also have said he was inspired by others who had written in such a way. Many credit him for that style, but it wasn't his.
  14. I've been looking into the MWW for a while. What led me there the page number 40 (4T). There's a section on the right hand side of page 40 that starts 18 lines down. You will see the "Forty" written there as a meaningless repeated reference to the page number. It mentions the Sonnets and refers to it cheekily as the "book of Riddles". The MWW dates to at least 1602. The Sonnets were thought to be written in the 1590s and only later published. There could be a reference to a preexisting work here, although scholars would never suggest that from the context of the play. As a cue for anyone delving in what might be suggested it has some possibility. There's also the curious fact that Abraham Slender is referring to a girl named Alice Short-cake. Those are two "AS" suggestions who are alleged to have met at Allhallowmas (A...S) two weeks prior to All Sainst Day. That's 4 "AS" suggestions in an exchange between two characters named Simple and Slender. The S itself can be thought of as a reference to 18. AS can be seen as 1+18=19 or T. We rediscover and allusion to 4 T which is forty, phonetically speaking. I'm all for going to the Sonnets (Sonnet 18) and discovering that bit about the fair youth who is not the author of his own lines and noticing that this is said of Young William in this play too. In fact, I am also quite suspicious of the fact that the Sonnets is a book containing at least one sort of riddle that revolves (pun intended) around 18. You will find that the construction of the frontispiece presents a hidden geometric suggestion detectable by the use of a T.T. (Thales Theorem) application to suggest 4 T(riangles). The end product has been rotated 18 degrees from vertical for a reason we might want to consider. Curious fact: the first folio contains 18 plays never before published. So says the AI, I'm sure someone may object to that. I found the detail amusing. There are 39 Shakespearean plays + the Sonnets to consider I would say. Outside of that there is Bacon's own works if he was involved in the clever hide and seek.
  15. Words are spells. You, or I, are magicians. The way you put them together will have an impact on the strength of them. The spells that will convince will create acceptance of suggestions. Suggestions would possibly create beliefs, and with beliefs you would achieved the transformation you were looking to achieve. It is always about achieving a transformation with magic. We can shape minds with spells. We just don't call the output spells, but we could if we wanted to. Magic comes from the word. That's why God used the word to conjure up the Universe in the Judeo-Christian stories. There was a prohibition against using the name of God because that eliminated the possibility of starting to spread words to slight him or defame him. Mind you, the Hebrews loved doing this to the Canaanite Gods. "God of feces" is what some of the graffiti that has been found in many examples suggests. There was a clear penchant for scat in the mocking of the other tribe's God(s). Wordcraft as it was practiced in the early 16th century was very often attaching / sewing word roots together in order to give a meaning that could be deciphered from the two roots. This way of making words had a parallel in Egypt. Tut-ankh-Amun is an example. Each word in it has a contribution to the end meaning. The Royal Craft is symbolic geometry and it was what was used to position temples in Egypt in relation to stars like Sirius. It came out of that culture because they were the first to have a concept for the angle. Surveying was a God like attribute. The methods and the standards of measure where kept safe in a chest in the Temples of Amun. They would periodically be paraded on the days which were celebrated. These were known as "barques of Amun". The barque and the Arks are cousins. If you want to position your temple in this world you'll need the contents of the Ark. A pair of compasses, a straightedge and a ruler will do. All our standards are looked after for us today, thankfully. In the Greek, you' ll find Jesus depicted as a magician. That's an acceptable way to suggest that someone's words have significantly affected others. The beliefs around Jesus had a following. Transformation, or magic, is central to Roman Christianity. The transformation of the body of Christ is accompanied by the Latin "Hoc est enim corpus meum". That spell we have shortened with "hocus pocus". And the expression has become a euphemism for magic oration. The priest will break up the body and spread it around in a reenacting of the Osirian myths. Everyone goes about like there's nothing weird about it, lol.
  16. Here's what I want to add here to give some context to the time this was produced, as opposed to trying to tie it back to things previously written we do not know apply. The image has been carefully designed. It presents us with obvious lines and points of interest. The veil or the curtain is opened by 33 degrees. The same base points for an angle of 44 degrees to the star above the globe which is in prominence. The other two points of prominence in the curtain are the knots (B3, C3). They form an angle of 55 degrees with the mid point of the base of the triangle formed by the curtains. We immediately discover that the intention here is to present us with the Pythagorean 3:4:5 relationship. The knots also relate to the star in prominence (A3) by an angle of 108 degrees which is the perimeter of the perfect Masonic square ashlar (4x27). 108, in esoteric parlance, is a cosmological proportion that is informing the size and distances of the astrological bodies. Furthermore, the coffin here has straight sides which we can project to the bottom and discover that the angle there is 27 degrees, so again the side value of the ashlar and the representation of 3^3. The globe here is showing two great circles (wider bands) which are crossing. The other lines on it are longitudes. The detail on the globe is not sufficient for me to position anything with it. The star you mention, if it is intended to represent something with its worldly projection can be imagined to be the Ground Point for a star (using it's declination and right ascension values in lieu of coordinates). It could that of the Stella Nova, but we cannot say. My takes: 1: Newton was a Freemason. 2: The medal is produced by someone who knows this. 3: the maker may also be a Freemason It is well known that there existed, and still exist, a subset of Freemasonry where part of the imagined lineage of the origin stories (which the institution of Freemasonry does not back or support) goes through Bacon. We are left with the possibility that we could very well encounter suggestions of the sort. Bacon is absolutely an influence on the later Freemasons by virtue of what some believed about him. The Royal Society was loaded with Masons who recognized Bacon as a father figure. Ashmole was actually much more than that. He was a self described "disciple" of Francis Bacon. So when we talk of a cult of Francis Bacon we have an idea of where we can turn to in order to see it at work. Sylva Sylvarum isn't Bacon's creation. It's Rawley's. I'd love to say that Bacon was reaching for Jakob Bohme's evolving Christian ideas, but it may in fact be Rawley we are detecting. There is a very real possibility that Rawley is taking liberties, because the SS title page is an attempt to alter the similar image which we know from the Advancement of Learning. In that one there isn't the overt Christian mysticism of SS. There appears to more in that one that is about what I would call empiric relationships between shapes. Rawley's name on that page mentions that he is a member of the Great Council. The Great Council protected the religious interests of England. They were the sentinels. Rawley and Bacon were very close friends. I do not know to what degree Rawley is putting words in Bacon's mouth, so to speak. All I know is that Bacon's swan song's title page is curiously of a flavor that I would call Christian with a hint of old Gnostic Christian ideas.
  17. Out of continued curiosity I've examined what we can extract from the construction of the image. You' ll notice that there's a period above the tetragrammaton which is of interest. I've joined it to the first occasion of a detail which touches the border of the image below. That would be the points that represent the plane of the top surfaces of the bases on which are placed the two columns (JB). When one asks Geogeba to spit out the angle made here with the period above it produces our forementioned 53 degrees. Without even checking anything else this means we know that there must exist a square here going through these points with corners that are on a circle. I've shown exactly that with the dotted lines for anyone who would question it. This is a repeat of what is seen atop the Masonic compass and square where the angle of 53 degrees is located. Here it is very clearly in the position of he Sun. Of note the columns J and B could be used to suggest Jakob Bohme.
  18. "Aurora" is Jakob Böhme's master work which caused the greatest stir in Europe among intellectuals like Bacon. It was described in its day as a work issued of pure revelation (ca. 1600, the year of the Stella Nova). It's considered to be a major influence on German mysticism and of Rosicrucianism. It is famous for it mystical delving into the natural links of God to the Sun and the stars. When you see 53 think Sun, as it is clearly shown to you descriptively in Sonnet 53. This is a portion of what is said abut the Sun: "Now if we consider rightly of the sun and stars, with their corpus or body, operations and qualities, then the very divine being may be found therein, and we may find that the virtues of the stars are nature itself. If the whole wheel, circumference or sphere of the stars be well considered, then it is soon found that the same is the mother of all things, or the nature out of which all things are come, and wherein all things stand and live, and whereby everything moveth; all things are made of these powers, and therein they all abide eternally." Furthermore one can sense that there are in this work the roots of the stories which revolve around the lone tree in the forest. I am partial to the idea that it is what is informing the Bacon title "Sylva Sylavrum" with its obvious solar imagery and its linking of it to the "mundus intellectualis" of men. From the preface there are these point that JB has made. (there are 86 listed). 33. But because they knew not the precious tree, which spread its branches over them all, all of them ran after and to the factors, and bought of them mixed false wares instead of good, and supposed they served for health: But because all of them longed after the good tree, (which, however, moved over them all), many of them were healed, because of their great desire they had to the tree. For the fragrancy of the tree, which moved over them, healed them of their wrath or fierceness and wild nature, and not the false wares of the factors: this continued a long time. 40. For the prince of wrath or fierceness in nature gave his power to the tree, to spoil men that did eat of the wild fruits of the factors: Because they forsook the Tree of Life, and sought after their own cleverness, as mother Eve did in Paradise, therefore their own innate quality predominated in them, and brought them into strong delusions, as St Paul saith. [2 Thess. ii. 11] And the prince of wrath or fierceness raised wars and tempests from the wild tree towards the north, against the people and nations that were not born of the wild tree; and the tempest that came from the wild tree overthrew them in their weakness and faintness. 53. In the meanwhile they served the prince of darkness according to the impulse of the wild nature, and the precious tree stood there only for a May-game or mocking- stock, and many lived like wild beasts, and led a wicked life, in pride, pomp, stateliness and lasciviousness, and the rich consumed the labour and sweat of the poor, and oppressed him in addition. By tying your to expose to the medals' creator you are exposing us to potentially only that person's beliefs which may be informed by the same counting game you are presenting. If it is correctly seen and interpreted in error who will be the wiser to it? I think you are discovering the logic of previous men and the suggestions that grabbed them. I don't think it is useful to show that men have believe that Bacon had written Shakespeare. To show it is not to know it. Rosicrucianism is so closely tied to JB that it would impossible to suggest that Bacon could be involved in that German phenomena and not know of him.
  19. Be careful. Bacon certainly understood that a cipher had to be well hidden, but he also understood that it had to have a clear solution (be explicitly decipherable). Where there is the least bit of subjective leeway there is no powerful cipher. The witt cannot reasonably apply to the deciphering, but it can to the hiding. This we have covered often with his bi-lateral cipher which is incredibly easy to hide using any covert binary. With a proper key the solution is precisely given. A cipher that has many possible solutions is akin to a suggestion generating machine. Who would go out of his way to be so imprecise? Maybe one playing games. It's possible that someone is in fact bombarding us with suggestions, but I see no easy way to narrow them down to anything specific. Finding Bacon suggested all over the printed works does not tell you if he is being presented as the author of the works, an exploiter or partner of Shakespeare or a mastermind behind a collective undertaking, for example. A lot of the artifices we get presented with are related to the First Folio printing layout. What is to stop us from thinking that Bacon may have had an involvement in that only? There are many ways to convince one's self and/or poke holes in ideas when there are only suggestions. Some of the suggestions you will encounter are more palatable than others, meaning that there is an obvious need to not take too many liberties. I've often expressed that there is no shortage of opportunity to state that Francis Bacon was Jesus Christ if we are going to rely only of what is possible to suggest and what might want to be believed. It would be a great coup to find a bi-lateral cipher that was explicitly stating something of the grandeur that some suggest is being given by less. So far, I have seen only collections of things which are stacked in an effort to build an impressive pyramid of hope. To say that some dearly hope that Bacon wrote Shakespeare is not an exaggeration. There is even what I call "hope beyond hope" in some instances.
  20. It's not unreasonable to think that the character names are chosen to give another level of meaning. I considered this portion of the play recently for another reason and was triggered in another way. Who are the sentinels (the guards) possibly referring to in a figurative sense? The names may be a clue. Francisco may point us to the Franciscans who acted as the sentinels of papal powers as inquisitiors with the Dominicans. Barnardo certainly does recall the most famous of the Dominican inquisitors, Bernardo Gui. "Stand and unfold yourself" is a pretty accurate description of what it meant to be put in front of the Inquisition and to be laid bare. It's reminiscent of one's final judgement. The words "Long live the King " are Biblically inspired. I believe they come from the book of Daniel 2:4 (a book of end times prophecy). The King here is signaling out God, as it is Nebuchadnezzar who is expressing this to Daniel. The line which you point out is very evocative of the idea of "one coming upon his hour". That is to say, approaching death and judgment. The fact that it has 33 letters is only too supportive of the fact that this may be a correct interpretation. Jesus "came upon his hour" at the age of 33. This was a very strong symbolic idea behind 33 for Christians. It is a number which repeats the 3 of the trinity. it has a meaning which is often tied to a perfect time or place. The fact we are also coming upon page 153 is also significant in my estimation. 153 is that perfect number which is associated with the perfection of the soul in heaven. On a 360 degree circle 153 and 333 stand opposite. The pair was always assumed to have had very strong symbolic value (3 x 3 is a trinity of threes). You will come across the major emphasis that 3 ^ 3 was given also. 27 is a great Masonic carrier of meaning. Like so many of the "clues" we see in Shakespeare there appears to be an awful lot of this obsessing over death (a Protestant obsession). It's not surprising because it was very much in vogue to reevaluate this for Protestants who stood against papal power. It's easy to get put on many different paths with 33. I've encountered it in many places. You'll find that Jerusalem is 33.3 degrees East of Paris, for example. BTW, that section starts with a W given as two Vees. This we could suspect is involving the Latin "Vivat" which stands for "long live". The other V is typically Veritas paired with it. Vivat Veritas=long live the Truth .The truth is a Christian Truth. A "hamlet" is a small village or outpost. It' s possible to think that England itself was being signaled as being a tiny remaining hamlet of the Truth. One could probably argue that it is not in the character of the Shakespeare from Stratford to be saying this sort of thing. This is much more in the vein of a true zealot. I'm not exactly sure how deep Bacon's beliefs ran. If he was a Rosicrucian then he had some differing point of belief about the End times which would have clashed with other Protestants.
  21. 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.
  22. 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?
  23. 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.
  24. 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.
  25. Everything in the past is some sort early attempt at something that is part of some evolving story.
×
×
  • Create New...