What Oxfordians? Kathman
paul streitz
few extreme militants) that the original portrait was of Hugh
Hamersley and had nothing to do with the Earl of Oxford." so says
David Kathman.
What Oxfordians believe this Dave? Or more pointedly, how do you know
more than half of the Oxfordians think this?
Or is this just a spontaneous fabrication?
Paul Streitz
David L. Webb
oxins...@aol.com (paul streitz) wrote:
> "It is now universally accepted, even by most Oxfordians (except for a
> few extreme militants) that the original portrait was of Hugh
> Hamersley and had nothing to do with the Earl of Oxford." so says
> David Kathman.
Mr. Streitz quotes Dave Kathman out of context and provides no
source, so it is not even clear to which portrait he alludes; from the
fact that his quotation is lifted from Dave's essay at
<http://shakespeareauthorship.com/ashbourne.html>,
one presumes that Mr. Streitz has in mind the Ashbourne Portrait, the
subject of one of the most riotously funny chapters of his book.
> What Oxfordians believe this Dave? Or more pointedly, how do you know
> more than half of the Oxfordians think this?
>
> Or is this just a spontaneous fabrication?
>
>
> Paul Streitz
Mr. Streitz has evidently been consorting with the lunatic fringe so
long that he has forgotten about the existence of sane (relatively
speaking) Oxfordians. Many Oxfordians evidently regard Mr. Streitz's
hilarious "Super D.T. theory" as an acute embarrassment, and some of
them -- even some of the less sane ones -- have said so in this forum.
I don't presume to know whom Dave Kathman had in mind, but I would be
rather surprised if one could find more than a handful of Oxfordians,
mostly on the extreme lunatic fringe, who still think that the Ashbourne
portrait depicts Oxford. Then again, I may be charitably overestimating
the saneness of "mainstream" Oxfordians, a lapse of judgment of which I
freely admit to having been guilty in the past.
However, it would be interesting to shed some light on Mr. Streitz's
question by taking an informal poll:
Of the Oxfordians reading this newsgroup,
(1) How many believe that the Ashbourne Portrait depicts Edward de Vere,
Earl of Oxford?
(2) How many believe that it depicts Hugh Hamersley?
(3) How many believe that it depicts someone else?
(4) How many are undecided?
One knows, of course, that Oxfordians participating in this newsgroup
tend toward the lunatic fringe; if nothing else, this inference is
suggested by their versatility in embracing crankery in many domains --
aquatic apes, the notion that AIDS is "a hoax," rejection of the
Bernoulli Principle, the belief that John Edwards really does talk to
dead people, advocacy of the "Gemstone" conspiracy theory, etc. -- so an
h.l.a.s. sample would scarcely be representative, but it might be
interesting in any case.
paul streitz
question and engage in slander.
It is Kathman who says "even by most Oxfordians." So who are the most
Oxfordians that believe this?
Or does Webb want to write another 500 words and still not answer the
question?
Paul Streitz
David L. Webb
> When you don't have an answer throw up a lot of bilge, avoid the
> question and engage in slander.
Why should you expect me to "have an answer" for something Dave
Kathman wrote? I am not privy to his thought, so I do not know whom he
has in mind, but since he is in close touch with a good many Oxfordians
(the saner ones, at least), I suspect that he is quite right.
> It is Kathman who says "even by most Oxfordians."
Congratulations -- I perceive that, despite your farcical track
record in that pursuit, you are not completely incapable of ascertaining
attributions of texts clearly signed by their authors. If it is indeed
Kathman who says it, then why on earth do you expect an answer from me?
I merely suggested a potentially interesting informal poll, and one that
ought to be to your advantage at that, skewed as the anti-Stratfordian
contingent in this newsgroup is toward the lunatic fringe -- aquatic ape
theories, AIDS as a putative "hoax," lurid "Gemstone" conspiracies,
supposed moon landing hoaxes, Bernoulli Principle denial, Fermat cranks,
relativity denial, psychics talking with the dead, etc. If you don't
like the idea of such an informal poll, nothing compels you to
participate.
> So who are the most
> Oxfordians that believe this?
If you really wish to know, why don't you write e-mail Dave Kathman
and ask him politely whom he meant? That's how serious inquiries of
this nature are normally conducted, at least by those blessed with a
shred of competence.
> Or does Webb want to write another 500 words and still not answer the
> question?
Your expectation that I "answer" a question prompted by an opinion
expressed by Dave Kathman is flattering, as you seem to endow me with
unusual paranornmal powers, as well as with Dave's formidable factual
knowledge. I regret to inform you that I do not possess the gift of
telepathy, nor am I anywhere near as familiar with the Shakespearean
avatars of abnormal psychology as he is. I realize that this disclosure
may be a disillusioning disappointment, as various Oxfordians seem to
repose charmingly naïve confidence in paranormal abilities of various
sorts.
Elizabeth Weir
Look up the real Hugh Hammersley's portrait on the
Hammersley family genealogy site. Hammersley was a hirusite
beast with dark hair, eyes and swarthy skin.
I doubt the Hammersley portrait is Oxford. It
doesn't look like his other paintings. It looks the most
like the French fop portrait but that has never been
identified as Oxford--Oxfordians just started claiming it.
It looks nothing like the wicked painting of Oxford in
grey silk which I believe has been identified as Oxford's.
lyra
>I would be
> rather surprised if one could find more than a handful of Oxfordians,
> mostly on the extreme lunatic fringe, who still think that the Ashbourne
> portrait depicts Oxford. Then again, I may be charitably overestimating
> the saneness of "mainstream" Oxfordians, a lapse of judgment of which I
> freely admit to having been guilty in the past.
>
> However, it would be interesting to shed some light on Mr. Streitz's
> question by taking an informal poll:
>
> Of the Oxfordians reading this newsgroup,
>
> (1) How many believe that the Ashbourne Portrait depicts Edward de Vere,
> Earl of Oxford?
>
> (2) How many believe that it depicts Hugh Hamersley?
>
> (3) How many believe that it depicts someone else?
>
> (4) How many are undecided?
>
(5) think it is perfectly horrid??
I do, but then, I am not really an Oxfordian...
lyra
lyra
> Hammersley family genealogy site. Hammersley was a hirusite
> beast with dark hair, eyes and swarthy skin.
>
> I doubt the Hammersley portrait is Oxford. It
> doesn't look like his other paintings. It looks the most
> like the French fop portrait but that has never been
> identified as Oxford--Oxfordians just started claiming it.
> It looks nothing like the wicked painting of Oxford in
> grey silk which I believe has been identified as Oxford's.
Which are the french fop and grey silk portraits?
Can anyone tell us their names or link to copies?
And is a hirusite beast to be found in Lewis Carroll's
writings?
<g>
Thanks, Elizabeth, for the posting...I hope to find out more...
paul streitz
>
> Look up the real Hugh Hammersley's portrait on the
> Hammersley family genealogy site. Hammersley was a hirusite
> beast with dark hair, eyes and swarthy skin.
>
> I doubt the Hammersley portrait is Oxford. It
> doesn't look like his other paintings. It looks the most
> like the French fop portrait but that has never been
> identified as Oxford--Oxfordians just started claiming it.
> It looks nothing like the wicked painting of Oxford in
> grey silk which I believe has been identified as Oxford's.
Thanks.
I have a picture of the real Hugh Hammersley's portrait from the Guild
in London. Read my book and see a comparison of Hamersley, Oxford and
the Ashbourne.
Paul Streiz
paul streitz
vs 8 a statistical difference at the 90% confidence level?
paul streitz
David L. Webb
elizabe...@mail.com (Elizabeth Weir) wrote:
> oxins...@aol.com (paul streitz) wrote in message
> news:<5daf239d.03021...@posting.google.com>...
> > "It is now universally accepted, even by most Oxfordians (except for a
> > few extreme militants) that the original portrait was of Hugh
> > Hamersley and had nothing to do with the Earl of Oxford." so says
> > David Kathman.
> >
> > What Oxfordians believe this Dave? Or more pointedly, how do you know
> > more than half of the Oxfordians think this?
> >
> > Or is this just a spontaneous fabrication?
> >
> >
> > Paul Streitz
>
> Look up the real Hugh Hammersley's portrait on the
> Hammersley family genealogy site. Hammersley was a hirusite [sic]
Another memorable Elizabeth Weird neologism!
Elizabeth Weir
You're welcome, Paul, and of course I meant "her suit"
as in Hammersley the cross-dressing beast.
David L. Webb
oxins...@aol.com (paul streitz) wrote:
That question as stated is utterly meaningless. To formulate a
question that is even meaningful, you must specify what statistical test
you are using.
If you intend to use statistics to reject the null hypothesis at a
given confidence level, you must specify what your model of a random
process is. This entails specifying a probability measure on the state
space, then computing the probability of occurrence of the statistic
observed. Without this information, your question is as meaningless as
asking, in the absence of any other information, whether x equals 5, or
what the word "frpxpr" means. (Incidentally, in much statistical
practice, rejecting the null hypothesis at the 90% confidence level
would be regarded as pretty unimpressive anyway, so I have no idea why
you want to do so.)
As I have suggested to you before, if you intend to use statistics or
any other branch of specialized knowledge, it would be to your advantage
to learn at least a LITTLE about the subject first, at least enough to
formulate a meaningful question. By doing so, you might even avoid
making a complete ass of yourself. Indeed, if you had actually READ
Shakespeare, for instance, you would scarcely have made an ass of
yourself by asserting that only one of his plays is set in a foreign
country other than Italy (see
<http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=8hj8ab%246nt%241%40nnrp1.deja.com&o
utput=gplain>); if you actually knew what a will WAS, you would scarcely
have made an ass of yourself by announcing that Oxford made one in 1575
(see
<http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=180720011052383216%25David.L.Webb%4
0Dartmouth.edu&output=gplain> -- as far as is known, Oxford died
intestate); if you had actually READ Meres, you would scarcely have made
an ass of yourself by writing that his "sugared sonnets" encomium
referred to Oxford; if you actually knew any physics, you would surely
not have made an ass of yourself by including the hilarious footnote in
your book denying the validity of one of the best understood principles
of fluid mechanics; etc., etc. While it may be quite true that a little
knowledge is a dangerous thing, it is generally preferable to no
knowledge at all, as you continually remind us by your example.
John W. Kennedy
> As I have suggested to you before, if you intend to use statistics or
> any other branch of specialized knowledge, it would be to your advantage
> to learn at least a LITTLE about the subject first, at least enough to
> formulate a meaningful question.
I recommend "The Cartoon Guide to Statistics" by Larry Gonick (with
Woollcott Smith).
--
John W. Kennedy
"The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly;
the rich have always objected to being governed at all."
-- G. K. Chesterton, "The Man Who Was Thursday"
paul streitz
"Depends what the meaning of "is" is."
pfs
Lynne
> In article <5daf239d.03021...@posting.google.com>,
> oxins...@aol.com (paul streitz) wrote:
>
> > >
> However, it would be interesting to shed some light on Mr. Streitz's
> question by taking an informal poll:
>
> Of the Oxfordians reading this newsgroup,
>
> (1) How many believe that the Ashbourne Portrait depicts Edward de Vere,
> Earl of Oxford?
>
> (2) How many believe that it depicts Hugh Hamersley?
>
> (3) How many believe that it depicts someone else?
>
> (4) How many are undecided?
I may well tend towards the lunatic fringe, not because I'm an
Oxfordian, but because I can't resist polls.
1) I believe the Ashbourne portrait may well be of Edward de Vere, but
I'm not 100% certain.
2) I don't believe it depicts Hugh Hamersley. I too have seen the
hirsute portrait of him. He looks entirely different from the man in
the Ashbourne.
3) If the portrait is not of the Earl of Oxford, then clearly it
depicts someone else.
4) This seems redundant.
My guess is that the majority of Oxfordians, lunatic fringe or not,
now believe that the Ashbourne definitely does not depict Hugh
Hamersley. Most likely the detailed series of articles that Barbara
Burris wrote for Shakespeare Matters accounts for this. Gordon Cyr has
also retracted his original identification of the portrait as a
likeness of Hugh Hamersley in Shakespeare Matters (Spring 2002).
I think Dave's essay concerning the Ashbourne is an old one. Although
he may still believe that the portrait depicts Hamersley (I'm sure he
does), I'm certain he's also aware that the majority of Oxfordians no
longer hold this belief, even if they once did.
> One knows, of course, that Oxfordians participating in this newsgroup
> tend toward the lunatic fringe; if nothing else, this inference is
> suggested by their versatility in embracing crankery in many domains --
> aquatic apes, the notion that AIDS is "a hoax," rejection of the
> Bernoulli Principle, the belief that John Edwards really does talk to
> dead people, advocacy of the "Gemstone" conspiracy theory, etc. -- so an
> h.l.a.s. sample would scarcely be representative, but it might be
> interesting in any case.
I know nothing of aquatic apes (do tell), do not believe AIDS is a
hoax, don't reject Bernoulli's principle because I have to have
something to believe in when I fly in airplanes, don't for a moment
believe that John Edwards talks to dead people, though it seems most
Americans do, have no idea what the "Gemstone" conspiracy theory is,
and before you ask, no, I'm not a Holocaust denier either, though you
were polite enough not to add that particular "crankery" to your list.
It is a great pity that Oxfordians have been tarred with this
particular brush. The Shakespeare Fellowship abhors anti-semitism or
racism in any guise. Anyone who embraces such attitudes is not
welcome, either at our conferences or on any of the pages of our
newsletter. And by the way, dealing with us *as a group* as if we're
all cranks or lunatics is the kind of broth in which racism is cooked.
I (and I'm sure most Oxfordians) would prefer a civil dialogue.
Best wishes,
Lynne
www.shakespearefellowship.org
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
>racism in any guise. Anyone who embraces such attitudes is not
>welcome, either at our conferences or on any of the pages of our
>newsletter.
Sound like intolerance to me.
>And by the way, dealing with us *as a group* as if we're
>all cranks or lunatics is the kind of broth in which racism is cooked.
>I (and I'm sure most Oxfordians) would prefer a civil dialogue.
>
>Best wishes,
>Lynne
>www.shakespearefellowship.org
You are dealt with as a group ALL of whose members believe in something
that is insane. Therefore, it is reasonable to treat you as cranks. It is
symptomatic of your defective mentality that you suggest that those
characterizing your group as a collection of wacks have something of
significance in common with racists because both base their views on
generalities. It's an effective comment to begin a civil dialogue with,
however. Not that you really would prefer a civil dialogue. If you could not
attack us as ill-mannered, you would have no ammunition against us, at all.
--Bob G.
Lynne
Lynne wrote:
> >The Shakespeare Fellowship abhors anti-semitism or
> >racism in any guise. Anyone who embraces such attitudes is not
> >welcome, either at our conferences or on any of the pages of our
> >newsletter.
>
> Sound like intolerance to me.
Yes, if you'd like to say we're intolerant when it comes to
ant-semites and racists and, for the record, homophobes, you'd be
quite right and I'd welcome your comments in that regard, as often as
you care to make them, on this list.
>
> >And by the way, dealing with us *as a group* as if we're
> >all cranks or lunatics is the kind of broth in which racism is cooked.
> >I (and I'm sure most Oxfordians) would prefer a civil dialogue.
> >
>>
> You are dealt with as a group ALL of whose members believe in something
> that is insane. Therefore, it is reasonable to treat you as cranks. It is
> symptomatic of your defective mentality that you suggest that those
> characterizing your group as a collection of wacks have something of
> significance in common with racists because both base their views on
> generalities. It's an effective comment to begin a civil dialogue with,
> however. Not that you really would prefer a civil dialogue. If you could not
> attack us as ill-mannered, you would have no ammunition against us, at all.
>
Excuse me, Bob, we're not insane (most of us, anyway)and doctors have
assured me I don't have a defective mentality. :) We just happen to
hold an alternative view. And I don't wish to have ammunition against
you, even though you quite rightly assert you've been ill-mannered.
It's not my mindset at all. I've been striving towards civil dialogue
since we began the Fellowship because I believe we can all learn
something from one another. Terry Ross (who likely deserves a medal
for bravery) belongs to the Fellowship and I can honestly say I've
learnt a tremendous amount from him. He might even have learned a tiny
bit from us. Dave Kathman has been exceptionally helpful in offering
resources for my novels. There are many areas in which Oxfordians,
Marlovians, Baconians, and yes, even Stratfordians, share
commonalities and can help each other. Listening to one another with
respect and an open mind is the first step, and can be much more
exciting than hurling brickbats at every opportunity. But maybe it's
too late to turn things around on HLAS. That's why I don't visit too
often, and though you're no doubt profoundly grateful for my absence,
I think it's a shame.
Best wishes,
Lynne
www.shakespearefellowship.org
David L. Webb
kosi...@ican.net (Lynne) wrote:
> "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote in message
> news:<david.l.webb-1E93...@merrimack.dartmouth.edu>...
> > In article <5daf239d.03021...@posting.google.com>,
> > oxins...@aol.com (paul streitz) wrote:
> >
> > > >
> > However, it would be interesting to shed some light on Mr. Streitz's
> > question by taking an informal poll:
> >
> > Of the Oxfordians reading this newsgroup,
> >
> > (1) How many believe that the Ashbourne Portrait depicts Edward de Vere,
> > Earl of Oxford?
> >
> > (2) How many believe that it depicts Hugh Hamersley?
> >
> > (3) How many believe that it depicts someone else?
> >
> > (4) How many are undecided?
> I may well tend towards the lunatic fringe, not because I'm an
> Oxfordian, but because I can't resist polls.
That sounds sane enough -- so far.
> 1) I believe the Ashbourne portrait may well be of Edward de Vere, but
> I'm not 100% certain.
>
> 2) I don't believe it depicts Hugh Hamersley. I too have seen the
> hirsute portrait of him. He looks entirely different from the man in
> the Ashbourne.
>
> 3) If the portrait is not of the Earl of Oxford, then clearly it
> depicts someone else.
Question three is meant to inquire whether you believe the portrait's
sitter to be someone other than those persons already named in questions
1 and 2, so it is not superfluous. I would not rule out the possibility
that some amusing eccentric might opine that the portrait depicts
Southampton or Anne Vavasour or Queen Elizabeth.
> 4) This seems redundant.
>
> My guess is that the majority of Oxfordians, lunatic fringe or not,
> now believe that the Ashbourne definitely does not depict Hugh
> Hamersley.
The majority of the Shakespeare Fellowship Oxfordians, perhaps;
however, the Shakespeare Fellowship is not exactly representative of
"mainstream" Oxfordians, to the extent that that locution makes sense.
> Most likely the detailed series of articles that Barbara
> Burris wrote for Shakespeare Matters accounts for this. Gordon Cyr has
> also retracted his original identification of the portrait as a
> likeness of Hugh Hamersley in Shakespeare Matters (Spring 2002).
>
> I think Dave's essay concerning the Ashbourne is an old one. Although
> he may still believe that the portrait depicts Hamersley (I'm sure he
> does), I'm certain he's also aware that the majority of Oxfordians no
> longer hold this belief, even if they once did.
You're certain that Dave is aware of this? Has he said so?
> > One knows, of course, that Oxfordians participating in this newsgroup
> > tend toward the lunatic fringe; if nothing else, this inference is
> > suggested by their versatility in embracing crankery in many domains --
> > aquatic apes, the notion that AIDS is "a hoax," rejection of the
> > Bernoulli Principle, the belief that John Edwards really does talk to
> > dead people, advocacy of the "Gemstone" conspiracy theory, etc. -- so an
> > h.l.a.s. sample would scarcely be representative, but it might be
> > interesting in any case.
> I know nothing of aquatic apes (do tell),
Do a Google groups search of posts authored by Mr. Crowley. The
"aquatic ape theory" is almost as eccentric (to put it charitably) as
Mr. Crowley's insistence that the sonnets celebrate royal defecation.
> do not believe AIDS is a
> hoax,
Good -- do a Google groups search of posts authored by Mr. Streitz.
Were it not that this particular form of crankery is potentially fraught
with peril, it would be almost as amusing as Mr. Streitz's rejection of
the Bernoulli principle, Elizabeth Weird's bizarre rejection of special
relativity, and "Dr." Faker's belief that the Apollo lunar landing was
an elaborate but clumsily executed hoax.
> don't reject Bernoulli's principle because I have to have
> something to believe in when I fly in airplanes,
See the footnote on page 23 of your fellow Fellowshipper Mr.
Streitz's riotously funny book.
> don't for a moment
> believe that John Edwards talks to dead people,
Your fellow Fellowshipper Ken Kaplan does. I am not making this up.
See
<http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=81b80d38.0202151347.2a49c852%40post
ing.google.com&output=gplain>.
> though it seems most
> Americans do,
"Most"?
> have no idea what the "Gemstone" conspiracy theory is,
By all means see <http://gemstone-file.com/> -- savor especially the
Albanian frogmen. Former h.l.a.s. Queen of Error Stephanie Caruana has
done "research" on this matter that rivals her Oxfordian "research" in
both its accuracy and its plausibility.
> and before you ask, no, I'm not a Holocaust denier either, though you
> were polite enough not to add that particular "crankery" to your list.
> It is a great pity that Oxfordians have been tarred with this
> particular brush.
I certainly was not about to "add that particular 'crankery'" to the
list; the crackpot beliefs I enumerated are among those that have been
expressed by Oxfordians who have participated *in this newsgroup*, and
holocaust denial emphatically is not among them.
In fact, I have rarely seen Oxfordians "tarred with this particular
brush," although it is certainly regrettable that a few prominent
Oxfordians do express various unsavory beliefs scarcely distinguishable
from racism. You are no doubt familiar with the writings of Joseph
Sobran, one of the more temperate of which, in a thread entitled "Truth
encapsulated," was enthusiastically praised by Ken Kaplan in the
Shakespeare Fellowship discussion group and also in this forum -- until
several of us told Ken, who has a great deal of difficulty with literary
attributions, who its author was. You may also be familiar with some of
the political beliefs of Lord Burford concerning the European Union, the
Lost Tribes of Israel, etc., beliefs which it is overly charitable to
characterize as "eccentric." You may have visited the web page of Raeto
West, which (until it apparently went offine fairly recently) contained
a long section on holocaust denial, on David Irving's lawsuit against
Deborah Lipstadt, etc. You are probably also aware of Enoch Powell and
his notorious "Rivers of Blood" speech.
This is emphatically not to say that Oxfordians are right-wing bigots
-- on the contrary, I have opined before in this newsgroup that the
political center of mass of Oxfordians probably falls somewhere near the
center. However, the paranoia exhibited by many Oxfordians, exacerbated
by misinformation and inability to reason rationally, probably insures
that, while the Oxfordian political mean may be unexceptional, the
standard deviation is probably much larger among Oxfordians than in the
general population. This overabundance of outspoken Oxfordian political
outliers is indeed conspicuous.
I have never seen any Oxfordian publication, with the possible
exception of Raeto West's now defunct web page, that openly expressed
sympathy for holocaust denial. However, I suspect that the reason the
topic of holocaust denial arises at all in discussions of Shakespeare
authorship (apart from the aforementioned visibility and outspokenness
of several right-wing Oxfordians) is that an inability to reason from
historical evidence using the methods and standards employed by
competent professional historians can lead to all sorts of bizarre
pseudohistorical scenarios, ranging from Oxfordian Price Tudor fantasies
(which are innocuous) to holocaust revisionism or outright denial (which
emphatically is not). It is the wanton abandonment of evidentiary
standards and rigorous methodology, not the political beliefs of a few
anomalous "loose cannon" Oxfordians, that occasions comparisons with
holocaust denial.
> The Shakespeare Fellowship abhors anti-semitism or
> racism in any guise.
I'm glad to hear it. However, I didn't raise the issue of racism;
you did.
> Anyone who embraces such attitudes is not
> welcome,
When Ken Kaplan posted the unattributed Sobran essay whinging about
how he, Sobran, had been "ostracized," ostensibly because he did not
adhere to the "party line" on Israel, a participant whose screen name is
Bassanio replied: "Fascinating post. Are you in touch with this guy?
Can we interest him in the Fellowship?" The essay, which several of us
at h.l.a.s. immediately identifed as Sobran's and located on the web,
evidently did not set off any alarm bells in "Bassanio," who appears to
be an especially prominent member of the Fellowship eager to welcome the
author to the Fellowship. (Incidentally, "Bassanio" shares a few verbal
quirks with Dr. Stritmatter. Mind you, I'm not claiming that Bassanio
*is* Dr. Stritmatter -- I have seen too small a sample of his writing to
judge, and I am far more cautious about attributions in any case.
Nevertheless, the stylistic similarities are striking.)
> either at our conferences or on any of the pages of our
> newsletter. And by the way, dealing with us *as a group* as if we're
> all cranks or lunatics is the kind of broth in which racism is cooked.
I have *not* dealt with Oxfordians "as a group"; rather, I have
identified *specific* forms of comic crankery embraced by *specific*
individual Oxfordians who participate in this forum, in support of my
hypothesis that this group is an unrepresentative sample of Oxfordian
"thought," tending more toward the lunatic fringe than toward the more
cautious "mainstream" Oxfordian movement. I maintain that the copious
instances of crankery I enumerated, together with specific references
for your delectation in case you savor such lunacy, amply support that
hypothesis. Indeed, I didn't even mention the most comic avatar of
Oxfordian crankery of them all, Art Neuendorffer's hilariously funny
Templar/Rosicrucian/Masonic conspiracy theory, because I'm fairly sure
that Art is engaging in a monstrous, parodic leg-pull.
> I (and I'm sure most Oxfordians) would prefer a civil dialogue.
I see nothing above incompatible with civil dialogue. Indeed, civil
dialogue is perfectly consonant with a sense of humor. As Bertrand
Russell concluded his essay "An Outline of Intellectual Rubbish,"
"A wise man will enjoy the goods of which there is a plentiful
supply, and of intellectual rubbish he will find an abundant diet,
in our own age as in every other."
It's a pity that Russell never had the occasion to read the Shakespeare
Fellowship material!
> Best wishes,
> Lynne
> www.shakespearefellowship.org
Thanks for responding to the poll. I hope that other h.l.a.s.
Oxfordians will follow suit.
David L. Webb
Mr. Streitz's posts are so incoherent and generally so strewn with
stillborn sentence fragments and unintelligible gibberish that when he
also snips the context, his readers must scratch their heads in
perplexed bewilderment about what his point, if any, might be. In the
present case, I assume that he is referring to the following exchange:
Mr. Streitz wrote:
> Well then, let's ask you a question you might be able to answer. Is 54
> vs 8 a statistical difference at the 90% confidence level?
>
> paul streitz
I replied:
--------------------
That question as stated is utterly meaningless. To formulate a
question that is even meaningful, you must specify what statistical test
you are using.
If you intend to use statistics to reject the null hypothesis at a
given confidence level, you must specify what your model of a random
process is. This entails specifying a probability measure on the state
space, then computing the probability of occurrence of the statistic
observed. Without this information, your question is as meaningless as
asking, in the absence of any other information, whether x equals 5, or
what the word "frpxpr" means.
--------------------
I enjoin Mr. Streitz to seek out a local high school or community
college and enroll in a rudimentary statistics course to find out for
himself just how meaningless his question above is. (What test is he
using? What statistic? What is his model for the occurrence he is
presumably trying to argue is not a random process? Is he discussing
Bernoulli trials, or what?) The last time I taught statistics, not even
my least prepared students were as clueless as Mr. Streitz evidently is
regarding the subject. True, these students were on average juniors at
a highly selective university, but one still marvels at Mr. Streitz's
invincibly ignorant, comically clumsy, bull-in-a-china-shop intellectual
pretensions. His ignorance is his own loss.
I began by pitying Mr. Streitz's ignorance and ineptness, and even
made tactful suggestions of ways he might remediate these shortcomings.
However, when Mr. Streitz began haplessly hurling accusations of
intellectual dishonesty and cowardice in all directions -- at Dave
Kathman, at the Folger Library, at the entire community of professional
Shakespeare scholars, etc. -- my pity for his breathtaking ignorance and
incompetence evaporated.
I leave it to others who know statistics to break the news tactfully
to Mr. Streitz that his misunderstanding of the subject is farcical, and
that he continues to make an ass of himself thereby. If anyone can
persuade him to learn something about his subject before humiliating
himself by undertaking self-publication of his hilarious howlers
("Elizabeth Petrify," etc.), so much the better.
Bob Grumman
>Lynne wrote:
>> >The Shakespeare Fellowship abhors anti-semitism or
>> >racism in any guise. Anyone who embraces such attitudes is not
>> >welcome, either at our conferences or on any of the pages of our
>> >newsletter.
>>
>> Sound like intolerance to me.
>
>Yes, if you'd like to say we're intolerant when it comes to
>quite right and I'd welcome your comments in that regard, as often as
>you care to make them, on this list.
My simple point is that you should be interested in the search for truth,
not in the political correctness of the participants in it.
>> >And by the way, dealing with us *as a group* as if we're
>> >all cranks or lunatics is the kind of broth in which racism is cooked.
>> >I (and I'm sure most Oxfordians) would prefer a civil dialogue.
>> >
>>>
>> You are dealt with as a group ALL of whose members believe in something
>> that is insane. Therefore, it is reasonable to treat you as cranks. It is
>> symptomatic of your defective mentality that you suggest that those
>> characterizing your group as a collection of wacks have something of
>> significance in common with racists because both base their views on
>> generalities. It's an effective comment to begin a civil dialogue with,
>>however. Not that you really would prefer a civil dialogue. If you could not
>> attack us as ill-mannered, you would have no ammunition against us, at all.
>>
> Excuse me, Bob, we're not insane (most of us, anyway) and doctors have
>assured me I don't have a defective mentality. :)
Sorry, but they're wrong--as indicated by your assumption that I accused you of
insanity rather than of believing in something that is insane.
>We just happen to
>hold an alternative view. And I don't wish to have ammunition against
>you, even though you quite rightly assert you've been ill-mannered.
>It's not my mindset at all. I've been striving towards civil dialogue
>since we began the Fellowship because I believe we can all learn
>something from one another. Terry Ross (who likely deserves a medal
>for bravery) belongs to the Fellowship and I can honestly say I've
>learnt a tremendous amount from him. He might even have learned a tiny
>bit from us. Dave Kathman has been exceptionally helpful in offering
>resources for my novels. There are many areas in which Oxfordians,
>Marlovians, Baconians, and yes, even Stratfordians, share
>commonalities and can help each other. Listening to one another with
>respect and an open mind is the first step, and can be much more
>exciting than hurling brickbats at every opportunity.
Like you do at racists. Oops, it no doubt isn't open-mindedness to hear out
racists.
>But maybe it's too late to turn things around on HLAS. That's why I don't
>visit too often,
I rather suspect that the real reason you don't visit too often is because
the idiocy of your position will be too quickly and impolitely exposed.
>and though you're no doubt profoundly grateful for my absence,
>I think it's a shame.
>
>Best wishes,
>Lynne
I think we already have more than enough repeaters of Ogburnian rot.
--Bob G.
Paul Crowley
> "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote in message
news:<david.l.webb-1E93...@merrimack.dartmouth.edu>...
> > Of the Oxfordians reading this newsgroup,
> >
> > (1) How many believe that the Ashbourne Portrait depicts Edward de Vere,
> > Earl of Oxford?
> >
> > (2) How many believe that it depicts Hugh Hamersley?
I have done a 'flashing' overlay of the Hamersley
on to the Ashbourne proving, to my satisfaction
at least, that they both show the same person.
I'll make a parallel post attaching it. Those on
Micro$oft's Outlook Express and possibly some
other newsreaders will see it. I'll put it on to a
website if pushed.
> 2) I don't believe it depicts Hugh Hamersley. I too have seen the
> hirsute portrait of him. He looks entirely different from the man in
> the Ashbourne.
The Hamersley is much darker. The
Ashbourne has IMO been altered to make
it look like Shake-speare. There is nothing
unusual about that, there being a very large
and highly credulous market for 'portraits of
Shakespeare'.
Paul.
Lynne
Well, the Shakespeare Fellowship has many members who also belong
to the SOS or are participants in the de Vere Studies Conference. The
newsletter which contained the second Barb Burris article was sent out
to over a thousand Oxfordians, and I can tell you that everyone who
has
contacted me on the topic has rejected the Hamersley attribution.
That's
not definitive, of course.
> Most likely the detailed series of articles that Barbara
> Burris wrote for Shakespeare Matters accounts for this. Gordon Cyr has
> also retracted his original identification of the portrait as a
> likeness of Hugh Hamersley in Shakespeare Matters (Spring 2002).
>
> I think Dave's essay concerning the Ashbourne is an old one. Although
> he may still believe that the portrait depicts Hamersley (I'm sure he
> does), I'm certain he's also aware that the majority of Oxfordians no
> longer hold this belief, even if they once did.
You're certain that Dave is aware of this? Has he said so?
Nope, but Dave's not a stupid man, and he knows which way the wind
blows.
He could only have written that essay before the Burris articles, and
before
the Sanders Symposium, to have written the sentence which Streitz
"accuses"
him of if he was writing in good faith, and I believe that Dave always
writes
in good faith.
> > One knows, of course, that Oxfordians participating in this newsgroup
> > tend toward the lunatic fringe; if nothing else, this inference is
> > suggested by their versatility in embracing crankery in many domains --
> > aquatic apes, the notion that AIDS is "a hoax," rejection of the
> > Bernoulli Principle, the belief that John Edwards really does talk to
> > dead people, advocacy of the "Gemstone" conspiracy theory, etc. -- so an
> > h.l.a.s. sample would scarcely be representative, but it might be
> > interesting in any case.
> I know nothing of aquatic apes (do tell),
Do a Google groups search of posts authored by Mr. Crowley. The
"aquatic ape theory" is almost as eccentric (to put it charitably) as
Mr. Crowley's insistence that the sonnets celebrate royal defecation.
Thanks. Actually not sure now that I want to spend time on chasing
up the posts.
> do not believe AIDS is a
> hoax,
Good -- do a Google groups search of posts authored by Mr. Streitz.
Were it not that this particular form of crankery is potentially
fraught
with peril, it would be almost as amusing as Mr. Streitz's rejection
of
the Bernoulli principle, Elizabeth Weird's bizarre rejection of
special
relativity, and "Dr." Faker's belief that the Apollo lunar landing was
an elaborate but clumsily executed hoax.
Yes, but we all have our individual "crankeries", Stratfordians
included.
> don't reject Bernoulli's principle because I have to have
> something to believe in when I fly in airplanes,
See the footnote on page 23 of your fellow Fellowshipper Mr.
Streitz's riotously funny book.
I have not read Mr. Streitz's book. As I've been unwell, and am also
in the midst of
preparing four young adult novels for publication, I'm careful about
how I spend
my time.
> don't for a moment
> believe that John Edwards talks to dead people,
Your fellow Fellowshipper Ken Kaplan does. I am not making this
up.
See
<http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=81b80d38.0202151347.2a49c852%40post
ing.google.com&output=gplain>.
> though it seems most
> Americans do,
"Most"?
Well, it just appears that so many watch him that Ken, if he believes
in the man's
veracity, is certainly not in the minority. If many, many Americans
didn't believe
that John Edwards speaks to dead people, the ratings would be awful
and the
program would be pulled. Instead it seems to be proliferating, like a
weed,
all over my tv, so whenever I turn it on I get a seance.
> have no idea what the "Gemstone" conspiracy theory is,
By all means see <http://gemstone-file.com/> -- savor especially
the
Albanian frogmen. Former h.l.a.s. Queen of Error Stephanie Caruana
has
done "research" on this matter that rivals her Oxfordian "research" in
both its accuracy and its plausibility.
Thank you.
Ken, I can attest, did not realise that particular post was from
Sobran, although I had my
suspicions from the moment I saw it. Sobran is not welcome at the
Fellowship, and we don't
post links to his site. Lord Burford, to my knowledge (I'm English) is
a laughing stock in
England. Enoch Powell was hated by many. My mother would turn off the
tv as soon as
she saw him.
This is emphatically not to say that Oxfordians are right-wing
bigots
-- on the contrary, I have opined before in this newsgroup that the
political center of mass of Oxfordians probably falls somewhere near
the
center. However, the paranoia exhibited by many Oxfordians,
exacerbated
by misinformation and inability to reason rationally, probably insures
that, while the Oxfordian political mean may be unexceptional, the
standard deviation is probably much larger among Oxfordians than in
the
general population. This overabundance of outspoken Oxfordian
political
outliers is indeed conspicuous.
It's interesting you say that. I would say that the majority of
members of the
Shakespeare Fellowship are left of centre politically although we
haven't
taken a poll. But I agree, if you want to take West, Powell, Burford,
and Sobran
into account, it would tip the balance somewhat. E. g. One Rae West=
ten regular Oxfordians, at least in terms of damage done. However,
with the exception
of Sobran, these are not the scholars of the movement.
I have never seen any Oxfordian publication, with the possible
exception of Raeto West's now defunct web page, that openly expressed
sympathy for holocaust denial. However, I suspect that the reason the
topic of holocaust denial arises at all in discussions of Shakespeare
authorship (apart from the aforementioned visibility and outspokenness
of several right-wing Oxfordians) is that an inability to reason from
historical evidence using the methods and standards employed by
competent professional historians can lead to all sorts of bizarre
pseudohistorical scenarios, ranging from Oxfordian Price Tudor
fantasies
(which are innocuous) to holocaust revisionism or outright denial
(which
emphatically is not). It is the wanton abandonment of evidentiary
standards and rigorous methodology, not the political beliefs of a few
anomalous "loose cannon" Oxfordians, that occasions comparisons with
holocaust denial.
The Shakespeare Fellowship, together with Oxfordians in other
organizations, asked
for Rae West's site to be removed as a link from the British Oxfordian
organization. To
do them justice, I don't think the Brits realised West was a Holocaust
denier. Whatever the
reason, I get physically sick when I see myself (as part of a group)
connected in any way with
Holocaust denial--and it's been done a lot. Actually, I write young
adult novels about the
Holocaust (together with novels about other groups who have been
mistreated such as the
black Loyalists and the Acadians) and my newest novel on the subject
will be coming out
spring of 2004. It's an interesting novel because the characters are
complex and
it doesn't say all the Jews were good and all the Germans
bad--a hard sell, my publisher thinks. But that's the way I think of
things. Similarly,
I don't believe all Oxfordians good and all Stratfordians bad. That's
simplistic, but it's
what I see on HLAS time after time--roles reversed, of course.
I don't agree with you, obviously, that Oxfordians in the main have an
inability to reason from
historical evidence using the usual methods and standards. I think we
reason better. ;)
> The Shakespeare Fellowship abhors anti-semitism or
> racism in any guise.
I'm glad to hear it. However, I didn't raise the issue of racism;
you did.
Only because you said "etc." when referring to our various crankeries.
:)
> Anyone who embraces such attitudes is not
> welcome,
When Ken Kaplan posted the unattributed Sobran essay whinging about
how he, Sobran, had been "ostracized," ostensibly because he did not
adhere to the "party line" on Israel, a participant whose screen name
is
Bassanio replied: "Fascinating post. Are you in touch with this guy?
Can we interest him in the Fellowship?" The essay, which several of
us
at h.l.a.s. immediately identifed as Sobran's and located on the web,
evidently did not set off any alarm bells in "Bassanio," who appears
to
be an especially prominent member of the Fellowship eager to welcome
the
author to the Fellowship. (Incidentally, "Bassanio" shares a few
verbal
quirks with Dr. Stritmatter. Mind you, I'm not claiming that Bassanio
*is* Dr. Stritmatter -- I have seen too small a sample of his writing
to
judge, and I am far more cautious about attributions in any case.
Nevertheless, the stylistic similarities are striking.)
Bassanio also didn't realise immediately it was Sobran. Bassanio was
one of the
people instrumental in having a link to Sobran removed from our site
and a link
to West removed from the English site. That does not mean, however,
that one
cannot express criticism of the current regime in Israel, which I
believe the letter did.
I'm Jewish and I am often critical of Israel too.
> either at our conferences or on any of the pages of our
> newsletter. And by the way, dealing with us *as a group* as if we're
> all cranks or lunatics is the kind of broth in which racism is cooked.
I have *not* dealt with Oxfordians "as a group"; rather, I have
identified *specific* forms of comic crankery embraced by *specific*
individual Oxfordians who participate in this forum, in support of my
hypothesis that this group is an unrepresentative sample of Oxfordian
"thought," tending more toward the lunatic fringe than toward the more
cautious "mainstream" Oxfordian movement. I maintain that the copious
instances of crankery I enumerated, together with specific references
for your delectation in case you savor such lunacy, amply support that
hypothesis. Indeed, I didn't even mention the most comic avatar of
Oxfordian crankery of them all, Art Neuendorffer's hilariously funny
Templar/Rosicrucian/Masonic conspiracy theory, because I'm fairly sure
that Art is engaging in a monstrous, parodic leg-pull.
Don't think so. At least I hope not. I find it rather intriguing. Will
be writing about
John Dee etc in my next novel. I'd say it's an adult novel, but that
might give the wrong
impression, so I'll just say it will be a novel for adults.
> I (and I'm sure most Oxfordians) would prefer a civil dialogue.
I see nothing above incompatible with civil dialogue. Indeed,
civil
dialogue is perfectly consonant with a sense of humor. As Bertrand
Russell concluded his essay "An Outline of Intellectual Rubbish,"
"A wise man will enjoy the goods of which there is a plentiful
supply, and of intellectual rubbish he will find an abundant diet,
in our own age as in every other."
It's a pity that Russell never had the occasion to read the
Shakespeare
Fellowship material!
But see, there's humour and humour. You've just called us a bunch of
idiots again.
One can be very funny without belittling others, I think.
> Best wishes,
> Lynne
> www.shakespearefellowship.org
Thanks for responding to the poll. I hope that other h.l.a.s.
Oxfordians will follow suit.
You're very welcome. I'm VP in charge of correspondence,
so I thought I it incumbent on me to reply. Thanks for the
opportunity.
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
>attached. May not work for some.
Thanks for posting this, Paul. It worked for me, which surprised me, because my
computer usually isn't too good with graphics. But why couldn't you show
the two pictures side by side. That'd work better for me. As it is, the two
men look pretty similar to me. Similar enough so that if the other evidence is
valid, I'd say the portrait was of Hammersley. The problems with this sort of
thing is that faces change, and artistic treatments can vary a great deal. So
it'd be nice to see sets of portraits known to be of the same person. I've seen
quite a few of Elizabeth that vary considerably from one another--and
sometimes seem as "monstrous" to me as the engraving of Shakespeare does to you.
--Bob G.
John W. Kennedy
> Always the artful dodger. Not such wonderful tap dancing since,
> "Depends what the meaning of "is" is."
Liar!
Art Neuendorffer
> I have never seen any Oxfordian publication, with the possible
> exception of Raeto West's now defunct web page, that openly expressed
> sympathy for holocaust denial. However, I suspect that the reason the
> topic of holocaust denial arises at all in discussions of Shakespeare
> authorship (apart from the aforementioned visibility and outspokenness
> of several right-wing Oxfordians) is that an inability to reason from
> historical evidence using the methods and standards employed by
> competent professional historians can lead to all sorts of bizarre
> pseudohistorical scenarios.
The overwhelming evidence for the Holocaust (or for Andersonville) is
not so much easily manipulated "historical evidence" but rather the
discovery of mass graves along with thousands of emaciated human beings
living in deplorable conditions (and with horendous stories to tell).
Careful documentation of artifacts, pictures, film & eyewitness stories will
assure that the holocaust can never be denied.
The Nazis, Stalinist & Stratfordians have all clearly demonstrated how
easy it was to manipulate "historical evidence" for their own purposes.
The risible artifacts, signatures, representations & "eyewitness stories"
of the illiterate Stratford boob are worthy of the respect that we all
should hold for him.
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> ranging from Oxfordian Price Tudor fantasies
> (which are innocuous) to holocaust revisionism or outright denial (which
> emphatically is not). It is the wanton abandonment of evidentiary
> standards and rigorous methodology,
I believe Godel had something to say about rigorous methodology.
> kosi...@ican.net (Lynne) wrote:
> > either at our conferences or on any of the pages of our
> > newsletter. And by the way, dealing with us *as a group* as if we're
> > all cranks or lunatics is the kind of broth in which racism is cooked.
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> I have *not* dealt with Oxfordians "as a group"; rather, I have
> identified *specific* forms of comic crankery embraced by *specific*
> individual Oxfordians who participate in this forum, in support of my
> hypothesis that this group is an unrepresentative sample of Oxfordian
> "thought," tending more toward the lunatic fringe than toward the more
> cautious "mainstream" Oxfordian movement. I maintain that the copious
> instances of crankery I enumerated, together with specific references
> for your delectation in case you savor such lunacy, amply support that
> hypothesis. Indeed, I didn't even mention the most comic avatar of
> Oxfordian crankery of them all, Art Neuendorffer's hilariously funny
> Templar/Rosicrucian/Masonic conspiracy theory, because I'm fairly
> sure that Art is engaging in a monstrous, parodic leg-pull.
You base your opinion on rigorous methodology, Dave?
> kosi...@ican.net (Lynne) wrote:
> > I (and I'm sure most Oxfordians) would prefer a civil dialogue.
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> I see nothing above incompatible with civil dialogue. Indeed, civil
> dialogue is perfectly consonant with a sense of humor. As Bertrand
> Russell concluded his essay "An Outline of Intellectual Rubbish,"
>
> "A wise man will enjoy the goods of which there is a plentiful
> supply, and of intellectual rubbish he will find an abundant diet,
> in our own age as in every other."
>
> It's a pity that Russell never had the occasion to read
> the Shakespeare Fellowship material!
-----------------------------------------------
Which do you think Russell approved of more:
1) Free Thought or
2) Official Propaganda
Russell, Bertrand: _Free Thought and Official Propaganda_ New York: B. W.
Huebsch, 1922.
-----------------------------------------------
Stratfordians always write with a view to boring school-children.
If making fun of the illiterate Stratford boob does not give you delight,
you had better ignore him.
Bertrand Russell: "Shakespeare did not write with a view to boring
school-children; he wrote to with a view to delighting his audiences. If he
does not give you delight, you had better ignore him."
-----------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
paul streitz
> Hammersley family genealogy site. Hammersley was a hirusite
> beast with dark hair, eyes and swarthy skin.
What is the web address for this? I will take a look for it.
Second, according to Betty Sears when the Folger first presented the
idea that Hammersley was the subject of the portrait, they put a
picture of a known portrait of Hammersley along side the Ashbourne
portrait. This is her personal recollection, having been there to see
the Hammersley that was used as a comparison to Ashbourne. The
difference was startling, that they soon took this portrait down and
simply put up a notice that the Ashbourne had been identified as Sir
Hugh. According to Sears this was not the same as the portrait that
hangs in the Haberdasher's guild in London.
The Ashbourne portrait is a good example of the Folger's duplicity.
The Folger was willing to identify the Ashbourne as Shakespeare for
two decades because it gave a noble portrait of the Bard. They did
this despite the knowledge that an art critic had said that it was
very doubtful that the Ashbourne portrait was the man from Stratford,
and also noted the alterations in the painting to make it more similar
to the Droeshout engraving. In other words, they purposefully
misidentified the painting because it suited their purposes of
strengthening the Stratford case.
When the painting was identified as Oxford, the Folger could not
continue the contention that it was the man from Stratford and
therefore had to seek a new sitter for the portrait, that is
Hammersley. Despite the obvious differences in faces between the
Ashbourne and Hammersley they continued this line. When Pressley did
his article on the Hammersley, he uses a full length, full page
illustration of the Hammersley portrait that is in the Haberdashers
guild. The face is thus less than the size of a dime. This makes a
facial comparison between Hammersley and the Ashbourne impossible.
(He does not compare it to the Paris Portrait of Oxford.)
The Folger dismissed the lack of any historical connection between the
Hammersley and the Ashbourne portrait, and brushed off the notion that
Ketel painted by simply saying that stylistic differences made it
impossible.
If the Folger had sold the painting as either a portrait of Shakspere,
or a portrait of Hammersley, there is no doubt the buyer could
commence an action of fraud against the Folger. They withheld relevant
information and made claims that were not valid for their
identification of the portrait either as Hammersley or a Shakspere.
Also, the Folger never showed the Asbourne against the Paris Portrait
of Oxford done earlier in his life. The comparisons are striking. (The
portrait of Oxford in a silver jacket, holding a boar pendant, is
believed by many to be of the 16th Earl, not of Oxford. The facial
similarities to Oxford are not great.)
There is a three section article by Barbara Burris on the Folger's
handling of the Ashbourne portrait. Her article concurs that the
Folger misrepresented the painting and may even have engaged in
altering the painting to suit their ideological needs. She also gives
a long section on the overpaintings to cover up the aristocratic
dress, the dates of that style, etc. Given this article, there are
few, if any, Oxfordians who doubt that Ashbourne portrait is of the
Earl of Oxford.
paul streitz
The portrait is identified by the Folger as Shakespeare 1. At least
they got that correct. They also refused an offer of $60,000 for an
ex-mayor of London, who they don't believe to be Shakespeare. Seems to
me they might want to get rid of it, unless of course, it is
Shakespeare. They seem to be ideologically saying one thing, but
hedging their bets financially.
Paul Crowley
> In article <A1c6a.11419$V6.1...@news.indigo.ie>, "Paul says...
> >
> >"Lynne" <kosi...@ican.net> wrote in message
> >news:8e6ba82f.03022...@posting.google.com...
> >
> >
> >Hamersley / Ashbourne flashing overlay
> >attached. May not work for some.
>
> Thanks for posting this, Paul. It worked for me, which surprised me, because my
> computer usually isn't too good with graphics.
Actually it didn't work for me -- Outlook Express
must have tightened up.
> But why couldn't you show
> the two pictures side by side. That'd work better for me. As it is, the two
> men look pretty similar to me.
You can't see how the features marry when
side by side. You have to look at each part
of the face, breaking it down to the smallest
reasonable unit --
eyes: their size, distance apart, colour,
expression, distance from side of face,
eyebrows, eyelids,
nose: size, general shape, straightness,
kind of tip, exposure of nostrils, and so on.
The overall size and shape of the face are
also important. You also have to try to look
at the underlying bone structure.
Human features are remarkably distinctive.
For example, hardly anyone has nose like
Clinton's, let alone like Nixon's (which was
weird). You try to allot probabilities to
similarities, so when you add them all up
you get a fair measure.
Hammersley's nose is different from the
Grafton -- but only, IMO, as a kind of
exaggeration or caricature of its distinctive
features (or, alternatively a diminution of
them). The remainder of the features
match nearly perfectly. So IMHO the
portraits almost certainly show the same
person.
The enthusiasm of some Oxfordians in
claiming that the Ashbourne (while being
Shakespeare) is also Oxford, is just
another instance of excessive
credulousness in a field wide open to
wishful imagination. We've seen plenty
of it within orthodoxy.
> Similar enough so that if the other evidence is
> valid, I'd say the portrait was of Hammersley. The problems with this sort of
> thing is that faces change
They don't change that much. Bones
change little, nor do noses. You can
overlay Elizabeth as an old woman on
her young face, and see the close
similarities.