Jump to content

The Fraudulent Friedmans


A Phoenix

Recommended Posts

Hi Kate,

Sorry but I am not sure to understand what you mean by "the key for the Pythagorean Cipher that Bacon used".

The Pythagorean Cipher is mentionned in one volume of Baconiana, and is based on the 26 letter alphabet.

https://francisbaconsociety.co.uk/baconiana-journals/baconiana-journals-2007-present/baconiana-vol1-no5/

You have also the great essay by Richard Allan Wagner on Bacon's use of the 26 letter Alphabet :

https://sirbacon.org/Bacons Use of Gematria and the 26 Letter Alphabet.pdf

Regards.

  • Like 1

image.png.b8c74f56d5551c745119c268cf9d3db8.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Allisnum2er said:

If a message was concealed by the Friedmans using the biliteral cipher, it must be in this page. 

I'll take a look. I tinkered around in the Sonnets a little this morning.

If they did leave a biliteral cipher, I'd expect they left a clue as to the key. And it would be doubtful to me it is a font style. 😉

Page 279 begins the CONCLUSION. Must be a B and A somewhere. We do see at the bottom:

   ...be a ...
...contest...

The plain text is all Stratfordian, for those Strats who might only read the first and last page of the Conclusion. LOL

image.png.47a7c7f61a5e0c7af9859e169156399d.png

 

  • 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

Hi Rob and Yann, I thought I would put up the pages covering the Great One's discussion of ciphers in his De Augmentis Scientiarum which begins on page 277 simple cipher for Francis Bacon (100)/William Shakespeare (177) in other words conveying the concealed cryptographic message that Francis Bacon is Shakespeare. The same message repeatedly conveyed by the Friedmans in The Shakespearean Ciphers Examined and on their tombstone!
 

277.png

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, A Phoenix said:

Hi Rob and Yann, I thought I would put up the pages covering the Great One's discussion of ciphers in his De Augmentis Scientiarum which begins on page 277 simple cipher for Francis Bacon (100)/William Shakespeare (177) in other words conveying the concealed cryptographic message that Francis Bacon is Shakespeare. The same message repeatedly conveyed by the Friedmans in The Shakespearean Ciphers Examined and on their tombstone!

The Friedmans used the number AND they even taught about 100 and 177 together on page 169 in ODD NUMBERS:

image.png.9ab5252f71d008430484c4cb11ad757f.png

 

  • 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

11 hours ago, A Phoenix said:

Hi Rob and Yann, I thought I would put up the pages covering the Great One's discussion of ciphers in his De Augmentis Scientiarum which begins on page 277 simple cipher for Francis Bacon (100)/William Shakespeare (177) in other words conveying the concealed cryptographic message that Francis Bacon is Shakespeare. The same message repeatedly conveyed by the Friedmans in The Shakespearean Ciphers Examined and on their tombstone!

Hi A Phoenix, the number 277 is also concealed in the Cover of their Book, as well as the number 287 ! 😊

Signature.png.717245fcea6e581f5a5f53e3870df211.png

I like the idea that the number 729 , the Kay cipher of "By William F. and Elizebeth S. Friedman" hides the number 279 we were talking about yesterday.

  • Wow! 2

image.png.b8c74f56d5551c745119c268cf9d3db8.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BMT 216A

This morning I came across where Day 216 is on the first line after where Tier 13 goes to 14 in a 22 Tiered Pyramid. A synchronicity for me today.

2116.jpg.7318775a878d4079b3f1fd088e3234df.jpg

It is in a very nice place. I'm trying to write another post for tonight in a new topic, but this came up and is part of everything happening right now. At least in my tiny world! 😉

BMT 216A

B=2, M=12, T=19

211219

2=B, 1=A, 21=W, 9=I

BA W and I, or EYE? Or is I ONE? 9 is a magic number. 3x3=9.

You know me, I see BACON and WILLIAM I. But that's just me. 216 is something I may bring up in another topic. Bond, Bacon, are they interwoven? 😉

Fraudulent Friedmans, they were connected to the same British Intelligence that Bacon refined for the purpose of keeping secrets and secret hunting. They knew, as A. Phoenix revealed with high quality professionalism and style. The Friedmans' book (as I read random pages) is schizophrenic, dual personalities.  Like a Baconian on a Stratfordian radio show where they get almost equal time, yet the Strat makes the intro and conclusion! LOL

Remember the Friedman's were Master Cryptologitst, and also Master Liars. They were oo7 spies. For them to use deception at times was a way of life.

Strats for this deception and Joke accepted 100% without questioning or even seeing the actual messages in this crazy book that supports and encourage Baconians. How embarrassing this may become for Strats!

I am sad I was not around for them to bash. The attention would be great, an opportunity to share, and a World Hero Cryptologist reviewing my work! They'd bash me of course, as they do pretty much everybody in their book, but we who can see would take a look!

In marketing, "Bad publicity can be the most memorable, thus the most valuable."

But it has to be done just right. 😉

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • 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

Guest Ryan Murtha
On 6/17/2022 at 10:19 AM, Lawrence Gerald said:
 
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? 
 

This is where we have to understand what we are up against. It is a whole worldview. Because Shakespeare has long been seen as a kind of secular scripture, the facts of Bacon's life refute that whole point of view. Born of a virgin, a born king (but not of this world, as it turned out - his library was dukedom enough), prosecuting his rebellious brother who tried to take the throne by force. These parallels with Jesus, and the parallels with the hero archetype outlined in Otto Rank's Myth of the Birth of the Hero and later popularized by Joseph Campbell, they tend to show the reality of God and the truth of Christianity. 

Edited by Ryan Murtha
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Francis Bacon's discussion of ciphers in his De Augmentis Scientiarum which begins on page 277 simple cipher for Francis Bacon (100)/William Shakespeare (177) in other words conveying the concealed cryptographic message that Francis Bacon is Shakespeare. The same message repeatedly conveyed by the Friedmans in The Shakespearean Ciphers Examined and on their tombstone!

FF10.png

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This screen capture almost entirely demonstrates the Friedmans wicked blow to the Baconian cipher argument. "As to the main issue---" :

image.png.b7aa67e65a91a2632f8a8f3ab8f9f816.png

The schizophrenic duality of this book is that the Friedmans using the very techniques they describe and bash at the same time states "postively" who wrote Shakespeare.

I've noticed from what I've seen the Friedmans will describe ciphers by Baconians, giving good examples from methods that some of us have already learned. But as they promote them and bash them they never share the context, or the "relative" about where they appear. But they knew. That is so important!

Above in the lines that were the Stratfordian boot that kicked all Baconian cryptologists at the time, they demonstrate one the best Baconian examples of what they meant to destroy.

"Who wrote the plays". Then two obvious BACON anagrams/acrostics. Two that is, not one. One with an "f" to make "F BACON."

image.png.1f5dfc3cbd8a4d70112318e6534dadfe.png

Starting from the "B" of both BACON's counting the letters to include the second "CON" we have 103 letters, the Simple cipher of SHAKESPEARE. Did you notice the Friedmans did not say "who wrote Shakespeare", they said "who wrote the plays." Odd.

OK, a Stratfordian who totally missed the cipher would tell us, "It is an accident! A coincidence!"

Two realities:

First is that the Friedmans tell the world who wrote Shakespeare in cipher while lying to the gullible Startfordians about their "findings".

Second is that it IS an accident, and a coincidence. That we Baconians who see what appears so obvious is not real.

OK, on the Second option for a moment. The Friedmans wrote this book, were likely paid well to do so. They read what they wrote, and even after the printer had finished they would read the important parts, such as the Intro and Conclusion. To make sure it was right.

If they "missed" this cipher accident, then they were not nearly as skilled as they promote themselves to be. They'd be lost on the B'Hive, not able to keep up. LOL

But I bet they were good, very good, knew exactly what they were doing.

Two BACON ciphers? Remember the cover page? Half of page 62 on Henry IV, Part I that is hidden, cut off, has a double BACON with the word "hang." Two BACONs. "Hang" is also in the very plain text first words of this entire book.

And at the end, on page 288 is a "hanging paragraph". That is a printer term. A "hanging word" is a word that does not fit on the previous page, or sometimes even on the previous line. Printers make them fit, it is professional and the way it is done. I know, I did typeset and layout on a few print magazines. "Hanging words" and "hanging sentences" are not allowed, embarrassing to a designer and printer. Plus it is costly. A "hanging paragraph" is bad, but sometimes happens if the previous pages are already packed and you can bring letters together. In the Friedmans book it appears to me that the letters are actually spread out in the Conclusion, not packed at all. Where that last paragraph could easily be brought into page 287 with minimal effort, it was purposely left hanging. That is an extra page to print, has cost, and is not a perfect design.

Why was page 287 NOT the last page with an unnecessary "hanging" paragraph on page 288? Page 287 was the last "full" page, but myself or any decent typesetter could have brought in the kerning of the letters on a few pages with no noticeable crowding to get rid of the "hanging" paragraph. That would be professional.

Crazy book.

 

 

 

  • 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

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
×
×
  • Create New...