Jump to content

Zoom Event about Bacon hosted by Oxies Wednesday, May 22 at 8 PM Eastern / 5 PM Pacific


Recommended Posts

49a42889-bb48-96de-8496-a0f63d5f3a55.jpgJoin us live TODAY, Wednesday 5/22 at 8pm E / 5pm P for Who Are Those Guys: Marlowe and Bacon, and Was One of Them Shakespeare?

Blue Boar Tavern regulars Bonner Cutting, Dorothea Dickerman, Alex McNeil, Phoebe Nir and special guest bartender, Tom Woosnam, will discuss two more fascinating Elizabethan personalities as part of the series “Who Are Those Guys?”

Poet, playwright, translator and suspected government spy, Christopher Marlowe lived large swaths of his life deeply hidden in the shadows. 

4974962b-4d57-bae2-e7ed-45d3633083e2.jpg

Francis Bacon, philosopher, lawyer and statesman, is considered today to be one of the founders of the scientific method of inquiry. 

Both of these accomplished men have been put forth by their supporters as the hidden face behind the pseudonym “William Shakespeare” and both were well known to Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford. Join the Blue Boar Tavern discussion on how their lives wove in and out of his.

We hope to see you there! 🍺

Can’t make this episode live? We have you covered! Blue Boar Tavern replays get posted to our Youtube Channel and website for you to watch for the first time or again and again!

BLUE BOAR TAVERN LIVE

When: Wednesday, May 22 at 8 PM Eastern / 5 PM Pacific
 

How to join: No need to register, simply click on the following link up to 5 minutes before the start


International numbers available: https://us06web.zoom.us/u/khfeXMRd1
Zoom Download
 
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/22/2024 at 6:36 PM, Christie Waldman said:

"I was apprehensive that it would be bad, but I had no idea it would be that bad."

I agree Christie.

5 Oxies flummoxed (brainwashed would be more apropos) that Bacon was a "Machiavellian type character." It was a Comedy of Errors watching this group interact reinforcing their biases with somber glee. Daphne De Maurier was mentioned which is good and one woman held up a small placard of De Maurier who was once a member of the FBSociety. Bacon's relationship to Essex and Southampton was brought up, that Bacon was only interested in himself and had taken bribes as Chancellor (which we know he was framed). If they did their homework they would have known that Bacon was forced to prosecute Essex while  saving his brother Anthony from severe repercussions because of his association with Essex.

It was clear that their shallow understanding of Bacon and Elizabethan history was biased on Alan Stewart & Lisa Jardine's hack job, "Hostage to Fortune."

 See Mather Walker's Book Review   https://sirbacon.org/jardine.htm

One of the Oxies worked herself into a frenzy on how much she disliked Bacon and that his character did not "mesh" with whoever was Shakespeare.  But there was a moment of unexpected clarity, when she said, "Maybe I'm wrong."  You can tell they  were fear based and aloof from having a deeper perspective on Bacon. When they asked about the best bios to read about Bacon I wrote in the chat box, Alfred Dodd's "The Personal Life Story of Francis Bacon." Clayton Buerkle added in the chat room a link to A.Phoenix's https://sirbacon.org/six-primary-documents-confirming-francis-bacon-is-shakespeare/

This episode of the Blue Boar Tavern Zoom event will be posted on youtube at some point in the near future. It serves as a comic and tragic illustration how ill informed most Oxfordians are in regard to Francis Bacon and his life.

 

On 5/22/2024 at 6:36 PM, Christie Waldman said:

I was apprehensive that it would be bad, but I had no idea it would be that bad.

On 5/22/2024 at 3:15 PM, Lawrence Gerald said:

49a42889-bb48-96de-8496-a0f63d5f3a55.jpgJoin us live TODAY, Wednesday 5/22 at 8pm E / 5pm P for Who Are Those Guys: Marlowe and Bacon, and Was One of Them Shakespeare?

Blue Boar Tavern regulars Bonner Cutting, Dorothea Dickerman, Alex McNeil, Phoebe Nir and special guest bartender, Tom Woosnam, will discuss two more fascinating Elizabethan personalities as part of the series “Who Are Those Guys?”

Poet, playwright, translator and suspected government spy, Christopher Marlowe lived large swaths of his life deeply hidden in the shadows. 

4974962b-4d57-bae2-e7ed-45d3633083e2.jpg

Francis Bacon, philosopher, lawyer and statesman, is considered today to be one of the founders of the scientific method of inquiry. 

Both of these accomplished men have been put forth by their supporters as the hidden face behind the pseudonym “William Shakespeare” and both were well known to Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford. Join the Blue Boar Tavern discussion on how their lives wove in and out of his.

We hope to see you there! 🍺

Can’t make this episode live? We have you covered! Blue Boar Tavern replays get posted to our Youtube Channel and website for you to watch for the first time or again and again!

BLUE BOAR TAVERN LIVE

When: Wednesday, May 22 at 8 PM Eastern / 5 PM Pacific
 

How to join: No need to register, simply click on the following link up to 5 minutes before the start


International numbers available: https://us06web.zoom.us/u/khfeXMRd1
Zoom Download
 

 

  • Thanks 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Watching their faces, I felt like the men in the Blue Boar presentation, Tom Woosnam and Alex McNeil, were more uncomfortable than the women with Phoebe Nir's over-the-top, biased, and inaccurate trashing of a man whose accomplishments deserved respect, Francis Bacon--whether she personally liked him or not. It seems likely that none of the participants had read Nieves Matthews, Francis Bacon: The History of a Character Assassination (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1996), for no one challenged her on her facts or lack of fairness. Alex McNeil who presented on Marlowe did not feel the need to trash Marlowe. After Nir finished, McNeil mentioned Bacon's knowledge of the law (relevant to the law in Shakespeare) and his "wide ranging interests," but said he was "not known for his dramatic works." Well, only if you exclude masques and ignore connections like that between the Christmas Revels and The Comedy of Errors. I was glad to see your biography suggestion acknowledged, Lawrence, and to hear that Clayton Buerkle made one. Bonner Cutting mentioned Daphne du Maurier (The Golden Lads, The Winding Stair) and Spedding (but as a biographer?). They barely touched on the evidence in favor of Bacon on Shakespeare authorship which was what the presentation was supposed to be about.

  • Like 1
  • Sad 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well its safe to say  last night  at  the  Blue Boar Tavern aka "Grumpy's,"  more foam  was served than beer. Having Oxfordians inform us who Francis Bacon was  is like asking Vladimir Putin to talk about the benefits of NATO.

Grumpys.jpeg

  • Like 1
  • Haha 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Lawrence Gerald said:

Well its safe to say  last night  at  the  Blue Boar Tavern aka "Grumpy's,"  more foam  was served than beer. Having Oxfordians inform us who Francis Bacon was  is like asking Vladimir Putin to talk about the benefits of NATO.

Grumpys.jpeg

"Phoebe dislikes Bacon to protect herself from knowing the deeper truth"... well said Lawrence.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If they wanted to be taken seriously, it seems they would try to be objective in their presentations. How can anything call itself "scientific" if it makes little attempt to be objective? British barrister N. B. Cockburn in The Bacon Shakespeare Question: The Baconian Theory Made Sane (Francis Bacon Society Edition 2024) bent over backwards to strive to present both sides of an issue. He did not see the need to abuse the Earl of Oxford when he wrote about him (pp. 581-582) in his chapter 36 on "Rival Claimants." You can order the book from the Francis Bacon Society online bookstore, of course. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
9 hours ago, Lawrence Gerald said:

It was clear that their shallow understanding of Bacon and Elizabethan history was based on Alan Stewart & Lisa Jardine's hack job, "Hostage to Fortune." aka Hostile to Truth.

 See Mather Walker's Book Review   https://sirbacon.org/jardine.htm

Love this review from the very beginning!

If you hate Francis Bacon you will love "HOSTAGE TO FORTUNE". On the other hand if you are like me you may be reminded of Dorothy Parker's comment about another book:

"This is not a book to be tossed aside lightly. It should be thrown with great force."
  • Like 3
  • 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

I was going to comment that at least the Oxies who made this  grumpy and inaccurate  video about Bacon back on May 22nd were smart enough not to post it on youtube, but now all bets are off as they couldn't help themselves and posted it on June 20th. I thought the  comments made in the comments section during their broadcast would have provided them with something to think about and reconsider how little they know about Bacon. But of course I underestimated how some Oxies prefer to regale in their ignorance then actually have an advancement of learning.  Send in some comments on their youtube page if inclined.......

 

  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The question is, will they leave the comments up? I just posted this:

"On Bacon: has Phoebe Nir read Nieves Matthews, "Francis Bacon: The History of a Character Assassination"? (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1996)? Or N. B. Cockburn, "The Bacon Shakespeare Question: The Baconian Theory Made Sane" (Francis Bacon Society Edition 2024)? In her presentation, she stated her intense, dislike of Bacon--which was quite obvious. Are standards of objectivity going by the wayside in "educational" presentations by Oxfordians? Such was not always the case. Where was the fair, unbiased presentation of the evidence both for and against the case for Bacon? For that, read N. B. Cockburn. If this is a war of ideas, let the truth win. Let's at least give it an honest chance to be heard."

  • Thanks 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Lawrence Gerald said:

no, they won't leave comments up that go against their belief system. I don't see your comment Christie and of course my comment was deleted instantly. Nothing truer than censorship.

 

If the shoe was on the other foot and we received a well researched refutation of SFB's authorship of the plays (just for argument's sake), would we instantly dismiss it or reconsider our position? Not to adopt the latter choice is a form of insanity, imho. Conclusion: Oxfordians are intellectually challenged.

 

 

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

1 hour ago, A Phoenix said:

Hi Eric,

Or meet it head on and demolish it via a systematic point by point rebuttal. 

We are NOT afraid of being challenged, we look forward to opportunities to share the Truth!

  • 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

Did we used to see more open-mindedness among the Oxfordians? Perhaps in general? In an article in a 2008 Shakespeare Oxford Newsletter, edited by Earl Showerman, Derran Carlton called N.B. Cockburn's book [The Bacon Shakespeare Question: the Baconian Theory Made Sane (now reprinted in The Francis Bacon Society Edition 2024] "excellent," although he got the name of the title wrong. (Derran Carlton, "Cambridge University 'Implications' of Polimanteia, Shakespeare Oxford Newsletter, Spring 2008, pp. 5-8, at 7, PDF) Carlton also failed to mention that  Bacon attended Cambridge University from 1573-75. He does quote Peter Dawkins on p. 6, calling him "a foremost Baconian and special advisor to London's Globe Theatre." He even quotes Alan Nelson on p. 7 and lists all three authors--Cockburn, Dawkins, and Nelson--in his reference section. In all, there were 16 references to Bacon in that newsletter (and none trashing his character as the Blue Boar's Phoebe Nir had felt compelled to do). I think this is more open-mindedness to Baconian evidence than we are likely to see from current-day Oxfordians, generally.

In that newsletter, under "Book Reviews," there was a "review" by Richard Whalen of the book James Shapiro was yet to write, having just (according to Whalen) received his contract from Simon & Schuster in 2008 (13-14). He quotes Shapiro as saying Shapiro had derived "a good deal of pleasure" from reading Delia Bacon and J. T. Looney (from an interview in The Shakespeare Newsletter, Whalen says, March 2008, p. 13), not because he agreed with them, however. To Whalen, Delia was "not a Baconian," "as Shapiro probably knows" [!] because she "put Sir Walter Raleigh at the head of a literary circle ...." Whalen also reviews Stanley Wells' own 2008 book which devotes seven chapters (of eighty-eight, according to Whalen) to authorship: Is it True What They Say About Shakespeare? (Ebington, UK: Long Barn Books, 2008), pp. 15-16) for the common reader. That was the same year Brian McClinton's book, The Shakespeare Conspiracies, came out in its second edition, published by Shanway Press in Belfast. It's interesting to compare attitudes today to attitudes then.

 

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

23 hours ago, Christie Waldman said:

Did we used to see more open-mindedness among the Oxfordians? Perhaps in general? In an article in a 2008 Shakespeare Oxford Newsletter, edited by Earl Showerman, Derran Carlton called N.B. Cockburn's book [The Bacon Shakespeare Question: the Baconian Theory Made Sane (now reprinted in The Francis Bacon Society Edition 2024] "excellent," although he got the name of the title wrong. (Derran Carlton, "Cambridge University 'Implications' of Polimanteia, Shakespeare Oxford Newsletter, Spring 2008, pp. 5-8, at 7, PDF) Carlton also failed to mention that  Bacon attended Cambridge University from 1573-75. He does quote Peter Dawkins on p. 6, calling him "a foremost Baconian and special advisor to London's Globe Theatre." He even quotes Alan Nelson on p. 7 and lists all three authors--Cockburn, Dawkins, and Nelson--in his reference section. In all, there were 16 references to Bacon in that newsletter (and none trashing his character as the Blue Boar's Phoebe Nir had felt compelled to do). I think this is more open-mindedness to Baconian evidence than we are likely to see from current-day Oxfordians, generally.

In that newsletter, under "Book Reviews," there was a "review" by Richard Whalen of the book James Shapiro was yet to write, having just (according to Whalen) received his contract from Simon & Schuster in 2008 (13-14). He quotes Shapiro as saying Shapiro had derived "a good deal of pleasure" from reading Delia Bacon and J. T. Looney (from an interview in The Shakespeare Newsletter, Whalen says, March 2008, p. 13), not because he agreed with them, however. To Whalen, Delia was "not a Baconian," "as Shapiro probably knows" [!] because she "put Sir Walter Raleigh at the head of a literary circle ...." Whalen also reviews Stanley Wells' own 2008 book which devotes seven chapters (of eighty-eight, according to Whalen) to authorship: Is it True What They Say About Shakespeare? (Ebington, UK: Long Barn Books, 2008), pp. 15-16) for the common reader. That was the same year Brian McClinton's book, The Shakespeare Conspiracies, came out in its second edition, published by Shanway Press in Belfast. It's interesting to compare attitudes today to attitudes then.

 

How eloquently revealed... thanks, Christie.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/24/2024 at 4:35 AM, Eric Roberts said:

 

If the shoe was on the other foot and we received a well researched refutation of SFB's authorship of the plays (just for argument's sake), would we instantly dismiss it or reconsider our position? Not to adopt the latter choice is a form of insanity, imho. Conclusion: Oxfordians are intellectually challenged.

 

 

When it comes to the year of Oxford's death in 1604, intellectually challenged Oxfordians bypass this fact by resorting to their Imagination and make up theories they believe are facts. Reality Distortionists.

  • Like 4
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the distortions is predicated on having the publication of the plays to fit DeVere's living timeline. So that means all the plays have to be written before 1604. Despite the reality that revisions were made clearly past the 1604 timeline we are dealing with an adversary that has no regard to historical truth.

  • 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...