Happy Anniversary to Us!
Terry Ross
celebrated -- and by a remarkable coincidence, today is also the
anniversary of the Shakespeare Authorship page, which Dave Kathman and
I rolled out 10 years ago: April 23, 1996. In the last 10 years there
have been nearly two million visits to our pages, and Dave and I wish
to thank all those whose support, curiosity, or disdain has taken them
to our neck of the Internet.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Terry Ross Visit the SHAKESPEARE AUTHORSHIP home page
http://ShakespeareAuthorship.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Kathman
Bill Clinton was serving his first term as president, Google did not
yet exist, and HLAS was less than a year old. Let me join Terry in
thanking everyone who has visited our site over the past decade.
Dave Kathman
dj...@ix.netcom.com
Elizabeth
> It's hard to believe it's been 10 years. When we launched the site,
> Bill Clinton was serving his first term as president, Google did not
You left out 'and the Oxfordians had not yet taken over the
Internet.'
> Let me join Terry in
> thanking everyone who has visited our site over the past decade.
Congratulations on your ten-year anniversary. You've
got a fine site although I have to use the 'site:' command
to negotiate it.
So when are you going to put up a site that shows that the
Oxfordians have no authorship evidence and that Looney
hoaxed the public by doctoring Oxford's letters?
The Oxfordians have tens of thousands of pages online
while there are only a handful of pages (and no sites) dedicated
to refuting the empty Oxfordian case.
The problem for Strats is not that the Oxfordians < have > authorship
evidence but that they have < not a single piece > of authorship
evidence. The Oxfordians have yet to venture into the archives.
This is a non-paradox. The Oxfordian advantage is in the fact
that it has no evidence.
The hardest cases to refute as Popper (after Bacon) pointed out,
are the cases that have no evidence to falsify.
Because it cannot be falsified, the Oxfordian case is logically
false.
I think I put that more clearly than Popper.
The Strats <have> evidence which makes the Strat case vulnerable
to attack. The Oxfordians, having nothing, can duck everything
thrown at them . . . except . . . evidence that Looney hoaxed the
public.
Looney (and his theory) can be dismissed on the basis of
his deliberate misrepresentations of Oxford's archival documents.
Bianca Steele
> David Kathman wrote:
> > It's hard to believe it's been 10 years. When we launched the site,
> > Bill Clinton was serving his first term as president, Google did not
> > yet exist, and HLAS was less than a year old . . . .
>
> You left out 'and the Oxfordians had not yet taken over the
> Internet.'
Elizabeth, the Oxfordians have not taken over the Internet, neither
have the Baconians. The "Shakespeareans" are just hiding belowgrounds
until the tide goes out again. At which point the
"anti-Shakespeareans" will be washed away and it will be safe to speak
openly again. :|
>
> > Let me join Terry in
> > thanking everyone who has visited our site over the past decade.
>
> Congratulations on your ten-year anniversary. You've
> got a fine site although I have to use the 'site:' command
> to negotiate it.
Allow me to join my congratulations to the general.
But regarding the following, if the Oxfordians' advantage were that
they don't have the evidence, then it would be obvious that the
Oxfordians were the ones who were winning the contest. Being open to
attack does not make the attacks successful, in fact being subject to
attack is a mark of superiority in pretty much every area of life. And
on and on. At the risk of sounding like Dave in a bad mood, I don't
even know where to begin in criticizing your argument below. I don't
see a "paradox"; I only see tautologies; how you get from a tautology
to a perceived paradox I'll probably never understand (and I have a
hunch I would not be better off if I did).
And to get back to my initial point, if the Stratfordians aren't
publicly engaging the anti-stratfordians, it may be that they feel
others are dealing with the problem successfully for them. There's a
lot more going on than you and I are able to see, Elizabeth, I thought
you knew that. It all makes perfect sense.
And if it doesn't, in other words, make sense to me, the fact that I'm
not able to make a case might be proof I'm not meant to attempt it.
Maybe Dave thinks that way too.
----
Bianca S.
Robert Stonehouse
<dj...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Congratulations! But this is a newsgroup of conspiracy
theorists - can this remarkable fact really be just a
coincidence?
--
Robert Stonehouse
To mail me, replace invalid with uk. Inconvenience regretted
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
the Rigidniks book today, and have decided that this constitutes
publication of the book on Shakespeare's (traditional) birthday. It
was actually delivered by UPS to my house Friday but I was away till
today. I had hoped to get it into print long before this, by the way,
and never did anything to get 23 April into its publication.
I thought it appropriate to announce the book's publication in this
thread because Terry's and Dave's site, and Terry and Dave themselves,
importantly helped me with parts of the book (albeit not necessarily
directly). Many others associated with HLAS did, too. I mentioned
some of them in the course of my book, and apologize to those I should
have mentioned but didn't. I figure if the book goes anywhere,
historians can figure out who I stole from but neglected to name. If
it doesn't go anywhere, it won't make any difference who I stole from.
I expect it to be ready for purchase from me in about two weeks. 330
pages, glossy cover, $15 ppd. I hope to set up a website for it. More
in due course.
--Bob
Art Neuendorffer
Oh, do tell us what's on the cover, Bob.
(It isn't really titled: _Shakespeare & the Rigidniks_ is it?)
Art N.
Art Neuendorffer
>
>>April 23 is the date on which Shakespeare's birthday is traditionally
>>celebrated -- and by a remarkable coincidence, today is also the
>>anniversary of the Shakespeare Authorship page, which Dave Kathman and
>>I rolled out 10 years ago: April 23, 1996. In the last 10 years there
>>have been nearly two million visits to our pages, and Dave and I wish
>>to thank all those whose support, curiosity, or disdain has taken them
>>to our neck of the Internet.
>>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Terry Ross Visit the SHAKESPEARE AUTHORSHIP home page
>> http://ShakespeareAuthorship.com
>>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Kathman wrote:
> It's hard to believe it's been 10 years. When we launched the site,
> Bill Clinton was serving his first term as president, Google did not
> yet exist, and HLAS was less than a year old. Let me join Terry in
> thanking everyone who has visited our site over the past decade.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Also the 17th year anniversary of the PBS FRONTLINE show
that revived interest (including my own) on the subject.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shakespeare/index.html
<<First broadcast in April 1989, "The Shakespeare Mystery"
was seen by an audience of well over five million and
roused hundreds of viewers to call or write FRONTLINE.>>
Art Neuendorffer
Art Neuendorffer
>>
>>>April 23 is the date on which Shakespeare's birthday is traditionally
>>>celebrated -- and by a remarkable coincidence, today is also the
>>>anniversary of the Shakespeare Authorship page, which Dave Kathman and
>>>I rolled out 10 years ago: April 23, 1996. In the last 10 years there
>>>have been nearly two million visits to our pages, and Dave and I wish
>>>to thank all those whose support, curiosity, or disdain has taken them
>>>to our neck of the Internet.
>>>
>>>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> Terry Ross Visit the SHAKESPEARE AUTHORSHIP home page
>>> http://ShakespeareAuthorship.com
>>>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
> On 23 Apr 2006 07:28:16 -0700, "David Kathman"
>>It's hard to believe it's been 10 years. When we launched the site,
>>Bill Clinton was serving his first term as president, Google did not
>>yet exist, and HLAS was less than a year old. Let me join Terry in
>>thanking everyone who has visited our site over the past decade.
Robert Stonehouse wrote:
> Congratulations! But this is a newsgroup of conspiracy
> theorists - can this remarkable fact really be just a
> coincidence?
-----------------------------------------------------
April 23, 1996 : Shakespeare's 432th birthday
-----------------------------------------------------
http://www.halexandria.org/dward092.htm
<<In The Inner Reaches Of Outer Space, Joseph Campbell discusses the
similarity between the Babylonian and Genesis flood stories. In the
Babylonian story, there were ten kings who lived very long lives from
the creation to the time of the flood -- a period of time given as
432,000 years. Zecharia Sitchin reckons the time frame to be
445,000 years ago, with the flood pegged at 13,000 years ago.
In the Biblical account, there were ten patriarchs between Adam and Noah
(aka The Adam's Family), who also lived long lives. The total years --
adjusting for the massive overlap in their lives, add up to 1,656. In
that number of years, there are 86,400 weeks, or exactly twice 43,200.
Curiously, the number of seconds in a 24 hour day is 86,400.
To reconcile taking half of 86,400 to obtain 43,200, one should note the
ancient tradition of seeing a cycle as one half waning and one half
waxing (as in the lunar cycle). The day thus has 24 hours, or 2 sets of
12 hours -- 12 hours of a waxing sun, followed by 12 hours of a waning
sun. 12 is, in fact, considered the celestial holy number (7 being the
down-to-earth holy number). Additionally, in Revelation 12, the woman
with child has a crown of 12 stars. The New Jerusalem has 12 gates,
angels and pearls. And the symbol of the Heart chakra is a 12-petal
Lotus Flower . John Mitchell, author of City Of Revelation, shows a
diagram of the New Jerusalem Plan, based on St. John's vision. It has
12 circles in a ring, with a 12-pointed star inside, formed by four
overlapping triangles. (The Zodiac is often depicted in a similar way).
If you take the circles to be 360 degrees each, and multiplies by the
number of circles, the total equals 4,320.
Campbell points out a number of other strange things about the numbers.
Viking eddas were found in Iceland that told the story of the Day of
Ragnorook, the Doomsday of the Gods. At that time, 800 Divine Warriors
were to come out of each of the 540 Doors of Valhalla. And as it turns
out, 800 x 540 = 432,000.
The Kali-Yuga time cycle of the Eastern religions, is also 432,000
years, while the other three ages of the Grand Cycle are multiples of
432,000 years -- with the total of all four cycles being 4,320,000
years. (see Annals of Earth -- Episode 3.)
The earth's axis wobble that causes the precession of the equinoxes is
given as 25,920 years. Divided by the ancient "soss", 60, which was used
in calculations, results in 432. The 60 is also relevant as the ratio
of the distance to the Moon from Earth and Earth's radius (see Nines),
the number of seconds in a minute, and minutes in an hour, and half the
hundred and twenty years of man [Genesis 6:3].
A manufacturer of golf balls once did a test to find the ideal number of
dimples to put on golf balls. It turned out that balls with 432 dimples
went farther than the rest.
432 is also a fundamental part of a Gematrian numbering system, that
seems to be based on adding the number 36. Two of the resulting numbers
are 1656 and 25920. Others are 144 or 144,000, and 1260, which also
appear in Revelation. Each number had a meaning. 432, for example,
means, "Consecration".
Some believe these numbers were placed in the Bible to transmit messages
across time itself. Carl Munck has shown that these numbers were part of
a very ancient system for positioning ancient sites around the world.
James Furia has shown that the musical scale is also related, i.e. the
centering note is "A" at 432 cps, rather than the standard 440.
It goes on and on...
---------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
Art Neuendorffer
_The Cycle of Time Number 432_ by Joseph E. Mason
http://www.greatdreams.com/432.htm
<<In Joseph Campbell's, The Inner Reaches Of Outer Space, he writes
about the similarity between the Babylonian and Genesis flood stories.
As I remember it, he said something like this - In the Babylonian story,
there were ten kings who lived very long lives from creation to the time
of the flood. This is given as a total of 432,000 years. In the Biblical
account, there were ten patriarchs between Adam and Noah, who also lived
long lives. Noah was 600 years old at the time of the landing of the Ark
on the mountains of Ararat (in present day Turkey). The total years add
up to 1,656. In that number of years, there are 86,400 weeks, and half
that number is 43,200. There are myths about cycles in time, and out of
time, so this doubling/halving is not uncommon. He believed that someone
carefully gave the age of Noah to secretly hide the time cycle number.
He points out a number of other strange things about the numbers. Viking
eddas were found in Iceland that told the story of the Day of Ragnorook,
the Doomsday of the Gods. At that time, 800 Divine Warriors will come
out of each of the 540 Doors of Valhalla (800 x 540 = 432,000).
The number can be found in an internal clock in the body, as well as in
the Cosmos. A trained athlete's heart beats one time each second. In a
24 hour day, that is 86,400 beats.
The earth's axis wobble that causes the precession of the equinoxes is
given as 25,920 years. Divided by the ancient number called "soss," 60,
which was used in calculations, results in 432.
A manufacturer of golf balls once did a test to find the ideal number of
dimples to put on golf balls. It turned out that balls with 432 dimples
went farther than the rest.
I have read elsewhere that the Kali-Yuga time cycle of the Eastern
religions, is also 432,000 years (in some stories a different multiple).
I once had a dream of a football game, that I knew was an anology to the
Great Change at the end of the present cycle. There are 11 players on
each team, for an 11:11, which some say is related to the opening of the
Doorway in the Belt of Orion.
My dreaming path suggests it is about Revelation 11:11, where the two
olive trees/lampstands/prophets stand up after 3 and 1/2 days. It is a
reference to the midpoint in the chakra system. The next step is the
fourth, the Heart Chakra. The head coach in my dream was Mr. Webb, and
the assistant coach was Mr. Noon. I started to write a check to Mr. Webb
for my football equipment. There were threads in a pattern on the check,
which I had to remove to sign it. The coach reminded me that the check
was to go to Mr. Noon, because he had provided the equipment. As I was
trying to interpret the dream, I realized - noon is half a day, 12
hours. 60 x 60 x 12 = 43,200 seconds!
The New Jerusalem Plan
Also interesting, The Woman with Child in Revelation 12 has a crown of
12 stars. The New Jerusalem has 12 gates, angels, jewels and pearls. The
symbol of the Heart chakra is a 12-petal Lotus Flower. John Mitchell,
author of City Of Revelation, shows a diagram of the New Jerusalem Plan,
based on St. John's vision. It has 12 circles in a ring, with a
12-pointed star inside, formed by four overlapping triangles. The Zodiac
is often depicted in a similar way. If you take the circles to be 360
degrees each, it comes to 4,320.
Crop circle researches report that a similar Plan is found by dowsing
within certain crop patterns, as well as at ancient sites, such as
Stonehenge and Avebury. 432 is part of a Gematrian numbering system,
that seems to be based on adding the number 36. 1656 and 25920 are two
of them. Others are 144 or 144,000, and 1260, which also appear in
Revelation. Each number had an "Alpha" or word meaning. 432, for
example, means "Consecration." Some believe that the numbers were
encoded in the Bible to transmit messages across time itself. Carl Munck
has shown that these numbers were part of a very ancient system for
positioning ancient sites around the world. His friend, and mine, James
Furia, has shown that the musical scale is related. The centering note
is "A" at 432 cps, rather than the standard 440.
In The Message of the Sphinx, by Graham Hancock and Robert Bauval (pages
37, 38), the great pyramid is said to be associated with a base ten
harmonic of 432:
"Also 'almost impossible', since the mathematical value of pi (3.14) is
not supposed to have been calculated by any civilization until the
Greeks stumbled upon it in the third century BC, is the fact the
designed height of the Great Pyramid - 481.3949 feet - bears the same
relationship to its base perimeter (3023.16 feet) as does the
circumference of any circle to its radius.
Equally 'impossible' - at any rate for a people like the ancient
Egyptians who are supposed to have known nothing about the true shape
and size of our planet - is the relationship, in a scale of 1 : 43,200,
that exists between the dimensions of the Pyramid and the dimensions of
the earth. Setting aside for the moment the question of whether we are
dealing with coincidence here, it is a simple fact, verifiable on any
pocket calculator, that if you take the monument's original height
(481.3949 feet) and multiply it by 43,200 you get a quotient of 3938.685
miles.
This is an underestimate by just 11 miles of the true figure for the
polar radius of the earth (3949 miles) worked out by the best modern
methods. Likewise, if you take the monument's perimeter at the base
(3023.16 feet) and multiply this figure by 43,200 then you get 24,734.94
miles - a result that is within 170 miles of the true equatorial
circumference of the earth (24,902 miles). Moreover, although 170 miles
sounds quite a lot, it amounts, in relation to the earth's total
circumference, to a minus-error of only three quarters of a single per
cent."
It seems clear that the number 432 has been within human consciousness
for a very long time, and that it is often associated with a cycle of
time number.>>
-------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
text on the back cover. The book's title is indeed *Shakespeare & the
Rigidniks*. Its subtitle is, "A Study of Cerebral Dysfunction." It
stars Paul Crowley. I'm afraid you missed the cut, Art. Your lunacy
proved too complex for my theory to account for in less than 400 pages.
Maybe in the sequel.
--Bob
The Historian
I want a copy. How much extra to have the author sign it?
Neil Brennen
Greg Reynolds
You ARE the first place I found online. Thanks for the years of
entertainment.
I applaud you for amending your site to reflect your own learnings at
this very newsgroup.
Greg Reynolds
David Kathman
What, you mean the fact that we launched the site on April 23 and
that's Shakespeare's traditional birthday? Well, no, that's not a
coincidence.
Dave Kathman
dj...@ix.netcom.com
Peter Farey
David Kathman wrote:
>
> It's hard to believe it's been 10 years. When we
> launched the site, Bill Clinton was serving his first
> term as president, Google did not yet exist, and HLAS
> ing everyone who has visited our site over the past
> decade.
>
> >
> > April 23 is the date on which Shakespeare's birthday
> > is traditionally celebrated -- and by a remarkable
> > coincidence, today is also the anniversary of the
> > Shakespeare Authorship page, which Dave Kathman and
> > I rolled out 10 years ago: April 23, 1996. In the
> > last 10 years there have been nearly two million
> > visits to our pages, and Dave and I wish to thank all
> > those whose support, curiosity, or disdain has taken
> > them to our neck of the Internet.
It's a tough job, but someone had to do it!
What I have been most grateful for is the fact that you
have both been prepared to *discuss* authorship matters
with us, where most academics (particularly ten years
ago) clearly thought it in some way demeaning to do so.
I remember at the time I was working with Dolly Wraight
on the *Le Doux* stuff (1995?) being quite astonished at
the apparent lack of any argument *for* Shakespeare as
author (rather than *against* suggested alternatives)
to be found anywhere. This is a gap which your site -
and HLAS, which I found as a result of it - has
now quite admirably filled, thanks very much!
Peter F.
pet...@rey.prestel.co.uk
http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/index.htm
Art Neuendorffer
> I'll have a copy of the front cover at the website I set up, also the
> text on the back cover. The book's title is indeed *Shakespeare & the
> Rigidniks*. Its subtitle is, "A Study of Cerebral Dysfunction."
I saw Lynne Kositsky's _A Question of Will_ on display a the Folger
http://images.amazon.com/images/P/1896184669.01._AA240_SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg
but other than the cover one wouldn't know it was about authorship
(A consideration in case you make it to a Folger display case, Bob.)
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net wrote:
> It stars Paul Crowley. I'm afraid you missed the cut, Art.
Ah, the story of my life.
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net wrote:
> Your lunacy proved too complex for my theory to account
> for in less than 400 pages. Maybe in the sequel.
Son of Shakespeare & the Rigidniks?
Can you make any money selling a 330 page,
glossy cover, book at $15 ppd?
Art Neuendorffer
Art Neuendorffer
>>
>>>April 23 is the date on which Shakespeare's birthday
>>>is traditionally celebrated -- and by a remarkable
>>>coincidence, today is also the anniversary of the
>>>Shakespeare Authorship page, which Dave Kathman and
>>>I rolled out 10 years ago: April 23, 1996. In the
>>>last 10 years there have been nearly two million
>>>visits to our pages, and Dave and I wish to thank all
>>>those whose support, curiosity, or disdain has taken
>>>them to our neck of the Internet.
> David Kathman wrote:
>
>>It's hard to believe it's been 10 years. When we
>>launched the site, Bill Clinton was serving his first
>>term as president, Google did not yet exist, and HLAS
>>was less than a year old. Let me join Terry in thank-
>>ing everyone who has visited our site over the past
>>decade.
Peter Farey wrote:
> It's a tough job, but someone had to do it!
R&K's job or visiting their site?
Peter Farey wrote:
> What I have been most grateful for is the fact that you
> have both been prepared to *discuss* authorship matters
> with us, where most academics (particularly ten years
> ago) clearly thought it in some way demeaning to do so.
Well, it is demeaning! It makes them look stupid.
(And they certainly aren't stupid.)
Peter Farey wrote:
> I remember at the time I was working with Dolly Wraight
> on the *Le Doux* stuff (1995?) being quite astonished at
> the apparent lack of any argument *for* Shakespeare as
> author (rather than *against* suggested alternatives)
> to be found anywhere. This is a gap which your site -
> and HLAS, which I found as a result of it - has
> now quite admirably filled, thanks very much!
They have????
Art Neuendorffer