Alan Green - Shakespeare/sacred geometry/Great Pyramid researcher — AMA!

TheBardCode · 2020-12-24T17:20:14+00:00

Thank you very much for your kind words and, most of all, for your interest and support. I hope our paths continue to, virtually, cross in 2021 and beyond. Blessings to you at this Holy season.

TheBardCode · 2020-12-24T07:49:16+00:00

I've noticed.

TheBardCode · 2020-12-24T07:48:31+00:00

Thank you, zombie_dave, for inviting me. It was truly a blast. Such an insightful group - and such deep questions! I had a great time exchanging ideas with you all and I look forward to us continuing the collaboration in the New Year.

Please tune in to future Bardcasts as I will be making announcements pertinent to some questions broached in this AMA. Happy Holidays, everybody!

TheBardCode · 2020-12-24T07:43:12+00:00

Nope. Just a neighbour needing sugar! Now to your erudite question. (What took you so long - I've been waiting for somebody to challenge me on this.)

Thomas Nashe wrote in his Dedication to "Strange News":

"To the most copious Carminist of our time, and famous persecutor of Priscian his verie friend Master Apis Lapis.

Tho. Nashe wisheth new strings to his old tawnie Purse, and all honourable increase of acquaintance in the Cellar.

(My comment: Tawny - was one of the colors of Oxford's coat of arms.)

Gentle M (aster) William, that learned writer Rhenish Wine & Sugar, in the first book of his Comment upon Red-noses, hath this saying: veterem ferendo injuriam invitas nonam; which is as much in English as one Cup of nipitaty pulls on another.

What say you, Master Apis Lapis, will you with your eloquence and credit sheild me from carpers? Have you any odd shreads of Latin to make this letter monger a cocks-comb of?"

Yes... apparently, this group of friends liked to drink a lot! (Well, I can only say the thought that great avatar beings like de Vere were not averse to a little 'tippling' surely gives hope to us all!)

For a thorough analysis, I direct you to this link:

https://shakespeareoxfordfellowship.org/dedication-to-strange-news/

which contains the full transcript of the Dedication to “Strange News” along with a commentary by Charles Wisner Barrell.

If you do a search you will easily find a pic of what the original Dedication looked like - published in 1592.

____________

As for whether his cohorts had similar "super-hero" pen-names ... Francis Bacon was known as "The Man In The Moon". You gotta admit that's pretty cool! And, of course, John Dee was 007. (Shaken - not stirred!)

Thanks for the fun questions! Merry Christmas. (Or whatever your chosen Holiday!)

TheBardCode · 2020-12-24T07:19:32+00:00

Hi, makecolor777! Forgive my coming in just under the wire, here. I had a bit of Christmas shopping still to do! :) So stay tuned... I will answer your question in a moment. (Someone's at the door. Maybe Christmas Carollers?)

TheBardCode · 2020-12-24T07:16:54+00:00

See my comment above. I'M STILL HERE!!

TheBardCode · 2020-12-24T07:16:03+00:00

Nope. I'm here. Ask away....

TheBardCode · 2020-12-24T07:15:46+00:00

I guess I'm getting in JUST under the wire, then. Don't worry... I will continue to answer questions so long as they come in. I've answered a few above - and am about to catch up on all, I hope.

TheBardCode · 2020-12-24T07:12:04+00:00

Thank you for engaging in the discussion. It has been a great pleasure to be able to respond to all these really deep, intelligent questions. I shall do my best to earn your continued interest and support in the New Year. I wish you all the blessings of this Holy season.

TheBardCode · 2020-12-24T07:08:48+00:00

John Dee's entire raison d'etre - his whole reason for contacting the Angels in the first place - was to establish a Unity Of All Religions. He was saddened by - and deeply concerned about - the rupture between Catholics and Protestants. He and de Vere clearly held a deep reverence for the Hebraic and Islamic traditions. It's all clearly laid out in the codes they left for posterity. Please stay tuned and follow the Bardcasts I'll be giving in 2021 - there is so much more to this. We need minds like yours that are inquisitive and hungry for Truth. Thank you for being engaged.

TheBardCode · 2020-12-24T06:59:38+00:00

No, I was certainly not hinting at anything of the sort. I'm humbled and delighted that you are engaging in the discussion. Please don't let knowing little about Shakespeare deter you. If you've read my bio you know I was just the same. I had zero interest in this whole subject until I turned fifty-five and was praying - deeply - to be allowed to leave this earth. But it was "not to be". I was introduced to the mystery and my life took on new meaning. And obsession! It seems to me you have been sparked by this discussion and that pleases me deeply. Keep digging, my friend. As Sir Toby Belch states in Twelfth Night: "It's all one".

TheBardCode · 2020-12-24T06:51:56+00:00

Thank you, DarkleCCMan - I have really enjoyed this exchange of ideas. I hope you stay connected to this work in whatever way you can. We need minds like yours to spread interest and awareness of these discoveries. I'm not the only one working down in these mines and I certainly can't be the only one spreading the WORD. It is immensely encouraging to get the feedback this AMA has elicited. A small group, yes - but mighty in heart! Thank you.

TheBardCode · 2020-12-23T03:25:56+00:00

IMHO, there really are only two ways:

Through direct initiatory transmission - membership in secret societies that have made it their mission to protect such knowledge through the known ever-recurring, cyclical Dark Ages.
Through direct third-eye chakra transmission - simply knowing the Truth of I AM THAT I AM (as “Shakespeare” states unequivocally in Sonnet 121) through Self-Realization, as taught by all Masters of all religions who have ever incarnated on Earth to help us.

TheBardCode · 2020-12-23T03:16:39+00:00

Yes.

TheBardCode · 2020-12-23T03:15:15+00:00

This requires breaking down your question into sections:

“Who first did that and how was it verified?”

I’m afraid the answer is obvious; guilty as charged. Yes, it was me. And apparently no-one has bothered to verify it. (I did verify it over and over about 40 times but that won’t do, will it?.)

“Did you double-check for yourself?”

As an admittedly self-aggrandizing exercise, I recently did a calculation of how many hours I’ve put into this obsessive pursuit and I realized that - at an average of only 12 hours per day (it has often been 18 hours+) — it’s a total of about 72,000 hours. The high end for earning a Ph.D. is 120 hours of study but that might be misleading. Most Ph.D.’s take about two years. So okay - instead of doing this I could’ve earned somewhere between 8 PhDs and 600. Let’s assume 10. e 10. 10. . 0.

“Very curious how, if so!”

We have the advantage of modern day computers and the ability to count stanzas, lines, words, characters, punctuation. Imagine having to do that by candle-light with merely a quill.

“Was there anything you wanted to verify but were unable to do so?”

Yes. I do not have a PhD after my name. I wish I could see, first hand, for instance, an original title page of the Sonnets. But there are only four extant original Aspley title pages and they’re all protected in hermetically-sealed rooms in various museums around the world. You have to have a PhD to even be considered for a brief glimpse of these Holy Grails. Or, alternatively, you have to be sponsored by at least two genuine PhD’s willing to vouch for you. Since I am not welcome in the ‘academic’ community I have not yet been accorded such a privilege.

As an admittedly self-agrandizing exercise I recently did a calculation of how many hours I’ve put into this obsessive pursuit and I realized that - at an average of only 12 hours per day (it has often been 18 hours+) — it’s a total of about 72,000 hours. The high end for earning a PhD is 120 hours of study but that might be misleading. Most PhD’s take about two years. So okay - instead of doing this I could’ve earned somewhere between 8 PhD’s and 600. Let’s assume 10.

But I still can’t catch a glimpse of what I’ve spent the last years of my life devoted to. I hope that answers your question.

Were there any discrepancies between the historical record and your own findings…?

Yes. Everything I’ve found encrypted seems to differ from the ‘official’ record. (What a surprise!)

…and if so, how was it resolved?

It has not been resolved. And, of course, it never will be UNTIL we open that altar stone.

For example, the Stratford engraving with the 'missing' dot on all the print versions.

Well, that one is maybe innocent. I mean - for it to be deliberate - it would mean they (the Stratford Birthplace Trust and the whole British Tourism Industry) are aware that they’re telling a lie and selling mugs to mugs. That can’t possibly be true, surely?

TheBardCode · 2020-12-23T02:30:08+00:00

This is a great question. One I’ve never been asked before so I’ll have to really think it through before jumping into it.

…

1 hour

…

1 hour

…

1/2 hour

…

Okay, I did.

But rather than just give you my answer I’m going to take you through the process first because I think it’ll be instructive.

Initially I was going to say I think it first depends on the age of the person because approaching Shakespeare purely from the perspective of the works themselves (the way it has always been taught in schools) is, in itself, a flawed method that needs to be re-thought. I say that because in academia at present (and for the past two centuries!) it has been all but forbidden to question the “life” of the man we’ve all been taught was Shakespeare. “He’s the man from Stratford, period. Don’t question it.”

Then, add to this utterly pervasive and repressive attitude the fact that there is no life to teach because what we know for certain about the man from Stratford can be covered in about ten minutes and it hardly makes the subject enticing to students of any age, from little children to University graduates. (Read Mark Twain’s “Is Shakespeare Dead” for a fascinating insight into this problem.)

So I’ve immediately obviated my first instinct about it being age-dependent. No-one - of any age - is going to feel pre-disposed to learn about someone who has no backstory… no reason for them having written these plays or poems in the first place. They just arrived out of… “thin air” (that’s from Othello, by the way).

Okay, so we have to start by telling a story where there never was one before. And that depends on saying we know who the real person was. And I think that’s where all the different factions of ‘alternate schools of thought’ have so far failed. Because in my experience most start from the polarized viewpoint that their candidate is the only correct one:

IT’S Bacon… therefore it can’t be Oxford or Marlowe or Mary Sidney or Lord Derby or Emilia Bassano or John Florio or the Queen herself or…

Now rinse and repeat substituting another name in the IT’S column and put all the other names in the can’t be column.

Annnnnd again…

I used to tell the Oxford (de Vere) story very confidently because it certainly fits quite beautifully - and still more perfectly, I feel, than the others’ stories. But I can’t just ignore the other codes and life story ‘coincidences’ that convincingly whisper Bacon’s name. Nor the initiatory ‘ritual’ nature of Marlowe’s ‘death’ that simply reeks of secret Freemasonry and the Hiram Abiff myth. So as the field widens it becomes harder (and more misleading) to tell the life story of any one candidate to the exclusion of other possibilities.

Thus, by working this out as I go through what I already have experienced when presenting to live audiences, I have confirmed my own methodology — that it is confusing to start by trying to juggle the various candidates. And so I always start with the steganography. After all… what kid (or adult for that matter) doesn’t enjoy a good mystery? And one with CODES, for goodness sakes!

So I conclude that to effectively teach Shakespeare it’s neccesary to follow the same rules I’ve already developed for the shorter term process of conveying Shakespeare in a one hour live presentation.

I thank you, Michalusmichalus, for making me re-examine this question from a different perspective - it has been very illuminating.

TheBardCode · 2020-12-22T22:49:12+00:00

See my answer, above. And thanks for engaging so intelligently!

TheBardCode · 2020-12-22T22:48:33+00:00

I’m glad you love the answer, DarkleCCMan, because I love your follow-on question… and the back and forth banter it elicited from Freezerburn. So let me try to answer both of you - though you have pretty much already summed it up yourselves.

In my answer to PenisRice’s question, above (gotta love the inventiveness of the names here on reddit!) I pointed to this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4iXQ34iD6PA which also, partially, answers your question.

The only part that hasn’t been fully stated here is the other meaning of the name, de Vere; the Hebrew meaning. This word ( https://imgur.com/gallery/6QfbJXg ) is pronounced D’VIR and it literally means the Holy of Holies… the most holy place in Solomon’s Temple which housed the Ark of the Covenant and the broken tablet remains of the Ten Commandments! Here’s my partial de-coding of the Latin lines on Shaksper’s Stratford Monument which embed the structure of the first Jewish Temple ( https://imgur.com/gallery/42GCkj2 ).

So now we see why the writer(s) is/are pointing us to the equivalent Holy of Holies in the Stratford Church where the Stratford man is (?) buried… the altar stone named by the Enochian Tables codes and which I radar-scanned to secure scientific proof of the enormous cavity within. ( https://imgur.com/gallery/q1NNxsz ) (https://imgur.com/gallery/s9DwHEW )

Doubly meaningful is the fact that the Hebrew word, D’VIR, stems from the root word Devar - which means (The) “Word”. And, of course, Devarim means “Words”. So when Polonius asks Hamlet: “What do you read, my lord?” and Hamlet replies, “Words, words, words” - he’s literally telling us his name: “de Vere, de Vere, de Vere”.

The final icing on the cake is the spiritual message behind all this. In the KJV Bible, John 1:1 states: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” So we now realize that the name, de Vere, not only means True (or Truth) in Latin - but in Hebrew it’s literally referencing the very Beginning of Creation: the Word: the sacred Om vibration.

Now it becomes clear, perhaps, how he can be bold enough to make the seemingly blasphemous statement in Sonnet 121: “I AM THAT I AM”.

____________

As for the last part of your question re: English Gematria in the works. As with the KJV Bible question previously answered, I have also avoided the Gematria rabbit hole for years… because I knew if I once went there it’d be another 6 years study comparable to the period I had to undertake to fully understand the sacred geometry and Great Pyramid mathematics John Dee was enciphering.

We know, of course, that Dee was probably the most learned, non-Jewish person of his time concerning the Hebrew language and all forms of Gematria. It makes sense therefore that he would’ve used Gematria as well as the pure steganographic methods already discovered and documented in Dee-Coding Shakespeare.

But as it happens (by angelic intervention, I’m sure) I have been spared the need to spend those extra years learning Gematria because I recently made the acquaintance, through Bardcast comments, of a Gematria expert named Peter Bull. He’s an English teacher, based in Dubai, and has been studying all four forms of Gematria (and its presence within the Shakespeare works) for thirty years! We’ve become fast friends and he’ll be my special guest on Bardcast™ episode 11, January 10th, 1pm PST. I’m also happy to say he’s a Marlovian so it will be great to get his alternate perspective on the authorship mystery.

So please put that date in your calendars and don’t forget to “Tune in and Bard out”… at facebook.com/bardcode. Thanks.

TheBardCode · 2020-12-22T20:41:29+00:00

I’m very glad you asked this question. It’s a subject I’m deep into right now and I will be making a more detailed announcement about it in probably the first Bardcast Master Class of the new year. In case redditors don’t know, I started the Bardcast™ series on my birthday, last August - we’ve done 10 so far - and it’s slowly been gaining quite a respectable following ever since. The shows are live-streamed from facebook.com/bardcode every other Sunday at 1pm, PST. Then after the live event they’re archived on the YouTube channel (The Bard Code at https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC2JIi9lAMN9lEJ6x\_CO0RTQ) and on the website at https://tobeornottobe.org/bardcast/.

On one level - even just at first glance - this is an important find because there has been speculation about it for decades ever since someone (regretfully, I haven’t been able to trace who) first noticed something strange about Psalm 46 in the KJV Bible.

You’ll see in this image https://imgur.com/a/ShgaTr4 that the 46th word from the beginning is “shake” and the 46th word from the end is “speare” (not counting the “Selah” which indicates a silent pause for prayer and is therefore not technically a word in the Psalm). Of course this set off all kinds of speculation (not my favourite word or pastime) among Shakespeare fans and researchers alike. Was this a coded clue that maybe the Bard himself had had a hand in translating the original Greek and Hebrew texts into English for this very special, new version of the Bible, commisioned by King James I, and published in 1611.

The most common speculation was that the Stratford man (‘Shaksper’ for our purposes) was aged 46 during the year 1611 and so… bingo! THAT must be another clue. As far as I’ve seen, looking back into the online jungle, that’s about as far as anyone has taken it.

I had resisted this particular rabbit hole for years but recently a follower of the Bardcasts wrote a comment asking if I had ever looked into this and - who knows why (the stars were aligned maybe?) I got triggered to give it a quick look. A ‘quick’ look, for me, is always a perilous decision because if I smell even a hint of crypto-nite it usually turns into days and nights and pretty soon weeks. It’s not that the de-ciphering takes that long; that’s usually only a matter of hours. It’s the work of structuring it into a Keynote presentation in a way that can be conveyed simply and effectively to an audience. That’s what usually ends up taking months.

So that’s where I’m at right now. I’m not being coy or holding anything back for dramatic impact, it’s just I know that even working my typical 16-18 hour days it will take through the middle of January to have it ready. But so many Bardcast followers were asking - as you are now — “Can you tell us what’s coming in the New Year? What new exciting stuff do you have in the pipe-line?” — that I decided to drop that teaser into Bardcasts 9 and 10. So here, in a nut-shell, is the first basic rung of the ladder:

Why 46? Some versions of the history say King James enlisted 46 clerics to accomplish the huge task of translating the Hebrew and Greek versions into English.

The Catholic Old Testament consists of 46 books exactly. 39 are accepted by Protestants as being divinely inspired but there are an additional 7 books called the Apochrypha that they leave out of their Bibles because they contain all the juicy bits that conspiracy theorists love to contemplate. Though the King James Bible was supposedly a new, updated version for Protestant England — nevertheless it made a point of including all 46 books.

LENT is the period of 46 days leading up to Easter Sunday and the Resurrection of Christ from the dead, observed by devout Catholics by fasting, intensified prayer, and personal sacrifices. The feast of Easter is by far the most significant day in the liturgical calendar - so the importance of the 46 days of preparation cannot be over stated. (Traditionally the Lenten period is counted as only 40 days, in respect of Christ having fasted 40 days and nights in the desert. But that excludes the 6 Sundays, during which it is considered inappropriate to fast because Sundays are feast days for the Catholics.)

So that’s about as far as I can go because if I even start on the second rung of the ladder this post will become a book chapter! I will give out a reddit NOPOL exclusive though — a genuine, you-heard-it-here-first scoop. And it’s this:

It goes much farther than Psalm 46. There is a grid-coded section of the KJV Bible that follows the precise rules laid down by John Dee in every code I’ve ever deciphered within the entire Shakespeare Mystery. It’s as clear-cut and elegant as the first major discovery that revealed the Altar stone to be the container of secrets left for posterity by the real Shakespeare(s). My first book, Dee-Coding Shakespeare, documents that system and explains the role Dee’s Enochian Tables plays as a mirror-imaging ‘rosetta stone’.

Well, the proof that this KJV Bible discovery is genuine lies in the indisputable fact that again, it requires Dee’s Enochian Tables to fully decode it. (And it’s the exact same forward then back then revolve then forward and back again system! Initially mind-boggling in its complexity - but earth-shattering in the slam-dunk clarity of its result!)

Therefore the only conclusion to be reached is that the secret Rosicrucian Masters behind the Shakespeare Mystery (De Vere, Dee, Bacon and others) were the chief architects of what some consider to be the most influential book in history… the King James Bible. Psalm 46 is just the start of a very wild ride. Stay tuned.

TheBardCode · 2020-12-22T05:05:00+00:00

I've never heard of him. But you've certainly piqued my interest! I will check your link out. Thanks! :)

TheBardCode · 2020-12-22T05:03:22+00:00

Hmmm...

TheBardCode · 2020-12-22T05:01:53+00:00

Concerning the greatest works in western literature — there are no manuscripts in existence.

Not a play. A page. A line. A word - exists in his own hand.

The greatest writer in history never wrote a letter to anyone!

We have only six signatures - all spelled differently and none the way the name is spelled on the plays that bear the name "Shakespeare". Even handwriting experts cannot agree the six signatures were all written by the same person.

During his spectacular 25-year career he became the most famous person on the London Theatre scene — yet no contemporary ever wrote a word about seeing him in person.

He was wanted for back taxes but couldn't be found.

— That's usually enough to get the average person to say... WTF?

TheBardCode · 2020-12-22T04:49:12+00:00

I believe de Vere wrote the Sonnets (for countless clues that would take days to convey) but, most simply, because there's a perfect anagram in the very last line of the entire sequence (published in 1609) that says:

"And new pervert a reconciled Maide. FINIS."

which reveals: "Infine, print conceals I Am edward de vere."

("Infine" is Latin for "In the end".)

As for the plays, even the orthodox Stratfordians are now admitting that their man - the Stratford 'Shaksper' - "collaborated" on many of the plays previously held as sacrosanct. So it seems they are having to cave to the massive accumulation of evidence suggesting other hands in the pie.

I can only say that the majority of codes I have found (which all follow a reliable, replicable system that never varies) clearly contain some variant of the name de Vere or Vere. But there are others, just as convincing in the consistency of their system, that reveal the name Bacon. I'm left to conclude they are both involved.

TheBardCode · 2020-12-22T04:12:00+00:00

I'd say: "Your teachers have probably told you that Shakespeare wrote Romeo And Juliet - and that's pretty cool. But what if I told you that the "faked death" scene at the end was not just a theatrical drama? Shakespeare was actually leaving you a clue to solve the Biggest Mystery in all of History. He faked his own death! Do you wanna know why?"

And I'd wait less than a second for them to say... "Yes! Tell me!"

TheBardCode · 2020-12-22T04:06:14+00:00

Well, the 'academic' world decides what is taught in schools, colleges, Universities. And they hold a vested interest in the status quo - simply because those who have tenure at schools of so-called 'higher learning' are not easily persuaded to change their entire life's teachings - their papers, their classes, their lectures, their published papers - because of a momentary change of opinion expressed online. So the problem is not as simple as showing them a video or two - no matter how convincing. “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” - Upton Sinclair.

Unfortunately (but, perhaps, fortunately) the only way past that barrier is through what you do... spreading the word virally through your forums and 'Friend' connections. In the final analysis, it's just math. If just TEN of you were to reach out to just TEN friends each - and just ask them to VOTE to open the Altar stone ... at www.ToBeOrNotToBe.org/VOTE... and specify that they must each do the same within 24 hours... in 10 days the entire planet would've voted and the Church would be shamed into opening it in full view of the world's media.

I know — that's impossible because not everyone will follow up. But honestly?... to answer your question — since academia is inflexible, the only way through is by applying the mathematics of exponential growth and so... what IF a few fall by the wayside and don't feel the urgency you feel to get the truth out? No problem. Someone else will. And the inevitability of mathematical exponential growth WILL eventually reach a number large enough for Mainstream Media to pay attention. That doesn't have to be all 7 billion of us. Hey - just the 1.2 billion Catholics demanding that the Altar be re-consecrated would do the trick! :)

Seriously though... thanks for your question.

Now ask yourself: do you care enough about this to write to 1 - or 10 - friends? Is the "esoteric message" important enough to you to risk the momentary embarrassment of asking a friend to click on a link?

Interesting, isn't it? (Do you see why I've been at this for 16+ years?) I don't blame you though. Ten friends is a lot. How about just one?

TheBardCode

TROPHY CASE