Jump to content

Sacred Geometry - please read this first


Recommended Posts

Hi all,

Seeing as I started the entire Sacred Geometry topic I thought I better just add that I’m not one to just blindly accept theories, I have to dig deep and find out things for myself. So, I took myself into Oxford  to talk to an expert historian in the area of printing presses of the era. 
E2EE9CE7-CEA3-48AF-92E1-336C2B8845CC.thumb.jpeg.f62d9cf5a142475c2414bf075f7c73e8.jpeg

You can also see a video about presses on the Folger Library website.

I still have no doubt that there are codes/ciphers in the text, first line acrostics, hidden emblems and symbolism in the headpieces and in first letter blocks (like the Francis Bacon hidden in the B below) throughout the works of Shakespeare, but I have to now revise my opinion about fancy geometry on the page overall.
 

I think some consideration to pleasing proportion to the eye may have been a factor, and some blocks may have been made to incorporate specific sacred geometry (see a block on the top right where it stands proud) but other than that I think it’s too ‘far out’  to believe they incorporated intricate geometric shapes in the layout of the page as a whole (see left) when laying text out on the press.
 

It’s also clear, when you see the process, that the odd mistake would have been made - a comma for a full stop etc. Also, things we think are significant, such as an italic in the midst of a word or two different types of T’s, might actually just be that the printer had run out of that character in normal or the same font, or had failing eyesight! No Specsavers in those days! 

Clearly the use of italics etc., would all be by design on a cover (like New Atlantis) or the Sonnets, but I’m talking about the bulk of text inside books.

I’ll leave the posts that I did up, but just wanted to comment that I’ve revised my opinion. Unless the cover is made in one complete pre-made block, to align the letters in such a complicated way on the press seems highly unlikely.

Here’s the B I referred to above, which would (obviously) be a separate printing block.

9E6E5715-E86F-4D01-A304-FDD7AEF33D84.thumb.jpeg.2b398db1fb559efcca555d3937028eeb.jpeg

Text was often arranged in these type of shapes too, but didn’t always mean there’s definitely a code beyond the visual Masonic symbolism of 3 and symbolism of what a figure may be pointing to etc.

AA72408E-08E5-4EC2-94DA-DA81194DA859.jpeg.df55fd33a33580002f388a6780e7ed54.jpeg
Kate

Edited by Kate Cassidy
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

I’ll leave the posts that I did up, but just wanted to comment that I’ve revised my opinion.

Let me say one thing. 🙂

Never underestimate the skills of artists. If they wanted to incorporate geometry into a page of letters, they certainly would have been able to if they desired.

Printers were artists and even with what we consider primitive tools, they were masters at what they did. Typos would happen, but on title pages I am sure they checked and re-checked until they believed they were "perfect", whatever perfect was to them and who they were working for. They were professionals and their reputations were important. 😉

When I first started talking about cipher numbers, word counts, line counts, etc., I'd often hear from the "profane" that nobody would have the motivation or take the time to do it. "It would be too much work! And why would they put so much effort into something that nobody could see when they could just say out loud what they wanted to share?"

Funny thing was, soon as I started to learn how the ancients used ciphers and counts, I started doing it myself and it was a fun. I enjoyed leaving number counts and ciphers in what I did. For no real reason other than it was a good time and great practice. So the comments I was hearing carried absolutely no weight with me.

Definition of "Expert" that was taught by NCR in computer engineer training c.1978 - Ex is a has been, spurt is a drip of water.

😉

 

 

  • Like 1

T A A A A A A A A A A A T
157     www.Light-of-Truth.com     287
<-- 1 8 8 1 1
O 1 1 8 8 1 -->

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Light-of-Truth said:

Kate, you are teasing us, right? The guy at Oxford told you the printers used geometry in this example? 😉

image.png.24e5e3e1781424be77d9d4869da1aeaa.png

And guess at what page this figure appears for the first time?

image.png.d14864fd67d955749150c9adf4764481.png

Page 33 = BACON ! 😉 

  • Like 1

image.png.b8c74f56d5551c745119c268cf9d3db8.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Notice the size of the letters as those three sections go down, as if the printer had to reduce them to get everything to fit into the design that was intended to fit into it. If inDeed it was an intention geometric design that matches what the finger points at on the preceding page.

 

  • Like 1

T A A A A A A A A A A A T
157     www.Light-of-Truth.com     287
<-- 1 8 8 1 1
O 1 1 8 8 1 -->

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow! Nice find Allisnum2er! Bacon described. 🙂

Kate, back to what you brought up...

I agree it may be a waste of time to look for things when they do not exist. Sacred Geometry in pages is one area along with looking for ciphers every where. In the example you offered  William Lilly is pointing to a design that happens to fit perfectly on the next page where it seems the text was manipulated to squeeze into the design. Plus the layout of the text appears to have another level of purpose beyond. In these instances, where there is a prompt to look for something, then we may sometimes find something. Maybe we end up sadly missing something left on purpose, or we find something that is our imagination only. And maybe, the Universe itself with all its mathematical properties and its own rules of synchronicity will arrange something for us to see on another level for a higher purpose.

We are having fun "with" you in this thread, as you are one of our true Baconian friends for sure. We all respect you totally.

I've been looking at this book and am amazed at what is in there. We talk about whether a printer uses geometry on a page and how hard it would be. Imagine the ancient astronomers measuring the movement of the stars and planets to the degrees and documenting all that down for the future! Blows my mind!

But back then, there was no TV, no Netflix, no internet, no radios, etc. They just paper, ink, a few tools for measurements, a developing new language, Knowledge passed down over the ages, nature, and the sky. 🙂

The argument that Bacon, few close friends and a good printer could not cipher encode the Works of Shakespeare gets tossed right out the window.

image.png.a384994d8bff07d2771d577bc425deda.png

  • Like 1

T A A A A A A A A A A A T
157     www.Light-of-Truth.com     287
<-- 1 8 8 1 1
O 1 1 8 8 1 -->

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Don’t worry I don’t mind teasing, banter OR criticism. I can take it! You definitely need to read my ebook though, Rob. I first learned astrology using those tables above (and slide rules!). Astrology/Astronomy is actually a major key to interpreting what’s encoded in Shakespeare. It all comes back to Mercury!

Back to the original post and answers though. There’s a nice video by a Mason about Elias Ashmole that references his close association with William Lilly here. 

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=EbDV04-Ej-c

Don’t think I posted this on the forum yet? 

It paints Ashmole in a rather unusual light and also says Lilly was a Mason. I’m very familiar with Lilly and I don’t think any biographer has ever found solid evidence he was a Mason, but this guy, Dr Robert Lomas says he was and the Christian Astrology (a facsimile of which I’ve had and learned astrology from since the year dot) cover rather confirms it!

Lilly also had a marble copy of John Dee’s Holy Table. There’s no doubt cryptography was their thing even though Lilly wasn’t born until 1602.

544DE77C-C182-4845-8720-38D365E0F3FA.jpeg.2b8a2c85adb789cfde8a37b9bc59358e.jpeg

It’s believed by some that all the talk about John Dee and his infamous sidekick, Edward  Kelley, communicating with angels was just a cover for their steganography. This table is not what it seems! One for you to crack, Yann.

As early as the 17thcentury, Robert Hooke postulated that John Dee’s infamous angel diaries were not, in fact, transcripts of his crystal ball séances, but rather secret intelligence reports encrypted with Trithemian steganography for dispatch to his sovereign, Queen Elizabeth I.“

http://trithemius.com/

Re the other, I perhaps wasn’t clear. My newfound belief, having had the chat and seen the smallness of each letter and how they were kept in trays with all the same letter or punctuation mark, in compartments (like those pill trays to remind you to take pills on Monday to Sunday) is that accidental mistakes within a book may happen from time to time, but I totally agree with you Rob, not so likely on a cover which would have been scrutinised by many eyes.

The historian was actually a she not a he, and she was not averse to what I was discussing. She did agree it was slightly (underlined) odd there were no words between the parallel lines on the cover of the Sonnets, as usually there are words in there, but she could think of other instances outside of Shakespeare where it had been left blank. The lines themselves are apparently commonplace made by two pieces of brass so the slightly unequal length of the two is also common.

She also said, when I asked about the excess space around the dedication,  that as the inside of the books were printed separately to the covers and the inside was printed on one sheet which was then folded into four, it would be a bit unusual that it was placed up to the top left of the page and not centered, but with the big caveat that one would have to look at the entire book to make a judgement as it might have been the way the press was set up and subsequent pages would all begin at the exact same spot (but fill the page).  

She suggested a book called Shakespeare’s Stationers. Have you read that?

Re Geometry, common sense tells me all one needs is the dimensions of the page size to formulate a template which the printers could follow as they undertook the typesetting on the press (or even marks on the press frame itself that they could follow). So I was newly questioning the really complex shapes not ones around basic squares and triangles etc. 

That shape you showed superimposed on the Lilly one Rob, as I’m sure you know, is an astrology chart.  Some astrologers still use that shape even to this day. There have always been twelve signs to cover twelve months but I’ve not ‘defected to the other side’ 🙂 in pointing out why 12 X 12  is there, just trying to piece things and likelihood’s together in my own pedantic way!  

It’s all really interesting. Strike that, it’s fascinating. 
 

Kate

 

Edited by Kate Cassidy
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Light-of-Truth said:

I agree it may be a waste of time to look for things when they do not exist. Sacred Geometry in pages is one area along with looking for ciphers every where. In the example you offered  William Lilly is pointing to a design that happens to fit perfectly on the next page where it seems the text was manipulated to squeeze into the design. Plus the layout of the text appears to have another level of purpose beyond. In these instances, where there is a prompt to look for something, then we may sometimes find something. Maybe we end up sadly missing something left on purpose, or we find something that is our imagination only. And maybe, the Universe itself with all its mathematical properties and its own rules of synchronicity will arrange something for us to see on another level for a higher purpose.

Maybe, this is something that is my imagination only , but I share it with you anyway ! 😊

Kate, you quote : 

As early as the 17thcentury, Robert Hooke postulated that John Dee’s infamous angel diaries were not, in fact, transcripts of his crystal ball séances, but rather secret intelligence reports encrypted with Trithemian steganography for dispatch to his sovereign, Queen Elizabeth I.“

Talking about Dee, Queen Elizabeth I and Bacon, here is what I just found in "Christian Astrology".

On page 158 , 158 being the simple cipher of ELIZABETH TUDOR ...

image.png.3da2733a3ff0fed028ad480e4822e0a6.png

MASTER Francis Bacon was born January 22. His sign was AQUARIUS.

WILL TUDOR (n upside-down u) -  QUEEN SON  - DEE 

Thank you Kate for the link to the video about Ashmole, and for sharing this superb photography of the Table.

In regard to cracking the code , It is really another level ! 😄

  • Like 1

image.png.b8c74f56d5551c745119c268cf9d3db8.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

You definitely need to read my ebook though, Rob.

Kate, YES YES YES! I know nothing about astrology, just a little on astronomy. One of the first visits with Lawrence 25 years ago he was the first to tell me that I needed to learn astrology as I was doing tarot readings as a side gig.

Allisnum2er, something I usually don't bring up in public is that I have seen cipher hints in the Pyramid that Dee might have been Bacon's father. I know that is way out there, but I can't just let go of that thought as the reason why Bacon was so brilliant with Elizabeth and Dee as biological parents. But not something I promote, just a thought bouncing around in the back of mind. Evidence points to Robert Dudley, I know that.

  • Like 1

T A A A A A A A A A A A T
157     www.Light-of-Truth.com     287
<-- 1 8 8 1 1
O 1 1 8 8 1 -->

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Light-of-Truth said:

Kate, YES YES YES! I know nothing about astrology, just a little on astronomy. One of the first visits with Lawrence 25 years ago he was the first to tell me that I needed to learn astrology as I was doing tarot readings as a side gig.

Allisnum2er, something I usually don't bring up in public is that I have seen cipher hints in the Pyramid that Dee might have been Bacon's father. I know that is way out there, but I can't just let go of that thought as the reason why Bacon was so brilliant with Elizabeth and Dee as biological parents. But not something I promote, just a thought bouncing around in the back of mind. Evidence points to Robert Dudley, I know that.

Dee was not his biological father (Robert Dudley) nor his foster father (Nicholas Bacon) but surely his Spiritual father ! 😉 

  • Like 2

image.png.b8c74f56d5551c745119c268cf9d3db8.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kate said, "It’s believed by some that all the talk about John Dee and his infamous sidekick, Edward  Kelley, communicating with angels was just a cover for their steganography. ".

Very important, inDeed. 😉

I "met" Dee before I knew much of anything. Strange experience. But when I began to search him on the web, a huge slice was the "Enochian" theme. Seeking anything and everything "Dee", I checked it out. Here is my personal opinion and experience below.

.....................................

When I do Bacon work, Dee has been there. "Magician" work is a joke.

I'm saying not some people are not sharing things from past to future with Dee, or any mind open to future messages from whoever sends back a message, I'm saying Dee's purpose was not to play games and practice dangerous magic. He was focused on Elizabeth and Bacon.

Kate, what you said has a duality; Dee's number and cipher work had a purpose, number two was how to use the things he encrypted. Is there a Third? Then it is why??

 

  • Like 2

T A A A A A A A A A A A T
157     www.Light-of-Truth.com     287
<-- 1 8 8 1 1
O 1 1 8 8 1 -->

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I’ve noticed that in the last, 15 years or so, more and more people are revisiting John Dee and recognising his genius and looking with new eyes at his life and work.

When I was young he was only known as the Court Astrologer (although it was always mentioned that he was also involved in Cryptography with Walsingham et al) but then swiftly disparaged for his association with Kelley.  No one thought to question the narrative. 

Re this topic about printing though, I’ve just seen a post from AP elsewhere, here’s a screenshot as I don’t know how to carry it over:

 

DF3C669F-A9B4-469D-9A5C-BFF67DA38899.jpeg.b3911c9c1c6b21f684ab70055bbc42ee.jpeg
 

This is a great example of having to understand why a letter is missing. It’s highly unlikely to be a ‘Specsavers’ mistake that may be have been made from time to time in the body of text inside a book, as the press would have been set up for this cover and what printer or assistant would get the printers own name wrong? You can see all the print on both is absolutely identical, so it definitely looks like someone’s changed the lettering at the bottom, and it’s not just the o in Thomas that’s different, don’t you think Ratcliffe appears to say Rarcliffe? Is there perhaps a clearer copy anywhere to see if this (Rarcliffe) is actually so or if caused by a slightly blurred image

45014471-7BE2-423D-982C-98DD11EF20C5.jpeg.8dc15c01a7d3cf6742ac7497f868eb89.jpeg

It might be though that the one on the left was the first print and the error was spotted and corrected for the one on the right. 

 

Edited by Kate Cassidy
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...