a scientific binary cipher such as the one Francis Bacon demonstrated

-Shakespeare (Fra Bacon?) portrait, in Chandos’ collection, now in National Gallery, painted ~1610.
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
1)  Furthermore, as was discovered in the 1890s in two separate ciphers–a word-cipher* and a bi-literal cipher** embedded in the type of the original printings of the Shakespeare folios–Francis Bacon was the author of the plays        -Messenger E C Prophet:  Lost Teachings of Jesus, v. 2, S. U. Press, Jan. 1986, p. 219.  
(Dr. Owen’s claim in 1893-4) ; **(Wells Gallup’s claim from 1899-1916)
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
2)  The same ciphers which run throughout the Shakespeare plays also run through Francis Bacon’s own works and those of many of his circle of friends.  Both ciphers contain his true life story      -Messenger E C Prophet:  Lost Teachings of Jesus, v. 3, S. U. Press, Jan. 1994, p. 193.
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
3)  Some even claim, based on ciphers embedded in the type of the original printings of the Shakespeare Folios, that Francis Bacon was the real author of the plays   -Messenger E C Prophet et alia:  Saint Germain’s Prophecy for the New Millennium, 1999, p. 384.
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Note to the above 3 statements:  Messenger ECP did not study carefully the ciphers involved here.  If she had, then she could point to, or show, specifics of evidence, but to date there are no pieces of objective evidence for the Wells Gallup “decoding”. 
Let me state very plainly and honestly, based upon my careful research, that NOT ONE INDIVIDUAL HAS EVER YET DEMONSTRATED OBJECTIVELY THE DECIPHERING-CLAIMS OF EITHER DONNELLY OR WELLS GALLUP.   Not one individual!!    As to Dr. Owen’s word or phrase cipher, I do not know whether there is an objective method involved in this case.  What I am stating is:  that Wells Gallup’s “deciphering”cannot at all be done by another individual, not even one paragraph, much less one page or the whole body of her deciphering; that the same is true of Donnelly’s “deciphering”.  This stuff is really scrambled-up junk, very inconsistent, not at all actual decryption.
I know of two specific plain, straightforward, objective disprovings of Wells Gallup’s “decipherings of the bi-literal code” which she claimed she found:   one dating to 1902 by Walter Greg and one shown by me–see https://vidzhaya.wordpress.com/2013/12/16/3849/.
Then there is William Friedman’s analysis in his book of the 1950s discrediting Wells Gallup’s “decipherings,” so I suppose there are at least 3 disprovings extant. Make that possibly 4: “Mr. Sidney Lee, who is the accepted authority on Shakespeare’s first folios, says that he applied the Baconian cipher to the editions named, and can unhesitatingly declare that no romantic story is concealed in the first folio of shakespeare’s plays or in any other of the works Mrs. Gallup mentions.” http://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/cgi-bin/paperspast?a=d&d=ODT19020327.2.73   -r.
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Now we come to Virginia Fellows:  The Shakespeare Code, S. U. Press, 2006, who states-
“Other researchers have not been able to duplicate Donnelly’s work”–p. 329.  Ah, dear me, dear thee, but all other researchers have not been able to duplicate any of Elizabeth Wells Gallup’s “decipherings”!!!!!!!!!!!!!  Scientifically speaking, this does not bode well for Wells Gallup’s hypothesis.
Virginia Fellows goes on to conclude:  “One thing seems clear, however–whatever shortcomings or error there may have been in their methods, those who devoted years of their lives to the quest to uncover the ciphers were sincere…..And isn’t it the story that is really paramount?” –p. 329.  
No, a scientific binary cipher such as the one Francis Bacon demonstrated back in the 1600s would necessarily have to be:  a) seen plainly and clearly, b) shown  in an example plainly and clearly, letter by letter, to function accurately, and c) evidence for and against a) and b) needs to be stated in open view.  Otherwise, poetic fancies are not at all paramount!  Athena is the Goddess of Truth, not of poetic license and wishful thinking.     -r.
Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s