The Prima Facie Case for Shakespeare Drafted by legally qualified oxfraudians

[Allisnum2er]

9 hours ago, Lawrence Gerald said:

The Proof is in the Rasputin in the Putin

Yes, you damn right !!! 😀

 

[Christie Waldman]

For the record, this is my latest response to Stratfordian/Oxfraudian claims that they have stated a prima facie legal case which they seem to consider impregnable and dare others to try to rebut: In legal terms, the problem is with the nature and quality of their evidence. They have claimed their evidence states a case which entitles them to the favored status--if there were actually a legal court proceeding, which there is not--of a prima facie case with a presumption in their favor (which they say means if you cannot rebut their evidence, you lose. However, to take New York procedure for example, you would not have to rebut their evidence or lose; you would just have to raise a reasonable doubt, in order to be entitled to a trial on the evidence. I have pointed this out to them in prior comments. In response to a request for explanation of the "rule against hearsay," I wrote this, posted Oct. 4, 2022, on the Oxfraud group Facebook page (thread begun by Mike Leadbetter, Sept. 7, 2021): 

"Hearsay evidence" is defined as out of court statements offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. In a court of law, such statements are excluded as inadmissible evidence, in U.S. law generally.

Your "legally trained Oxfraudians," your "legal team," have framed your case in legal terms and claimed for you a strong enough case to entitle you to a presumption in your favor, but there is no legal case pending and there is no impartial judge or court with jurisdiction. In fact, your entire case is made up of inadmissible hearsay evidence.

In court, witnesses testify as to matters within their personal knowledge. For example, if you had such a living, breathing, witness, he might say in court, "Yes, I saw William Shaxpere writing Macbeth." However, there are no living witnesses, 400 years later, who could possibly testify, and there is no court.

A printed statement in a book is hearsay. A police report or medical record is hearsay. These are inadmissible; a witness with personal knowledge must testify.

"Hand D" may be the hand of the poet/dramatist Shakespeare, but the six signatures claimed for Shaxpere are an insufficent handwriting sample for analysis to link "Hand D" to Shaxpere. In fact, the Folger website admits "we don't really know what Shakespeare's handwriting looks like" (they mean William Shaxpere to whom the plays are traditionally attributed).

"No man can be judge in his own cause" is an important legal maxim. You cannot simply give your case the status of a prima facie case; only a judge can do that IF he decides you have a case that warrants that status. Likewise, you cannot simply assert for your evidence an entitlement to a presumption in your favor. That is up to a judge and is dependent on the strength of your evidence. Your evidence, in contrast, is inadmissible.

There are other problems. For example, for whom do your "legally qualified Oxfraudians" purport to speak? Under what authority? Shaxpere did not authorize you; he is dead. For all these reasons, your legal model fails.

In my opinion, your attempt to give your case a stronger appearance than it has by claiming for it a status it would not have in a court of law, borders on the unethical. You want to use Harold Love as an authority for your use of a legal model for attribution; however, Love was not legally trained; he was an English professor.

Yes, there are exceptions to the rule against hearsay, but I would advise you to admit that your evidence, which may seem strong to you, does not meet the qualifications for admissibility that the rule against hearsay imposes in a legal case and back away from trying to frame your evidence as a legal case with prima facie status that entitles you to a presumption in your favor. If anything, you have only served to highlight the deficiencies in your case (written by a lawyer). https://oxfraud.com/sites/PrimaFacie.html. https://oxfraud.com/sites/PrimaFacie.html. https://express.adobe.com/page/oeL8Iuo40YZrU/?ref=https%3A%2F%2Foxfraud.com%2Fsites%2FPrimaFacie.html&embed_type=overlay&context=lightbox-expand.

Edited October 7, 2022 by Christie Waldman
add links to Oxfraud.com and its Prima Facie Case

[Light-of-Truth]

You nailed it! Their case is moot? (I'm testing a word I learned casually a long time ago.) LOL

Even we Baconians yet do not have a slam-dunk closed case for who wrote Shakespeare. But I do believe we have the most giant pile of  preponderance of evidence. One day we we all will possibly wake up to news of the single one proof to convince any legal jury unamiously that only Bacon could have been Shakespeare.

My dream is it will be Prince William who speaks the 400 year old Truth and may have been named after Queen Elizabeth I's legendary super genius son, "William Tudor'.

 

 

Edited October 7, 2022 by Light-of-Truth

[Eric Roberts]

6 hours ago, Christie Waldman said:

For the record, this is my latest response to Stratfordian/Oxfraudian claims that they have stated a prima facie legal case which they seem to consider impregnable and dare others to try to rebut: In legal terms, the problem is with the nature and quality of their evidence. They have claimed their evidence states a case which entitles them to the favored status--if there were actually a legal court proceeding, which there is not--of a prima facie case with a presumption in their favor (which they say means if you cannot rebut their evidence, you lose. However, to take New York procedure for example, you would not have to rebut their evidence or lose; you would just have to raise a reasonable doubt, in order to be entitled to a trial on the evidence. I have pointed this out to them in prior comments. In response to a request for explanation of the "rule against hearsay," I wrote this, posted Oct. 4, 2022, on the Oxfraud group Facebook page (thread begun by Mike Leadbetter, Sept. 7, 2021): 

"Hearsay evidence" is defined as out of court statements offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. In a court of law, such statements are excluded as inadmissible evidence, in U.S. law generally.

Your "legally trained Oxfraudians," your "legal team," have framed your case in legal terms and claimed for you a strong enough case to entitle you to a presumption in your favor, but there is no legal case pending and there is no impartial judge or court with jurisdiction. In fact, your entire case is made up of inadmissible hearsay evidence.

In court, witnesses testify as to matters within their personal knowledge. For example, if you had such a living, breathing, witness, he might say in court, "Yes, I saw William Shaxpere writing Macbeth." However, there are no living witnesses, 400 years later, who could possibly testify, and there is no court.

A printed statement in a book is hearsay. A police report or medical record is hearsay. These are inadmissible; a witness with personal knowledge must testify.

"Hand D" may be the hand of the poet/dramatist Shakespeare, but the six signatures claimed for Shaxpere are an insufficent handwriting sample for analysis to link "Hand D" to Shaxpere. In fact, the Folger website admits "we don't really know what Shakespeare's handwriting looks like" (they mean William Shaxpere to whom the plays are traditionally attributed).

"No man can be judge in his own cause" is an important legal maxim. You cannot simply give your case the status of a prima facie case; only a judge can do that IF he decides you have a case that warrants that status. Likewise, you cannot simply assert for your evidence an entitlement to a presumption in your favor. That is up to a judge and is dependent on the strength of your evidence. Your evidence, in contrast, is inadmissible.

There are other problems. For example, for whom do your "legally qualified Oxfraudians" purport to speak? Under what authority? Shaxpere did not authorize you; he is dead. For all these reasons, your legal model fails.

In my opinion, your attempt to give your case a stronger appearance than it has by claiming for it a status it would not have in a court of law, borders on the unethical. You want to use Harold Love as an authority for your use of a legal model for attribution; however, Love was not legally trained; he was an English professor.

Yes, there are exceptions to the rule against hearsay, but I would advise you to admit that your evidence, which may seem strong to you, does not meet the qualifications for admissibility that the rule against hearsay imposes in a legal case and back away from trying to frame your evidence as a legal case with prima facie status that entitles you to a presumption in your favor. If anything, you have only served to highlight the deficiencies in your case (written by a lawyer). https://oxfraud.com/sites/PrimaFacie.html. https://oxfraud.com/sites/PrimaFacie.html. https://express.adobe.com/page/oeL8Iuo40YZrU/?ref=https%3A%2F%2Foxfraud.com%2Fsites%2FPrimaFacie.html&embed_type=overlay&context=lightbox-expand.

A  d e v a s t a t I n g  rebuttal, Christie. So lucky we have you in the B'Hive! "Oxfraudians" - need one say more?

Edited October 7, 2022 by Eric Roberts

[Eric Roberts]

I just want to say THANKS to Light-of-Truth. As a means of intelligent communion, the way the B'Hive has been consciously built to accommodate any thoughts we may have, and the sheer quality of our accumulating thoughts about matters of significance and import, it would be difficult to surpass. Thank you Rob and Lawrence.

[Light-of-Truth]

8 minutes ago, Eric Roberts said:

I just want to say THANKS to Light-of-Truth. As a means of intelligent communion, the way the B'Hive has been consciously built to accommodate any thoughts we may have, and the sheer quality of our accumulating thoughts about matters of significance and import, it would be difficult to surpass. Thank you Rob and Lawrence.

The technology is one thing, it's what I do. The Community, we are all learning as we go. Baconians have never been the most cohesive group of souls. 🙂

So far pretty good with a few minor hiccups. As we few become the elders, we will need to stay glued together. A Wedding of some kind?

Thanks Eric! A little praise and love keep the big wheel moving. 🙂

 

[Christie Waldman]

Thank you, Eric. And, as always, thank you to Light-of-Truth and Lawrence.  

 

[Eric Roberts]

12 hours ago, Christie Waldman said:

Thank you, Eric. And, as always, thank you to Light-of-Truth and Lawrence.  

 

Unless you think it's a really bad idea, you could contact Jono Freeman to see if he would be interested in performing your brilliant legal reply to Oxfraudians on video, in character as a top lawyer in wig and gown. It might lack your decorum but it might also be very funny. Humour can sometimes be the best medicine. This would only be as a popular, Pythonesque addition to your already impeccablely written text. But if you hate the idea, please regard this suggestion as merely a jest...

[Christie Waldman]

Thank you, Eric. I will certainly consider that. Maybe they are hoist with their own petard, to quote Shakespeare. I had a law professor (U.S.) come to class once in a wig and gown.

Further thoughts: Everyone makes mistakes. I make my share of them. The thing is to admit honest mistakes and try to correct them. The Golden Rule comes to mind. I have myself been the butt of mean-spirited ridicule and that is not what we, or Bacon or Shakespeare, want to be about. There is no need to intentionally embarrass anyone who has made an honest mistake and tries to fix it. The question is, do we care about truth or about winning an argument? Well, of course, Francis Bacon was all about finding out the truth. He helped to establish the modern definition of a fact, as Barbara Shapiro wrote about in her book, A Culture of Fact. I'm all for humor, but not at someone else's expense.   

Analogies are never perfect. The bee and beehive analogy is Bacon's own, and it's quite apt. People working together toward common goals is a good image. But we do not have a "hive mind." I do think of those who post here as independent thinkers, striving to alter our opinions, and make amends if we find out we've been wrong.

 

Edited October 9, 2022 by Christie Waldman
further thoughts

[Light-of-Truth]

Personally, I am never wrong. LOL!!

Honestly, in my mind, I define the FOOL! I have learned to like being the FOOLE better! 🙂

I now cannot write a check without a typo. That's why I do everything online; backspace is a valuable tool.

If I think back a few years on where I was, my reality has changed. You have influenced my drift towards the New Atlantis, with others. I have my own vision that is important for me, but I do intend to stay flexible and try to fix my typos when I can. But I am the Typpo King.

As a Bee in this Hive, I am who I am. It would take a ridiculously powerful new discovery for me to consider that DeVere or Willy actually wrote the works. I do admit my mind is substantially closed, but I am not blind. Not yet, anyway. 😉

Your "Legal" perspective is something I need. Our Baconian movement needs that in our collective thoughts. It does not take away from any of our passion, but it may be the glue to keep our feet on the ground to reach our goals. I know I need heavy weights AND glue to keep my feet on the ground. 😉

Thank you , Christina (Christie), for what you do with us.

[Eric Roberts]

13 hours ago, Christie Waldman said:

Thank you, Eric. I will certainly consider that. Maybe they are hoist with their own petard, to quote Shakespeare. I had a law professor (U.S.) come to class once in a wig and gown.

Further thoughts: Everyone makes mistakes. I make my share of them. The thing is to admit honest mistakes and try to correct them. The Golden Rule comes to mind. I have myself been the butt of mean-spirited ridicule and that is not what we, or Bacon or Shakespeare, want to be about. There is no need to intentionally embarrass anyone who has made an honest mistake and tries to fix it. The question is, do we care about truth or about winning an argument? Well, of course, Francis Bacon was all about finding out the truth. He helped to establish the modern definition of a fact, as Barbara Shapiro wrote about in her book, A Culture of Fact. I'm all for humor, but not at someone else's expense.   

Analogies are never perfect. The bee and beehive analogy is Bacon's own, and it's quite apt. People working together toward common goals is a good image. But we do not have a "hive mind." I do think of those who post here as independent thinkers, striving to alter our opinions, and make amends if we find out we've been wrong.

 

Touché! What a fair-minded, sensible reply to my frivolous suggestion.

 

Edited October 10, 2022 by Eric Roberts

[Eric Roberts]

On 10/8/2022 at 1:56 AM, Christie Waldman said:

For the record, this is my latest response to Stratfordian/Oxfraudian claims that they have stated a prima facie legal case which they seem to consider impregnable and dare others to try to rebut: In legal terms, the problem is with the nature and quality of their evidence. They have claimed their evidence states a case which entitles them to the favored status--if there were actually a legal court proceeding, which there is not--of a prima facie case with a presumption in their favor (which they say means if you cannot rebut their evidence, you lose. However, to take New York procedure for example, you would not have to rebut their evidence or lose; you would just have to raise a reasonable doubt, in order to be entitled to a trial on the evidence. I have pointed this out to them in prior comments. In response to a request for explanation of the "rule against hearsay," I wrote this, posted Oct. 4, 2022, on the Oxfraud group Facebook page (thread begun by Mike Leadbetter, Sept. 7, 2021): 

"Hearsay evidence" is defined as out of court statements offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. In a court of law, such statements are excluded as inadmissible evidence, in U.S. law generally.

Your "legally trained Oxfraudians," your "legal team," have framed your case in legal terms and claimed for you a strong enough case to entitle you to a presumption in your favor, but there is no legal case pending and there is no impartial judge or court with jurisdiction. In fact, your entire case is made up of inadmissible hearsay evidence.

In court, witnesses testify as to matters within their personal knowledge. For example, if you had such a living, breathing, witness, he might say in court, "Yes, I saw William Shaxpere writing Macbeth." However, there are no living witnesses, 400 years later, who could possibly testify, and there is no court.

A printed statement in a book is hearsay. A police report or medical record is hearsay. These are inadmissible; a witness with personal knowledge must testify.

"Hand D" may be the hand of the poet/dramatist Shakespeare, but the six signatures claimed for Shaxpere are an insufficent handwriting sample for analysis to link "Hand D" to Shaxpere. In fact, the Folger website admits "we don't really know what Shakespeare's handwriting looks like" (they mean William Shaxpere to whom the plays are traditionally attributed).

"No man can be judge in his own cause" is an important legal maxim. You cannot simply give your case the status of a prima facie case; only a judge can do that IF he decides you have a case that warrants that status. Likewise, you cannot simply assert for your evidence an entitlement to a presumption in your favor. That is up to a judge and is dependent on the strength of your evidence. Your evidence, in contrast, is inadmissible.

There are other problems. For example, for whom do your "legally qualified Oxfraudians" purport to speak? Under what authority? Shaxpere did not authorize you; he is dead. For all these reasons, your legal model fails.

In my opinion, your attempt to give your case a stronger appearance than it has by claiming for it a status it would not have in a court of law, borders on the unethical. You want to use Harold Love as an authority for your use of a legal model for attribution; however, Love was not legally trained; he was an English professor.

Yes, there are exceptions to the rule against hearsay, but I would advise you to admit that your evidence, which may seem strong to you, does not meet the qualifications for admissibility that the rule against hearsay imposes in a legal case and back away from trying to frame your evidence as a legal case with prima facie status that entitles you to a presumption in your favor. If anything, you have only served to highlight the deficiencies in your case (written by a lawyer). https://oxfraud.com/sites/PrimaFacie.html. https://oxfraud.com/sites/PrimaFacie.html. https://express.adobe.com/page/oeL8Iuo40YZrU/?ref=https%3A%2F%2Foxfraud.com%2Fsites%2FPrimaFacie.html&embed_type=overlay&context=lightbox-expand.

There are other problems. For example, for whom do your "legally qualified Oxfraudians" purport to speak? Under what authority? Shaxpere did not authorize you; he is dead. For all these reasons, your legal model fails. 

Christie, this should be published in major newspapers and cultural magazines everywhere. I can't imagine a more direct and concise deconstruction of Oxfraudian 'logic'. It might also be applied in many respects to the dubious claims of Stratfordians. The only reason I mentioned Jono was because I'm convinced it's such an important piece of writing. 

[Christie Waldman]

Thank you Eric and Light-of-Truth. I met an engineer once for Kodak who told me how he just sat and watched this machine operate for hours and hours, doing the same operation over and over again, until he figured out the problem.

Eric, I didn't think your suggestion was frivolous. Jono is very funny and a fantastic performer.  I laugh every time I think about some of the things he's said and done. 

I had a law professor who was a bit scary, a bit like Prof. Kingsfield in the movie, The Paper Chase. She once told the class she had heard she had a reputation for being "serious," so she was going to tell us a joke. It wasn't particularly funny, but it helped break down that "facade" of hers a little.

Mark Twain talks about how once he got up on stage and told a story, and no one laughed. So he told the story again. Still no one laughed. He just kept telling the story again and again and again until the audience roared with laughter, once they saw what he was doing. He was a very funny guy. But he could also be very serious.  The book he said he was the most proud of was his novel based on the life of Joan of Arc, for which he did much research.

 

[Eric Roberts]

 

Christie, speaking of court cases, your legal response to lawyers acting for Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, prompted me to look into the Selig v. Fabyan lawsuit in March 1916, resided over by Judge Richard Tuthill. As luck would have it, Louis Kruh's article, When a Court Ruled for Bacon Instead of Shakespeare - Temporarily was published in 1995 Baconiana, No. 193 on page 62. How interesting that the original transcripts from the case apparently no longer exists. I did, however, manage to find part of Judge Tuthill's sentence, before he reversed his decision under extreme pressure from the Establishment. I hope this is not covering too much old ground for long-time Francis Bacon lovers such as yourself. 1995_Baconiana_No.193.pdf

This is the article this passage came from:

Edited October 11, 2022 by Eric Roberts

[Eric Roberts]

Dear Webmaster - just to advise that, when you have time, the link at the bottom of this sirbacon.org page is inactive. 🙂

https://sirbacon.org/links/nytimes.html

 

[Eric Roberts]

One more link to an illustrated article on the Selig-Fabyan court case: http://www.alchemyofbones.com/stories/shakespeare.htm

[Lawrence Gerald]

Thanks Eric for posting the old court case story!

[Light-of-Truth]

6 hours ago, Eric Roberts said:

Dear Webmaster - just to advise that, when you have time, the link at the bottom of this sirbacon.org page is inactive. 🙂

https://sirbacon.org/links/nytimes.html

 

It seems to be working for me. That said, I am aware there are links that do not work and I am happy to try to fix them as they appear.

https://sirbacon.org/links/nytimes.html

 

[Eric Roberts]

1 hour ago, Light-of-Truth said:

It seems to be working for me. That said, I am aware there are links that do not work and I am happy to try to fix them as they appear.

https://sirbacon.org/links/nytimes.html

 

Another article about this  This is the dead link I was referring to at the very bottom of the page.

[Light-of-Truth]

Oh yes, www.cailab.mwsc.edu is long gone. It's a real shame too. So many great resources have come and gone.

SirBacon.org has about 2,800 pages with several thousand links to outside resources. Lawrence and I cleaned up the Biblio a few months ago and certainly by now some more valuable links have vanished.

I just removed that link.

[Light-of-Truth]

Eric, you have brought up something in my mind that Lawrence and I have talked about for many years; How to keep SirBacon.org up and running long after he and I have passed beyond life's Pillars. It's not only the domain name registration and hosting costs (currently at about $100.00 a month or so with a few annual fees that pop up). It is also about how to ensure that the site can stay functional as technology changes. For example, right now the B'Hive forum software is requiring the site hosting be upgraded to PHP 8 soon. That should be no problem for this time. However, over 20 or 30 years there may be huge changes in how things work and someone is going to have to be able to stay on top of everything. The internet and its websites have changed drastically since SirBacon.org launched in 1997. What will it be like in 2047 when the 50th Anniversary is celebrated?

Neither myself nor Lawrence have the financial resources to secure the site very long into the future after we are no longer here. The domain name is good for many years, but the hosting, plugin licenses, and forum software costs are renewable on regular cycles.

We've thought it would be a great business venture to be able to offer website uptime plans for aging website owners who want their legacy to live on for ten, twenty, fifty, or more years after they pass away. It would be costly to pay for, and it would take a strong commitment for a business to promise to survive long enough to perform the work as agreed upon.

I've had a few clients get old and die with promises from their family that they would keep their websites up as that is all they were leaving behind for the world. At best they might be up a year or so. I pay for and keep Keith Stillwagon's website going myself as he was a Baconian.

Anyway, at 25 years of service we are always thinking of the next 25 years, and beyond.

[Christie Waldman]

Eric, regarding your saying, "Christie, speaking of court cases, your legal response to lawyers acting for Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, prompted me to look into the Selig v. Fabyan lawsuit in March 1916, resided over by Judge Richard Tuthill": to what "legal" response of mine are you referring, please? It does not ring a bell. What lawyers are acting for Edward de Vere? Not the Oxfraudians, as far as I know. They are Stratordians, anti-Oxfordians. 

Thank you, too, for posting the 2021 article and the reference to the 1995 Baconiana article. Very interesting! I remember reading that the later judge had dismissed the 1916 case for lack of jurisdiction. In my book, I mention that case on p. 218, fn 7. Here's another reference, "Shakespeare Wins Suit," Morning Oregonian, July 22, 1916, p. 1. https://oregonnews.uoregon.edu/lccn/sn83025138/1916-07-22/ed-1/seq-1/.
 

[Eric Roberts]

10 hours ago, Light-of-Truth said:

Eric, you have brought up something in my mind that Lawrence and I have talked about for many years; How to keep SirBacon.org up and running long after he and I have passed beyond life's Pillars. It's not only the domain name registration and hosting costs (currently at about $100.00 a month or so with a few annual fees that pop up). It is also about how to ensure that the site can stay functional as technology changes. For example, right now the B'Hive forum software is requiring the site hosting be upgraded to PHP 8 soon. That should be no problem for this time. However, over 20 or 30 years there may be huge changes in how things work and someone is going to have to be able to stay on top of everything. The internet and its websites have changed drastically since SirBacon.org launched in 1997. What will it be like in 2047 when the 50th Anniversary is celebrated?

Neither myself nor Lawrence have the financial resources to secure the site very long into the future after we are no longer here. The domain name is good for many years, but the hosting, plugin licenses, and forum software costs are renewable on regular cycles.

We've thought it would be a great business venture to be able to offer website uptime plans for aging website owners who want their legacy to live on for ten, twenty, fifty, or more years after they pass away. It would be costly to pay for, and it would take a strong commitment for a business to promise to survive long enough to perform the work as agreed upon.

I've had a few clients get old and die with promises from their family that they would keep their websites up as that is all they were leaving behind for the world. At best they might be up a year or so. I pay for and keep Keith Stillwagon's website going myself as he was a Baconian.

Anyway, at 25 years of service we are always thinking of the next 25 years, and beyond.

Great foresight, Light-of -Truth. Thanks for your reality check about the long-term impermanence of this website, which had not even occurred to me. I know nothing about archival services, but here are a few links I came across in case they have some relevance to the problem of "future proofing" SirBacon.org:

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/get-archived-7-ways-preserve-your-internet-content-garth-von-buchholz-1/

https://help.archive.org/help/archive-it-information-2/

https://blogs.kent.ac.uk/isnews/how-to-archive-your-website/

http://archiveready.com

No doubt this is 101 information from your expert perspective! 🙂

If you can, please update us from time to time about this important issue.

[Eric Roberts]

6 hours ago, Christie Waldman said:

Eric, regarding your saying, "Christie, speaking of court cases, your legal response to lawyers acting for Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, prompted me to look into the Selig v. Fabyan lawsuit in March 1916, resided over by Judge Richard Tuthill": to what "legal" response of mine are you referring, please? It does not ring a bell. What lawyers are acting for Edward de Vere? Not the Oxfraudians, as far as I know. They are Stratordians, anti-Oxfordians. 

Thank you, too, for posting the 2021 article and the reference to the 1995 Baconiana article. Very interesting! I remember reading that the later judge had dismissed the 1916 case for lack of jurisdiction. In my book, I mention that case on p. 218, fn 7. Here's another reference, "Shakespeare Wins Suit," Morning Oregonian, July 22, 1916, p. 1. https://oregonnews.uoregon.edu/lccn/sn83025138/1916-07-22/ed-1/seq-1/.
 

Thank you for correcting me. Sorry for my blunder. 

[Light-of-Truth]

Eric,

Wayback Machine (not "101 information" you suggested as I'd say a solid "102") has saved millions of website owners. I've paid many bills retrieving old basic website content from Internet Archive over decades when I've answered panic phone calls from website owners when some inexperienced web designer bit the dust and disappeared. In fact,

I was perusing SirBacon.org from 1999 to 2006 today entertaining myself on the history I know so well. A valuable resource we depend on!

But it is merely a tiny scratch of it all. Wayback Machine is barely enough to start to recreate a lost treasure, yet it is still something. I am not familiar with the paid subscriptions, but I never ever landed on a website from a link to Internet Archives from any organic search. You have to know the URL or one finds a link to Internet Archive from somewhere like SirBacon.org. We do whatever we can do to keep Knowledge accessible and fixing old links that are gone to content that is saved on Internet Archive is valid, allowed, and encouraged. By coincidence yesterday I was looking up a website from 2014 that the owner holds something of intellectual importance even though the website has been gone for years. I found the URL in an email I have from 2012. 😉

What if some day, someone who takes power says Wayback Machine is BAD, and it is destroyed. Maybe even the internet is gone as we know it.

I think I know what it would take to make a website permanent. It's not what you think. It's how to apply what Bacon teaches.

What did Bacon do?

He worked with numbers 157 and 287. Numbers that Seal whatever is the purpose for Strength and Permanence. Shakespeare will survive beyond the nightmare of all digital data being flushed away. One Truth, if no other: Shakespeare will be remembered as long as we have any form of our society that any of us know today. Shakespeare is THE Monument of who we are on Earth as humans. Beyond ALL other literary masterpieces even if Bacon was part of them.

Bacon, Dee, Jonson, Gerald, Fowler, and all of us, we contribute something ETERNAL that Bacon made 99.9% certain to be ETERNAL. 😉