UFO's - Do you believe that Extraterrestrials have visited/are visiting this planet?

[Nibble]

olympics reality? manufactured expensive corporate illusion ;-) with myths tho, they are alive and live in the hearts and minds of man, where they come from as being true or false makes no difference to them, they still live....surely much of your life is seeking fools gold? this line of work explains many of your posts to me.

"i must have scientific proof, it is not a myth until i know it happened, if it made up i will expose it for the lies it is etc" sort of thing?

No, as I 've said we rarely draw conclusions, we try to build a picture of likely theories. Funnily enough alien intervention rarely crops up. And yes, the custody of myth in the human mind factors into this, I wish you luck. Goodbye.

 

[Bold Seagull]

They were not "potential alternative explanations." You put them forward as being "on the scale of probability".

And your "explanations", as usual, were not qualified with any information. You are not arguing "on the balance of probability", or "all things considered". You are arguing just based on what you believe.

I am not being defensive, you just cannot assert something as more likely than something else, just based on what you believe. Work to the evidence.

And you were actually arguing that crop circles are computer generated images, implying that they do not appear in crops. I pointed out that they appear in crops, for real, and that this is not even disputed. So your counter was "Ok, but it's not the work of aliens".

The scale of probability was a question to you. The evidence i gave was how easy it is to create a photoshopped crop circle. If you can't accept the possibility that some of the images have been created, then who really has the closed mind?

 

[dingodan]

The scale of probability was a question to you. The evidence i gave was how easy it is to create a photoshopped crop circle. If you can't accept the possibility that some of the images have been created, then who really has the closed mind?

Your post suggested that none of them were real. Go back and re-read it.

 

[Bakero]

All the known autographs of the Stratford actor read "William Shakspere" not "William Shakespeare"

There is no record that Shakspere ever owned a library. (It is argued that even a small library wouldn't be enough for an author who demonstrate the kind of literary knowledge that span the ages like Shakespeare's work do.)

There is no mention of any books in his will.

His parents were illiterate.

Shakspere's daughter Judith was an illiterate. (It is argued that Shakspere wouldn't permit his own daughter to reach the age of twenty-seven and marry without being able to read one line of the writings that made her father wealthy and locally famous)

From where did William Shakspere secure his knowledge of modern French, Italian, Spanish, and Danish? Not to mention classical Latin and Greek? (Ben Jonson, who knew Shakspere intimately, stated that the Stratford actor understood "small Latin and less Greek")

No record exists of William Shakspere as having ever played a leading role in the famous dramas he is supposed to have written or in others produced by the company of which he was a member.

None of his heirs were involved in the printing of the First Folio after his death, nor did they benefit financially from it.

Shakspere's manuscripts and unpublished plays would have been his most valued possessions, yet his will mentions no literary productions whatsoever. (It does however mention his second-best bed and his "broad silver gilt bowl")

Manly P Hall writes: "There are in existence but six known examples of Shakspere's handwriting. All are signatures, and three of them are in his will. The scrawling, uncertain method of their execution stamps Shakspere as unfamiliar with the use of a pen, and it is obvious either that he copied a signature prepared for him or that his hand was guided while he wrote. No autograph manuscripts of the "Shakespearian" plays or sonnets have been discovered"

*
yep, crazy CT's again i guess.

Argumentum ex silentio.

Can you provide record of library ownership of his contemporaries? Details of their wills perhaps? Many handwritten manuscripts in existence?

Re. the spelling of his name, the logic is completely spurious. It's well known that spellings were not fixed in the past.

 

[Bold Seagull]

All night!!??

Some of these can be done in a couple of hours....

http://www.slideshare.net/msincome/photoshop-fake-crop-circles



The level of detail in the images is consistent with most crop circle pictures i.e. conveniently poor. And bizarrely, there is rarely any decent video footage either, most video is just panning over or zooming into a still image...amazing, you'd think someone would go up and film these things in HD...

Your post suggested that none of them were real. Go back and re-read it.

Really, starting a sentence with Some....

 

[dingodan]

"All the rest of [Shakespeare's] vast history, as furnished by the biographers, is built up, course upon course, of guesses, inferences, theories, conjectures — an Eiffel Tower of artificialities rising sky-high from a very flat and very thin foundation of inconsequential facts" - Mark Twaine

"I am 'sort of' haunted by the conviction that the divine William is the biggest and most successful fraud ever practiced on a patient world." - Henry James

"In the work of the greatest geniuses, humble beginnings will reveal themselves somewhere but one cannot trace the slightest sign of them in Shakespeare.... Whoever wrote [Shakespeare] had an aristocratic attitude". - Charlie Chaplin

"I no longer believe that ... the actor from Stratford was the author of the works that have been ascribed to him." - Sigmund Freud

"I have never thought that the man of Stratford-on-Avon wrote the plays of Shakespeare. I know of no admissible evidence that he ever left England or was educated in the normal sense of the term." - Lewis F. Powell, Jr. (Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court from 1972 to 1987.)

 

[One Love]

top post. taming the monkey mind one gets to see the mind is only a tool, not the true seat of consciousness......the experiences are priceless and profound, and one only needs to do is sit and be i never seek to go back to a life of no-medi.

Well, hope you don't mind me saying, why do you bother with all this other "stuff" then?

 

[brunswick]

"All the rest of [Shakespeare's] vast history, as furnished by the biographers, is built up, course upon course, of guesses, inferences, theories, conjectures — an Eiffel Tower of artificialities rising sky-high from a very flat and very thin foundation of inconsequential facts" - Mark Twaine

"I am 'sort of' haunted by the conviction that the divine William is the biggest and most successful fraud ever practiced on a patient world." - Henry James

"In the work of the greatest geniuses, humble beginnings will reveal themselves somewhere but one cannot trace the slightest sign of them in Shakespeare.... Whoever wrote [Shakespeare] had an aristocratic attitude". - Charlie Chaplin

"I no longer believe that ... the actor from Stratford was the author of the works that have been ascribed to him." - Sigmund Freud

"I have never thought that the man of Stratford-on-Avon wrote the plays of Shakespeare. I know of no admissible evidence that he ever left England or was educated in the normal sense of the term." - Lewis F. Powell, Jr. (Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court from 1972 to 1987.)

just opened another window and then saw you already did it. its not often i come across a man who questions manly p hall's work.....this is turning into an interesting day.

 

[Bakero]

"All the rest of [Shakespeare's] vast history, as furnished by the biographers, is built up, course upon course, of guesses, inferences, theories, conjectures — an Eiffel Tower of artificialities rising sky-high from a very flat and very thin foundation of inconsequential facts" - Mark Twaine

"I am 'sort of' haunted by the conviction that the divine William is the biggest and most successful fraud ever practiced on a patient world." - Henry James

"In the work of the greatest geniuses, humble beginnings will reveal themselves somewhere but one cannot trace the slightest sign of them in Shakespeare.... Whoever wrote [Shakespeare] had an aristocratic attitude". - Charlie Chaplin

"I no longer believe that ... the actor from Stratford was the author of the works that have been ascribed to him." - Sigmund Freud

"I have never thought that the man of Stratford-on-Avon wrote the plays of Shakespeare. I know of no admissible evidence that he ever left England or was educated in the normal sense of the term." - Lewis F. Powell, Jr. (Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court from 1972 to 1987.)

Fair enough, there have been some high profile doubters. They are vastly outnumbered by those that do not subscribe to this theory; why don't you quote them too for the sake of balance?

 

[Nibble]

For two centuries after Shakespeare's death in 1616, nobody ever questioned his authorship, nor who he was. That includes not only people who knew him by reputation during his lifetime, but also his fellow actors and playwrights. You'd think that at least the playwrights he collaborated with, such as Thomas Middleton and John Fletcher, would know whom they were sitting across the table from — ol' Bill from Stratford, and not by any other name.

Yet, since the 1850s, there's been an ever-growing number of folks — especially now, with the ease of the Internet — who know better than to have the wool pulled over their eyes like the rest of us. These doubters have included the likes of Henry James, Mark Twain, Malcolm X, Sigmund Freud, Charlie Chaplin, Helen Keller and, latterly, Derek Jacobi and Michael York. They can't all have been fools, surely?

In response, Columbia University Shakespeare scholar James Shapiro took a dive into the history of anti-Stratfordians, those Shakespeare deniers, and resurfaced with Contested Will: Who Wrote Shakespeare? Shapiro is author of one of the most exciting books on Shakespeare it's been my pleasure to review, 2005's A Year in the Life of Shakespeare: 1599, and Contested Will doesn't disappoint expectations. It's an adventure through a parallel universe peopled with strange, obsessional characters, fuelled by fascinating glimpses into the droller enthusiasms of the late and great, which their biographers were too embarrassed to explore.

Yes, Shakespeare really was a myth. But what's mythological is what his idolaters made of him. By the time bardolatry found its legs in the mid-18th century, surviving documents on Shakespeare tended to be legal records, making him out to be a real estate mogul, money-lender and grain-hoarder. Since this did not compute with the “sublime” Shakespeare of popular repute, 18th century Shakespeare scholar Edward Malone took it upon himself to read autobiographical hints into the plays and poems, which produced a more suitably lofty bard.

But if Malone could invent a Shakespeare to suit himself, so could others who doubted whether a yobbo from provincial Stratford could have had the education, the worldly knowledge or travelling experience to write what he did. The skeptics really got going in 1857, when American Delia Bacon published The Philosophy of Shakespeare's Plays Unfolded. Her candidate for Shakespeare was sometime Lord Chancellor under James I, Sir Francis Bacon (no relation).

You really have to feel for Delia Bacon. The daughter of an impoverished Congregationalist minister, she educated herself, became a star on the lecture circuit expounding on world history, suffered notoriety in a breach-of-promise case, once even beat out Edgar Allen Poe in a short story contest and died in an insane asylum two years after her book was published.

Mark Twain caught the bug. It seems he'd had it in for Shakespeare ever since his days as an apprentice river boat pilot, when his boss — a Shakespeare nut — relentlessly recited the bard's lines at him. (One can sympathize.) Helen Keller caught it from Twain, her friend. Meantime, a dizzying whirl of cryptographic activity tried to decode the lost, radically republican Sir Francis Bacon manifesto that Delia Bacon had said was encrypted in Shakespeare's plays. The enterprise spluttered out with World War I.

The 20th century needed a new “Shakespeare” anyway, one more like Hamlet. With the 1920 publication of “Shakespeare” Identified, author Thomas Looney (rhymes with bony) filled the bill with Edward de Vere, the Seventh Earl of Oxford. At least Oxford, unlike Sir Francis Bacon, was actually known as a poet and playwright in his own day. In fact, a contemporary named Francis Meres had praised the poetry of Oxford and Shakespeare in the same breath, presumably in the knowledge that they were two different people.

Freud glommed on Looney's theory because Oxford's real life suited his Oedipal theory of Hamlet. He even hurt his disciple, Ernest Jones, by telling him to read Looney instead of mourning the death of his infant daughter. Awarded Germany's prestigious Goethe Prize in 1930, Freud preached Looneyism in his acceptance speech.

Shapiro, of course, has no doubt about who Shakespeare was, and deftly shows up the deniers' less-than-perfect knowledge of the nuts and bolts of Shakespeare's theatre, its practices and development. He also reminds us that looking for a writer's life experience in his work is a mug's game. Besides, attempts to find alternates based on more suitable life experience denies the very thing we most admire Shakespeare for: his imagination.

Hans Werner is a frequent contributor.

 

[dingodan]

Really, starting a sentence with Some....

"amazing, you'd think someone would go up and film these things in HD..."

What you were implying was clear, and kind of stupid, because nobody denies the existence of these images on the ground. There is lots of footage of people walking into crop circles, examining them close up.

I remember seeing that a guy had made a fake video of a plane crashing into a building, that looked very much like what happened to the twin towers. Now I don't hold that because he was able to do that, that is therefore evidence that the twin towers plane crashes were faked. That would be a mistake of logic, much like the mistake you have made here.

Can a crop circle be faked using image software? Yes. Is this evidence that crop circles are faked using image software? No.

 

[brunswick]

Well, hope you don't mind me saying, why do you bother with all this other "stuff" then?

it's a really good question, others ask me it too.....it's a really long story......... but rest easy that none of this "stuff" bothers me in the slightest.

i am a curious boy, and seek to see the self and the world how the both objectively are.

 

[dingodan]

Fair enough, there have been some high profile doubters. They are vastly outnumbered by those that do not subscribe to this theory; why don't you quote them too for the sake of balance?

You mean the vast majority of people, who have never questioned who Shakespeare was?

A minority who examine the evidence is likely to be correct, even over a majority, if that majority has not examined the evidence.

 

[Bakero]

You mean the vast majority of people, who have never questioned who Shakespeare was?

A minority who examine the evidence is likely to be correct, even over a majority, if that majority has not examined the evidence.

How many Shakespearean scholars doubt his authorship?

 

[dingodan]

For two centuries after Shakespeare's death in 1616, nobody ever questioned his authorship, nor who he was. That includes not only people who knew him by reputation during his lifetime, but also his fellow actors and playwrights. You'd think that at least the playwrights he collaborated with, such as Thomas Middleton and John Fletcher, would know whom they were sitting across the table from — ol' Bill from Stratford, and not by any other name.

Yet, since the 1850s, there's been an ever-growing number of folks — especially now, with the ease of the Internet — who know better than to have the wool pulled over their eyes like the rest of us. These doubters have included the likes of Henry James, Mark Twain, Malcolm X, Sigmund Freud, Charlie Chaplin, Helen Keller and, latterly, Derek Jacobi and Michael York. They can't all have been fools, surely?

In response, Columbia University Shakespeare scholar James Shapiro took a dive into the history of anti-Stratfordians, those Shakespeare deniers, and resurfaced with Contested Will: Who Wrote Shakespeare? Shapiro is author of one of the most exciting books on Shakespeare it's been my pleasure to review, 2005's A Year in the Life of Shakespeare: 1599, and Contested Will doesn't disappoint expectations. It's an adventure through a parallel universe peopled with strange, obsessional characters, fuelled by fascinating glimpses into the droller enthusiasms of the late and great, which their biographers were too embarrassed to explore.

Yes, Shakespeare really was a myth. But what's mythological is what his idolaters made of him. By the time bardolatry found its legs in the mid-18th century, surviving documents on Shakespeare tended to be legal records, making him out to be a real estate mogul, money-lender and grain-hoarder. Since this did not compute with the “sublime” Shakespeare of popular repute, 18th century Shakespeare scholar Edward Malone took it upon himself to read autobiographical hints into the plays and poems, which produced a more suitably lofty bard.

But if Malone could invent a Shakespeare to suit himself, so could others who doubted whether a yobbo from provincial Stratford could have had the education, the worldly knowledge or travelling experience to write what he did. The skeptics really got going in 1857, when American Delia Bacon published The Philosophy of Shakespeare's Plays Unfolded. Her candidate for Shakespeare was sometime Lord Chancellor under James I, Sir Francis Bacon (no relation).

You really have to feel for Delia Bacon. The daughter of an impoverished Congregationalist minister, she educated herself, became a star on the lecture circuit expounding on world history, suffered notoriety in a breach-of-promise case, once even beat out Edgar Allen Poe in a short story contest and died in an insane asylum two years after her book was published.

Mark Twain caught the bug. It seems he'd had it in for Shakespeare ever since his days as an apprentice river boat pilot, when his boss — a Shakespeare nut — relentlessly recited the bard's lines at him. (One can sympathize.) Helen Keller caught it from Twain, her friend. Meantime, a dizzying whirl of cryptographic activity tried to decode the lost, radically republican Sir Francis Bacon manifesto that Delia Bacon had said was encrypted in Shakespeare's plays. The enterprise spluttered out with World War I.

The 20th century needed a new “Shakespeare” anyway, one more like Hamlet. With the 1920 publication of “Shakespeare” Identified, author Thomas Looney (rhymes with bony) filled the bill with Edward de Vere, the Seventh Earl of Oxford. At least Oxford, unlike Sir Francis Bacon, was actually known as a poet and playwright in his own day. In fact, a contemporary named Francis Meres had praised the poetry of Oxford and Shakespeare in the same breath, presumably in the knowledge that they were two different people.

Freud glommed on Looney's theory because Oxford's real life suited his Oedipal theory of Hamlet. He even hurt his disciple, Ernest Jones, by telling him to read Looney instead of mourning the death of his infant daughter. Awarded Germany's prestigious Goethe Prize in 1930, Freud preached Looneyism in his acceptance speech.

Shapiro, of course, has no doubt about who Shakespeare was, and deftly shows up the deniers' less-than-perfect knowledge of the nuts and bolts of Shakespeare's theatre, its practices and development. He also reminds us that looking for a writer's life experience in his work is a mug's game. Besides, attempts to find alternates based on more suitable life experience denies the very thing we most admire Shakespeare for: his imagination.

Hans Werner is a frequent contributor.

It's easy to google "Shakespeare debunked", and do a massive copy and paste. No doubt you will find someone who has made the case.

- Contested Will: Who Wrote Shakespeare? Theories debunked - thestar.com

Unfortunately just copying an entire page of what someone else has said means you are not actually thinking about or reading anything for yourself.

disappointing, but unsurprising.

 

[brunswick]

from manly p hall's works.....

From Shakespeare's King Richard The Second, Quarto of 1597.

The ornamental headpiece shown above has long been considered a Baconian or Rosicrucian signature. The light and the dark A's appear in several volumes published by emissaries of the Rosicrucians. If the above figure be compared with that from the Alciati Emblemata on the following pages, the cryptic use of the two A's will be further demonstrated.

*

Abundant cryptographic proof exists that Bacon was concerned in the production of the Shakespearian plays. Sir Francis Bacon's cipher number was 33. In the First Part of King Henry the Fourth, the word "Francis" appears 33 times upon one page. To attain this end, obviously awkward sentences were required, as: "Anon Francis? No Francis, but tomorrow Francis: or Francis, on Thursday: or indeed Francis when thou wilt. But Francis."

Throughout the Shakespearian Folios and Quartos occur scores of acrostic signatures. The simplest form of the acrostic is that whereby a name--in these instances Bacon's--was hidden in the first few letters of lines. In The Tempest, Act I, Scene 2, appears a striking example of the Baconian acrostic:

"Begun to tell me what I am, but stopt
And left me to a bootelesse Inquisition,
Concluding, stay: not yet.

The first letters of the first and second lines together with the first three letters of the third line form the word BACon. Similar acrostics appear frequently in Bacon's acknowledged writings.

 

[Nibble]

It's easy to google "Shakespeare debunked", and do a massive copy and paste. No doubt you will find someone who has made the case.

- Contested Will: Who Wrote Shakespeare? Theories debunked - thestar.com

Unfortunately just copying an entire page of what someone else has said means you are not actually thinking about or reading anything for yourself.

disappointing, but unsurprising.

No, what you are failing to recognise is a reasonable, well written counter argument. I cut and paste it to demonstrate it is not just my opinion. There are a thousand of these I could have cut and paste, but this piece said it better than i could so I used it. Do you see the difference between what I have done and a photoshopped picture of a ufo next to the sun?

 

[Nibble]

from manly p hall's works.....

from shakespeare's king richard the second, quarto of 1597.

The ornamental headpiece shown above has long been considered a baconian or rosicrucian signature. The light and the dark a's appear in several volumes published by emissaries of the rosicrucians. If the above figure be compared with that from the alciati emblemata on the following pages, the cryptic use of the two a's will be further demonstrated.

*

abundant cryptographic proof exists that bacon was concerned in the production of the shakespearian plays. Sir francis bacon's cipher number was 33. In the first part of king henry the fourth, the word "francis" appears 33 times upon one page. To attain this end, obviously awkward sentences were required, as: "anon francis? No francis, but tomorrow francis: Or francis, on thursday: Or indeed francis when thou wilt. But francis."

throughout the shakespearian folios and quartos occur scores of acrostic signatures. The simplest form of the acrostic is that whereby a name--in these instances bacon's--was hidden in the first few letters of lines. In the tempest, act i, scene 2, appears a striking example of the baconian acrostic:

"begun to tell me what i am, but stopt
and left me to a bootelesse inquisition,
concluding, stay: Not yet.

The first letters of the first and second lines together with the first three letters of the third line form the word bacon. Similar acrostics appear frequently in bacon's acknowledged writings.

offs

 

[Bakero]

from manly p hall's works.....

From Shakespeare's King Richard The Second, Quarto of 1597.

The ornamental headpiece shown above has long been considered a Baconian or Rosicrucian signature. The light and the dark A's appear in several volumes published by emissaries of the Rosicrucians. If the above figure be compared with that from the Alciati Emblemata on the following pages, the cryptic use of the two A's will be further demonstrated.

*

Abundant cryptographic proof exists that Bacon was concerned in the production of the Shakespearian plays. Sir Francis Bacon's cipher number was 33. In the First Part of King Henry the Fourth, the word "Francis" appears 33 times upon one page. To attain this end, obviously awkward sentences were required, as: "Anon Francis? No Francis, but tomorrow Francis: or Francis, on Thursday: or indeed Francis when thou wilt. But Francis."

Throughout the Shakespearian Folios and Quartos occur scores of acrostic signatures. The simplest form of the acrostic is that whereby a name--in these instances Bacon's--was hidden in the first few letters of lines. In The Tempest, Act I, Scene 2, appears a striking example of the Baconian acrostic:

"Begun to tell me what I am, but stopt
And left me to a bootelesse Inquisition,
Concluding, stay: not yet.

The first letters of the first and second lines together with the first three letters of the third line form the word BACon. Similar acrostics appear frequently in Bacon's acknowledged writings.

So, Francis Bacon went to the trouble of finding someone to act as the front man as he wanted to avoid the publicity. Then, ostensibly to provoke future internet debate, he inserted clues that he was the true author. I think I get it now.

 

[Bold Seagull]

What you were implying was clear, and kind of stupid, because nobody denies the existence of these images on the ground. There is lots of footage of people walking into crop circles, examining them close up.

I remember seeing that a guy had made a fake video of a plane crashing into a building, that looked very much like what happened to the twin towers. Now I don't hold that because he was able to do that, that is therefore evidence that the twin towers plane crashes were faked. That would be a mistake of logic, much like the mistake you have made here.

Can a crop circle be faked using image software? Yes. Is this evidence that crop circles are faked using image software? No.

Amazing, governments can fake terror attacks, hide UFO evidence, manipulate its people, but it's not possible to fake a crop circle. And I'm stupid, tee hee!