Cryptography - An Indispensable Guide

[RoyalCraftiness]

The suggestion in this thread seems to be to arm yourself with anything and everything you can to make a suggestion that can be useful to forward a preexisting idea. What seems to be happening, and I see a lot of it, is that people are collecting a very long lists of number to word/expression equivalencies them are generating from many translational schemes to then cite them as soon as they see an opportunity, irrespective of where it is found or the fact that there is no rhyme or reason to it being there. The game cannot be to think certain key words or expressions are being given and to find how to get them from treating any text or illustration. This is a belief that one knows exactly what should be found. You will find exactly what you are looking for with that approach. Every time you do find an example it will appear to confirm all others. On the road to getting a suggestion accepted it is the sort of trick that appears to produce the desired acceptance in the suggestible. When acceptance is produced that then becomes the external confirmation that the exercise has value.

This sort of thing was treated very well in a purely statistical critique that was published at the time "The Bible Code" was all the rage after Oprah had recommended it. There's simply no end to what can be suggested if one wants to look hard enough and incorporate many schemes. This is especially true of word numbering/counting schemes. The end result, of course, was to want to prove that there is such thing as prophecy and magic. That was not proof even it created acceptance of the suggestion. Magic in ancient times, and still today, revolves around the creation of unconditional acceptance. It can be to produce it with your eyes, your senses or your mind. All methods of suggestion are acceptable.

I don't know if any of you do cryptograms/cryptoquotes. Anyone who does them knows that you need at least a certain number of words having a certain amount of repetition within them for it to be useful. If only a word was given, there would be many thousands of substitution patterns that could produce a meaning. Well, the same is true in reverse. If you arm yourself with hundreds of ciphering schemes you can take a text which has no cipher within it, dissect it to exactly the right length until a very small sample makes something one likes appear over and over. When your parsing is done at the level of a few words its a matter statistical certainty that you will have success.

What there isn't to be found anywhere here is a warning about getting overly enthusiastic with this sort of thing. When something of little to no value is done over and over, someone who does understand the overuse of it will comes to it and they will immediately see that the entire argument is a flimsy house of cards. Add that will offend all who have accepted that it ought to have been possible because it worked within a group of likeminded people to a high degree of satisfaction.

Bacon was not a fan of bad syllogism. Why would he had used it so profusely to try and induce belief? Is it because he understood the true nature or magic?

 

 

[Light-of-Truth]

8 hours ago, RoyalCraftiness said:

What there isn't to be found anywhere here is a warning about getting overly enthusiastic with this sort of thing.

We have had conversations regarding what you posted above. 😉

I am aware of how I am. Sometimes its hard to keep both of my feet on the ground.

That said, certain numbers in certain places may be significant. Fluff and substance can get stirred around a bit in the same bowl, and sometimes the lines between them get fuzzy. Generally the thought is that there is no way everything we see is real, yet on the other hand some of what we see is real.

[Light-of-Truth]

9 hours ago, RoyalCraftiness said:

There's simply no end to what can be suggested if one wants to look hard enough and incorporate many schemes.

So right now we are approaching the end of the first Tier in the Sonnets Pyramid Design and we are wrapping up Sonnet 11.

http://www.light-of-truth.com/pyramid-GMT.php#Line0148

Look at where Tier 1 ends and Tier 2 begins. The first Tier has 154 Lines which is the number of Sonnets in the collection. Each Tier has 26 Days and we see the first Tier finish at the end of Day 26 at 11:59:59 PM. Tier 2 begins at 12:00:00 AM with Sonnet 12. The Line that begins at 12:00 AM on Line 1 of Sonnet 12 is:

VVHen I doe count the clock that tels the time,

If you add up the first letters of the 14 lines of Sonnet 11 (AIATHWIALHLWST) using the 24 letter cipher codes we have 157 Simple cipher, one of the Seal numbers. In fact, If you add up the first letters of the first 14 Sonnets (FWLWTTLMIFAVON) you get 287 Kaye cipher to Seal the Sonnets in one way.

The last two Lines of Sonnet 11 say:

She caru'd thee for her seale,and ment therby,
Thou shouldst print more,not let that coppy die.

My interpretation of these two lines is that Elizabeth "caru'd" Bacon to be Sealed with her Seal which was 157 and 287. By naming her son William Tudor, to become King of England and soon as he had an heir to take over the throne from him, he would have been known as William Tudor I which adds up to 157 Simple and 287 Kaye thus being Sealed. That's why Bacon wrote the it was meant for him to have a son, "print more" and not let the Tudor line end, "not let that coppy die"

So back to the quote by RoyalCraftiness, "There's simply no end to what can be suggested if one wants to look hard enough and incorporate many schemes."

What is real from the above? Is it serious Baconian treasure hunting, or "of little to no value"? If any of it is real and Bacon orchestrated the patterns, the Seal, and his messages, why would he do that?

The reason, if it is true, might be that he had a story to tell that he was not able to share openly. Also he might have a lot to teach us about how some things work, like numbers and patterns. But mostly, I suggest that it would be have been as much fun for him and his friends to conceal and hide thoughts as it is for us to discover.