Jump to content

The Fraudulent Friedmans


Recommended Posts

I would like to share with you some ideas that I had yesterday regarding the tombstone of William and Elizebeth Friedman.

First of all, I think that the insignia is a clue , a guide ...

2050901793_2022-06-16(8).png.01d959a80e7bb6229a8fb64313304782.png

Then, I noticed that there were multiple ways to form the number 33 ...

1836598263_2022-06-16(3).png.0038bafbdd4888167914a63c48a005b7.png

And regarding the importance of the number 121 ...

1082700496_Sonnet121.png.61cb62ad2bd5dcef23586ce71ce9188b.png

The rest is maybe a little far-fetched but anyway, that are only some ideas ...

637237483_2022-06-16(4).png.5c25564ef4b4a19fdecbc2a482c1e453.png

And from "ADON" I tried to find "ADONIS" and I found it by playing with the numbers of the year 1891 ...

1890196584_2022-06-16(9).png.4a5841d72e29187642d74c8b4eb81b49.png

 

https://fr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fichier:ANCExplorer_William_F._Friedman_grave.jpg

(Detail with photomontage the year 1891 was replaced by SIA by me)

 

Edited by Allisnum2er
  • Wow! 2

image.png.b8c74f56d5551c745119c268cf9d3db8.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Goe,ye giggy-Goose.

That was on page 62, Henry IV, after the two BACON hints and the word "Hang" that the cover of this book of lies directs us to check out. Reminder that this IS the book that almost destroyed a valid and proven Baconian cipher treasure hunt for Truth.

Here is a Joke on me:

I was frustrated yesterday and today trying to find a total online version of THE SHAKESPEAREAN CIPHERS EXAMINED. (Kaye cipher 777 using modern 26 letter codes).

Yet, the cover looks so familiar to me. I have not read it, but I know the look of it. I went to my book shelf, and I have it. First edition, great shape, I can't remember when I got it, maybe Lawrence sent it to me, or I bought it on eBay, I have no idea. I never read it. But I have had it a long time, it is part of the color and design of the books on my shelf.

Here is an iPhone pic of page 157:

image.png.2986ddb6daa429f9d31c88d4f9260655.png

"Wild Goose Club" on page 157? Really?

All I can say is, "Goe,ye giggy-Goose."

🙂

 

  • Like 1
  • Wow! 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

11 minutes ago, Kate said:

No one wants to be the one who pulls the plug with the result people in the Will Shakespeare industry are unable to feed their family, so they’ll continue to try and find ways to say you (all Baconians) are wrong or deluded.

Interesting thought. I'll suggest, and be willing to a FRIEndly discusion that the Truth about Bacon will have no impact on the tourism of Stratford of Avon. It may boost it by a lot. And another family feeding tourism industry will pop around St. Albans.

Shakespeare will be adored and loved as long as Humanity survives. It was built to be Permanent, and with Strength (Boaz and Jachim, 157 and 287 in whatever order).

Right now Truth vs Lie is where we are, not only on who wrote Shakespeare. Truth is most important, as shocking as it is. 400 years now, fearing the Truth is not valid. Nobody will go hungry when the Truth is revealed. You know who suffers when Truth is revealed, people and entities who will never ever be hungry no matter what $$$$$. Who wins, people who are hungry.

Lies serve no good purpose. Maybe timing, but I have my doubts.

😉

 

 

  • 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

Page 33 of Friedman's book, a page a Baconian would expect something good. Read it when you have a moment:

image.png.241cfaf6a8d8d0e940f0917ec175a6b7.png

Basically it sounds like highly valuable Baconian information all the way until he says, "For Bacon's was not a 'pre-arranged arithmetical cipher". In fact, up until them he is describing exactly what we do here on B'Hive. See above the paragraph that has, "always growing out of the same numbers..."

Page 33 sharing one of the biggest Truths that can be shared, then for the Strats does a quick judo move to make it sound like he is dismissing what he had just taught.

"The doctrine of Ciphers carries along with it another doctrine, which is its relative."

That is the first line of page 33 and is the core of what we do.

  • 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

1 hour ago, Light-of-Truth said:

That is the first line of page 33 and is the core of what we do.

The acrostic of page 33 is also the core of what we do  ! 😀

image.png.7bebf9aa2b7b6b732fc1f3d4b2cdd1d3.png

Do you believe that the secret of Prince BACON/TUDOR is still safe ? 😉 

  • Like 1
  • Wow! 1

image.png.b8c74f56d5551c745119c268cf9d3db8.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A quick update before going to work, thanks to a fresh eye after a good night's sleep 🙂 

image.png.2c16e030c257781ce12d6ba340e5210b.png

EYE OF GOD ?

image.png.01c135141db7678224e568feb5d77060.png

When I saw "hyde"  I immediatly thought of "Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde" by Robert Louis Stevenson, published in 1886.

I wondered if it could be a reference to the " double personality" of Francis Bacon aka Shakespeare.

If my theory was right, Dr Jekyll should be hidden somewhere in this passage !

Could iekil be Jekyll ? 🙂 

Have a good day ! 

Edited by Allisnum2er
  • Like 2

image.png.b8c74f56d5551c745119c268cf9d3db8.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's funny you mention "Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde".

You said:

"I wondered if it could be a reference to the " double personality" of Francis Bacon aka Shakespeare. "

As I went to sleep last night I was thinking my first impression after poking around in this book is that it has a duality. I wondered if it was meant for two different audiences; one being Baconians with cipher experience, the other Stratfordians with no cipher experience.

Granted, I have not spent much time in this book, mostly looking at pages where the numbers are important and then just opening the book at any random page and reading a little. As a Baconian I found what I saw as tips, hints, techniques, sometimes with potential leads to follow up on. Then all of the sudden the next paragraphs dismissed everything that was just said. A "double" personality!

I pictured Elizabeth Friedman writing the "Baconian" parts for we who have "eyes to see" and look for ciphers (Truth), then William Friedman would write the "Stratfordian" rebuttal (Deception). It does seem the style and purpose switch back and forth, taking turns. I was thinking, "Point - Counter Point", "Good cop - Bad cop", etc. But "Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde" is perfect description!

On the road this morning, but hoping to play some later!

  • 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

Something stirred in me A.P.  by your appropriate  Kenneth Patton quote. It was the same feeling after having read Nieves Mathews Vindication book, "FB History of a Character Assassination."

 You have synthesized  the loose ends from many competent Baconians over the decades  who offered valid criticism of the  Friedman  book. Back in 1957 no one would challenge a WWII codebreaker certainly not the media.  Like AthenA you brandished a Spear with a Thunderbolt smashing the curse of the Friedman's legacy in one fell swoop. Your impeccable research and consistently outstanding presentations have  brought forth a voice of Clarity that can now end  the frustration, the inexpressible disbelief and confusion and the paradoxical nature of the  Friedmans'  intentions.  Friedman has been fried and  It's been a long time coming. 

Your research is a victory for not just Baconians but for everyone who has a passion to see  Honesty and  Truth restored to for all those who have been ridiculed unfairly by those  who blindly trumpeted their many falsehoods upon those who had a sincere and dedicated passion for cipher and truth. So many people have been fooled by the Friedmans who did not know any better and could not make the distinctions to see thru the limitations of their research. People gave their allegiance to a  world renowned cipher authority and his puffed up credential based on  his work in helping save the world from evil despots. Critical thinking was bypassed in favor of a belief that this man based on  his war record knew what he's talking about so we should just accept his opinion as the work of God.  Most people  especially in the media didn't question his results and just accepted it as he must know what he's talking about after all he's William Friedman, hero code breaker.
 

But now Friedman is no longer a hero in the world of Shakespeare and Ciphers thanks to your astute research. His reputation is now tarnished and his name will be synonymous  with all the small time hustlers and Shakespeare forgers like William Henry Ireland, and the low life  slander critics like Macaulay.

The questions remain on how a respected authority in his field of cipher would betray his own mind by refuting his prior  convictions that Shakespeare ciphers exist and keep it  hidden from the public record.  What motivated him to play his Jekyll to his Hyde? Would he and his publisher, Cambridge University, find greater revenue from book sales by supporting the false narrative of the Stratford myth? Does it come down to that? Money over  Conscience and Truth? How can it be possible for a man to play both sides of the coin, to publicly dismiss an idea while practicing that same idea into action? How can the same man once with a conscience who held the keys to quickening the end of a World War and it's evil perpetrators and  having endured sleepless nights,  long bouts of depression eventually sell out his reputation and  all that is Good? 
 
We now have Vindication from your research and we still  need Closure from this Tragic miscarriage of a trusted man's conscience gone awry. Some how some  day maybe we can see the Comedy of the Friedman Folly.
  • Wow! 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lawrence Gerald:

Quote

Some how some  day maybe we can see the Comedy of the Friedman Folly.

Ultimately the Joke is on the Stratfordians who have been promoting the Friedmans for their agenda. They are the target Fools tricked by the Friedmans' deception and they use it to support their continuing Willy Shakspur deception. It will be hard for them to hide 60+ years of celebrating the book of lies they held up for the World to see. Ooooops, how can they fix that? LOL

If there is a Joke on we Baconians, it is that nobody ever took on before what A. Phoenix has just done. Others have spoke up, but we allowed it to go on so long and there are some respected Baconians who tragically still dismiss ciphers based on the Friedmans deception that gave the Stratfordians something to use against the Truth.

The Hidden Truth will come to Light, in Time. Bacon knew it.

  • Like 2
  • Wow! 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

I am sorry to bring back the page 33 of " The Shakespearean Ciphers Examined" on the table , but I just found something that I had to share with you !!!

image.png.c9f4e2d4080b31620b8e4e5fdb019a9b.png

When I saw "veni" between "ie" and "kil"  I immediatly thought of :

"Veni, Vidi, Vici" ( I came, I saw, I conquered) - Julius Caesar

From there, I rapidly found "vici" vertically.

I took it like an invitation to look vertically in the extension of "iekil" and "I saw" the following secret message 😀

GREATEST SECRET - PRI BACON , IEKIL , IS S.S. (Shake-Speare)

PRI means LOVE in sanskrit and  is the root of FREE with FREE = BACON = 33 and FREE is itself the root of the name FRANCIS.

(Thanks to the Work of Peter Dawkins)

https://www.fbrt.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Baconian-Rosicrucian_Ciphers.pdf (page 13)

Moreover,  the reference to Julius Caesar's famous citation by Friedman is an invitation to use the no less famous CAESAR CODE.

And guess what ?

By using the CAESAR CODE (-8) with the Elizabethan Alphabet on the word " IE KIL" we obtain ...

AW  BAC   

or in other term...

BACON , ALPHA AND OMEGA

JOY

😊

 

  • Wow! 2

image.png.b8c74f56d5551c745119c268cf9d3db8.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I found a good Truth in the Friedmans' deceptive finale conclusion. I would bet that most people, Strats likely, who bought this book read the introduction and the conclusion. The rest would be of little interest to them. 😉

I LOVE this sentence the Friedmans state:

"However, it it did happen, and Bacon managed to produce such a dazzling cover text that no one for many years suspected the presence of a cipher, his genius was all the greater."

image.png.49ebb8e8fd8cdb1fff8b88578011fa29.png

My eyes want to also read this, "One must confess Bacon managed..." And yes, we know his genius was all the greater!

😉

 

  • Like 3

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

This is a very strange book. I seriously doubt I will ever read it from front to back, cover to cover. It is possible I may at some time have read every page in random or some order by numbers. Just like I read Shakespeare. I've read two plays from the beginning to end that I can remember; The Tempest and Twelfth Night. It is way different than reading whatever you open the page to.

Even with their Stratfordian-happy-maker spin, they appear at times to be describing and providing examples of what we should do. Of course I read page 100 and they nail down and prove that anagrams and acrostics are valid. Here is the concluding paragraph on that subject on page 101:

image.png.aad94ffeed6d8fd3c1e59b6d72010f6d.png

I take that as a call to arms, so to speak. I saw examples they validate I never knew about telling how they work in the pages before. The Friedmans 100% acknowledge anagrams and acrostics are real, were used well before Shakespeare, and obviously believe it is an important and valid pursuit. At least for anagram- and acrostic-hunters. I would imagine they were masters and finding anagrams and acrostics. And their team pursuing whatever at the time.

If a Strat read the above paragraph they'd not like it. But the Friedmans make certain to ultimately keep the Strats happy. But for the most part, I bet very few Strats read anything about the ciphers and methods, or understood any of it if they did. But the Friedmans pretty well dismiss anagrams and acrostics in their conclusion that every Strat read that had this book in hand long enough.

The chapter on "ODD NUMBERS" is also interesting. Again I see examples and techniques I've never seen. To keep the Strats happy, for every good solid example, they'd throw out a crazy one for the "Ha Ha" effect. Here is a good one on page 102:

The Baconians were not to be denied their share of the fun. Parker Woodward and Clifton had already noticed, in their quest for the mystic signature 287, that in the Address to the Reader in the 1611 Bible the 287th word from the beginning pointed to the acrostic;

being...
are...
conscience...

 

I like it, I'm glad to know that one. That's one of the things I do, I seek the "mystic" number 287. The cover of this book that prompts us to go to page 62 of the First Folio in Henry IV, Part 1 has a 287 word count from the first appearance of the word "booke" missing and cut off the cover page to the highly visible word "seale" of "Booke is drawn: wee'le but seale". (BTW those words add up to 103 Short cipher the Simple cipher of SHAKESPEARE).

The last full page of this book is page 287. In the chapter ODD NUMBERS while describing and giving various examples of numbers from very interesting to pretty ridiculous they tell us they have a signature, "Wm. & E. Friedman" that adds up to 287 Kaye cipher (& = 26). That's for a good Stratfordian laugh, of course. But is also lets us know they know how to use the numbers, and number 287 in particular. For their Stratfordian purpose numbers are an easy target. Numbers can mean many things and are easily manipulated. We know that, understand, have kicked it around on the B'Hive. Yet, to use a Friedman term from the first line of page 33, for numbers to be valid they must be "relevant" to its surroundings. In the right place with other clues, they are valid.

They were masters of the art, real professional cryptologists. They knew and understood anagrams and acrostics, knew and understood the numbers ciphers. They and a team studied Shakespeare for a while. They saw what we see and more, and they knew who wrote Shakespeare, without a doubt. They were not idiots at all. And then this crazy happy Stratfordian deception. Very strange.

The last line of the book is, "There is even the possibility that it will cease altogether." This is the Stratfordian dream, the authorship issue will cease once and for all. I can see Strats with teary eyes reading the conclusion pages and ending up on this sentence.

Note I did not say the authorship issue will "be solved" as that is NOT the Stratfordian dream, I used the Friedman word, "cease". The Friedmans KNEW who wrote Shakespeare. Why did they do a deception? Why didn't they offer everything they found? Did they miss it? (No way.)

I have said here before I cannot see ciphers proving Bacon was Shakespeare. But are the Friedmans suggesting that ciphers could very end the argument once and for all? That's what I get.

With the 287 Seal apparent, I wonder if this could be a Rosicrucian trick on the Strats and a tool for Baconians? But to take over 60 years for the Veil to be Pierced?

 

  • Like 1
  • Wow! 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

3 hours ago, Light-of-Truth said:

I have said here before I cannot see ciphers proving Bacon was Shakespeare. But are the Friedmans suggesting that ciphers could very end the argument once and for all? That's what I get.

Hi Rob , the ciphers left by the Friedmans on page 101 (simple cipher of LIBER PATER) may cause you to change your mind ! 😀

FBWT101.png.51ede10a2b010b6e6290c1f5c0d66b44.png

The concealed TWO (ToW) and WIT are in my opinion a reference to Ben Jonson's poem "To the Reader".

45065076_TotheReader.png.bd0350886c5fd7b5d218c2ec8e4854f5.png

  • Wow! 2

image.png.b8c74f56d5551c745119c268cf9d3db8.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In fact, I would wonder if this passage could be the Friedmans' conclusion to Shakespeare's First Folio, counteracting Ben Jonson's Poem.

Imagine ...

The First Folio begins with Ben Jonson's poem "To the Reader"

And it ends with the Friedmans' passage " To the anagram- and acrostic-hunters" 😊

Hunters.png.26befde57526e8000102b5f098f73bf9.png 

Edited by Allisnum2er
  • Wow! 2

image.png.b8c74f56d5551c745119c268cf9d3db8.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Friedmans tell us that this passage is dedicated to the anagram- and acrostic-hunters.

WHAT ABOUT THE ACROSTIC AND THE TELESTICH IN THIS PASSAGE ?

Here is , I believe, the message that was concealed by the Friedmans for posterity ...

Edifiante.png.8e075f452b199ccbad12bc2c2d442d31.png

AndI think that the word "FAST" in acrostic is a reference to another well-known page  (for the Baconians 🙂of the First Folio.

FASTBACON.png.2c378d5568ad8f82c2d05841ff09cdfc.png

https://internetshakespeare.uvic.ca/Library/facsimile/book/SLNSW_F1/240/?zoom=1315

Edited by Allisnum2er
  • Wow! 2

image.png.b8c74f56d5551c745119c268cf9d3db8.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My apologies !

I felt that I was missing something of first importance.

I missed the most obvious information, right in the middle (Mediocria firma 😉), "The son"

Here is , I believe, the complete message left by the Friedmans to posterity ...

TUDOR.png.d2fe0b811b3f9a5ea5e1ddbf2d085988.png

Notice the double cross that forms two X.

X=22 (simple cipher) 2X=44

44 = The Child (YELED) with the Blood (DAM) of the Phoenix (CHOL)

The double cross looks also like an H.

And Ben Jonson tells us in "The English Grammar" (1640) that the letter H is "the Queen-Mother of cnsonants"

Edited by Allisnum2er
  • Wow! 2

image.png.b8c74f56d5551c745119c268cf9d3db8.png

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...