Andreas Gryphius (1616-1664) knew that Edward De Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, wrote “Shakespeare”

[Mark Lester No.21777996]

Andreas Gryphius Knew....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nu9hkUqmo_I

Welcome to Jacobethan Wikileaks and the subject English Literature will threaten to terminate your research career over if you even dare suggest it as a project.
This specific publication regards blatant early Freemason Andreas Gryphius and a curious play he has had inserted, unlisted, into his book about the Charles Stuart. No scholars deny that is based on 12th Night, but there's so much more ....

Shakespeare’s Sonnets - Cryptographic Time Bomb
https://deedeltadot.wordpress.com/
>>>/x/34266931

This is the most important person in English history. Why is this being suppressed ? 4chan, you are the last bastion of hope.

[Anonymous No.21778050]

>>21777996
Be nice if some of the people who 'knew" who Shakespeare really was would just straight up say it instead of putting secret messages in random books for Alexander Waugh to go schizo on hundreds of years later.

https://youtu.be/SxVdLiAX4Es

[Anonymous No.21778068]

>>21777996
I was willing to believe oxfordians because there indeed seem to be some irregularities regarding Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-avon being Shake-spear. But then I watched Alexander Waugh's videos and I realized that oxfordians are literally retards who have no idea how to argue. In some of his videos he really just seems to be making shit up.
I do find the whole De Vere was Shakespeare thing to be a beautiful lie, though.

[Mark Lester No.21778281]

>>21778068
I posted this one hour ago. You've look at jack shit haven't you. What exactly is being made up ?. You'd have to research that to some extent to determine it.
This is what we expect. You have to actually look at it, not just freak out because it's hard
>>21778050
Well it wouldn't be so much fun then would it. Have you heard of a bunch called the Freemasons ?.
The established candidate is illiterate. Despite being regarded as the greatest of letter writers, we don't have a single scrap of his handwriting, or any evidence of education of any kind. No, that isn't normal even in the late 16th century.

https://deedeltadot.wordpress.com/

[Anonymous No.21778668]

>>21778281
We have his signature and he is often identified of the writer of the majority of scene 6 in the handwritten manuscript of Sir Thomas More. The idea that he was illiterate is just a guess based on the fact that he was a commoner, but that simply means he wasn't from a noble family. His father was middle class and became a bailiff and justice of the peace, and could certainly have sent his son to grammar school.

[Anonymous No.21778687]

It's baffling since Alexander Waugh is not just Evelyn Waugh's grandson, but is a proper writer in his own right. I read his biography of his grandfather and thought it was excellent, and I've had people recommend me his book on God. But the videos are complete schizo nonsense, to the point I thought it was a complicated practical joke.
You can believe Shakespeare was Edward Devere, or Marlow or Bacon or whoever but when you're drawing pentagrams and Messianic symbols to prove it you've kind of lost the plot.

He's perfectly right on there being an industry around Shakespeare as a national symbol, and as all biographies of the man admit we know very little about his actual life, but not everything is a Freemason conspiracy.

[Anonymous No.21778695]

How the fuck does he explain plays continuing to be released after De Vere's death?

[Anonymous No.21778713]

>>21777996
>https://deedeltadot.wordpress.com/
Hmm gonna file this one under schizo

[Mark Lester No.21778983]

>>21778695
There aren't ANY mate. Name one, Go see the RSC website, there is in their words ONE play, The
Tempest, that you can date after 1604. The argument is that Shakes has quoted Stratchey, a known Jacobean plagiarist. Stratchey only published in 1625, but claimed a source letter in 1610 regarding a sinking in the Bahamas.
Stratchey uses the words of Eden, a 16th century recorder of great voyages, including Vespuci. All the Eden he uses in Shakespeare. Shakes uses further Eden that Stratchey does not. This was proven in 2008. Do you get where the fuck we are gong with this dude ?.
The entire façade is bollocks. This retard cannot write, we have SIX really shite sigs, and that's yer lot. NO HANDWRITING. Yes, we do have handwriting, lots of it, for EVERYBODY else that counts, anyone you will have heard of, and dont let Jonathan Bate bullshit you otherwise. Shakespeare is recoded in print as the greatest of letter writers. There are no handwritten accounts of Shakespeare, nothing, not one scrap. Nobody ever met him.

>>21778713
It's not hard, it really isn't. Have another go lad, you can do it.
Thanks for sharing all the same.
If anyone who passed their 11+ in sums would like to have a crack at a more developed take down than "that just blew my brains out and I am now going to demonstrate how unimpressive I am."
please do. In particular, why you think the curious geometric relationship revealed is a mirage.

[Anonymous No.21779017]

>>21778983

De Vere dies in 1604

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_Shakespeare%27s_plays

My arden editions are also similarly dated

Is Jewkipedia lying? More conspiracy?

[Mark Lester No.21779024]

The dating argument for The Tempest was resolved by Stritmatter and Kosisky in 2008.
Shakespeare contains loads of Eden. There is no Eden in Stratchey that is not in Shakespeare.
In any copyright case it's game over,

Everything else is just historical record. It turned up as a play round about such a date etc, unless we can find an earlier one. Bullshitting us that "it's deffo more Jacobean than Elizabethan" is utter horseshit from people who think that this is a just a common jobbing playwirght who was so unimpressed with his own work that along with no punctuation and no books in his pitiful will, there no effing Shakespeare, and no reference to any of it. And that's an undeniable fact.

After the First Folio was published there were immediate visits to Stratford. Nobody had a clue what was going on, His daughters were bare illiterate. There are no accounts in Stratford of anyone knowing he was a playwright, none.

Bacon isn't shakes, and that's confused so much and allowed Startford to keep this going,. The masons though are convinced that Shakes was a mason. I had a very smart one tell me he thought it was Dee, right on the steps of the Grand Lodge.
Bacon it is thought was perhaps the third grand master after De Vere then Dee. He wasnt shakes. Neville, who Amundsen promotes isnt Shakes either, and Amundsens cryptography on that is shockingly bad. The only reason he was allowed on the BBC is because ultimately it's so shite. You can then just put this to bed. Well you can wake it up again.

[Mark Lester No.21779045]

>>21779017
Whackypedia in this regard is owned by the Shakespeare Birdbrain Trust, they are the designated experts. They will delete, bounce and savage anything from Oxfordia.
I surely do not need to give 4chan a lecture on how screwed up Whackypedia is like this. There are thousands of commercial pages that are owned by competitors. They have no review system, they just stuck some so and so in charge and they do what they like.
You have to go through that facts, not just have these twerps make stuff up. Only Tempest on that list can be definitely dated and the argument for it was destroyed 15 years ago.
Oh dear,

[Anonymous No.21779053]

>>21778050
You got me, it was me. I am he.

[Anonymous No.21779279]

>>21778281
>You've look at jack shit haven't you
I didn't find out about oxfordianism or Alexander Waugh thanks to you, lad. This was one of his better, more grounded videos though.

[Mark Lester No.21779412]

>>21779279
There's shed loads of them. Most are 5 years old.

These guys, Waugh and Strtimatter et al, do not like the crypto, and with very good reason. Loads of it is utter rubbish. Waugh's stuff is generally reserved (by comparison to some of the batshit nonsense you see) but without seeing this same pattern again and again it's difficult to accept. The dedication solution is truly astonishing, It is nothing like the Bible Codes. It's umpteen orders of magnitude harder and that's not going to get confronted by Queensland University (see Bible Codes take down).
I was very dubious, and I was already happy with the principal claim. You do not need this crypto to build a whopping argument that far outweighs the other candidates. Once you've seen the handwriting situation and the will there has to be a public enquiry at that point.

I can do little more than I have done to convince anyone otherwise that the geometry I have discovered exists. What's worse, I spent the previous year bleating on to my mates that this was fuck interesting and why was nobody doing anything. If your mate, who OK is no monkey, you have probably used my software at some stage if you are old enough, but is a really just a shakespearan fucktard, found this and on demand then you'd think he'd lost it.

My purpose here is indirect. I want to raise awareness. Most people do not understand how contentious this is, and how weak the Stratfordian arguments are. The dating is just one of umpteen core issues that are problematic. What I really want to do is piss off a published mathematician. I can't really do that till I piss off enough in /lit. I don't believe anyone who actually takes the lid off this is going to be issuing a public paper attacking it.

[Anonymous No.21779594]

Do you enjoy the work? Is it entertaining, insightful, does it move you? If yes: who gives a shit who wrote it? A rose by any other name(fag)

[Mark Lester No.21779624]

>>21779594
It was great fun yes thanks, but I'm trying to take up astronomy.

As for shits given, at a literary angle I have no beef.
On a historical, if there any shits at all to be given in that direction, it's themo-fucking-nuclear .

[Mark Lester No.21779848]

This is the geometric relationship. It is not perfect, but neither is Durer's Vesica Piscis in the first lace and we know they dig that.

[Mark Lester No.21779956]

This can be viewed as one composite shape.
given the coincidence of the pentagram side length and the big triangle side length,
and that it can be placed such that it (not) perfectly bounds the bottom side and two vertices of the hexagon,
and that then the bottom apex of the pentagram is related to the triangle via a baseline i don't even have to "draw on the page" of that same length,
and 51 degs which oh fancy that, is the integer component of khufu's pyramid ffs (public domain since early greek) That's the bottom anonymous rule in the lower middle of the page

I have 20 odd points of coincidence just for that part, see website close ups. See parametric spread sheet to see I havent cheated. I may not have explained how each element is related to each pother too well but I'm not lying. You just need any two points on the ENTIRE digram, way way beyond just this, to generate the whole lot.

Here be page I can fix shit on including links to parametric spreadsheet and close ups
https://deedeltadot.wordpress.com/

The pink and red hexapentagon thingy turns up in lots of masonic/hermetic stuff. Durer was a contemporary and student of da Vinci. It goes way way back though. We've been getting a buzz from pentagons since before we'fe worked out how to record speech.

[Mark Lester No.21780083]

and that the hexagon perimeter is also the same length damnit.

That's odd, all that, but nothing for maths to get upset about. The thing is they have obviously noted it.
Dee will have known these were not perfect, it's not difficult to find out and he's very capable. But the Hermetecists dabbled with these kinds of geometries.


This same pyramid baseline is generated from two full stops, the largest on the page, in the lower half of the page. Again there are 20 odd points or edges of coincidence with odd characters. That N that has been savaged right in the middle of the page. Anyone looking at the original of this sees it immediately. That is at the very core of this magic masonic diagram, the emergence of mankind into knowledge I think is the bollocks. This is just what they were into.

The masons have been here.

[Anonymous No.21780110]

>>21779594
>Do you enjoy the work?
I do

[Mark Lester No.21780144]

oh but there's more, here's the three most significant astronomical events of the entire millennia which just so happened all to turn up right in our time period and sent everybody nuts. There's an early Rosicrucian manifesto that depicts the same.
The are woven into the existing geometry, we just need their integer declinations.
Actually there's still more. So it becomes a counter argument, I can obviously do this forever. Unless you go get the Folger LUNA copy and have a good nosey at all the weird stuff on that page, and then at least load it into gimp or something to measure angles but better still generate polygons as defined, then its just lines innit.

[Anonymous No.21780343]

>>21779624
>On a historical, if there any shits at all to be given in that direction, it's themo-fucking-nuclear .
No it isn't. The reason an English department *might* torpedo you is because you could level these questions at quite a few figures in history (like Marlowe and Johnson, for example), and get the same philologically specious results. At a certain point, radical doubt about any figure (as with the "Socrates didn't exist" meme on this board) becomes annoying to address, because the arguments are slippery and specious.

But the results also don't matter. Shakespeare wasn't picked up again for almost a century after his death. Nothing of consequence hinges on this. This is conspiracy for conspiracy's sake.

[Mark Lester No.21781098]

>>21780343
Nobody is doing this, it's not "might torpedo you". I can dig you out a videos of a woman in the US who had her degree threatened for asking about it (Shapiro is a nasty bully)
Shakespeare was promoted by the Masons who came into public being in 1717 (they like 17) and then put up the monument in Westminster Abbey in 1740.
The numbers 17 and 40 are encoded into that monument repeatedly, from the number of notches on the portico. the number of spears and his stance and the text he's pointing to, to it being written on there as an erection date (never done) etc.

The monument's position, bagged 20 years earlier in 1720 by the masons and held for 20 years, is the altar of St Glades chapel. Johnson and Drayton, both implicated, are round the back are staring down at that altar. (Jonson is buried elsewhere but there's a monument and image of him) That point would have no relation to Shakespeare for another century. Altars in Westminster Abbey are reserved for Kings. That entire region of the South Transept has dozens of known masons recorded as being buried there, and goodness knows how many secret ones.

De Vere established the freemasons. Exactly what's going on with the Essex Rebellion, what claim Devereux and Wriothesley were making has never been made clear. My interest is in stuff like the establishment of the Royal Society. They were all masons, every one, Apart from Wren apparently, who is made a super flash mason after 1717. He was a scientist and architect and a founder member of the Royal Society. Wren was a mason.

What exactly happened in 1593 to De Vere and the creation of Shakes-speare, and what really happened to the De Vere and Tudor lines is quite relevnt to the Stuart succession dont you think. I am quite certain Elizabeth wasn't a virgin.

The masons built half of Bloomsbury. They were instrumental in establishing UCL, my alma mater, the first university in England beyond Oxbridge. This is a very important subject indeed in understanding 17th century England and this highly secretive century of speculative masonry and the influence they would wield for the following two centuries on our culture and values. .

[Anonymous No.21781136]

>this entire thread

[Mark Lester No.21781253]

>>21781136
you need to do more exercise

[Anonymous No.21781365]

>>21781136
I’m moderately enjoying it but have little to contribute

[Mark Lester No.21781431]

>>21781365
that's a stupendous improvement on the normal response. Much obliged.

[Mark Lester No.21781651]

The 5 S obviously stand for Sauron Saruman Smeigel, and of course Shiney Shirt.
I did have a presentation where instead of trying to bullshit you that it's the all seeing eye of Horus like I know, I just whacked the Eye of Sauron on top of the N and be done with it.
Look, I didn't come up with esoteric freemasonry. And I've no clue what Tolkein is on cos he sure as hell knew about the basics of all this. You've got masonic/Hermetic geometry, mostly to quite eerie precision once you start looking at it (sub 0.2 mm accuracy in general), all over that page.
Yes I accept I'd already made my mind up and I can quote far more A.W. Awdry than de Vere, but I have been as honest as I can and I had to destroy a load of bull from the original discoverer to get at the stuff.

[Mark Lester No.21781812]

The earlier aprons didn't seem to have the M in them by the way, it was an arc, see loads of pics of George Washington.
How much even the most senior American masons might have ever known about this is debatable. The current King, a super senior freemason of course, is an authorship sceptic, as was his late father, also of course a whopping great freemason.
"The Masons" as a whole don't actually know. There's a tiny group called the Masters of The Royal Secret, 3 of them. They know, but had to swear not to tell anyone else before they got to find it out. So they can't tell us, but do not mind us looking. The masons themselves are not involved in some current conspiracy to cover this up, that's not what this is about.

[Anonymous No.21781822]

lmao what the fuck you're actually Mark Lester

[Mark Lester No.21781833]

>>21781822
Am I in the English department ?

[Anonymous No.21781836]

>>21781833
I've been subscribed to you for a long time and just rushed over to your youtube channel after seeing this thread to find that you made a community post on there about posting on 4chan
Keep up the good fight and crush the stratfordian charlatans like ants
God bless you.

[Mark Lester No.21781889]

>>21781836
Well God Bless 4 chan. You can't do this anywhere else, well not Reddit for sure.
I cannot make progress with this without getting up the inside of somebody of substance from maths/engineering. It's nothing to do with computer cryptography, or maths really, and the reddit /codes and /puzzles channels where it might belong, /codes especially, produced next to zero engagement.

It's stupid to say I have no emotional or artistic relation to the works. Anthony Cher leaping around on a pair of crutches is one of the most notable things I've ever seen, etc. You don't have to be educated in Shakes to understand this is important just at a linguistic and artistic level. This is a super massive event in history. I put exactly this thread starter up on /his and got zero response. So again, thanks for the engagement 4chan/lit, up or down. Paranormal also showed engagement, even though I have to say "there's no paranormal, sorry", most of the stuff on there as sweet fa to do with the paranormal anyway. I will remind them of interesting things and see how we go.

[Anonymous No.21781892]

Yeah I’m no longer even moderately interested in this thread. By all means carry on however.

[Mark Lester No.21781900]

>>21781892
Thanks for the all clear. There's an awful lot more to come.

[Mark Lester No.21781943]

The Eye of Sauron stuff was a joke right, we all got that ?

[Anonymous No.21782009]

>>21781889
Your best bet, if you want more (you)s is /pol/ simply because it has the most foot traffic and that you can probably manage to make it 'political,' by adding a simple: "why don't (((they))) want us to know this?" at the end of your OP.

[Anonymous No.21782024]

>>21777996
For a few years now I've thought it was bizarre Shakespeare's identity wasn't more contentious. It's important to know who he was. Even back then there were people saying weird things about De Vere's identity. The idea that he was a great playwright yet none of his plays survived makes no sense either given he would have been desperate to sell what he had. He spent his entire inheritance by the time he died.

[Mark Lester No.21782032]

I may as well as dump to you the last of my composite images I made specifically for 4chan.
This is a thing called a Triple Tau which is an extremely prominent and public symbol in masonry.
De Vere was considered the Fourth T, an inverted T hidden within the Tripe Tau, which dropped down creates a Teutonic Cross. The geometric rationale for it is based on a dodecagon I have conjured up from a couple of points. Trust me, I'm a world leading authority on this.

>>21782009
I might do but it's a bit cheaty as I would then be making it out that it's some organised thing. I don't think it is, well it isn't. My mates alas are 4,000 miles beyond punching distance, any who want to use the pool have to swear allegiance. They aren't, I don't think, under the control of the Grand Lodge.
It's just too batshit fucking outrageous Prince Albert is Jack the Tipper style stuff. And that damn film making out he is both the child and lover of Elizabeth was just insane to put in. If you havent looked at this properly please have a butchers. It's the state of his handwriting that has to raise questions. NOBODY EVER left an English grammar school, few even entered, with that standard of writing. One of the defences is that he had Parkies', I shit ye not.

[Anonymous No.21782041]

>>>/x/

[Mark Lester No.21782068]

>>21782041
Yes they were most receptive and I'll try and introduce some more of the shed loads of evidence on there.
I'm not actually having to do battle with regular English Dept dudes in here just yet who have read their stratfordian defence like a sodding barrister. The post dating argument I only recently looked at because it sounded horrifically complex. Well if you are a bullshitting barrister then it might be, but the only instance of him referring to an event which is post 1604 was zapped by Stritmatter over a decade ago.

The Italian stuff is a case in point. You cant argue the toss about that unless you have read the whole lot, AND know Italy and Italian and Italian history. De Vere went to Italy, on an extremely public and very expensive trip. (He gets pirated and stripped naked on his return, see Hamlet). He stayed in a house that had one of only two copies of a book that you need quotable access to. Waugh and Stritmatter have truck fulls of this kind of stuff.

[Anonymous No.21782071]

>>21777996
>Gryphius
This means riddle in Greek.

[Mark Lester No.21782096]

>>21782071
Does he not mention that ?
He's got about 20 odd of these I think. The Francis Mere's one is really quite exquisite, you;ll be hearing about it after this has died down. That is the first third party use of the word Shakespeare and only the third after the two quartos "Lucrece" and "Venus and Adonis". The word "Shakespeare" was rarely used in print during his peak output even by stratfordian time line.

[Mark Lester No.21782163]

There are no surviving letters, no personal accounts, of anyone ever having met shakespeare the playwright. No references in Stratford refer to him in this context. The word Shakespeare does not exist in hand written form in this era other on a handful of records, including the single one of him being a player. That reference itself might actually De Vere but we'll never know perhaps.
The Mere's thing itself is not till 1597. The Stratfordians have got this jobbing playwight ruling the roost at this stage, running half of the London theatre biz.
Fact: It was illegal (law for the "punishment of vagabonds" I think it is) to run a theatre troupe that didn't have noble patronage. It's something of a myth that the aristocracy weren't involved with the Theatre. They were put in charge of it. It was a new mass media available to the oiks and toffs alike and Elizabethan England was a wee bit paranoid on having begun a religious war with Rome and Spain at the same time. There was a lot of state censorship and control going on don't you know, and woe betide anyone who cocked up.
De Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford and poshest "aristo": in English History, was the man who drove the London Stage, the first outside Northern Italy I understand . And he orchestrated and was the principal author and editor of these works. It says so on the poetry book.

[Anonymous No.21782266]

>>21782163
>It's something of a myth that the aristocracy weren't involved with the Theatre.
No one believes that

[Anonymous No.21782296]

>>21782032
How about the analaysis that has his handwriting in the manuscript of Sir Thomas More?

[Mark Lester No.21782314]

>>21782266
it was not done for an aristocrat to write a play, let alone perform in them. De Vere did both.
>>21782296
https://www.bl.uk/collection-items/shakespeares-handwriting-in-the-book-of-sir-thomas-more
"based on handwriting, spelling, vocabulary"
Well the only proven handwriting is shite mate. Guess who Anthony Munday was ?. Edward De Vere's servant. If this looks like Shakes it's because it's from the De Verian scriptorium.

[Anonymous No.21782327]

>>21782314
>"based on handwriting, spelling, vocabulary"
Well the only proven handwriting is shite mate. Guess who Anthony Munday was ?. Edward De Vere's servant. If this looks like Shakes it's because it's from the De Verian scriptorium.
This argument doesn't seem too strong, we have authenticated writing by Shakespeare, and one hand in this manuscript matches the handwriting. "It's shit mate" isn't an argument. How would the base text being written by Anthony Munday make the handwriting of a different contributor look like De Vere?

[Anonymous No.21782336]

[Mark Lester No.21782351]

I apologise for submitting "it's shite mate" as an argument.
The only proven handwriting I am aware of is those six not terribly good signatures that they show on the SBT controlled Whackypedia page. You have to correlate with that.
I'll go see what Oxfordia have to say on this. All I did was beam that up and see Munday and I know Waugh is going to have chapter and verse on this.

[Mark Lester No.21782443]

>>21782327
Here is the Oxfordian case, its very old. I'm reading it. These things just turn into Perry Mason moments for Stratfordia every time, I had honestly not heard of it, an example of my ignorance no doubt. It will take me longer than you to digest.
https://shakespeareoxfordfellowship.org/wp-content/uploads/Oxfordian2003_Gidley_More.pdf

[Mark Lester No.21782526]

>>21782327
https://www.bl.uk/shakespeare/articles/shakespeares-life

This is Andrew Dixon who is responsible for making out that this play by Munday is now widely attributed as Shakespeare's.

Andrew thinks "Upstart Crow" refers to Shakespeare. It refers to Edward Alleyn. The actual quote is "shake scene" and is from before the word "Shakespeare" has ever been printed. From which some guy in the late 18th century reckoned "oh, that must mean Shakespeare". It's utterly pathetic. The supreme irony is Greene is part of De Vere's group. It's an attack on Alleyn, a Brian Blessed of an actor who made a lot of money ripping off de Vere. He set up a load of schools with his name, including Dulwich College.

[Anonymous No.21782869]

>some heckin eerie cursed demonic anglo shit going on here lmao... the east india company and the jesuits... the true sanskrit rosicrucian fighting against cursed nazi-cathar impostors in the pale settlement... its all there... they dont want you to know about satanic numerology in shakespeare's sonnets

[Mark Lester No.21783333]

>>21782869
For the record, as there is a massive one on this geometry, inverted pentagrams only became a Satanic thing when nutjob Crowley got involved at the start of the last century. He was shunned by the Anglo Saxon lodges. Pentagrams turn up upside down all over the middle ages with no satanic angle to them. You can make satanic references from a normal pentagram if you so wish to.
I don't know if there is a thing such as "satanic numerology" but there's bugger all of it in here that I am aware of.
Once again, I believe there are perhaps a maximum of three freemasons, those of the Master of the Royal Secret 32nd degree order, who have a Scooby Doo what's going on here. The masons own secret is buried deep within themselves and their own code of conduct does not allow them to release it. Their most senior members do not know the secret!. Masons will freely tell you they think that Shakespeare was a very senior mason, Dee was offered to me right on the steps of the Grand Lodge. They use Shakespeare in some of their most hidden ceremonies and they are fairly straight up about this without telling us exactly which bits.
I have no evidence that modern masonry has anything at all to do with any cover up. We just can't bear to lose that blank sheet of paper that we can ascribe any attributes we like to. If you are left with a real person to deal with, understanding these works has changed forever.

[Mark Lester No.21783662]

>>21778668
His father was bare illiterate, 100% no arguments. He was not middle class, he had a criminal record for grain hoarding. The school was shut, there's zero evidence of it being open at the time. Grammar schools were not permanent entities. My son attended the oldest in the country, except it isn't, it was shut numerous times in it's history. Only now does it look like Hogwarts.
We don't really have his signature do we, we have this pile of scrawl. And that's it. This attribution of Munday's play is bogus. You cannot compare those signatures to that manuscript. But you can de Vere's though. Ouch!.

[Anonymous No.21783684]

>>21782068
>the Italian stuff
That invalidates De Vere as the author of Shakespeare. There are basic geographic mistakes about Italy in Shakespeare plays. Obviously written by someone who had read or heard about Italy but had actually never been there.

[Mark Lester No.21783711]

>>21783684
No it doesnt, the most laughable one is this pathetic attempt to claim that it's a sea voyage across Italy on the basis of a reference to tides. Do shut up, there's one of the most notable civil engineering achievements of the entire middle ages for them to sail along. There are literally hundred of things in the Italian material you can't get off a Genovese sailor in Blackfriars. That's the Stratfordian position on this, that he picked it up in a pub. It's not even worthy of Ben Elton.

[Mark Lester No.21783756]

>>21783684
There's been an awful lot of work done debunking this. De Vere's descriptions of churches and districts and Italian geography, not to mention Italian turn of phrase and language, has left some Italians to actually claim he must have been Italian!,
This "Shakespeare didnt know Italy, see all the mistakes" argument is bogus. We've been picking through these and as per usual some half wit who thinks he's never going to be challenged has just loosed off without researching. De Vere's accuracy in Italy is astonishing.

[Anonymous No.21783772]

>>21783711
>>21783756
Quiet, schizo whore.

[Mark Lester No.21783795]

>>21783772
Thanks for the bump, nobody.

[Anonymous No.21783805]

>>21783795
Thanks for the cope, literally who.

[Mark Lester No.21783808]

>>21783772
the nonsense you posted at the bottom, has as it's king argument, EXACTLY what I just posted about. You just walked straight into another Stratfordian Perry Mason moment

[Anonymous No.21783829]

>>21779017
*crickets*

[Mark Lester No.21783831]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVpjyboXiWI

[Anonymous No.21783852]

and people say that a guy with just a grammar school education could've had enough juridical and medical knowledge to rival a scholar in those respective fields as well as many others despite those kinds of books being written in highly technical latin and costing as much as a house

[Mark Lester No.21783889]

>>21783852
He didnt go to grammar school, that's the point, there is no record of him anywhere receiving education or hanging around a library. Where does he get the data ? He can't write!.
Heaviside and Faraday didnt go to school. Well Ollie did but just to 16. Given what he would achieve it's remarkable. But we know how they got the data. They collected it themselves, and acquired what was known which wasn't much.

There is plenty of common genius in Shakespeare. There is more than one hand in this and most establishment scholars are open to that.

De Vere's bible, held at the Folger library, is festooned with manicules pointing to lines in Shakespeare, and passages underlined. It is unquestionable that it had been in the possession of the author. The establishment position is that De Vere, unrecorded, lent his sacred copy of the Geneva Bible to Shaksper. That is the stated position now on this. Nobody denies that it at one stage belonged to De Vere.

[Mark Lester No.21783931]

Meet Henry Folger, Oil Magnate of the early 20th Century, Freemason of course, and obsessed with Shakespeare. He was responsible for amassing the Folger Collection and leaving funds for the Folger Library in DC, the Fort Knox of Shakespeareana.
Up until 1920 he was an outspoken Baconian, and the most ruthless purchaser of anything to do with this on in the auction room. All the best stuff is at Henry's.
Then two things happened.
J.T.Looney published his Oxfordian theory,
and Henry said he'd given up on Bacon but did not declare it over.....

His wife who succeeded him was a committed Stratfordian. Her husband, as I say a senior mason he was stinking rich, most certainly wasn't.

[Anonymous No.21783958]

>>21783852
>I should point out the paradox that Oxfordians are always describing William Shakespeare of Stratford as "litigious" and implying that he was always suing people (actually, he was no more litigious than any average landowner), but then they turn around and say that he couldn't have learned all the law in the plays without formal training. Well, if he was always in the courts, why couldn't he have picked up a lot of legal knowlege there? Plus, there's the fact that William Shakespeare had a lot of friends and acquaintances with legal training, including a bunch who had attended the Middle Temple. Christopher Whitfield wrote a four-part article for Notes and Queries in 1966 called "Some of Shakespeare's Contemporaries at the Middle Temple" (in the April, August, October, and December issues). Whitfield documents the surprisingly broad and strong connections between Shakespeare and dozens of Middle Templars who lived in an area extending from Stratford about eighteen miles south. These Middle Templars included Thomas Greene, Shakespeare's close friend who lived in New Place for several years; Greene's close friend Sir Henry Rainsford of Clifford Chambers; Edward Bushell, whom Richard Quiney mentioned in his famous letter to Shakespeare; William Combe, from whom Shakespeare bought 107 acres of land in 1602 and whose son married Shakespeare's daughter; and a bunch of others. Whitfield's article leaves little doubt that William Shakespeare of Stratford had a wide network of friends and acquaintances who had studied at the Middle Temple, some of whom he probably met through others in the network. I find it very plausible that he may have picked some of his friends' brains for legal knowledge.

[Mark Lester No.21783980]

>>21783958
Not one of those people have written a word about Shakespeare have they. Why have you listed them. "The fact that he had lots of friends with legal training" , er no, that is not a fact.
He does seem to be a very petty person with his money lending stuff, are you really happy with this guy being someone of such depth ?.
The records of him in London are a mess and I'm not going to go down there. If you want to scramble about claiming there's some consistent story based on those records, I will not engage.

[Anonymous No.21784017]

>>21783980
> I will not engage
But I’m not even talking to you.

[Mark Lester No.21784049]

>>21783958
I use "Stratford" to refer to the establishment, a singular pronoun is it.
I call Shaksper Shaksper, that's how he spells his name isnt it. I also call him Shoikspayer although thats probably not how he pronounced it.
>>21784017
OK mate, tell your audience about the squalid corner or Blackfirars he's renting at the height of his powers and that he's on the run from HMRC. Meanwhile he's bankrolling the theatre industry based on two transactions.
It's not worth confusing people with this rubbish Stratford push out. You've just fed a load of porkies about it being a fact that he had all these mates who never wrote anything about him ever, not once.

[Anonymous No.21784068]

>>21783958
>n the year 1859, Lord Campbell, who in that year became Lord Chancellor [of England], having previously (in 1850) been Lord Chief Justice of the Queen's Bench, published a book in the form of a letter to Mr. Payne Collier, entitled Shakespeare's Legal Acquirements, in which he contended that Shakespeare had "a deep technical knowledge of the law," and an easy familiarity with "some of the most abstruse proceedings in English jurisprudence." With regard to the poet's "judicial phrases and forensic allusions" he writes: "I am amazed, not only by their number, but by the accuracy and propriety with which they are uniformly introduced."
setting aside his autistic legal knowledge, especially in regards to obscure medieval law that abounds in his historical plays, and his first hand knowledge of medieval sources like De gestis Britonum or Historia Regum Britanniae, how did he get his medical knowledge? did he also have a large group of friends who were experts from whom he absorbed almost every subject under the sun?

[Mark Lester No.21784103]

>>21784068
The legal side, and how deeply some of our laws have been moulded by the works, is so techno but at the same time pretty bloody important. I understand there is a critical law about equity at the start of James I where the ruling refers to the Doje of Venice being powerless.
How this effects the authorship argument is hard to assess from here, but I go back to the masons again. They use this stuff as scripture, it's well deep with moral messages and allegories and deep legal stuff. Gosh, he really was a clever guy wasn't he.

[Anonymous No.21784152]

>>21784068
>his first hand knowledge of medieval sources like De gestis Britonum or Historia Regum Britanniae
You mean his first hand knowledge of Holinshed's Chronicle, which uses those in 16th century English?

[Anonymous No.21784160]

>>21784103
>How this effects the authorship argument is hard to assess from here, but I go back to the masons again.
Oh, so "god of the gaps" arguments, but with Masons.

[Anonymous No.21784191]

>>21784152
yes, that was one of his sources. now address the main point i was making

[Mark Lester No.21784192]

>>21784160
I am a heathen, I'll go see what trap I have fallen in to. The masons dig shakes, go ask them. Shakespeare is clearly good stuff and quotes the good book a lot. I don't think that's any secret at all, including the masons usage.
For it not to be a collegiate effort, and at the very least a highly learned one, seems implausible to me.

[Anonymous No.21784198]

*writes 13 plays from beyond the grave*
Whoa, impressive feat by Oxenford. Such a great writer that he defeated death itself.

[Mark Lester No.21784215]

>>21784198
Name one. The only one the RSC has with a source "not available before" is Tempest. That's been torn apart, Stratchey must have quoted Shakes, not the other way round, see above.
Next.

[Anonymous No.21784335]

>>21784191
There is no "main point" to address; you just assert he couldn't possibly be educated over abd over again. Your overlooking Holinshed just highlights your dishonesty in argument. Instead of acknowdging timely contemporary sources Shakespeare could be familiar with, you point to sources that would've required more specialized knowledge of. You're dismissive of even common ways to pick up bits and pieces of knowledge to apply, as though you don't discuss any medical subjects with anyone in your social circles.

[Anonymous No.21784359]

>>21784335
so he just learned everything from one book and from conversations with experts across many different disciplines?

[Anonymous No.21784422]

>>21784215
Oxenford died in 1604.

[Mark Lester No.21784429]

>>21784359
My favourite is this one that there were Genovese merchants and ships in London. Not sure if the great Professor James Shapiro is of the opinion that these guys speak Early Modern English and have an encyclopaedic knowledge of half a dozen sites and a variety of customs and quite a bit of posh stuff including actual posh people scandals that they manage to download onto our Klingon hairlined bard in the pit of Blackfriars, or Sir Stanley Wells of The Shakespeare Birdbrain Trust, my candidate for the Syd James' role in Carry On Shakespeare.

[Mark Lester No.21784439]

>>21784422
>>21784215

[Anonymous No.21784443]

>>21784429
>>21783772

[Anonymous No.21784484]

>>21784439
Already named them, faggot. The timeline simply doesn’t favor Oxenford. Shakespeare lived 12 more than him and was perfectly able to have written the mentioned plays.

[Mark Lester No.21784537]

>>21784484
No he wasnt perfectly able to write them because he was illiterate and had no education.
These plays could have been written later, I think that's when most of them appear in the historical record and hence their flimsy argument for dating, if the author had lived. Of course most of his plays were published posthumously, absolutely no arguments on that are there.
There is only one instance of something in there that MUST have been written after 1604 and I'm afraid that's all bollocks and was shown to be so fifteen years ago. Both Shakes and Stratchey, the claimed source, use Eden from the 16th Century. No Eden is in Stratchey that isnt in Shakes. There is Eden that is in Shakes that isnt in Stratchey. Game over on that one. There's two voyages fyi organised between Dee and De Vere, both cocked up badly.

Oh dear. how rude will you now be ?

[Anonymous No.21784567]

>>21784192
> Shakespeare is clearly good stuff and quotes the good book a lot.

[Mark Lester No.21784581]

There's an astronomical claim about I think its King Lear about an eclipse in ~1605. The closest the line of totality came to the British Isles was the Pyrenees.
In ~1598 (I think, but I've read the paper) the line of totality ran straight across central wales, north england, and southern scotland.
take yer pick.

[Mark Lester No.21785837]

https://shakespeareoxfordfellowship.org/wp-content/uploads/Wember.Eclipses.pdf
That's a demolition of any half arsed astronomical claims made by Stratford.
There are four astronomical readings displayed on the title page of the Sonnets. The two supernovae and the Great Comet plus Venus as an Evening Star.
Dee was one of the most notable astronomers of his era. He was one of handful of scholars involved in the calculation of the Gregorian Calendar. Kepler is also very closely related to this story and perhaps more than I had dared believe.
1609 is one of the most important years in all science. Galileo got hold of a Dutch Trunk, souped it up and started looking at the Moon and Jupiter. And Johannes Kepler released what might be the most important paper in science history. His first and second laws of planetary motion, all that Newton needs to do his stuff and enough to trigger talk of aliens once you've officially ditched geocentricity.
Kepler is quoted by the masons and knew Dee. Brahe, Kepler's senior and tutor, collaborated and had met Dee. I don't know if it's just an Einstein, Schoenberg and Picasso moment, I guess it is. Albert, Arnold and Pablo were not comparing notes. These guys were closely linked across decades.

[Mark Lester No.21785906]

>>21785837
That illustration is really beautiful. Brahe was going for geo-heliocentricity, where everything goes round the Sun except us, and the Sun goes round the Earth. I don't know if that was just Tycho being religiously correct and who can blame him, but Johannes was having none of it. He had to wait for Tycho to snuff it.
Brahe's measurements were used by Kepler to produce his papers, along with early log tables produced by Jost Burgi. You just couldn't have done it without logs and it's part of why Kepler's paper is so important.
Brahe took his measurements, as did any that Kepler made, with no magnification, no telescope!. As I understand it we can't quite believe he got things as accurate as he did and when people harp on about the ancients is worth noting they'd have had what Tycho had, their eyeballs and a big adjustable triangle.
The picture is of William Oughtred, a very humble man indeed. He, along with Henry Briggs and Edmund Gunter, invented the slide rule and developed John Napier's logs in the 1610s. Logs would be the computer for the next three and a half centuries. Dee's own huge preface to Euclid would be on the desks of English Grammar schools right up to the 1920s. All these men were early Rosicrucians, terrified of being seen as witches. Peak witch burning season across the continent was on right at this time.
All this has its root at the start of the 17th Century.

[Mark Lester No.21786297]

Kepler's Supernova, SN1604 is most remarkable with regard to Shakespeare and who wrote it. All other major astronomical events appear to have been referenced in the works at some stage, certainly the great Comet of 1577 and Tycho's Supernova of 1572.
SN1604 isn't just any supernova. There are very few ever recorded in human history anyway, and this one is officially the brightest thing ever seen. Only the Moon and the Sun are brighter than SN1604 was.
It's not in the works. Oh dear.
John Dee has chosen it as a central theme in his Geometry. This star would have had enormous significance to a man who was as much astrologer as astronomer.
If you had looked at this page 12 months ago you may have wondered why that large spot of a full stop next to the G of G.Eld is fashioned on one side at what turns out to be 21 degrees to the horizontal such that it looks a bit like a Christmas tree bauble.
Perpendicular to that, at EXACTLY 21 degrees to vertical is that pink diagonal straight up to and bisecting that notch on the A. The G itself is also lined nicely at 21 degrees just to be nice.
All of this geometry is connected, all vertices are derived mathematically from previously generated co-ordinates. The coincidence of that 30/60/90 triangle created, in particular the vertical from the A down through the s of Aspley, is unfathomable to me. It's out by 3 pixels. That's not an error in the setting of the page, that's mathematically how close to vertical this weird coincidence, which he has identified, actually is.

[Mark Lester No.21786313]

21 degrees is the integer component of course of the declination of Kepler's Supernova, SN1604.
This technique of using integer angles to give us nice round measurable stuff has been used on each of the 5 arbitrary degree readings in the geometry, SN1572 (63, as measured by Brahe!), C1577 (20 as Capricorn, again as recorded), SN1604 (21, as measured by Kepler and his assistant themselves), Evening Star (23) and the slope of Khufu's Pyramid (51. public domain for two millennia at the time of the Sonnets' writing)

[Mark Lester No.21786349]

Here is Tycho's Star (SN1572) the pink line to the left which is EXACTLY 63 to the horizontal and travels from the well defined full stop after the first T of T.T. (the geometry generates that point) and is almost perfect on the centered square dot on the bottom of the leftmost S.
The red line on the other side is the C1577 Great Comet of 1577 line. It travels at EXACTLY 20 degrees to the vertical and passes through a comet shaped full stop after SONNETS and almost perfectly hits a perfectly centred square dot horizontally and vertically on the rightmost S.
Both these lines extend in the other direction through the dots on the tops of the i's of William and onto a perfect golden gnomon 108 degree triangle, all part of the pentagram game, that yet again has unfathomable coincidence with the what is actually a dot within the 6 of 1609 and already is bisected by the centre line and the circle.
The green line at the top signifies Venus as an evening star and is at precisely 23 degrees. It's right end at the bottom of the R is defined previously in the geometry, and the yellow square is generated from the Vesica Piscis. It precisely predicts the centre of that smaller bauble on the left N.

[Anonymous No.21786376]

Meds, now.

[Anonymous No.21786418]

>>21781822
No way, nice

>>21781889
>You don't have to be educated in Shakes to understand this is important just at a linguistic and artistic level. This is a super massive event in history
Once steganography becomes accepted outside art history and Leo Strauss acolytes other things come under scrutiny (say, for discovery in lawsuits) that would otherwise be hand waved away. Throw in Stuarts & legitimacy of claims to the throne by Saxe-Coeburg and there's a good enough incentive to quash it actively.

>>21783333
>inverted pentagrams only became a Satanic thing when nutjob Crowley got involved
Checked. Indeed, Pythagorean iconography through and through.

>>21786297
You run the letters through a Gematria pass, on top of the angles?

[Mark Lester No.21786581]

>>21786376
I'd already got the dirty great line across the page signifying SN1604. I only found this astonishing coincident triangle, and all this relationship stuff at the top of this thread, at the end. I'd obviously taken way too much acid at that point already but it got really stewpid over Christmas as the last of it all fell into place.
This shit is there dude. I don't want it, I've got far less constructive thing to do with my retirement.

[Mark Lester No.21786614]

>>21786418
There is a bit of lexical stuff on here, the By G line especially. Gematria does play a role, double V of course is 20 and 20. De Vere signed himself and in print as "double V" multiple times. VVilliam Shake-Speare is how it is often written with two V's (in the era, there arent that many to go on, and a double-u was actually called a double-v in them days), that's 40 for the VV, then 17 characters. 1740 backwards, 17 4T.
The trouble with this stuff is it's too messy to do battle with so I don't choose to. The "D For T" motif on the By G.Eld line, with an ox shaped T, hence "d for Ox", geddit, turns up in very specific places in very many suspicious publications. It is of course an extremely common string of characters in plain text, but having it appear in a cross, so dfort down and dfort across on the o, and in line with the name Earl of Oxford for instance, is just plain deliberate.
This IS NOT the bible codes. There has been some dodgy stuff from Oxfordia, not much but we all make mistakes, some of my earlier stuff was wrong. Amundsen's stuff promoting Neville is shockingly bad, he should be arrested. Waugh's solution to the dedication page specifically is the most incredible thing of it's kind ever discovered.

[Anonymous No.21786626]

>>21783808
>it's debunked because... because Oi said so!
You haven't actually addressedvthe points in the image.

[Mark Lester No.21786652]

>>21786626
I posted a link to Waugh and Italy
Here it is again
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVpjyboXiWI

The only part of this I got interested in is this canal system, and how they got about it, with wind.
The Italian material is not good ground for Stratfordians and this "he's got it wrong" is actually wrong. He's actually got it right again and again.
If there's any points on your list that this bloke hasnt covered let me know and I'll go ask a couple of mates.

[Anonymous No.21786678]

So what exactly are you saying? Who wrote "Shakespeare" ? You're babbling too much, no one will understand you.

[Mark Lester No.21786686]

>>21786678
De Vere wrote Shakespeare, sez it at the top.
I have no defence to the second half.

[Anonymous No.21786695]

>>21786686
Wasn't Shakespeare pretty popular in his own time?

[Anonymous No.21786717]

>>21786695
You’re talking to a schizo with delusions of grandeur. Don’t expect reason from him, pal.

[Mark Lester No.21786741]

>>21786695
The first printed reference to him was in 1597 in Francis Meres Palladis Tamia I think it's called. There is a quite an exquisite cryptogram in it. The is THE very first mention of the word Shakespeare outside of just two previous mentions on two initial quartos in 1593, and it has a blatant cryptogram.
There are no written accounts of him, nobody met him. Nobody wrote to him or anyone else about their actor/playwirght mate William Shakespeare "the greatest of letter writers". Somebody calls Shakespeare that in print. Trouble is, we cant find ANY of these letters.
De Vere was heavily involved with the theatre, there's no argument about that.

[Mark Lester No.21786746]

>>21786717
My main problem, as you can see, is I'm really a bit thick. I know that, I have to work hard with what I've got and I'm bone idle so it's tough.
So how the fuck was it so relatively easy ? Why is nobody looking at this ?

[Anonymous No.21786762]

>>21786741
>There are no written accounts of him, nobody met him. Nobody wrote to him or anyone else about their actor/playwirght mate William Shakespeare
that is just a straight up lie, though, since people recorded meeting him, being his friend, working with him, etc. He was famous during his own lifetime

All these theories fall apart with examination, and only exists if you omit facts or ignore common sense.

[Mark Lester No.21786780]

>>21786762
I do apologise. Do you have a reference of anyone actually writing "I met that Mr Shakespeare" or even "Dear Mr Shakespeare" or any personal accounts where it is made out that he was in any way associated with the arts ?

[Anonymous No.21786789]

>>21786652
He makes a good point about the canals, although that talk doesn't cover Bohemia being coastal in Shakespeare, or the canals being tidal, or Padua being in Lombardy. I'd be interested to hear points against those.

Something that seems pretty damning, though, is the performance of Henry VIII in 1613 when the Globe caught fire, contemporary accounts call it a new play, so it must have been written well after De Vere's death.

[Mark Lester No.21786797]

there are printed accounts of him saying what a great guy he was, people in print laud the name, more so after 1604 for some reason.Nobody describes
him physically.
I don't know how many of these we've found the same patterns in but waugh has a stash of them in those who knew videos.

[Anonymous No.21786798]

>>21786780
Yes, the following contemporaries wrote about playwright they called William Shakespeare:
Frances Meres
Andrew Wise
William Aspley
Nathan Butter
John Busby
Ralphe Brooke
John Davies
John Stowe
Thomas Freeman
Hugh Holland
Leonard Diggs
Ben Jonson

You are reaching. You really want him to be fake because you want to seem smart. Truth is, there is more evidence of a man called Shakespeare than most Elizabethan Playwrights at all. Turns out people weren't too good at saving records in the late 1500s!

[Mark Lester No.21786806]

>>21786789
fair enough. As I said earlier this is stuff is really way way out of my grade. Waugh puts up a pretty convincing counter battery.

I was sold on this before I started looking at Greens circle on this page. Having found what I have I'm pretty bloody well damn absolutely 911*1000% sure that this bloke is buried in westminser abbey under that monument.

[Mark Lester No.21786817]

>>21786798
I asked for a reference, not a list of names with zero corroboration. And I was talking about handwriting specifically, that's a nill straight through.

Of the ones you listed, the opener is my favourite. Have a watch at this one
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fFaGybgFs9M

William Aspley ?. Do you mean this publication ?. OK mate.

[Anonymous No.21786837]

>>21786817
What is the point of being pedantic about specific writings, signatures, bills from the 1500s? Like I said, the fragments of writing we do have is a miracle -- we have more documentation written by Shakespeare himself than we do for other Elizabethan writers.

Also, you are just obtuse to the facts. You are so invested in this 20th century theory, which was first created by a psychic fraud. You babble, put all these random numbers together, look for connections like you've been diagnosed with pareidolia.

There is more evidence Shakespeare was a real guy than a random aristocrat with vague, hypothetical, fantastical, unlikely connections.

You're whole theory rests on Queen Elizabeth, who was surrounded all times by thousands of eyes, secretly giving birth to a male heir....
But nobody saw her?
Nobody discovers this fact until the 20th century?
Discovered by a con artist?
And your proof is coded in Shakespeare's writings?
That anyone can derive clues from if they try hard enough?

Fuck you for wasting my time, bitch

[Anonymous No.21786919]

>>21786817
>here is a list of playwrghts which clearly has Shakespeare and Oxford as different people
>but if I apply a load of numerology and counting backwards and sometimes counting words or counting names to make it fit, you can see that Oxford is actually Apollo and the number 0 and the number 1 and the number 17 three times but Shakespeare is number 17 once (but also three times counting a different way) so he must have been a pseudonym of Oxford
Hmm

[Mark Lester No.21786973]

>>21786919
The words adds up to one thing. The names another. They both fit, as does the pairing and the two other groupings, They are reinforcing, it's not pick and chose to fit.
You don't need this stuff. Go back to that handwriting and have a private word with yourself.

Bisto was crap.

[Mark Lester No.21787028]

>>21786837

Shaksper was a real bloke. A real nasty one actually, quite mean indeed.
We know next to zero of his life as an actor and playwirght.

The theory does not require Wriothesley being the child of Elizabeth, Waugh for instance doesn't believe that. He believes that Wriothesley had a son for him, and as I think people reckon the author and the Fair Youth might have had a sexual relationship, him being his son is a bit off and I'd go with that.
The bit with him being the son of Elizabeth is an utterly appalling idea. It's Americans who go with that for some reason.

You've looked at nothing that I've done, and yet you are complaining about your worthless time being spent.

[Anonymous No.21787101]

>>21778687
>but not everything is a Freemason conspiracy
>he doesn't know

[Anonymous No.21787151]

>>21778983
> NO HANDWRITING.
Why are you ignoring Hand D?

[Mark Lester No.21787245]

>>21787151

>>21783662
That's his handwriting. I know Kenneth Branagh thinks Shoikspayer is a Kilngon in that film of his based on ghis hairline and I guess this handwriting, but really ?, on such flimsy evidence ?.
There's no way Hand D has anything whatsoever to do with whatever creature created those impressions.

[Anonymous No.21787283]

>>21787245
So Hand D completely blows your theory out of the water so your reaction to it is to just say “there’s no way”?

Do you have proof beyond your feelings/beliefs?

[Mark Lester No.21787291]

>>21787101
So you're perfectly OK with it not being Shoikspayer but as soon as we do any masonic symbology all bets are off ?
Somebody has to have been playing silly buggers. I don't believe more than 3 people in masonry today know the secret.
Alexander Pope, super senior mason, built the monument in Westminster Abbey in 1740, with the quotation error that people complained about at the time, and 17 40 umpteen times and lots of masonic symbology like a lidded sarcophagus and the chi rho and 4T on every vertex.

[Mark Lester No.21787294]

>>21787283
No, hand D blows you up because its utter bollocks.
Nobody can correlate that handwriting to thet scrawk we are sure about can they, its utterly stupid. The consensus is that it's Munday or Lilly, that's actual mainstream scholars you twerp.

[Mark Lester No.21787302]

the argument that it just must be Shakespeare, it sounds just like him. Is this a hole you want to go into mate, BOTH Lilly and Munday were extremely close to De Vere.

[Anonymous No.21787304]

>>21787294
That’s just wrong and you saying it doesn’t make it true.

Do you have evidence Hand D is not Shakespeare’s writing beyond “there’s just no way”?

[Mark Lester No.21787319]

>>21787304
do you have any proof that it is by the same angle. plenty of Stratfordians will come out and say, er, no, we cant really claim that on that basis. This is highly contentious even within the establishment. It wouldn't have a prayer in a court room.
Anyway 'nufski. Any third party can see the handwriting and look at what people will cling to keep their blank sheet of paper on who this man actually was what he really thought. Just make up anything you like, he doesn't exist, you wont have to measure it up on some pitiful human being. There's no correlation between the works and his life in Stratford is there.
The idea of being so horribly wrong, oh it must be gut wrenching.

[Anonymous No.21787320]

shut the fuck up logo daedalus nobody gives a shit who authored shakespeare

[Mark Lester No.21788516]

>>21787320
That's actually true to be fair. Stratfordians "do not want to have their myths disturbed" (Churchill on being asked about it).

Shaksper put no punctuation, no books and no Shakespeare in his will. He was just a jobbing playwright who was so unimpressed with his own work he never mentioned it to anyone in Stratford and didn't own a single book.
Having to stick this mean, convicted grain hoarder in as the author of these works is better than having to suffer someone real. Stratfordians have spent some effort disparaging De Vere. They are certain a horrid man like Oxford couldn't have done this.
Oh dear.

[Mark Lester No.21788978]

>>21787304
https://shakespearedocumented.folger.edu/resource/document/shakespeares-handwriting-hand-d-booke-sir-thomas-more

That's the Folger library mate. It just doesn't get more official does it. They think you are talking utter crap, we just "dont know what his handwriting looks like" . What the Folger means in that is if these six sigs are actually Shakes, if that's all there is, then he's not the author anyway is he.

Anyway, The Folger Shakespeare Library, Washington DC, is NOT prepared to say that this thing that is most probably by Anthony Munday has got ANY of Shakespeare's handwriting in it, despite what some desperate Stratfordian at BL has done (the Folger have by far the superior version of the Sonnets FYI).
And yet, you've responded repeatedly claiming you have demolished my argument with something that is established fact. It was flimsy to start with when the claim was made a century ago. It's been rubbished ever since yet you are holding on to this as your proof of his literacy.

This is the level of extreme fuckwittery we are dealing with here.

[Mark Lester No.21789236]

>>21786798
May I just ask. You've got Aspley on that list. I have a hernia and I don't want to bust it, so break this to me slowly. Are you claiming on the basis of Aspley's involvement (i.e. he's named on the document) of the Sonnets and First Folio, that he has eulogised about Shakespeare, are you seriously making that claim ?. I was asking for personal accounts by any of these mates you reckon he's got. I'm afraid your man is a bit of a Billy No Mates, he's a nasty grain hoarding money lender.

(If you are a neutral trying to work out how credible the established position is, if this guy says yes I'm adding Aspley as a proven mate, then you can give up all hope, we are collectively too thick.)

We have stuff on Diggs and Jonson, heaps of it, I haven't looked at the others.
Palladis Tamia isn't an ordinary book. Meres has encoded his entire weird publication up with cryptograms, I don't think anyone with an IQ in double figures doesn't understand that. It really is accepted fact, the entire book is weird as fuck, everything is in pairs, NOBODY who isn't an utter retard doesn't understand that about that book.
Whether this particular and most elaborate discovery of Stritmatter's is there is to be debated. Well actually no it's not to be debated, it's to be looked at, it's absolutely fuck obvious it's just you cant process it cos its got the wrong answer.

[Anonymous No.21789303]

You’re doing God’s work Mark. I’ve been working on a theory of my own, and I think the Stratfordians are going to be in a world of hurt. I’m just getting a few things together before I try to get it published. No doubt they’ll try and do everything to keep me from getting it published. If it wasn’t for my safety (I have no doubt they would try to kill me to keep this secret) I’d publish online.

BUT I will say this, one thing people need to know, and no one seems to realize, is Edward da Veer and the Earl of Oxford are NOT the same person. And that’s all I feel comfortable saying right now.

[Anonymous No.21789332]

>>21789303
> You’re doing God’s work Mark
By lying?
>>21786806
So you admit you’re a retard who doesn’t know what he’s saying?

[Anonymous No.21789336]

>>21789303
>My conspiracy theories have conspiracy theories!
Just take your bloody meds.

[Mark Lester No.21789477]

>>21789336
In fairness, this is exactly the problem or it encapsulates a large part of it. You shouldn't be discouraging him/her or any of these, Alan Green, all of them, they are all on Stratford's side by being ridiculous and not peer reviewing or anything. It turns out the whole of English lit is like this. They don't really do peer review , they just publish bollocks all the time. It's the English Fiction Dept.
These people are golden to Stratfordia. Amundsen and any Baconians and Nevilists are at this point your most useful weapons. He's better use than Stanley Wells isn't he, lets be honest.

Anyway, "lying" ? You are an anonymous fucktard who cannot bear to look at what I have discovered despite this matter being of great importance to you. Where have I lied ?.

I've got i think two brave souls on at me, one claiming shakes has loads of mates, he doesn't, you are lying. The other says he's hand D. If the establishment really did think hand D was shakes we'd know a damn site more than we do wouldn't we. Folger dont think it is. British Library havent even't qualified their claim, which is a bit off really. I don't think RSC are even interested, I cant find this very important document, his only handwriting FFS, on their site ?

[Anonymous No.21789488]

>>21789477
Occam's razor.

[Anonymous No.21789539]

>>21789336
I’ve dedicated the past two years of mybmife to this research. I have so many stories of being followed after I started this that even my friends think it’s weird. I’ve contacted numerous big lublishing companies. Don’t you think it’s a little weird that one of the biggest theories in years, one that would make them money hand over fist, and they all refuse to even look at it? Hm, wonder what the reason could be…

And I’ll say this, go find ine scrap of evidence linking da veer to the earl of oxford. Go ahead. I’ll wait.

>>21789477
That’s disappointing to hear Mark. I am on your side. Well, I’m not saying the devil is speaking through you, but I do wonder when was the last time you felt God’s touch.

[Anonymous No.21789556]

>>21789539
Ah, yes, the whole world is against you. No, you’re just a delusional quack.

[Anonymous No.21789594]

>>21789556
Ok, answer the questions:

1) why would every major publishing company reject my manuscript, one that would be the biggest discovery in the world, and make them a ton of money? Why??

2) Why just a few days after I started my research did I start getting followed?

As for my theory:
3) Can you find any shred of evidence linking de veer to the earl of oxford? I’ll help you, you can’t.

[Anonymous No.21789610]

>>21789594
> the biggest discovery in the world
You sound delusional.
> Why just a few days after I started my research did I start getting followed?
persecution complex
> Can you find any shred of evidence linking de veer to the earl of oxford? I’ll help you, you can’t.
I don’t give a shit about any of these people. They are not Shakespeare.

[Mark Lester No.21789612]

>>21789488
He can't write.
There's no evidence of any education or access to anyone's library.
The will is ridiculously vacant of anything that might incriminate him as the author.

You have to come up with something pretty bloody elaborate to get out of that. Religions started via oral tradition, may be Shakes dictated it ?

The masons freely and openly believe that Shakes was a mason, many believe he was Dee, many have believed he was Bacon. They were entirely responsible (fact) for sticking up the monument in Westminster Abbey, over an altar. During the 17th and 18th centuries very many of them got themselves buried right in that area.

The shortest route from A to B is de Vere. I appreciate that it's half way to a real life Dan Brown but it's plausible. We're not talking about the holy bloody grail or finding any fucking treasure like amundsen is. and all this E:izabeth stuff is quite optional. It's politcal though I think that has to be certain.

To my comrade in arms. Publish what the hell you are talking about. I can be a lot more angry about this kind of thing I can tell you. Arguing with the innocent is hard enough, arguing with Baconians or anyone else (da veer ?) about who essentially Shakespeare is when it's engraved all over the first two printed pages and beyond is just enough now.

Dee has a class quote about "revealing secrets for all to read", but that he thinks only the "worthy" will suss it. You can interpret that how you like.
All my stuff is on the same page, it's all happening in an elaborate model, and then on the next page (after a blank) there is the whacky dedication. And again you have to go "oh well you can do that anywhere"". Not again and again and again and again on the same publication on two suspicious pages, the dedication for sure

[Mark Lester No.21789617]

>>21789594
seriously, get the fuck off this thread.

[Anonymous No.21789652]

I believe not in telling someone directly, but by guiding them, so I’d like to use what I call the “socratic method” to teach you all.

Question 1: How was the earl of oxford verified on a trip to italy, while at the same time da veer was at elizabeth’s court?

Question 2: when is da veer’s birthday? Great, now what day did the earl of oxford succeed to his title? Wow, isn’t weird…

>>21789617

God bless, you’re nothing but stratfordian plant

[Mark Lester No.21789810]

>>21789652
Thats what i say to people who attack starmer from the left.
look, anonymous person, please just put up a web page with your theory OK ?.

The SBT control their whackypedia-space like the FSB might. If I were screwing this about as much as I could, you are currently a bot built for the purpose.

I'm sure there's some parable about David Icke being head of the Green Party at one stage but that didn't result in climate change denial not being fuckwitted

[Anonymous No.21789859]

>>21789810
Haha, isn’t that funny. You want the one guy who can destroy all arguments stratfordians have to leave this thread? Hmm, now why would that be? Who’s funding your research by the way? Oh let me guess, you’re doing this all on your own. Not at all funded by the RSC (known satanic cult) are you?

Let me continue:

Question: What is the relationship between “Shakespeare” and de veer? What is the relationship between “Shakespeare” and the earl of oxford? Now, for the truly blind, what is the relationship between de veer and the earl of oxford? If you can see between the lines, then your mind will be opened.

[Anonymous No.21789863]

Looks like some people need more meds than others. Imagine getting outschizo’d in fucking 4chan.

[Anonymous No.21789873]

>>21789863
One. One scrap of evidence. Just one. That’s all I’m asking. One piece of evidence that says de veer = earl of oxford. And I’m schizo for applying the scientific method???

[Mark Lester No.21789888]

>>21789859
1. you can't have the guy with the Klingon hairline OK, he's bare illiterate.
2. the most plausible candidate, from first principles, was identified 103 years ago.
3. in the last 10 years we've found it written on there as if engraved.

you have to be able to read that. Dee says basically that if you are too thick you wont be able to.
who is the one guy what ?. I've got I think some entity claiming "da veer" who isnt edward de vere is actually shakes, i think. everyone has the same name, it's hard.

My evidence is listed above in those diagrams that tou have dismissed. Dee says you wont be able to see it if you arent "worthy".

[Mark Lester No.21790907]

>>21789873
This is the worst lie of all, the all encapsulating "there is zero evidence".

There are hundreds of links between Hamlet and de Vere's life. It was core to J.T.Looney identifying this a century ago.
We have catalogues of stuff such as de Vere staying in a house in Milan that held only one of two copies that you need quotable access to.
The "he doesnt know Italy" argument is just asking for Waugh to give you two, one hour lectures on why that's just complete crap.
We have De Vere's own bible, held at the Folger library, full of quotes underlined and the Folger making out we can't do handwriting tests on underlining. It is incontestably De Vere's, it has incontestably been in the hands of someone who either was obsessed with shakespeare or was shakespeare.

The evidence doesnt go away, it keeps piling up. It has done for a century and since the start of this century and the interweb it has reached another level, some wrong admittedly.
There have been at the same intensive efforts by Stratfordians to find the handwriting, find a letter from somebody talking about him, anything. Evidence of him hanging around Oxford, sommat, anything. So far we have a tiny embroidered initial that Michael Wood extrapolates to Elizabeth Arden reading Shoikspayer Greek classics. It's so insane, is all of History and English like this ?.
(De Vere would himself, or at the very least his friend and tutor, actually translate Ovid, something the entire work seems to reflect.)

The cryptography, blatant though it is, is systematically dismissed. Not because it isn't searingly obvious. What I have on the Sonnets title page is undeniable. But because it's the wrong answer. Having all that stuff all in the same place, all massively appropriate to Hemetecism and ending up stating
BY GOD AND DE VERE
which it then proceeds to do on the dedication page with astonish eloquence.

If I'd draw Anne Hathaway in a second best bed we'd all be delighted wouldn't we.
For the record, in Brannaghs quite bizarre film he uses the second best bed as a central plot device. There is indeed an addendum to the will, it has the only reference to his wife and awards her "the *second* best bed". There was a Jacobethan family court and she'd have been entitled to 1/3 if she had not been listed. So she's been slapped in so he only has to give her a bed, and not even the big one.
Even the film itself concedes there were issues within the marriage. Brannagh makes out it identifies his wife as second among equals. It's just whacky bullshit as is his borderline tasteless stuff with Hamnet.

If this was anything else we would not be having this fight. De Vere employed just about anyone ever associated with the authorship question. He paid for and lent money for most of the theatres in blackfriars and then the move outside of the city. He is totally central to the real story, which is hardly surprising.

[Anonymous No.21790927]

>>21790907
> The "he doesnt know Italy" argument is just asking for Waugh to give you two, one hour lectures on why that's just complete crap
Yet he doesn’t answer for most of the mistakes.

[Anonymous No.21791009]

>>21790907
Mark, I appreciate your efforts, I really do. In fact, we are stronger together than if we are fighting. BUT

>There are hundreds of links between Hamlet and de Vere's life

I’m sorry to have to say this, but this is not entirely true. There are links between Hamlet and the EARL OF OXFORD’S life—but NOT de veer. Check the evidence. You’ll see I’m right.

[Mark Lester No.21791048]

>>21790927
Yes he does, in particular the voyage stuff and the naming of churches and shed loads. It's pitiful. The best bit is when they piule in on his Latin and say shakes doesnt know Italian or Latin. Yes he did.

[Mark Lester No.21791058]

>>21791009
That is not what Waugh and the SOF state. Hamlet is gushing with stuff that keeps turning up.
J.T. Looney initially identified De Vere based on the poetry form he was using, distinctively Shakespeare. The more the two are studied with this connection in mind the more and more and more keeps turning up. Exactly what you'd expect with a valid theory.

No rebuttal on the Folger bible then ?.
Or that you can't prove anyone actually knew Shoikspayer as anything to do with the theatre ? A theatre he simultaneously dominated. De Vere is all over the Theatre, along with Leicester he was the principal chief aristo in charge of the whole affair.
Or that the Folgetr themselves thing your hand D is rubbish. All we have is six crap sigs.

[Anonymous No.21791068]

>>21791048
England was obsessed with Italy and Italian stuff back in those days. The fact that a playwright also was affected by that cultural trend is not unusual.

[Mark Lester No.21791072]

>>21791068
Yes, De Vere was actually known as the "Italian Earl" and was obsessed with all things Italian, food, clothes and the arts. He brought the Renaissance to England.
Is this starting to form a picture yet ?

[Anonymous No.21791093]

>>21791072
I’m not talking about Shakespeare. I’m talking about Elizabethan society. His work is not the only Italian-inspired work, schizo retard. De Vere was a mediocre poet compared to Shakespeare.

[Mark Lester No.21791108]

>>21791093
De Vere was Shakespeare schizo fucktard, he was identified based on the similarity.. He heralded the thing you posted about but you didnt know that De Vere was very much the guy who drove it and was even criticised over it.

[Anonymous No.21791115]

>>21791108
De Vere was a courtier and a mediocre poet (some of his shit survived and is stylistically distant from the Bard), he was not Shakespeare. Keep posting your retarded little diagrams. Pareidolia much, faggot? Nice way of spending your last days.

[Mark Lester No.21791143]

>>21791115
It's this stuff that's the most excruciating isnt it.
You lot can't even work out black from white. My diagrams arent going to penetrate, forget them.
Stick to bullshitting about poetry mate.

[Anonymous No.21791169]

>>21791072
>Historical documents confirm that Oxford lived in Venice, and travelled for over a year through Italy. He disliked the country, writing in a letter to Lord Burghley dated 24 September 1575, "I am glad I have seen it, and I care not ever to see it any more".

How embarrasing...

[Mark Lester No.21791185]

>>21791169
He was shipwrecked on his return. Are you seriously submitting that as some form of evidence.
Shall we go through a third of the plays to see what he thought ? His relationship with Cecil was complex.

[Anonymous No.21791188]

>>21791169
Someone who dislikes a country and says he would not like to see it anymore ever is obviously behind multiple italophilic plays and a cultural renaissance LMAO.

[Mark Lester No.21791196]

>>21791188
Have you ever even seen a shakespeare play. Am I actually arguing with you that Shakespeare really hated italy, he just couldnt think of anywhere else to write about ? Was he just writing for the masses ?

[Mark Lester No.21791229]

That's worth absorbing if you are neutral. It's not really palatable if you just can't handle all this

https://deveresociety.co.uk/edward-de-vere-as-shakespeare-2/

The SOF and De Vere sites are balanced and scholarly. You may not agree with them but it's not of the same fruitcake standard as several I have had supporting stuff like Hand D, or for instance my stuff which I fully accept you cannot just accept without some peer review.
If you are a genuine neutral and you just want to see what the other side have to say, these sites are worth browsing.

[Anonymous No.21791240]

>>21791196
De Vere hated Italy. Shakespeare, who never went there, loved it and was fascinated by it. Obviously different people, except for schizos.

[Mark Lester No.21791636]

>>21791115
Regarding this position Starford take up on De Vere's status.
Lord Chamberlain is a kind of best man for yer Coronation. The family had held it from the first Earl in the 12th century onwards almost without interruption. (Lord) Peter Carrington's son has it now. It's now entirely ceremonial of course.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_Great_Chamberlain
The De Vere's turn up at almost EVERY battle in English History up to this point. I'm not kidding. They steered clear of Towton (worst ever on English soil) which was obviously a good move, but check out Stoke Field if you are interested in bows and arrows, and the Long Bow in particular. Perhaps the Long Bow's most strategically notable, and final great victory. John De Vere, commander of the day, was the principal commander at Bosworth, and was rewarded very handsomely for his efforts. John, 7th Earl of Oxford was in the pocket of soldiers with the Black Prince when Edward III tells them (allegedly) "let the boy win his spurs". The De Vere's were at the centre of court for almost the entire 500 years since Hastings.

De Vere started his life as the poshest, richest person in the country. He didn't end it that way. Indeed officially his remains have been lost. He was buried in a raised sarcophagus inside St Augustine's in Hackney. The church was demolished and replaced at the end of the 18th century. All we have left is the tower if you are familiar with the area. De Vere lived where Lea Bridge road roundabout now is. His remains were just binned, so insignificant a man this was.
No line matched the De Vere's by the 16th century, Everyone else had died out at either St Albans, Towton or Tewkesbury in the Wars of the Roses, if they hadn't had their family wiped out by picking the wrong side and not pulling through at some stage in the previous 500 years.
This man doesn't even have a grave.