Jump to content

To The Memorie of the deceased Authour Maister W. Shakespeare by Leonard Digges & the Rosicrucian-Freemasonic Stratford Monument commissioned by Francis Bacon


Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, Allisnum2er said:

"Hollar’s design gives a good sense of the tall, narrow proportions of the room, which was 70 feet long, but only around 25 feet wide [21.3×7.6m]. Unfortunately, the chamber had by this date been significantly remodelled, with a new, classical-style ceiling (designed in 1623 by Inigo Jones) and the introduction of a famous set of tapestries showing England’s victory over the 1588 Spanish Armada. The latter covered over the original fenestration, while the ceiling design, with its lofty dormer windows, offers no clues about the roof that preceded it."

https://thehistoryofparliament.wordpress.com/2021/08/26/what-did-the-elizabethan-house-of-lords-look-like/

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, A Phoenix said:

Ciphers

Dawkins draws his revelatory article to a close by revealing the Baconian ciphers inserted by Bacon in the Stratford Shakespeare monument. If we look closely at the first two lines of the inscription it will be observed that certain letters are deliberately formed larger than the others: i.e., in the first line I P S and M in the first line and T and O which is six letters in total. The sixth letter of the alphabet is F. There are 33 small letters on each of the first two lines: 33 Bacon. When the F is added to numerical equivalent of Bacon (33+6) it gives F BACON 39 in simple cipher. On the last two lines of the middle six-line section are two sets of the letters TT signifying Thirty-Three (33) again Bacon in simple cipher.

PAPER:

https://www.academia.edu/105955896/To_The_Memorie_of_the_deceased_Authour_Maister_W_Shakespeare_by_Leonard_Digges_and_the_Rosicrucian_Freemasonic_Stratford_Monument_commissioned_by_Francis_Bacon

VIDEO: To The Memorie of the deceased Authour Maister W. Shakespeare by Leonard Digges

& the Rosicrucian-Freemasonic Stratford Monument commissioned by Francis Bacon

https://youtu.be/HggKSZ02NWo

VIDEO 1 MINUTE TRAILER: The Amazing Transformation of the Stratford Shakespeare Monument

https://youtu.be/vJ5u1TZA5-8

FF8 43.png

Bravissimo, Phoenixes!

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/7/2023 at 3:38 PM, Allisnum2er said:

CJ, don't make me have to do this.

You are looking with anticipation too, and you know how to generate the "Triangle" you require to come to the conclusions you want to have to be made. I am really not an expert in geometry so correct me if I am wrong, but I have the impression that absolutely nothing  gives you this "Triangle" but your choice of one peculiar right-angle triangle amongst all the possible right-angle triangles that can be generated from your diagonal AT. You have this "Triangle" and the "TAU" and meaning in your back pocket ready to use, always. What makes you think that your suggestion is more valuable ?

Regarding my previous post, you say

"What if 2+48+53 has another more obvious explanation? You know, one that we can source from nature. You seem to be grossly unaware of the 33 day period in five parts in the cycle of Mercury. You've not completed that equation properly either. It's 2+48+53+5=108 that is at play here. That 108 is of high importance as it is 4x27.  The four and the five are essential for the 4x5=20 cycle suggestion (TT, also three to the power of three, thirty three or trente trois ). That 108 is that "holiest" of approximate numbers that seemed to affect the ratios of diameters, distances and periods that apply to the Sun, moon and the precession cycle."

First of all, I never said that I was learned in Astronomy. I am not. I am a newbie in this field and in many others. I also consider that I am a newbie both in the world of Bacon and in the world of the Shakespeare Authorship Question.

I began my studies and my own research only seven years ago. I have so much to learn !!! And I am glad that I found sirbacon.org and this forum, that gives me the opportunity to learn more every day about Francis Bacon.

Now, based on my post, you say that I have not completed my equation properly.

My analysis is that Discours 2 (Bacon)+ Discours 48 (Bacon) + Discours 53 = 103 that can be a reference to Shakespeare.

And you say that I am wrong because I did not take the BACON on the 5th unnumbered "page" " in count ? 😄

Did you  read at least the Preface of the book ?

I guess that the answer is NO !

If YES, you would know that there is a fourth BACON mentionned on the 24th page.

Talking about the Preface, here is something else that I did not mentioned. There are 36 pages before the  first numbered page (3) of Discours I, which means that the page number 33 (the page quoting Bacon) is the 67th page from the Frontispiece, giving us FRANCIS (67) BACON (33).

I resume : we have BACON on page 33 that is the 67th page of the Book, 67 being the simple cipher FRANCIS.

So yes, it can be just a coincidence OR with the FACT that there is no DISCOURS 52 with a shift from 51 to 53 for a total of 67 Discours, it could suggest that ciphering is in play.

Now, take the two BACON in Capital letters on the 5th and the 24th page of the book and you obtain the number 29.

Interestingly , the Discours XXIX is the only misnumbered (XXIV) Discours in the 1638 Edition.

This Discours 29 on page 333 is about ATALANTE.

image.png.89329ad06331c1fbf1e85c5f9623d902.png

https://archive.org/details/recueildemblemes00bau/page/332/mode/2up

Let's take a look at the true DISCOURS XXIV

image.png.38152c7b8259da05c9aca9ccc9e01237.png

https://archive.org/details/recueildemblemes00bau/page/296/mode/2up

This Discours is the translation in French of Chapter II of "The Wisdome of the Ancients" (Francis Bacon -1609)

https://www.bartleby.com/lit-hub/of-the-wisdom-of-the-ancients/ii-typhon-francis-bacon-15611626-of-the-wisdom-of-the-ancients-1857/

"The Birth of Pallas"

 

 

 

 

I am not trying to build a case for anything. I am here now trying to destroy a case that is masquerading as a proof for something that is believed, because that is how we must get ahead. This act of destroying is probably being viewed as hostile and arbitrary, and it is not being given its proper due. Accept that you must be criticized. 

When one looks at the breadth of the Baconian views one has to necessarily consider what on Earth may be going on with the building up of the stories with the methods used (would certainly have no appeal to Bacon). By your simple enough logic you are telling me that what you are doing is actually disproving my beliefs (if I claim that I am succeeding, you are too), but I have none that I am trying to confirm. I have set off on my journey trying to disprove (Peter Amundsen, initially) by looking for what is real that may have been used and willfully misinterpreted.  That has resurfaced here when I see what is attempted. However, it is true that I am showing that no one has a proof of anything in the reading of their tea leaves. If I was doing that I would prove nothing in the end too. Building to knowledge involves destroying theories. That never ends. It's not an exercise in trying to grow the acceptance of a conclusion. Recent developments in astronomy have shown that the big bang theory is now inadequate, so what have we to say about the work of getting everyone accepting that theory as a beginning? It is foolhardy to settle on trying to convince when there is no knowledge yet. It turns out to be only a part of the story, not a beginning.

I have not produced anything in order to prop up fully formed belief that I require a case for. Where I end up is where I will end up, and make sure to understand that I am not publishing any of it as proof of anything now or in the end. I must end with something that can be shown to be reliable for it to be of any use. Please reconsider what you say. I have only considered what would be the logic behind the framing of a story like New Atlantis by Bacon with the geometry that is observed being used as I work back from what some attribute solely to him. I have no way of knowing anything unless ist was somehow based in some empirical reality.

What is important to do is to muddy the waters so that no one gets to claim the picture is crystal clear when the suggestion is that the clear view leads to impossible conclusions. Having to rewrite history in many instances and on many fronts is walking into the realm of impossible conclusions. Some are more obviously impossible than others. Bacon was not 13 different people and he did not live to be 106. He was certainly not Samuel de Champlain hiding in Quebec.

When faced with the problem of even getting started we arrive to Bacon's need for observations of a reliable nature.

There are a few ways to work back in time with all this Bacon/Rosicrucian/Freemasonry stuff. Working back is one way to try and get to an earlier cause when one is sought. This is not the same as starting with Bacon as the first cause of everything because he is believed to be the Elias Artista and then seeing what we could possibly suggest that could make the conclusion appear to be valid to someone being presented with it. Building up with the conclusion in mind and piling up artifices of the imagination is cheating. You are supposed to try and destroy the conclusion if you have a Baconian bone in your body. It's not unlike Sherlock Holmes' approach.

We know an awful lot more than some allege about the places and people involved in the Rosicrucian phenomena. It arose around group of men at Tubingen University where Kepler and Andrea were based out of. Kepler is very significant in all this because he produced the works with the reliable empirical observations taken by him and others (mainly Brahe). The esoteric Christians that wove stories around his work are the link to the past which accounts for the older stories/ideas. The geometric component allows it. I would be very careful in stating that Bacon had the same views. An empiricist is not a Hermeticist. However, he would have necessarily harbored an interest in Kepler's work in geometry and harmonics. Robert Fludd most certainly did, as he stole ideas and plagiarized Kepler in his British works. That we know because he was sued by Kepler. 

Getting back to Mercury, it is central to all this. Kepler's work on Mercury managed to explain the observational retrograde motion of it which had a pentagonal character (based in the 33 days). The curtain was pulled when he showed that this motion is a result of an elliptical motion of the two planets around the Sun. That unleashed a shockwave of consequences on the modern science of astronomy which was until then based in nested circles and epicycles.  The same periodicity of Mercury that unlocked this reality was also shown to unlock the mystery of how to get universal time out of celestial observation with the transit of mercury (natural observation is key to the Baconian view). This transit measurement was the method that remained favored by the Royal Society for the determination of longitude until the development of the precise marine chronometer by Harrison. There was such a bias for there to be an astronomical observational solution to the navigational problem that Harrison's work was pushed back against by some of the men who actually held Bacon in the highest esteem. 

When you are addressed as Passenger in the block of text in question you ought to pause and consider what that is implying. What are you a passenger of? What is home in that regard and what is quicksilver in that regard? When is Mercury a man of myth and when is Mercury a planet? I have looked at a great deal of things with that in mind. Is it clear or is it not clear? All all avenues of consideration allowable and of equal value?

One of Kepler's ideas was the tiling of planes and of surfaces. To not bore you with the details, I will present one of his observations about the tiling of pentagons and decagons which he labels Aa in his work Harmonices Mundi - Wikipedia

spacer.png

This is tiling that produces the regular star shape that is the most rudimentary form of the star polygon Star polygon - Wikipedia. He was obviously thinking of ways of tiling a celestial vault with an observable geometry that would account for the immutable presence of stars in the heavens. Combinations of basic shapes interested him. As basic as these ideas are they are remarkably of consequence in the field of topology and in what we today call Penrose tiling.

In the Shakespeare monument there is a basic geometrical tiling idea also (observable). That can be developed rather easily with the presence of the 4 occasions of "arc" which lead to the geometry of the tiling with hexagons which necessarily present you with the 60 degree angle. The 60 degree hexagon based tiling is ancient. It is very prominent in Islamic art and and Judaism (those two are close cousins). It represents one of the best ways to weave religion back into geometry and astronomy for those who wanted there to be a conservation of religion at the beginning of the scientific age.  God had to become an architect using these schemes observable in nature. This is no way proves that God has a basis in geometry. It is simply a useful and possible interpretation of the world for a Christian (all these men were Christians).

If you are delaying examining the empiric in your Bacon quest then you are doing yourself a disservice. The Rosy Cross is celestial borrowing too. You have to be able to stay clear of chasing back other interpretations of it to get to what we can show and know. That's all Bacon was interested in.  On his end Bacon most likely was working on the consequences of these ideas too, and I suspect that he explored how the geometry of the sphere/globe could be leveraged to gain navigational knowledge. This was current to his time and his work. A large part of the need for a network of spies in this age was to acquire the best maps and navigation knowledge that existed and to understand the methods others were using. England sought to be a leader in the area of navigation. This was in fact achieved thanks to the scientific method which has roots in Bacon's philosophy.  If one wants to take a very large view then everything can be worked back to Bacon in that regard. But it becomes bad news for those who are trying to build a case using what he called the methods of his day (employing the idols of the theater).

I've come to think of the Masonic Compass and square as an exercise in tiling also. When one works back the basic shapes presented by bisecting the internal angles one starts to see that the square tile is being worked back to fundamental angular components in the cube. What we call 27 degrees is actually 26.5 degrees. If you've worked in carpentry at all you will recognize that as a compound angle for the intersection of two planes. There's something about the square symmetry that involves 26.5 degrees. You can work that out for yourself empirically to see what is behind that curtain.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, A Phoenix said:

The Dugdale/Hollar Monument

In the drawing by Sir William Dugdale carefully engraved by Wenceslaus Hollar published in the Antiquities of Warwickshire ‘Shakespeare’ is depicted appearing to clutch a sack without (as appears in the familiar Shakespeare monument) resting his left hand on a paper laid on a cushion with his right hand holding a quill. The sack observes Dawkins is clearly a woolsack. The Dugdale drawing/engraving of the Shakespeare monument appears to have been designed ‘to draw notice to its Masonic significance, for the arms of Shakespeare are shown in a most awkward but stylised way which immediately draws attention. These arms are disposed such that they portray the geometrical form of the Masonic Square and Compass, the single most universally identifiable symbol of Freemasonry. The upper arms and head form the Compass (i.e., pair or set of Compasses) the lower arms and hands the Square.’ To substitute a woolsack for a cushion is of great Baconian-Rosicrucian-Freemasonic significance because the most famous woolsack is the seat of the Lord Chancellor (Bacon was Lord Chancellor of England) while presiding over the House of Lords. The lions shown crowning the pillars alludes to the ‘Lions Paw’, the grip used in the third degree ritual to resurrect or raise up the Freemason from darkness into light.

PAPER:

https://www.academia.edu/105955896/To_The_Memorie_of_the_deceased_Authour_Maister_W_Shakespeare_by_Leonard_Digges_and_the_Rosicrucian_Freemasonic_Stratford_Monument_commissioned_by_Francis_Bacon

VIDEO: To The Memorie of the deceased Authour Maister W. Shakespeare by Leonard Digges

& the Rosicrucian-Freemasonic Stratford Monument commissioned by Francis Bacon

https://youtu.be/HggKSZ02NWo

VIDEO 1 MINUTE TRAILER: The Amazing Transformation of the Stratford Shakespeare Monument

https://youtu.be/vJ5u1TZA5-8

FF8 41.png

That's another coincidence. I just linked to a History of Parliament website in my post on the Comet. While there I clicked on this picture and thought, oh look at that cushion. I then come here and you have been speaking about the cushion (the woolsack)

 

image.png.3132021dda6294ca7578adbdac11b950.png

  • Like 1
  • Wow! 2

 "For nothing is born without unity or without the point." amazon.com/dp/B0CLDKDPY8

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Allisnum2er said:

OMG, look at this. I carried on catching up with the posts and Yann has been on the same website. That's extraordinary. I didn't go looking for it, it came up in a search when I put in what happened in 1589. I love these runs of synchronicities. This one s bizarre. Out of all the websites that 1589 could have returned on Google and all the threads on here!

  • Like 2
  • Wow! 1

 "For nothing is born without unity or without the point." amazon.com/dp/B0CLDKDPY8

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, RoyalCraftiness said:

I am not trying to build a case for anything. I am here now trying to destroy a case that is masquerading as a proof for something that is believed, because that is how we must get ahead.

I serious doubt you will destroy much of anything around here. 😉

Maybe you are missing something?

  • 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

2 minutes ago, Kate said:

OMG, look at this. I carried on catching up with the posts and Yann has been on the same website. That's extraordinary. I didn't go looking for it, it came up in a search when I put in what happened in 1589. I love these runs of synchronicities. This one s bizarre. Out of all the websites that 1589 could have returned on Google and all the threads on here!

Thanks for the synchronicities! I needed exactly that! 🙂

Curious about the heavens for yesterday. A lot was happening in my life.

  • 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

I've also been catching up on the posts from RC.  

RC/CJ you are indispensable for providing the counterweights Don't leave. I've always said you are needed to play devil's advocate. You have a lot of wisdom to bring to the pages.

 I do have to say through that the 'Don't make me do this' was perhaps a tad melodramatic wasn't it  😉 Yann has been so good natured in his responses.

Do you think it might also be a good idea to try and check any passive aggressiveness. Saying things like 'there are certain people on here' is not straightforward - just come out and say who and what and clear the air publicly or privately, so we can dialogue about it and all get along. You are intimating that if we have promoted a book on here that is the only reason we are here. That is simply untrue and unfair.

I agree wholeheartedly with many things you say. Particularly that 33 is not always going to mean Bacon and that there can be multiple words generated from gematria etc etc. 33 is more likely to be pointing to the 'Brotherhood/College' as a whole on many occasions where it is automatically assumed to be Bacon. However, I think you need to chill a bit and let people put their views and findings and try not to be so curmudgeonly, as it just alienates. Give and take. You have your views, we read them. Others have their views. Overall everyone presents fascinating findings for all to contemplate. Smile. Lighten up. People will think what they want anyway.

Hope you stay.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

 "For nothing is born without unity or without the point." amazon.com/dp/B0CLDKDPY8

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These are the cipher seals of the Rosicrucian Brotherhood which are also found in the prefatory pages of the Shakespeare First Folio. Fra Rosicrosse stands for Fratres Rosicrosse (Brothers of the Rosy Cross, or alternatively, as intimated by the Rosicrucian Brother Dr John Wilkins, first secretary of the Baconian-Rosicrucian Royal Society, it also stands for Francis Rosicrosse. In his Mathematicall Magick (1648) Dr Wilkins makes the following remarkable disclosure:

‘Such a lamp is likewise related to be seen in the sepulchre of Francis Rosicrosse, as is more largely expressed in the confession of that fraternity.’

The passage contains a deliberate error a device used by the Rosicrucian Brotherhood when disclosing a secret about Francis Bacon. The sepulchre with the lamp in its vault is described not in the Confessio Fraternitatis, but in the preceding first Rosicrucian manifesto, the Fama Fraternitatis with the passage cryptically indicating that Francis Bacon (‘Francis Rosicrosse’) was the secret founder of the Rosicrucian Brotherhood and secret author of its two manifestos.

John Wilkins, Mathematicall Magick Or, The Wonders That May be performed by Mechanical Geometry (London: printed by M. F. for Sa. Gellibrand, 1648), pp. 236-37

PAPER:

https://www.academia.edu/105955896/To_The_Memorie_of_the_deceased_Authour_Maister_W_Shakespeare_by_Leonard_Digges_and_the_Rosicrucian_Freemasonic_Stratford_Monument_commissioned_by_Francis_Bacon

VIDEO: To The Memorie of the deceased Authour Maister W. Shakespeare by Leonard Digges

& the Rosicrucian-Freemasonic Stratford Monument commissioned by Francis Bacon

https://youtu.be/HggKSZ02NWo

VIDEO 1 MINUTE TRAILER: The Amazing Transformation of the Stratford Shakespeare Monument

https://youtu.be/vJ5u1TZA5-8

FF8 45.png

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A few feet below the Shakespeare monument stands the presumed gravestone of William Shakspere of Stratford which bears its famous epitaph.  The inscription contains 106 letters and three symbols with each symbol comprising two letters one placed directly above the other. If we count the symbols as six and deduct them from the letters 106-6=100 it yields Francis Bacon in simple cipher and in like manner if we count the symbols as three 106-3=103 it yields Shakespeare in simple cipher, once more revealing and confirming, that Francis Bacon is Shakespeare.

Frank Woodward and Parker Woodward, Secret Shakespearean Seals Revelations Of Rosicrucian Arcana Discoveries In The Shakespeare Plays, Sonnets, And Works, Printed Circa 1586-1740, Of “Secreti Sigilli,” Concealed Author’s Marks And Signs (Nottingham: H. Jenkins, 1916), p. 70 and plate LXVII.

PAPER:

https://www.academia.edu/105955896/To_The_Memorie_of_the_deceased_Authour_Maister_W_Shakespeare_by_Leonard_Digges_and_the_Rosicrucian_Freemasonic_Stratford_Monument_commissioned_by_Francis_Bacon

VIDEO: To The Memorie of the deceased Authour Maister W. Shakespeare by Leonard Digges

& the Rosicrucian-Freemasonic Stratford Monument commissioned by Francis Bacon

https://youtu.be/HggKSZ02NWo

VIDEO 1 MINUTE TRAILER: The Amazing Transformation of the Stratford Shakespeare Monument

https://youtu.be/vJ5u1TZA5-8

FF8 46.png

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In his poem prefixed to the Shakespeare First Folio, Bacon’s inward friend and Rosicrucian-Freemasonry Brother Leonard Digges made first known printed reference to the Stratford Shakespeare monument wherein he tells us that when ‘Time dissolues thy Stratford Moniment the hidden truth will finally be revealed to the world. In other words, as stated around the title page of New Atlantis (or, Land of the Rosicrucians), IN TIME THE HIDDEN TRUTH WILL BE REVEALED, namely, that Francis Bacon is our secret Shakespeare.

PAPER:

https://www.academia.edu/105955896/To_The_Memorie_of_the_deceased_Authour_Maister_W_Shakespeare_by_Leonard_Digges_and_the_Rosicrucian_Freemasonic_Stratford_Monument_commissioned_by_Francis_Bacon

VIDEO: To The Memorie of the deceased Authour Maister W. Shakespeare by Leonard Digges

& the Rosicrucian-Freemasonic Stratford Monument commissioned by Francis Bacon

https://youtu.be/HggKSZ02NWo

VIDEO 1 MINUTE TRAILER: The Amazing Transformation of the Stratford Shakespeare Monument

https://youtu.be/vJ5u1TZA5-8

FF8 47.png

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, A Phoenix said:

A few feet below the Shakespeare monument stands the presumed gravestone of William Shakspere of Stratford which bears its famous epitaph.  The inscription contains 106 letters and three symbols with each symbol comprising two letters one placed directly above the other. If we count the symbols as six and deduct them from the letters 106-6=100 it yields Francis Bacon in simple cipher and in like manner if we count the symbols as three 106-3=103 it yields Shakespeare in simple cipher, once more revealing and confirming, that Francis Bacon is Shakespeare.

Frank Woodward and Parker Woodward, Secret Shakespearean Seals Revelations Of Rosicrucian Arcana Discoveries In The Shakespeare Plays, Sonnets, And Works, Printed Circa 1586-1740, Of “Secreti Sigilli,” Concealed Author’s Marks And Signs (Nottingham: H. Jenkins, 1916), p. 70 and plate LXVII.

PAPER:

https://www.academia.edu/105955896/To_The_Memorie_of_the_deceased_Authour_Maister_W_Shakespeare_by_Leonard_Digges_and_the_Rosicrucian_Freemasonic_Stratford_Monument_commissioned_by_Francis_Bacon

VIDEO: To The Memorie of the deceased Authour Maister W. Shakespeare by Leonard Digges

& the Rosicrucian-Freemasonic Stratford Monument commissioned by Francis Bacon

https://youtu.be/HggKSZ02NWo

VIDEO 1 MINUTE TRAILER: The Amazing Transformation of the Stratford Shakespeare Monument

https://youtu.be/vJ5u1TZA5-8

FF8 46.png

https://www.light-of-truth.com/Secret_Shakespearean_Seals/Secret_Shakespearean_Seals_top.htm

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Kate said:

That's slightly coincidental. Look what I have been looking at today, not knowing about this post above. Albrecht Durer. Way before Kepler. https://archive.org/details/albrechtdrersun01peltgoog/page/n1/mode/1up?view=theater

image.png.282d795215de632cef3ec9745638e52d.png

That's a great observation. It's the same exercise, actually. Kepler is trying to exploit it to unravel the observational data points. He's looking for an explanation for a pentagonal geometry suggestion. This sort of brings us to Escher (a player in the same game) who first influenced Roger Penrose who then involved his father in it. They subsequently communicated with Escher some ideas they had that led to him drawing some of his most iconic "impossible" geometric scenes we know and love. Penrose is today important in cosmology, and he recently was given the Nobel prize in physics for his work on black holes.

There's been a long history of trying to work back the tiling problem to the least amount of polygons that are required to tile an infinite plane without periodicity. No periodicity might have bee used to explain why there's not perfect translational symmetry in what we see when we look at the celestial vault and the stars, i.e. Penrose worked it all the way back down to two tiles only to realize that Kepler had discovered those two in his Aa before him. It is known there are 17 different tiling symmetries. All are found in Islamic art. 17 need not imply the 17th Earl of Oxford. lol

This showed up in recommendations the other day:

A Hobbyist Just Solved a 50-Year-Old Math Problem (Einstein Tile) - YouTube

It led me to listen to a Penrose interview where he talks about how he saw this Aa tiling in a book his father owned (a volume that contained the Kepler work I refer to). The two shapes that Penrose had worked down to are these:

YMWf4zY.jpg

The angle of use in the creating of these is 72 degrees. You' ll recognize that from the angles associated with pentagons and 5 pointed "stars". Combining these shapes allows one to capture the pentagon and decagon tiling while still being able to account for the stars in the Aa tile (a clever way to come to this).

Of interest to me was the relation of the 18 degree angle which happens to be the compliment of 72. My recently acquired familiarity with it in the Compass and Square square tile meant that I knew the 72 degree angle and its compliment was present in a few places when one starts to bisect and deduce angles within it. It turns out you can get to these shapes just by doing that (not sure if anyone else has observed this). If one pushes the question further and asks why it does appear there one has to first start with the fact that we we are dealing with only a few angles to start off with. Those come to us by triangles which we can treat trigonometrically. 25.56 comes from the Tan of 1:2 (half the square, or half the perfect ashlar). The symmetrical depiction of that angle for the compass gives the 53 degrees. You can create an association with he compass to 53 for symbolic usage. It is further encouraged by the fact that 53 is also there as a corner angle in the 3:4:5 triangle. The 72 in the Compass and square comes out of the fact that a 108 degree angle there between the compass and the square has a compliment of 72.

I now will suggest that all the ratios (treated as triangle sides) involved in the trinity are of likely symbolic value. 1:2, 1:3 and 2:3. 1:2 yields 53. 1:3 yields 18. 2/3 yields 33 If one sticks to the round number approximations in all cases. I was curious about the 48 that Yann noticed. That angle is associated with the 1.11 ratio, so I think we can see that a symbolic link to that number is also clear, and it can be borrowed from 111=Sun. Sun and Mercury are the dancers in question with Kepler, and they are in near conjunction when Bacon was born (that is true of many men). This does beg the question of whether any man who was closely defining himself by his Pythagoreanism could come to have created an association with the numbers for himself. There is no reason that I know of why 53 or 48 ought to trigger anyone to think it was one man being signaled. However, one can come and tie all that to Mercury (the planet) and to quicksilver as its linguistic pointer. That does point as much to Kepler as to anyone. Bacon was aware of Kepler's work and may have considered it closely. I am at least in part intrigued that the British Rosicrucians were stealing Kepler's ideas about harmonics and publishing them without attributing them to him. There could exist an effort to make it appear that a lot of this stuff is British in origin when it is in fact very closely tied to Tubingen. The idea of the Rosy Cross is German in my estimation, and it is closely tied to the observations of Brahe and Kepler relating to the Novas and the writings of Andrea and Jacob Bohme.

These two shapes, put end to end, make a diamond. If you want an example of it look no further than the Royal Crown Cola image I use. It would appear that the RC that sounds Masonic in influence was paired with a visual link to the diamond shape via the 72 degree angle (which it shows on the top and bottom). It may or may not be appreciated that Penrose's tiles were hiding there. I'll have to look into the origin of the RC Cola name.

 

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Wow! 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Eric Roberts said:

Barf. That is not a proof of anything but the fact that 106-6=100. Instead of trying for much better; it's always more of the same simple arithmetic leading to a bad syllogism. There's nothing other than this is there? In the end all this goes away if one disallows the gematria and letter counting games. It's bad news for DeVere's fans too.

Even if that was in fact shown for that reason it would not mean it was true. That's another problem with far flung suggestions. Bacon himself was a full fledged liar when describing King James to the world. Official apologists are like that. A whole grist of these intelligent liars brought together could suggest anything in the name of their beliefs. The ends justify the means. For all you know Bacon's name is being used without his knowledge. When we don't know, we truly do not know.

There is a possible gematria to point to make any man's name be equal to 100. And gematria is not decipherable, so reconsider what you are doing there with the 100 proves Francis Bacon wrote Shakespeare suggestion. That is very low level narrative building. It works to sell Bible Code books, and maybe it sells Baconian books, but it does not get accepted for publication in any respectable journal.

Can you tell us more about the proof that Bacon was Samuel de Champlain after he was Andrea?

The way to put an end to this sort of suggestion is actually to attack it at the root. Was Bacon named in order that his name would sum to 100 to help his own future ideas which were not yet formed? Or is it just low level coincidence? Was there knowledge of the future usage before the birth? This is where I find that the magical tends to start to get involved. Ideas like Dee told the Queen her son needed to be called Francis or that he had to be placed with the Bacons to fulfill a prophecy...yawn. That can only ever work with a crowd that believes in astrology and with speaking to the dead.

How are you going to prove anything to a world that requires reliable suggestions? It is not done by multiplying the uncertain claims.

I'd worry more about establishing that there is in fact an authorship question and that these cats are not just telling you that God wrote Shakespeare with the help of his friends. Not giving God credit is potentially the original error in the interpretation games.

 

Edited by RoyalCraftiness
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Light-of-Truth said:

I serious doubt you will destroy much of anything around here. 😉

Maybe you are missing something?

You mean with this very small group of what you describe as like minded people? Why would I think that neutering a suggested proof would take traction? A suggestion does not work unless it is first at least conditionally accepted. You don't get that from individuals who have already unconditionally accepted. For the record, that unconditional acceptance is not something that is advertised as being present in spades when one comes here (it probably should be to avoid attracting people like me who have a high esteem for Bacon and who could not care less about this authorship business). One has to slowly come to realize that there really is no honest examination of Bacon happening here. The conclusions are already arrived to or assimilated. It's a specific type of narrative strengthening that is happening here. Bacon must be made the fit the narratives. We can totally disregard that he was interested in relaying reliable knowledge to the world here and get busy imagining he was speaking to us in unreliably undecipherable ways.

Believers would have to experience a deprogramming first and then be worked upon after. I don't have the talents to deprogram people.  I am more interested that people who do come here can see skepticism at work before they are recruited. 

You don't have to like Bacon's approach to producing reliable knowledge. It's adversarial and demanding. I understand you are a Dee type of guy. Charlatans like Dee worked by convincing any which way they could. They had very little to go with but human psychology around feelings, experiences, coincidences and biases, because there was not yet a science based in reason. Alchemy was exploitable.

As long as there is grooming and possible belief in this world there will always be factions of believers. The good work is to keep them as small as possible as they try to grow. Success should be hard to come by because proving things is hard. Deprogramming is hard. The work to destroy claims is imperative when we are talking about information that seeks to gain legitimacy. It cannot be about building a cornucopia of unreliable ideas and having the world consume from it along the lines of their preferences or likes. That sort of market freedom is a problem. We risk devolving into myths as Carl Sagan famously described. Myths can come to be preferred over painful realities. That it is hard to know anything is a painful reality.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, RoyalCraftiness said:

Was Bacon named in order that his name would sum to 100 to help his own future ideas which were not yet formed? Or is it just low level coincidence? Was there knowledge of the future usage before the birth?

My theory, never to be proven I am sure, is that Dee coined all of Bacon's names:

William Tudor (to be come William Tudor I)

Francis Bacon

William Shakespeare

So I will say, it is possible that Bacon was named so that it would add up to 100. 😉

EDIT:

Curious to me that CENTURY adds up to 100.

How many ways could they have spelled the English word for 100 years? I suspect gematria is key to many words, and many names.

image.png.01c55f98ef04986c9cc6113cd8567f4d.png

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 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

4 hours ago, RoyalCraftiness said:

That's a great observation. It's the same exercise, actually. Kepler is trying to exploit it to unravel the observational data points. He's looking for an explanation for a 

Glad you liked the synchronicity RC. I read this and thought great, you have decided to continue to post. Super

Then I continued scrolling down your posts and saw the dig at people who believe in astrology and then the bit about " individuals who have already unconditionally accepted." 

I don't think the latter was aimed at me. I believe it was another of your digs at others on here, but that in itself was so disappointing.  I thought better of you. For the record I personally have not unconditionally accepted many things about Bacon or things posted on here, so please could you desist in publicly casting your views about those who post on this forum as if you know what is in others people's minds, and indeed that you know everything and are unequivocally right.

Did you know Dee personally? You write as if you did. I fear you are not acting like a much needed counterweight now, but more like a troll - one who is deliberately setting out to upset and rattle.

Re the astrology bit. It's perhaps vaguely analogous to the medical profession. There are quacks and charlatans who get basic qualifications and set themselves up as practitioners, and the GPs and surgeons who studied in med school for years are appalled at their lack of knowledge and skill, but no one tars a whole enormous profession based on the actions of some. Bacon, Kepler, Brahe, all of them practised astrology. Astrology and the study of cyclical activity far precedes astronomy. Read Isaac Newton's books. Please don't try and belittle me in that way again because I had called you out on your rudeness to others and rather curmudgeonly ways. Please consider self - reflecting and practicing loving kindness.

 

 

  • Like 4
  • Wow! 1

 "For nothing is born without unity or without the point." amazon.com/dp/B0CLDKDPY8

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, RoyalCraftiness said:

You mean with this very small group of what you describe as like minded people?

Our "small group" of real life Baconians is not as small as you think. And we are not without an "abundance of evidence". Christie might offer that we have a ton of circumstantial evidence, which in court can be worthless, but as far as who wrote Shakespeare I will say Baconians have the most evidence.

Your argument, CJ, is that the entire Shakespeare Authorship topic is a waste of time because Bacon was just like you; very cold and methodical and anything that might involve creativity or inspiration is "Anti-Bacon". You are welcome to your views, and I have the utmost respect for things you know which I am sure has taken you many years of serious study.

5 hours ago, RoyalCraftiness said:

I am more interested that people who do come here can see skepticism at work before they are recruited. 

You know what, I am fine with that. You admire Bacon for a slice of what you know him as. And when you speak that sliver of Bacon's legacy you present what no Strat or Oxie would in their best try would be able to do.

They should love you, but you could smash their arguments to bits and I am sure that no Strat or Oxie will attempt to bring you into their Castle of Cards. I am sure they fear they will get your attention after you "destroy the Baconian Myth".

We, who do what we do, the Baconians who are passionate and serious about researching, discovering, and ultimately proving Bacon wrote Shakespeare have to have thick skin, we have to know when to stand up to a claim against some of our work and when to "roll our eyes" with a grin on some rigid and possibly blind opinions. And no matter how much education and knowledge backs up some valid claims, none of us knows the real poop.

Whether it matters or not in the Whole Wide World as we know it, for a group which may indeed be small in scale to the rest of the world, we have collected a vast wealth of evidence that Bacon was Shakespeare. No other candidate has such a Pyramid of "circumstantial" evidence, the social connections, a vast collection of his own works, and some of our passion is the ciphers.

Any one of those countless pieces of evidence can be shot down in court. Even all of them combined can be beat down in a Court of Law. We have no proof.

Christie? Am I wrong?

CJ, did I just destroy a movement that gives so many of us a reason to even take another breath sometimes?

Of course not. Your argument, but maybe less important than basic legal proof, is more interesting sometimes when you are in better moods. I understand moods lately, even here sometimes because life is stressful sometimes.

In your defense, CJ, I may ask that are we as Baconians are trying to use the best Baconian teachings in trying to prove Francis Bacon wrote Shakespeare by the method we are pursuing? But then how many layers of what Bacon teaches can we work with?

I believe that any true scientist has a hypothesis or "hunch" they want to investigate. You have to have a reason why you even ask. Maybe there is a need to find a solution for. "Why did everybody die after eating that potato salad that was left out all day?"

We got curious and the traditional TV and frozen dinner life after a 9-5 job doesn't do it for us. For whatever reason, we stumbled on Bacon. For me it was an immediate I "Knew" my life would never be the same. It was that fast, maybe less than an hour in all. I felt the ripples going back in time in fact that led me to that moment. CJ, maybe you don't know that kind of experience because it defies explanation.

You can beat and destroy every single Bacon as Shakespeare piece of evidence using your Baconian Scientific method, but it is already beat by less impressive logic. We already know that and we live it every day. We learned that when took Bacon 101 during the introductory course! LOL

Will that stop we who are so passionate to find more? No, never will.

Should you stop attempting to destroy the Authorship myth as you believe? Not if it is your passion!

But I will invite you to the be the one who in your Baconian method sets out to do exactly as you say and prove a Truth by ruling out everything else, by trying to disprove the ultimate goal. Or something like that. 😉

We pile up huge mountains of evidence and you destroy every single piece. One day you might get the result and say by Bacon's method, whether it has any value or not, that Bacon was Shakespeare.

 

 

 

  • Like 3
  • 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

50 minutes ago, Kate said:

I don't think the latter was aimed at me. I believe it was another of your digs at others on here, but that in itself was so disappointing.  I thought better of you. For the record I personally have not unconditionally accepted many things about Bacon or things posted on here, so please could you desist in publicly casting your views about those who post on this forum as if you know what is in others people's minds, and indeed that you know everything and are unequivocally right.

Kate, you nor anyone EVER in this forum should feel they are attacked. 

Discussing and even debating ideas is allowed and encouraged, of course. Any kind of disrespectful comments or "digs" against another member is NOT encouraged nor is allowed. Even if by accident one must be careful and professional, worthy of even being here to not make another member feel attacked. (I am setting the rule for myself as well; Light-of-Truth).

The boundaries have been vague, let me define them:

Any B'Hive member who attacks another B'Hive member will be warned once, then suspended on further violations if not banned. 

This forum will not become a Jerry Springer grade lowlife venue for trash drama. Period.

Is there anybody who disagrees in our intimate collection of members who post?

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Rob at 007 said:

Kate, you nor anyone EVER in this forum should feel they are attacked. 

Discussing and even debating ideas is allowed and encouraged, of course. Any kind of disrespectful comments or "digs" against another member is NOT encouraged nor is allowed. Even if by accident one must be careful and professional, worthy of even being here to not make another member feel attacked. (I am setting the rule for myself as well; Light-of-Truth).

The boundaries have been vague, let me define them:

Any B'Hive member who attacks another B'Hive member will be warned once, then suspended on further violations if not banned. 

This forum will not become a Jerry Springer grade lowlife venue for trash drama. Period.

Is there anybody who disagrees in our intimate collection of members who post?

I am approaching the 22 year anniversary of the day I discovered the Sonnets Pyramid design and I really really want to post something as I am so excited!

Tomorrow it might be possibly appropriate to say, "That is the craziest thing I have ever heard!"

But it would be totally inappropriate to say, "You are the craziest person I have ever known!"

See the difference? 🙂

  • 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

1 hour ago, Kate said:

Re the astrology bit.

Kate! Thanks for the Star tips on Hurricane's Ian and Idalia. Both times the head's up was right on the money. Keep that resource in your pocket. 😉

This comet is like a giant razor sharp sword in my life right now, on several fronts. Funny how that works, the timing of everything.

  • 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

10 hours ago, Light-of-Truth said:

Our "small group" of real life Baconians is not as small as you think. And we are not without an "abundance of evidence". Christie might offer that we have a ton of circumstantial evidence, which in court can be worthless, but as far as who wrote Shakespeare I will say Baconians have the most evidence.

Your argument, CJ, is that the entire Shakespeare Authorship topic is a waste of time because Bacon was just like you; very cold and methodical and anything that might involve creativity or inspiration is "Anti-Bacon". You are welcome to your views, and I have the utmost respect for things you know which I am sure has taken you many years of serious study.

You know what, I am fine with that. You admire Bacon for a slice of what you know him as. And when you speak that sliver of Bacon's legacy you present what no Strat or Oxie would in their best try would be able to do.

They should love you, but you could smash their arguments to bits and I am sure that no Strat or Oxie will attempt to bring you into their Castle of Cards. I am sure they fear they will get your attention after you "destroy the Baconian Myth".

We, who do what we do, the Baconians who are passionate and serious about researching, discovering, and ultimately proving Bacon wrote Shakespeare have to have thick skin, we have to know when to stand up to a claim against some of our work and when to "roll our eyes" with a grin on some rigid and possibly blind opinions. And no matter how much education and knowledge backs up some valid claims, none of us knows the real poop.

Whether it matters or not in the Whole Wide World as we know it, for a group which may indeed be small in scale to the rest of the world, we have collected a vast wealth of evidence that Bacon was Shakespeare. No other candidate has such a Pyramid of "circumstantial" evidence, the social connections, a vast collection of his own works, and some of our passion is the ciphers.

Any one of those countless pieces of evidence can be shot down in court. Even all of them combined can be beat down in a Court of Law. We have no proof.

Christie? Am I wrong?

CJ, did I just destroy a movement that gives so many of us a reason to even take another breath sometimes?

Of course not. Your argument, but maybe less important than basic legal proof, is more interesting sometimes when you are in better moods. I understand moods lately, even here sometimes because life is stressful sometimes.

In your defense, CJ, I may ask that are we as Baconians are trying to use the best Baconian teachings in trying to prove Francis Bacon wrote Shakespeare by the method we are pursuing? But then how many layers of what Bacon teaches can we work with?

I believe that any true scientist has a hypothesis or "hunch" they want to investigate. You have to have a reason why you even ask. Maybe there is a need to find a solution for. "Why did everybody die after eating that potato salad that was left out all day?"

We got curious and the traditional TV and frozen dinner life after a 9-5 job doesn't do it for us. For whatever reason, we stumbled on Bacon. For me it was an immediate I "Knew" my life would never be the same. It was that fast, maybe less than an hour in all. I felt the ripples going back in time in fact that led me to that moment. CJ, maybe you don't know that kind of experience because it defies explanation.

You can beat and destroy every single Bacon as Shakespeare piece of evidence using your Baconian Scientific method, but it is already beat by less impressive logic. We already know that and we live it every day. We learned that when took Bacon 101 during the introductory course! LOL

Will that stop we who are so passionate to find more? No, never will.

Should you stop attempting to destroy the Authorship myth as you believe? Not if it is your passion!

But I will invite you to the be the one who in your Baconian method sets out to do exactly as you say and prove a Truth by ruling out everything else, by trying to disprove the ultimate goal. Or something like that. 😉

We pile up huge mountains of evidence and you destroy every single piece. One day you might get the result and say by Bacon's method, whether it has any value or not, that Bacon was Shakespeare.

 

 

 

Hi Rob

Yesterday I had a look back at the What's New content for July and August. There are 9 essays representing many hundreds of pages of research on multiple aspects of Baconian theory. No other Authorship site is this content rich, including the birthplace trust.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Eric,

We often say that firstly evidence supporting and confirming that FB wrote the Shakespeare works is mountainous, overwhelming and irrefutable-unfortunately the sheer mass of it is difficult to condense into a single publication. This includes primary documentation: the so-called Northumberland Manuscript originally containing two of FB's Shakespeare plays Richard II and Richard III ; the so-called Dering MS of Henry IV corrected in FB's own hand; the Promus of Formularies and Elegances (FB's own private note-book) containing literally hundreds of parallels to his Shakespeare poems and plays; the external & internal evidence illustrating that the Shakespeare First Folio was written and published by FB with the assistance of Ben Jonson who was then living with FB at Gorhambury; and the Memoriae published by Dr Rawley (who had lived with FB for the last ten years of his recorded life) containing 32 Latin verses portraying FB as the concealed author of comedies and tragedies, secret author of the Shakespeare works.

Further to this there is the contemporary textual evidence in the plays themselves which clearly reveal FB's authorship not least found in The Taming of the Shrew, Love's Labour's Lost,The Merchant of Venice, Hamlet, Measure for Measure and The Tempest, just to name only a few.

In addition to this Marston and Hall unmistakably identified FB as the author of Venus and Adonis and The Rape of Lucrece between the years 1597 to 1599 and we have further evidence of other early writers, poets and dramatists alluding to FB's authorship of the Shakespeare works (some known and others not known which we intend to publish in due course). This only represents a snapshot of all the evidence and facts which cumulatively confirms that FB is Shakespeare.

No Stratfordian, Oxfordian or Marlovian not to mention other ignorant deluded fools has ever addressed and refuted the enormous canon of Baconian evidence/proof confirming FB's authorship for two reasons: one they are not familiar with it in its entirety and secondly it is impossible to refute. If any wish to dispute this let them try and refute it in its entirety. 

Secondly, you are also right that sirbacon.org/B'Hive produces more material on the Shakespeare authorship than any other authorship site on planet earth by an absolute mile. 

 

  • Thanks 2
  • Wow! 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, A Phoenix said:

Hi Eric,

We often say that firstly evidence supporting and confirming that FB wrote the Shakespeare works is mountainous, overwhelming and irrefutable-unfortunately the sheer mass of it is difficult to condense into a single publication. This includes primary documentation: the so-called Northumberland Manuscript originally containing two of FB's Shakespeare plays Richard II and Richard III ; the so-called Dering MS of Henry IV corrected in FB's own hand; the Promus of Formularies and Elegances (FB's own private note-book) containing literally hundreds of parallels to his Shakespeare poems and plays; the external & internal evidence illustrating that the Shakespeare First Folio was written and published by FB with the assistance of Ben Jonson who was then living with FB at Gorhambury; and the Memoriae published by Dr Rawley (who had lived with FB for the last ten years of his recorded life) containing 32 Latin verses portraying FB as the concealed author of comedies and tragedies, secret author of the Shakespeare works.

Further to this there is the contemporary textual evidence in the plays themselves which clearly reveal FB's authorship not least found in The Taming of the Shrew, Love's Labour's Lost,The Merchant of Venice, Hamlet, Measure for Measure and The Tempest, just to name only a few.

In addition to this Marston and Hall unmistakably identified FB as the author of Venus and Adonis and The Rape of Lucrece between the years 1597 to 1599 and we have further evidence of other early writers, poets and dramatists alluding to FB's authorship of the Shakespeare works (some known and others not known which we intend to publish in due course). This only represents a snapshot of all the evidence and facts which cumulatively confirms that FB is Shakespeare.

No Stratfordian, Oxfordian or Marlovian not to mention other ignorant deluded fools has ever addressed and refuted the enormous canon of Baconian evidence/proof confirming FB's authorship for two reasons: one they are not familiar with it in its entirety and secondly it is impossible to refute. If any wish to dispute this let them try and refute it in its entirety. 

Secondly, you are also right that sirbacon.org/B'Hive produces more material on the Shakespeare authorship than any other authorship site on planet earth by an absolute mile. 

 

 

Hi A Phoenix

 

"thanks" is hardly adequate. I've just taken a screen shot of your super-condensed precis of the current Baconian position, based on a diverse multitude of direct and indirect evidence. It could come in very handy if I'm discussing the Authorship question with someone. Hopefully, you will post it on your other sites - in bold 🙂. By way of a proper thanks, I thought the Preface of a book you are more than familiar with, I'm sure, would be appropriate, given recent Forum activity.

ScreenShot2023-09-11at8_46_10pm.png.5b2df56c79265f05e29b98178b7fb73e.png

ScreenShot2023-09-11at8_45_56pm.png.69fd536941d185933b45e2f10d86006b.png

ScreenShot2023-09-11at8_45_35pm.png.338525516df4a08fac19aff1b8027c20.png

ScreenShot2023-09-11at8_45_35pm.png.338525516df4a08fac19aff1b8027c20.png

tragedyofsirfran00bayluoft.pdf

 

Edited by Eric Roberts
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 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...