It's a Conspiracy!

I think the conspiracy mind-set it completely fascinating.

We live in an interconnected and hopelessly complex world, one where most of us will never be privy to how the economic, technological and cultural forces that shape our lives are marshaled and deployed.

It is also a world within which we know for a fact that powerful interests do, in fact, collude to conceal the truth, spread disinformation, put forth elaborate ruses as a cover for no less elaborate but far more unappealing operations, and prop up and encourage long term mythologies that obscure some of the underlying truths about how the world works.

So I think it's perfectly understandable that more and more people might turn to "conspiracy" as an explanation for what's happening.

As as has been pointed out elsewhere, "conspiracy", with its intimations of mastery and control, is actually a relatively optimistic take on a world when one suspects that events are, in fact, spinning out of control, beyond the guidance of even the most sinister of cabals.

Of course, real conspiracies take place all the time, albeit of a less expansive and flamboyant nature than the perennial favorites like staging the moon landing.

So it's also interesting to note that actual conspirators, sophisticated post modernists that they are, have taken to using the eye-rolling "oh God, here we go with the conspiracy theories" as the first line of defense against exposure (as in the case of the unfolding fired US attorney scandal, reporting on which was initially dismissed as crazy leftist conspiracy mongering).

I've talked about this several times before, but the thing that really fascinates me is the way that almost any circumstance or chain of events can be restructured to imply sinister, hidden connections via the process of atomization, wherein one sort of "zooms in on" the data set so that the original interconnections (or lack thereof) are obscured, and then sets about reconnecting the dots according to whatever master narrative one brings to the project.

At that point the human penchant for seeing pattern, even where none exists, can take over and start seeing the face on Mars--so that the minor or coincidental details, isolated peculiarities, system noise, or tricks of perspective that are present in every account or record of events that ever was become the outlines of a startling revelation, one that, once you see it, appears to be so obvious, so dominate that it seems impossible that everyone else isn't getting it.

Not to mention how much of what we take for "the real world" is assembled through this very process, but that's another discussion.

What you call the 'conspiracy mind-set' essentially boils down to an inability to question the status quo - basically it is the Conservative position writ small; everything is as it appears to be - and it is this way because those in authority tell us it is.

It is not the 'conspiracy theorists' that have a psychology that needs analyzing but those that label them this. They do not label themselves and indeed, they do not form a coherent group - they can be of any persuasion; right, left, atheist, religious.....the only reason that they are formed as a unit under one umbrella is because those that want to label them such - ie Conservatives, of any end of the political spectrum - define them as a group.

They do not do it for themselves.

In fact the original poster's statement 'does anyone believe the full set' is a classic text-bok example of this mindset in action.

The essential underpinning of 'conspiracy theories' is the insecurity and imbalance of those that throw the term around as a perjorative - they cannot (for their own psychological balance) handle the idea that the world may be other than those they trust (ie the self-appointed authority figures) says it is.

It makes them nervous and upset. They derive their security from these 'leaders' and must ipso facto reject and oppose any notion that the world and society is anything other than it appears to be on surface examination. That is why they are often atheists and 'rationalists'.

Authority figures and the homage they are paid.

Another thing: while these Conservative 'labelers' often pay lip-service to facts and evidence, this essentially is virtually always merely parroting the party line: "I believe that William Shakespeare of Stratford on Avon wrote the plays and poems attributed to him"

Well, says the 'Conspiracy Theorist' - why do you believe that?

But they don't know why. It is just 'the done thing'. One thing they never do is examine the evidence - of course they do not need to because they 'know' it is 'absurd'.

And they certainly never allow themselves to discuss the evidence (unless it is real whacko stuff - that is safe enough) which is the whole point of the labelling in the first palce.

It is like any other form of label (and just as offensive); nigger, Jewboy, poof - the purpose is to devalue the thing being labeled and thereby justify the labeler's decision to disregard them and not have to engage with respect and equality.

A self-protection mechanism in short.

Disagree completely. Ironically, you're doing exactly what you accuse Conservatives of doing. You're labeling and painting a picture in order to dismiss a person or group outright.

I'm not sure where you get your experience dealing with "conservatives." I don't know anyone who would use the reasons you posted for believing or not believing X, Y or Z...at least, no conservative.

On the list....


1. I believe it's possible the moon landings were faked, though in the final analysis I believe it actually happened. There are inconsistencies and evidence it may have been faked, but far more evidence that it happened, including the continuous personal testimony of those who were there. I assume we're not getting into details here, so I'll stop there.

2. I don't know if he did. I would think if he didn't there would be more of a movement to publicize this. There are various theories (according to Wiki) not by "conspiracy theorists" but by literature researchers. The notion that Shakespeare didn't author what he is credited for would seem to be dubious.

3. I fully believe this. I have seen no credible evidence that suggests any assassination attempt or other nefarious circumstance. Of course, all news reports on the driver's intoxication could have been faked... but that seems to fall under the "out there" category.

4. I fully believe this as well. There were real people on those planes who died...as in passengers, so we know they were airliners, not planes painted as civilian airliners. I suppose the US government could have placed hijackers on the planes...but is there any evidence of that?

The above is just to poke a stick in your eye, Seg.

Conspiracy theories in general come down to several factors, one of which is distrust of authority. Another is a sort of fantasy...an escapism if you will. I mean, how awesome would it be if we had alien transporter technology for example? People want to believe things like that because, well, we have a lot of Star Trek fans out there.

Who controls the British crown?
Who keeps the metric system down?
We do! We do!

Who leaves Atlantis off the maps?
Who keeps the Martians under wraps?
We do! We do!

Who holds back the electric car?
Who makes Steve Gutenberg a star?
We do! We do!

Who robs cavefish of their sight?
Who rigs every Oscar night?
We do! We do!


1) I would agree with that.
2) I just don't know enough about the theory that he didn't to answer that.
3) Most likely true, there are some who would have benefited from her being assassinated, but that would be an unusual way to do it.
4) Occam's Razor would suggest that is correct. I do have *some* unresolved questions about 9/11, such as why WTC 1,2 and 7(?) are the only steel frame buildings in history to collapse, many other less robust ones survived much more intense fires. (I'm not a structural engineer, but I am a welder/metalworker/weld inspector, have a working knowledge of metallurgy and have had extensive training in fire fighting); did the Govt. have any foreknowledge of the attacks, and if so what did they do/not do about it. In other words, incompetence or deliberate negligence?

(I also believe there was a second shooter in Dallas; and that FDR let Pearl Harbor happen, they may not have known exactly when the attack would happen, but they didn't do anything to prepare our facilities in the Pacific for it. Does that make me a conspiracy nut too?)

If you look hard enough...

World Trade Center Building 7 and the Lies of the 9/11 Truth Movement

Word Document.

A Critical Analysis of the Collapse of WTC Towers 1,2&7 From a Conventional Explosives and Demolitions Industry Viewpoint

PDF document.

From Journal Of Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

I have found that debunking certain theories so much more exciting sometimes.

The thing is, for every debunking site there is a controlled demo/etc. site from a reputable source. I came across a .edu site from a structural engineering professor who had his class examine the WTC 7 collapse as their final project, and they came to universal conclusion that it was a controlled demolition, unfortunately I have re-formatted since and lost the link.

Didn't mean to imply that I believe *all* the 9/11 theories, just that there are some things about it that are odd/unusual. That is how conspiracy theories get started after all. Have you debunked the JFK 2nd shooter theory at all? I know the official JFK story is probably correct, but that 'Magic Bullet' part is a bit unlikely. Considering how long the JFK theories have been with us, 9/11 ones are going to last decades if not centuries. \

How about the Purdue Civil Engineering and Science Professors simulating jets colliding with Pentagon & World Trade Center.

Link to article...

Links to the research material, images and simulation videos of the WTC and the Pentagon attacks...


Well, all I can share with you on that is Frontline's "Who Was Lee Harvey Oswald?" My older brother was a big JFK conspiracy buff and had a lot of books on the subject. Me? My brother told me a story...when JFK's body was flown back to DC, LBJ walked up to a podium to make a statement. My brother said when LBJ filled the TV screen our Dad pointed at LBJ and said to him, "He did it. That sonuvabitch did it!"

The photo everyone's seen:



The other one not so seen:

The man to the left in the bow tie is Congressman Albert Thomas, winking at LBJ

But that is not true at all. You say so but what 'abundant evidence' do you mean? Can you give us some?

Let's clarify this: we know there was an actor called William Shakespeare who came from Stratford on Avon. The orthodox theory is that this man wrote the plays that are known under this name.

There are very many reasons to doubt this. I could cite some of them and will do so but first I would like to hear your 'clear evidence' - did you know for example that this actor was arrested for threatening someone with GBH?

That he left not one single book in his Last Will, of his or anyone else's? That no Shakespeare manuscript has ever been known to exist anywhere? So much for the 'outside evidence'. The 'inside' is far more interesting but hopefully you will share your opinion on this.

I find it interesting that it is a solid fact - undisputed by any scholar that there is only one piece of Shakespeare poetry that can be without doubt attributed to him beyond argument and agreed on all sides.

It is the epitaph on his (the actor's) tomb. It is not perhaps to the level of the work in the Sonnets but it was written early in his alleged career. This is it:


It seems somehow un-Bardlike don't you think?

I think one of the best ever short pieces on this matter is Mark Twain's Is Shakespeare Dead which lists the problems line by line and outlines the issue far better than I ever could.

From Twain:

Excellent pics there Artman. I love historic old pics. Obviously there was a conspiracy behind the Kennedy assassination, but I haven't read enough on the subject to form an opinion.

And to answer the OP's question about whether if one's persuaded by one conspiracy theory is one likely to be persuaded by others....well, personally I take them one conspiracy at a time.

Sorry...was unclear. Did not mean Politically Conservative as such but sharing the mindset of upholding the status quo that underpins political conservatism.


Heheh...do you want to borrow some tinfoil - I have loads

I agree with this totally. I think there are some anomalies but agree it probably happened. Some things were faked though without doubt.

For example; the pictures of two astronauts on the moon when there were only two there. How did they take them?

I incline to the idea that they actually went to the moon but that the tech was not up to standard and they had to fake certain media aspects to make an 'event' across the world to establish supremacy over the Commies. That and to prove they had done it when the tech as it stood could not prove this.


Like most 'conspiracy theories' such movements are nullified by the vested interests - in this case Shakespeare scholars and the Stratford tourist board.

Nevertheless, much good research exists. Alongside a load of madness as ever.

I think most detractors would find it interesting if they perused it and in the final analysis it is not important...what matters are the Works and however someone comes to study them is fine by me.


Tend to agree. Of curse the CIA and MI5 and their respective leaders are more than capable of this sort of atrocity and probably murder people on a daily basis. In this case I think they probably didn't.


We need to clarify the term 'terrorists' - or rather put it to one side. Of course terrorists flew planes into the towers, to do this is an act of terror. And no-one believes, afaik, that this event did not happen (see what the OP did with this question - clever )

But this is not the issue...the issue is who they were and who was writing the cheques....


Heh - maybe you need a longer stick? We seem to agree here more or less...


Yes, I agree...distrust of authority. But then again, what causes this distrust? More often or not it is because the person being distrusted has shown themselves unworthy of trust. I often wonder whether I would be a 911 sceptic if it had happened on someone else's watch.....

Apologies for ranting on again but this (imo) is potentially one of the most interesting threads for months (thanks Hasan).

I don't want to make this about the Shakespeare Question but it is a long-time obsession of mine and also it serves well as a metaphor for the whole 'conspiracy' meme so it is worth talking about.

Imo, those who use the label 'Conspiracy Theorist' either do not understand the term, are politically or psychologically impelled to do so or are expressing some other insecurity. Why? Because the term as used does not make sense.

Example: if I believe that John Smith wrote Shakespeare then this does not in any way invalidate the Works.

If I believe that it was Koreans (say) and not Arabs who flew the planes into the towers then this does not mean in any way that the towers were not hit by terrorists.

The FACT of the issue stands in either case....it is merely a question of the WHO. But this is not what people who use the term 'tin foil hat' imply...the subtext of the accusation is that believing in a different WHO somehow invalidates the actual event.

What it DOES mean though is that the people passing on the 'accepted version' are either:

1) Uninformed
2) Lying

It could be either - we don't know. Only option #2 would warrant the term 'conspiracy' legitimately but it is only option #2 that is ever implied. The possibility of #1 is always ignored.

So in Shakespeare's case, the term 'conspiracy theorist' is clearly not valid....the orthodox scholars are not conspiring, they just have a different view of the facts and certain interests which cause them to act in certain ways in regard to those facts.

Yet believers that there is an Authorship Problem are (wrongly) called 'conspiracy theorists'.

But it is worse....ACTUAL conspiracies are never called that. Example: after 911, very soon, some people sat down in some Government office and said "How can we link this to Iraq?". They devised a plan to do so and they carried it out...lying in the process.

This is a Conspiracy in the literal sense. But it is never called that. The charge is never laid at that door.

So what are people who use this label really saying?

Essentially that those who lead us do so through some form of merit...that they are the best of people rather than the worst and that anyone who questions the view they lay out for the populace is 'mad' or not 'normal'.

But to answer Hasan's question about the evolution/development of the Conspiracy idea, it is clear that this term 'Conspiracy Theory' is not applicable in many cases where it is used..however, there is such a thing and I think it is associated with madness and paranoia.

I would put David Icke in this class but the meme itself is a quasi-religious mystical one which goes back to the historical Hasan i-Sabah and his group.

Essentially it is the belief that somewhere there exists a group of all wise 'masters' who live in an inaccessible place on earth (or perhaps in a mystical realm) who somehow direct human affairs. This idea was pioneered by the Assassins but passed into other cultures as Shangri-La, Tibetan Masters, El Dorado etc.

It was revived in the Eighteenth Century by Adam Weishaupt and the Bavarian Illuminati and this led to later revivals by Madame Blavatsky and Rudolf Steiner.....from these models - possibly because of the racist elements - it was co-opted by the Nazis who actively went searching for these masters in Tibet and had extensive contacts with alleged masters such as the Dalai Lama.

It is present today through this stream in the form of a belief in the Bilderberg group. Of course it is all nonsense but my point is that THIS is what 'Conspiracy' really means and not legitimate questions about Shakespeare or 911.

Is stress the word 'legitimate' - belief that aliens wrote Shakespeare or that no plane crashed into the Pentagon would fall into the oddball camp imo, serious questions do not; there culd always be an attempt at answering them - generally there isn't but it IS possible.

So personally I reject the label - if one is needed for rationalist questioning of consensus reality then I would suggest 'Fortean' after Charles Fort.

Apologies for monopolizing the thread but I wanted to say something more about the Shakespeare issue.

We know that someone wrote the works of Shakespeare. This is a fact.

We know that an actor called William Shakespeare existed and that he is held to be this person. This is a fact.

So, all we logically have to do is to look at the Works and look at the person - the facts. Then we can contrast and reach some sort of opinion.

The person who wrote Shakespeare had a vocabulary of around 21,000 words. This is a fact that can be established from the Works.

These are the numbers of distinct Words used in other works:

Old Testament: 5642
Milton: 7000

Moreover, the average vocab of labourers in Shakespeare's time was around 300 words. An educated person who had attended University averaged 3 - 4000 words.

The point here is that the writer of Shakespeare - as is well known - was perhaps the greatest literary genius that ever lived. Certainly his vocabulary far outstrips any other writer in the English language.

But he was not just a 'natural poet' in the sense of, say, Blake, he knew intimately his subjects to the degree he must have had personal experience of many of them. Among those he was an expert in are: Law, The Royal Court, Seamanship, Mathematics, Musical theory and many more.

So, he must have gained this knowledge somewhere. Not only that but wherever he did gain it he would have instantly been recognized as a genius of world-shattering proportions.

The question is: does William Shakepeare the actor from Stratford fit the model of what we know the Writer of the plays must have been like.

Well, we know some things about him:

He was a loan-shark.

He made his money by charging exorbitant interest and was arrested for threatening a defaulter with violence.

His only bequest to his wife in his Last Will was his 'second best bed'.

He possessed no books or manuscripts of any kind in his possessions on his death.

There is no evidence he attended University or had any formal education.

He was extremely litigious and sued people at the drop of a hat - yet he never sued anyone for the many illegal back-street copies of the Plays that were sold during his time as an actor.

When he died there was no recognition from any of the literary establishment. None. No eulogy, memorial, State Funeral. Nothing.

Moreover, there are several allusions to this issue from contemporary writers notably Robert Greene who accused someone he calls 'Shake-Scene' of plagiarism.

It's an interesting study but I'm out of control on this....got to cool off......

Sometimes if you wait long enough...E. Howard Hunt of Bay of Pigs, Watergate and supposedly the "tramp" with the hat in this photo taken November 22, 1963 has passed on at 88.




His two sons are coming out with a few secrets from daddy.

"But before his death at age 88 in January, E. Howard Hunt had reconciled with his children and left the sons one last tantalizing story, they say. The story, which he planned to detail in a memoir and could be worth big money — was that rogue CIA agents plotted to kill President Kennedy in 1963, and that they approached Hunt to join the plot but he declined."

They also connect LBJ too. They claim that LBJ moved the original location in Miami to Dallas where he could handle the police there. Usually with any conspiracy, the suspects sometimes die with their secrets (or the survivors reap the benefits of this revelation).

I think you are referring to Steven Jones, who was a professor at BYU, until the university decided that he was shaming the institution. He is not a structural engineer, although his credentials do qualify him for teaching a structural engineering course, which he did. He is undeniably the most qualified proponent of the theory, but he still had solid rebuttals against him. His point was never to propose an alternate theory, rather, he denied the conventional theory for being insufficient.

I only want to specifically rebut one point: the uniqueness of the event. The idea that the WTC buildings were the only ones to fall is specious, since the structural differences from ordinary buildings were incredible, with an almost unique structural system and a size that few people who have not seen the buildings can truly grasp. There are other buildings that have burned and suffered partial collapses, and all were much shorter and more rigid.

There is definitely an authorship issue - you do a disservice to Shakespeare Studies and your own familiarity with them to claim otherwise.

It is the truth of the matter that is at issue and that is a question that may never be resolved. The fact is that there are serious problems that stand in the way of accepting WS the actor as the author. Some are trivial, some are more serious - but they are there.

Having said that, I would be a hypocrite not to point out that there are equally serious problems with the other candidates; Bacon is a nonsense and my own preferred candidate, the Earl of Oxford also has serious problems and drawbacks.

But that does not mean I can hide my head and conclude that no problem exists - and you shouldn't either. Even orthodox scholars admit that.

Robert Greene: of course he was quoting Henry V! - that is the whole point.

Moreover, there is no doubt he is leveling a charge of plagiarism.This is not denied by any orthodox researcher either even though they argue he was wrong and did so from other motives (and this may be true), nevertheless, he is leveling the charge.

Firstly, the crow is a metaphor for a thief in Classical works and the choice of Henry VI for the parody is also no coincidence; this work has long been the main work suspected of not being written by Shakespeare at all - by the orthodox scholars.

Sir Sydney Lee - possibly the most orthodox of the Stratfordians, stated his research that this play was not original but in this case Shakespeare 'revised and expanded other men's works'.

So whose works? It is an interesting question.

Also note one other thing we know for an absolute fact - as the copies still exist - that the first parts of this play (as well as several others) were first published anonymously....

But is not just Greene, Ben Jonson also wrote about a plagiarising poet in his On Poet Ape:


Also, note the poet John Davies in 1610 wrote the tribute "To Our English Terence, Mr Will Shake-Speare."

This is a very strange poem but the title 'Our English Terence" is worthy of consideration for Terence was a Roman writer who could not sell his own work and published the work of others under his own name - works which he was paid large sums to publish as they were seditious or coded and which the real authors did not wish to be associated with.

Also note: there are numerous plays - often of very bad quality - that were published under the name of Shakespeare. The orthodox admit these are not genuine but that leads to a further problem; they were never questioned and if they are not genuine then it means that someone was publishing plays under Shakespeare's name who was not Shakespeare while he was alive.

The London Prodigal is one example of these but there are others such as Life of Sir John Old-Castle and A Yorkshire Tragedy.

My point in all this is that the doubts as to authorship existed in Shakespeare's (the actor) lifetime. In fact, that is not quite true, because in fact, in his lifetime it was pretty much common knowledge that many of the plays published under his name were from other sources.

ANd if that is the case - and it is accepted by orthodox scholars - then all that remains is to ascertain the degree and purpose to which these false attributions took place and whose works were published under the 'Shakespeare' name in the cases alluded to.

Ah, thanks, I didn't know that about the guy. I thought they had an interesting argument, but like many conspiracy theories, if the buildings HAD be wired for demo, enough people would have been involved that someone would have squealed by now. Unless they were all killed off, after all, if the gov't/illuminati/whoever was willing to kill all the passengers on the planes and the occupants of the towers, what's a few more bodies? See how these things are self-perpetuating?

The only thing I don't quite understand is why the towers didn't just break off above the impact floors? I know, the pancake theory, etc. But in particular, the tower (don't remember which) that was hit far off center almost in the corner, the aircraft didn't even impact the central core of the tower. I would have assumed it would have acted like the notch when cutting a tree, and it would have fallen more to that side. But like I said in my OP, I'm no structural engineer.

And BTW, I have been up to the observation floor and outside platform in the WTC, they were very amazing buildings!

Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition Homepage

Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories, Volume 1, Issue 3

No - and there is an equal lack of evidence that he did.

That is the point. I am admitting it could go either way and you are claiming it could only possibly be one way: that is what I meant by the Conservative mindset.

Willy Shakespeare must be GOD!!!!

Show me one piece f this 'lots of evidence'.

Shouldn't be hard. I know we have no manuscripts, no references and know nothing about his life but you should be able to find something.


This another classic example.

Shakespeare was known as an actor and a playwrite - sure. He was also known as a plagiarist by some - but this is not admissable as evidence by the same token apparently.

One thing he was NOT known as - and this is, as you say, as weird as fuck - is as the greatest writer and poet that ever lived. Not even by other great poets and writers that were his contemporaries.

Ben Jonson actually criticized his style and said he should have written less as a lot of it was poor.

And no-one came to the funeral.


It's 'as Conservative as fuck'.

You remind me of people pre-enlightnement who claimed it was 'downright perverse' to question the Church.


Ah!....the final barb It's warming in a traditional sort of way and fitting I guess as it is a trademark of a certain type of mind. I'd call it Conservative but you can relabel if you like - you are good at that

PS: if you read with attention you would know my position on the issue you claim (falsely) to enquire about. I state it clearly somewhere within.....

There are a lot of interesting ideas there...I think you have something....our brains evolved over millions of years but the pace of change in the last thousands has kind of outstripped their programming in some way so it throws up all sorts of quirks viz a viz 'reality'.

I think this can be seen as essentially a religious issue; essentially religious or magical thinking is the ultimate 'conspiracy theory' as it posits that the world is other than it appears to be. That does not mean that it is false by dint of that though.

All great religious traditions emphasize this; Zen for example is perhaps the classic case of claiming the world is an 'illusion' and we do not see things how they really are.

Imo, there are two ways of approaching a 'Conspiracy' - they are opposites and this is so important because these two opposites have become the defining motif of our time. We need to know these two and we need to act on one and reject the other:

First Approach:

I hate Bush

Therefore I believe Bush is responsible for all evil

Therefore when an 'bad' event happens I look for evidence that does not fit so as to 'prove' Bush was responsible.

Then I start preaching about it.

You could replace 'hate' with 'love' and 'bad' with 'good' above and you have the same thing. This works in religion, politics and even )gasp) science.

Basically someone starts with a preconceived idea then attempts to find anomalous aspects of an issue related to this idea in order to link the two negatively or positively.

When the issue is massive (911) or seemingly impossible (moon landings) or taboo (Israel) then people start to talk about 'tin-foil hats'.

This is because essentially what the questioner is doing is challenging the whole of humanity (millions of people saw the moon landings and 911, millions of people believe Shakespeare the actor wrote the plays) and they interpret this as an insult and get pissed off.

This first approach starts with a preconceived idea and work backwards is lunacy and leads to madness. Many, perhaps most, of those you call 'Conspiracy Theorists' use it and I am in complete agreement with you that both they and thier process is insane and should be laughed at (this does not mean I think they do not find real issues that need answering though sometimes).

Second Approach:

I am interested in an issue

Is study it and if it 'all makes sense' then no problem

If, as sometimes happens, there are certain factors that are contradictory I refuse to sweep these under the rug and instead examine them

If they turn out to be 'anomalous' then I say so and maybe even venture a theory.

People call me names and put me in the category of those who use Approach one above

This is the method that real science is based on actually. Except I would not use it in quite the same way.

I reserve the right to say 'The Emperor has no clothes' (or even that he is not an Emperor at all) without having to provide examples of other unclothed Emperors, without replacing the Emperor with a fully dressed one and without having any desire to prove it to the massed ranks of the Emperor's Court who are all hissing with rage and muttering about dungeons and breaches of etiquette.

heheheh well he did write Psalm 46 apparently!

I don't think this is quite right. There are definitely 'questions' about certain things.

Now, if those questions get answered then all is hunky-dory...if they do not - and if the self-appointed (or otherwise) 'authorities' act 'shadily' then you have the germ of a 'Conspiracy Theory' and of course, nutters will be attracted.

In this case though there is something there and to brand all people interested in this area alongside the nutters who are also there is foolish. Some of the world's greatest intellects have been doubters on this issue and do not see 'no problems' as you seem to; Mark Twain, Orson Welles, Umberto Eco and Freud all spring immediately to mind.


Ah...the evidence. Still waiting to see that and perhaps we can debate it...

Manuscripts: that is true, there is no evidence of these but two points; 1) they were not accused of plagiarism and 2) they were not Shakespeare.

It is similar to Jesus - you could say that there is no evidence of him and no evidence of another teacher called Balthazar Barrabas but the two are not an equivalence because one is claimed to be extraordinary. So it is with Shakespeare but I concede your point; lack of evidence is no evidence and certainly not proof.

Fortunately my argument does not centre on this.


Well, you can say that! I fully support you! You may even be right......my personal opinion is that there was a Shakespeare 'group' of which several people were members (including the actor and including De Vere but not the usual suspects such as Bacon) so why not?


The signatures on the wills are disputed.

What you have to realize about scholars is that some of them are insane. They are not necessarily interested in truth; if it were proved that (say) someone else wrote some of the works then then reputations would be ruined and 'experts' would looks like fools. This is what they are fighting against.

My first Professor at London University refused to let me write a thesis on a certain topic because he had written a book arguing the opposite. He may have been right or wrong, certainly he knew much more than me so probably he was right - that is not the point; they are defending turf.

You need to bear that in mind in this area...it is not like science where proof is all. Or should be.


Well, some say Marlowe Shakespeare so their argument (not mine) would be that this is not surprising.


We don't know that they were the same man. We know that it was the same name. That is the whole crux of the debate...

Incidentally.....we have documentary proof that Shakespeare was claimed to be dead in a legal petition of 1615:


As the researcher in the linked post says:


The link also has another very impressive point re a collection of de Vere's poetry which contain Shakespeare attributed works. There has also been a recent discovery of de Vere's personal Bible which has many annotations and outlines of plots which appear in later Shakespeare works.


Well, I have some piquant views on the evolution issue also but let's not digress....

And "Don't Talk To Me About Heroes - Most Of These Men Seem Like Serfs"


Yes, I love the Coat of Arms issue: a person who would act in that way seems to me to be petty, materialistic, snobbish, class-obsessed and in essence a prototype of today's Conservative wingers.

In short, a man incapable of the psychological insight and emotional depth, not to mention the political critique, of the writer of the works attributed to him.

It's like saying that someone with the identical character and intellectual insight of George Bush wrote the Magna Carta, the Dhamapada and Plato's Republic.

Jonson often criticized Shakespeare on both an artistic and personal level - although he never mentioned him by name until long after his death; he is clearly mocking an idiot.

I put it to you that Jonson would not have found the greatest writer of all time a figure suitable for lampooning and the fact that he had cause to do so is suggestive.


Perhaps you are right.

But your opinion is just that; an opinion. It is not based on logic, I sense there is something deeper here. Perhaps you have some unpleasant interaction in the distant past with someone wearing a tin-foil hat? I sense betrayal.

Or maybe you just read too much James Randi.


The anti-Stratford argument would be (is) that this is to underline the fact that he is posing as 'will'. Surely you cannot be arguing that Fred Jones posing as Will Shakespeare would sign his name 'Fred Jones'?

Please don't tell me that.


Well, there's another chestnut.

The Parish register for Shakespeare's marriage is a (possibly) anomalous element as it records a licence for:

Wm Shaxpere to marry Anne Whately of Temple Grafton on 27th November 1582

as well as one for:

William Shagspere to marry Anne Hathaway of Stratford on 28th November.

Why should he not have a child called Hamnet? The argument is not that the actor never knew the playwrite but rather that they were in collusion and essentially business partners.


Well, we are all legion aren't we? And as someone once remarked 'a rose by any other name'.....

I was not really christened Segovius for example and I'm pretty sure you were not the leader of the Ismaili Hash'ashin community at Alamut. It's confusing.


Maybe you still haven't seen it judging by that statement.......or are you trying to portray my opinion as other than I claim it to be...I hope not....that would be upsetting......

Having said that though...perhaps it is time for a close look at some moon shot pics.....

that is perhaps the worse serious use to the english language I have ever read...

Yes, Glad you noticed. I try to keep the common touch.

Too much highbrow stuff can really blow out the synapses....

<Walks into room>

<Notices we're debating Shakespeare on AI forums>

<head explodes>

Well obviously we see that Seg really likes and desires to buy into conspiracy theories. We can't fault him for that though because I've read enough of them, especially on the political side here, to fill that new Airbus 380.

Seg claims that conspiracy theories are the domain of conservatives, but on that I will have to solidly disagree. They are very much the realm of the political left or of liberal thought in general and it is because they are great stories that all follow the same theme. Here is the little guy who was about to overcome the big guy, but this is how the powers that be put an end to it.

UFO's, JFK, 1000 mpg cars, elections, it doesn't really matter. The outline of the story is always the same. All that changes are the elements. Like much good story telling, there are times where there are logical leaps or huge plot holes, but since the story is so enjoyable, the conspiracy folks don't care.

Anyway, please don't believe what I typed... even though it is true because it is really all just a conspiracy to strip away your idealism. I've been hired by covert government operatives to post here and keep all these wonderful folks from going out and changing the world. If you stop believing in conspiracy theories, now then I've done my job and the "man" will have won. Instead you have to ignore the gaping holes and believe even harder now if you want to "win."

Nick

What is the evidence though - that an actor existed called William Shakespeare existed and that certain plays were published under this name?

I agree with this. I just disagree that the the actor William Shakespeare is the writer William Shakespeare.


Well, yes, there are questions about anything - and those questions are extinguished in the vast majority of cases when an answer is provided. That is unfortunately not the case here.


Yes, that name is on numerous plays and Sonnets attributed to him.

It is also on several which are not accepted as being by him.


Yes.

We know this because Jonson recounts an anecdote about him being a bad actor and fluffing lines (lines he allegedly wrote) to ironic and hilarious effect.


Yes. He was from there and he retired there never to write again living the last years of his life as a money-lender and landlord tenant whose main preoccupation seems to be suing people for paltry outstanding sums of money.


What are you talking about?

All that proves is that an actor from Stratford existed called William Shakespeare and that plays published under the name William Shakespeare existed contemporaneously.

It does nothing to link the two or show that this actor was in fact also the writer.

And you cannot do this because no scholar has ever been able to do this because the evidence is not there.

This is a quote from the leading (orthodox) Shakespeare Scholar Dr Blair Worden:



Certainly, it is one possibility. There are many. BUt why would he need to? It's like saying Jesus could have used hypnosis or legedermain...well, maybe he did. But IF he did then he wasn't the Jesus he was claimed to be because the two are mutually exclusive.

The greatest writer the world has ever known - the one who has a vocab of 20,000 words as opposed to the Bible's 5000 remember - does not need to rip off inferior minds.


As You Like It I think has many cryptic allusions to Marlowe. The writer quotes Marlowe's poem Hero and Lender in one place.

A very interesting fact - excuse me if I digress - surrounds the following lines from Touchstone:


The phrase 'the reckoning' was a key element in the inquest into Marlowe's death - but the interesting thing is that this fact was not discovered until the 20th Century so the writer must have had some intimate knowledge of this.

Apparently, there is a system of analysis of writer's styles that is used extensively to determine copyright and is accurate to a highly significant degree. Kind of literary fingerprinting. This technique was used on Bacon and Shakespeare and came up a dud. but when used on Marlow/Shakespeare the ID was near perfect.

The trouble is that Shakespeare's style did not change after Marlowe's death and the fingerprint remained the same.


Well they ARE clearly written by the same hand and that is a massive problem.

Why? Because they do not show the same life as Shakespeare at all. Quite the contrary.

Take these for example:


Clearly, the writer is old. There is no doubt. It is explicit.

These are held as being written in 1590. When Shakespeare the actor was 26 years old.


Well, there is a school of thought - one which has more support than the Shakespeare authorship issue but let's not go there - that Marlowe did not die when he was supposed to have died. It is possible.


Well, I suppose that serious researchers into the issue would care - particularly as it is highly unlikely that the writer of the plays and Sonnets was a 'bumpkin'.


Can you send some over this way? I am fatigued and in need of stimulation.....

They can be an interesting diversion if they are entertaining enough though....kind of like Intellectual Prozac no?


No,no, no. noooooooooooo. I have to clear this up.

My claim is that people who level the charge of 'conspiracy theorist' and have an aversion to this, are often of a conservative (ie closed rather than political) mindset in as much as they believe in the status quo and reject claims that things are other than they appear to be


I agree. True CTs (ie of the loon variety) are unfortunately over-represented on the left. The right is nearly always the bogeyman whether it is Bush or Nasa or MI5.


This is true but see above - I reject the label Conspiracy Theorist as applicable to certain interests such as Shakespeare etc......I agree that true conspiracy nuts are often...well, nuts.


I know that is not true.


The 'man' won years ago. There is no need for any further operations. The Turkeys will kill you themselves if you try to abolish Christmas.

The 'Man' is in retirement on a beach in Tahiti and the sheep now run the abattoir themselves, operating the machinery manually, helping each other to jump into the metallic mandibles and even running their own funeral service afterwards.

It is democracy in action in a self-selecting fork--to-farm approach: the system run and maintained by the victims of the system. It has it's own fascinating primeval beauty....

Jesus Christ, enough with Shakespeare. Reading his (or whomever's) shit makes my eyes bleed and my brain fart.