Discuss Conspiracies and Cover Ups - e.g. 9/11 Truth, JFK Assassination, New World Order, Roswell, Moon Hoax, Secret Societies, etc. whatever conspiracy floats your boat.
10 posts • Page 1 of 1
Okay, you got me. It's true that I'm trying to find something else to talk about than the innocent slaughter of millions of people. So, here's one. Does anyone have any information on the possibility that William Shakespeare didn't actually write his masterpieces? There appears to be some very credible evidence, or lack thereof, that it was someone else. I'll post some stuff, but wondering if anyone here might already have some knowledge as a starting point?
Bravo! Exactly! The slaughter of innocents in WWII. Irving calls this "Innocentcide." This includes Poles, Slavs, Communists, Homosexuals, Gypsies, Germans and Jews. And it is the devil in the details of how and what exactly happened. And this occurred on both sides of the fence.
And I appreciate your evolution at looking at lies, especially when it comes to Athena shaking her spear at ignorance. Yes, "Shakes-Spear." The invisible college is alive and well. Can we recognize it then and above all now? Let's ask the Iraqis.
Thanks. Sooooo, any thoughts about who may have used "Shakes-Spear" as a pseudonym? Personally, I like Edward de Vere.
Shakespeare was about constructing Britannia. It is not about any one person which no one person could have such a vast knowledge of the intricacies of court, poetry, politics etc... This is the invisible college which Francis Bacon helped foster. Yes, Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford was integral to the works of "Shakespeare."
Could have been a consortium who wrote plays as idle whimsy, then passed them on to William Shakespeare to take to London. He was known as a grain trader in fact, and his first statue shows him holding bags of grain -- this was actually a role somewhat like being a landlord at the time in terms of power relations. It was a couple of centuries later that they replaced his grain holding statue with a statue of him with a quill pen.
Wiki sums up several of the theories. I'm inclined to think it was a bunch of people passing the manuscripts around for laughs and to relieve the tedium of high office. Their equivalent today might be bored political media advisers. Or, well, Hollywood screen writers.
That would explain Shakespeare's apparent vocabulary of 20,000 words.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakespear ... p_theories
Good breakdown, Syd. Now can you imagine if Shakespeare (one person) can be sold to the masses just think what else can be sold.
It turns out Robin Williams had worked it out by 1.10.1991:
This is one conspiracy theory that doesn't make sense.
It would be a writer's worst nightmare to have his/her masterpiece works attributed to someone else. If you were the author of the Shakespeare works, would you want someone to take credit for your work? Think about it. It's too implausible.
I don't understand why some conspiracy theory figures believe in every conspiracy, even when it doesn't make sense or doesn't have evidence behind it. For example, Michael Tsarion believes that Shakespeare did not write the plays attributed to them. He just takes the conspiratorial side of every little thing, even when there's no evidence for it. That's taking it too far.
It's one thing to believe in a conspiracy when the evidence and probability support it (like in the JFK Assassination), but it's another to believe every conspiracy theory out there without evidence, simply because it appeals to you. That's odd.
One has to take the middle ground. Truth is somewhere in the middle, not on either extreme. The Michael Shermer types who deny all conspiracy theories are wrong too.
The mafia used to be a conspiracy theory too. J Edgar Hoover denied it for years. Skeptics at the time would have taken his side, because it's fashionable to them to deny all conspiracy theories.
“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford
Main article: Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship
Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford (1550–1604)
Since the early 1920s, the leading alternative authorship candidate has been Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford and Lord Great Chamberlain of England. Oxford followed his grandfather and father in sponsoring companies of actors, and he also patronised a company of musicians and one of tumblers at one time. Oxford was an important courtier poet, praised as such and as a playwright by George Puttenham and Francis Meres, who included him in a list of the "best for comedy amongst us". Examples of his poetry but none of his theatrical works survive. Oxford was noted for his literary and theatrical patronage. Between 1564 and 1599 some 33 works were dedicated to him, including works by Arthur Golding, John Lyly, Robert Greene and Anthony Munday. In 1583 he bought the sublease of the first Blackfriars Theatre and gave it to the poet-playwright Lyly, who operated it for a season under Oxford's patronage.
Oxfordians believe certain literary allusions indicate that Oxford was one of the most prominent "suppressed" anonymous and/or pseudonymous writers of the day. They also note Oxford's connections to the London theatre and the contemporary playwrights of Shakespeare's day, his family connections including the patrons of Shakespeare's First Folio, his relationships with Queen Elizabeth I and Shakespeare's patron, the Earl of Southampton, his knowledge of Court life, his private tutors and education, and his wide-ranging travels through the locations of Shakespeare's plays in France and Italy. The case for Oxford's authorship is also based on perceived similarities between Oxford's biography and events in Shakespeare's plays, sonnets and longer poems; perceived parallels of language, idiom, and thought between Oxford's letters and the Shakespearean canon; and the discovery of numerous marked passages in Oxford's Bible that appear in some form in Shakespeare's plays.
J. Thomas Looney, an English schoolteacher, was the first to lay out a comprehensive case for Oxford's authorship, identifying personality characteristics in Shakespeare's works—especially Hamlet—that painted the author as an eccentric aristocratic poet, a drama and sporting enthusiast with a classical education who had travelled extensively to Italy. He discerned close affinities between the poetry of Oxford and that of Shakespeare in the use of motifs and subjects, phrasing, and rhetorical devices, which led him to identify Oxford as the author. After his Shakespeare Identified was published in 1920, Oxford rapidly replaced Bacon as the most popular alternative candidate.
Oxford's purported use of the "Shakespeare" pen name is attributed to the stigma of print, a convention that aristocratic authors could not take credit for writing plays for the public stage. Another motivation given is the politically explosive "Prince Tudor theory" that the youthful Oxford was Queen Elizabeth's lover; according to this theory, Oxford dedicated Venus and Adonis, The Rape of Lucrece, and the Sonnets to their son, England's rightful Tudor Prince, Henry Wriothesley, who was brought up as the 3rd Earl of Southampton.
Oxfordians say that the dedication to the sonnets published in 1609 implies that the author was dead prior to their publication and that 1604 (the year of Oxford's death) was the year regular publication of "newly corrected" and "augmented" Shakespeare plays stopped. Consequently, they date most of the plays earlier than the standard chronology and say that the plays which show evidence of revision and collaboration were left unfinished by Oxford and completed by other playwrights after his death.
This, coming from someone who believes in the plausibility of shape-shifters and lizard men? You just crack me up Winston.
Okay, let's "think about it" that it would be too implausible for someone else to take credit for your work. Have you ever heard of
Robert Galbraith, Anne Rampling, or Richard Bachman? Also, you appear not to know that it's only been a century or so that women were allowed to publish books in England so any female writers would have HAD to have published under someone else's name.
10 posts • Page 1 of 1
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest