It's a Conspiracy!

Posted:
in AppleOutsider edited January 2014
I'm curious.



If you're persuaded by one conspiracy theory are you likely to be persuaded by others? In which case are you possessed of a conspiracy-friendly mindset? Or is the world just very strange on the quiet?



If not, are you capable of saying 'while it's absurd to believe that, it's very obvious if you look at the concealed evidence that this is true'?



I believe that the moon landings were not faked.

I believe that William Shakespeare of Stratford on Avon wrote the plays and poems attributed to him.

I believe that Diana Princess of Wales died because her driver was drunk and drove too fast.

I believe that terrorists crashed jets in the Twin Towers.



What do you think? Anyone know anything of the psychology and anthropology of conspiracy theories and their adherents?



Anyone here believe the whole set? Can anyone think of others?
«13

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 46
    addaboxaddabox Posts: 12,660member
    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.
  • Reply 2 of 46
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 17,435member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by segovius View Post


    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....



    Quote:

    I believe that the moon landings were not faked.

    I believe that William Shakespeare of Stratford on Avon wrote the plays and poems attributed to him.

    I believe that Diana Princess of Wales died because her driver was drunk and drove too fast.

    I believe that terrorists crashed jets in the Twin Towers.



    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.
  • Reply 3 of 46
    iposteriposter Posts: 1,560member
    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!



    Quote:

    I believe that the moon landings were not faked.

    I believe that William Shakespeare of Stratford on Avon wrote the plays and poems attributed to him.

    I believe that Diana Princess of Wales died because her driver was drunk and drove too fast.

    I believe that terrorists crashed jets in the Twin Towers.



    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?)
  • Reply 4 of 46
    @_@ artman@_@ artman Posts: 5,231member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by iPoster View Post


    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?



    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.
  • Reply 5 of 46
    iposteriposter Posts: 1,560member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post


    If you look hard enough...



    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. \
  • Reply 6 of 46
    @_@ artman@_@ artman Posts: 5,231member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by iPoster View Post


    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.



    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...



    Quote:

    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. \



    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



  • Reply 7 of 46
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by segovius View Post


    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'.



    But this isn't true. There's abundant and very clear evidence, for example, both inside and outside his texts. that Shakespeare wrote the plays and poems attributed to him. So much irrefutable evidence in fact that to question it seriously is perverse. Anyone who seriously questions this evidence demonstrates that they haven't read the plays or poems; it's a sort of classist philistinism to disbelieve that a non-university educated glover's son from Stratford could have written them.



    This isn't a 'conservative' viewpoint, it's to do with an honest and serious relationship to the world and to facts that admits the human and the remarkable.



    In the case of Diana's death, for example, it also admits that the world is fucked up and arbitrary, and this is frightening for the adherents of conspiracy theories. It makes them 'nervous and upset'.



    At heart, conspiracy theories, I believe, are comforting for those that believe them because they imply a non-existent order. The chaos and the pointlessness of life is pretty scary; they do not find the implications liberating or this fear exciting. In short, a self-protection mechanism.
  • Reply 8 of 46
    gilschgilsch Posts: 1,995member
    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.
  • Reply 9 of 46
    @_@ artman@_@ artman Posts: 5,231member
    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).
  • Reply 10 of 46
    wircwirc Posts: 302member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by iPoster View Post


    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.



    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.
  • Reply 11 of 46
    There is no 'authorship controversy'. We don't need one. There's enough unequivocal biographical reference in the poems alone. But let's have a look at what Segovious starts with.



    He cites Robert Greene, a playwright and critic contemporary to Shakespeare, as if what he wrote about Shakespeare were in some way evidence that... it wasn't the Stratford guy What Done It.



    Here's the quote:



    Quote:

    ...for there is an upstart Crow, beautified with our feathers, that with his Tygers hart wrapt in a Players hyde, supposes he is as well able to bombast out a blanke verse as the best of you: and being an absolute Johannes fac totum, is in his owne conceit the onely Shake-scene in a countrey



    Game over. The 'Tyger's hart...' is a quote from Henry VI. Greene's saying 'Shakespeare's some country-boy upstart who thinks he can come to London with his flowery verse and no university education and write better plays than we do.' That's it; very simple.



    Shakespeare was really, really popular in his day, judging by how often his plays were performed and how much he got paid, and this was annoying to Greene, who was a bit of a hack in comparison.



    There's more.
  • Reply 12 of 46
    iposteriposter Posts: 1,560member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wirc View Post


    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.



    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!
  • Reply 13 of 46
    @_@ artman@_@ artman Posts: 5,231member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by iPoster View Post


    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
  • Reply 14 of 46
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by segovius View Post


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



    snip



    under his name were from other sources.

    .



    Yeah, I remember all of this from my English degree.



    It proves that some people accused Shakespeare of plagiarism.



    And? Some people accused of Shakespeare of being a plagiarist. That's it. C'est tout. Fin. Some people thought that Shakespeare ripped off other poets.



    It doesn't come close to actual evidence that someone other than the man William Shakespeare wrote the plays and poems attributed to him.
  • Reply 15 of 46
    hardeeharharhardeeharhar Posts: 4,841member
    Willy Shakespeare must be GOD!!!!
  • Reply 16 of 46
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by segovius View Post


    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.



    No. There is a lot of evidence that he did, and there's no more reason to question it than there is to question, say, the age of the planet by talking of the 'fossils controversy'.



    Actually, it's pretty perverse to question it. The idea that Shakespeare's plays were were written by some other, when Shakespeare was known as a playwright, an actor and a theatre owner, works by Shakespeare were popular in London and he was a minor celebrity in his own right... is weird as fuck. It wouldn't just be unprecedented in English literature, it would be... fucking weird.



    This isn't 'conservative', it's attempting to hold on to the meaning of facts. Your position reminds me of the Intelligent Design supporters who claim 'Look, I'm keeping an open mind, you scientists on the other hand...'



    What's your position on the moon landings, by the way?



  • Reply 17 of 46
    Really quick, I had a moment in the shower.



    Conspiracies happen all the time. The CIA murdered Kwame Nkrumah, Patrice Lumumba and tipped off the South African security forces about the whereabouts of Mandela in 1966; MI5 and the CIA saw to it that Mossadeq was overthrown. I believe these things happened, they are events.



    But to go back to evolution and culture, one of the things that made us so successful as a species was our ability to draw correspondences between things, and inferences from our environment, and integrate the extremely successful results of our hunting, say, and material culture into our first societies. We're so successful because of the old sophisticated grey matter that lets us understand by inference; we do it compulsively, we always have, it's at the heart of our ability to forsee and explain ourselves.



    It's just that now, a hundred thousand years + down the line, the things we've discovered and conceived are so out there... we've walked on the moon! We know that the planet and the universe are ANCIENT! Shakespeare was an awesome genius of language!



    We still draw correspondences to try and make sense of the planet it's just that it's not necessarily so useful in a world so unimaginably rich in material culture and developed knowledge, perhaps.



    OK, half-baked idea, now must go.
  • Reply 18 of 46
    Firstly, there's no more and no less reason to believe that Marlowe was Bacon, Dekker was Oxford and Johnson was Raleigh than there is that Shakespeare wasn't Shakespeare. There's no 'mystery' about Shakespeare unless you actively try and make it.





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by segovius View Post


    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.

    .



    Well, there's all the... what shall we call it? Ah, evidence. That's the word. On the manuscript question, how much of Marlowe, Dekker or Johnson's autograph script remains, Segovius?



    Fuck all.



    So I say that Shakespeare wrote Dekker and Johnson wrote Marlowe. It's a conspiracy!



    And while we're at it, there is Shakespeare autograph script. http://shakespeareauthorship.com/more.html



    Sorry. And it's more than we have for Christopher Marlowe, incidentally.



    We know that William Shakespeare the player and playwright was from Stratford, We know that the same man was a player and part-owner of the Globe. We know that the same man had his name on texts printed in his life-time (the Sonnets, the Phoenix... and there's also the 'Parnassus' text.



    Quote:

    Around 1601, students in Cambridge put on a play called The Second Part of the Return from Parnassus, the third in a series of plays that satirized the London literary scene. In this play, two characters named "Kempe" and "Burbage" appear, representing the actors Will Kempe and Richard Burbage of the Chamberlain's Men. At one point Kempe says,

    Few of the university [men] pen plays well, they smell too much of that writer Ovid, and that writer Metamorphosis, and talk too much of Proserpina and Jupiter. Why, here's our fellow Shakespeare puts them all down, aye and Ben Jonson too. O that Ben Jonson is a pestilent fellow, he brought up Horace giving the poets a pill, but our fellow Shakespeare hath given him a purge that made him bewray his credit.



    This passage establishes that the playwright Shakespeare was a fellow actor of Kempe and Burbage, contrasts him with the University-educated playwrights, and establishes him as a rival of Ben Jonson.



    And you want some references? Er... OK.



    Quote:

    From 1594 on, the plays of William Shakespeare were performed exclusively by the acting company variously known as the Lord Chamberlain's Men (1594-96, 1597-1603), Lord Hunsdon's Men (1596-97), and the King's Men (1603-42). William Shakespeare was a prominent member of this acting company, as the following evidence demonstrates.



    2a. On 15 March 1595,the Treasurer of the Queen's Chamber paid "William Kempe William Shakespeare & Richarde Burbage servants to the Lord Chamberleyne" for performances at court in Greenwich on 26 and 27 Dec of the previous year.



    2b. On 13 March 1602, John Manningham of the Middle Temple recorded in his diary a racy anecdote about Richard Burbage and William Shakespeare:

    Upon a time when Burbidge played Richard III there was a citizen grew so far in liking with him, that before she went from the play she appointed him to come to her that night unto her by the name of Richard III. Shakespeare, overhearing their conclusion, went before, was entertained and at his game ere Burbage came. Then message being brought that Richard III was at the door, Shakespeare caused return to be made that William the Conqueror was before Richard III. Shakespeare's name William.

    The anecdote does not explicitly call Shakespeare an actor, but it places him at the theater with Burbage, the leading actor of the Chamberlain's Men. Manningham was a friend of William Shakespeare's friend and "cousin" Thomas Greene, who was then finishing up his studies at the Middle Temple and would move to Stratford the following year.



    2c. On 19 May 1603 the Lord Chamberlain's Men were licensed as the King's Men. The document lists "Lawrence Fletcher, William Shakespeare, Richard Burbage, Augustyne Phillippes, Iohn Heninges, Henrie Condell, William Sly, Robert Armyn, Richard Cowly" as members of the troupe. Shakespeare's prominence is indicated by the fact that he appears second on the list, behind only Lawrence Fletcher, who had acted for King James in Scotland.



    2d. The account of Sir George Home, Master of the Great Wardrobe, lists the names of "Players" who were given four yards of red cloth apiece for the investiture of King James in London on 15 March 1604. They are "William Shakespeare, Augustine Phillipps, Lawrence Fletcher, John Hemminges, Richard Burbidge, William Slye, Robert Armyn, Henry Cundell, and Richard Cowley." Here Shakespeare appears first among his fellows.



    2e. The will of Augustine Phillips, executed 5 May 1605, proved 16 May 1605, bequeaths, "to my Fellowe William Shakespeare a thirty shillings peece in gould, To my Fellowe Henry Condell one other thirty shillinge peece in gould . . . To my Fellowe Lawrence Fletcher twenty shillings in gould, To my Fellowe Robert Armyne twenty shillings in gould . . . ." All of the people who Phillips calls his "fellows" were actors in the King's Men. Augustine Phillips's bequest of 30 shillings to his "Fellowe" Shakespeare was written 11 months after the Earl of Oxford's death. If Oxford were Shakespeare, Phillips would have known that he was dead.



    2f. The 1616 Folio of Ben Jonson's Works contains cast lists for his plays. The cast list for Jonson's Every Man in His Humor, performed in 1598, includes "Will Shakespeare, Aug. Philips, Hen. Condel, Will. Slye, Will. Kempe, Ric. Burbadge, Ioh. Hemings, Tho. Pope, Chr. Beeston, and Ioh. Duke." Once again, Shakespeare is listed first among his fellows.



    2g. The cast list for Jonson's Sejanus, performed in 1603, includes "Ric. Burbadge, Aug. Philips, Will. Sly, Ioh. Lowin, Will. Shake-Speare, Ioh. Hemings, Hen. Condel, and Alex. Cooke."



    I got those of a web-site. Yeah, I'm lazy, but I'm spending time I could be arguing with creationists on defending one of my heroes.



    Incidentally, there's also Shakespeare's coat of arms, which he spent a long time trying to achieve recognition for. Ben Johnson took the piss of Shakespeare because of it. NUL SANZ DROIT, it was if I remember my Burgess. Johnson was taking the piss out of a pretentious bumpkin in 'Every Man...' and satirised it: 'NOT WITHOUT MUSTARD'.



    Seriously. Shakespeare was Shakespeare. It's a total, utter non-starter, a conspiracy for the sake of a conspiracy, a cover up of nothing.





    Quote:

    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.



    It doesn't matter if he was thought of a plagiarist. People thought he was. So what? He still wrote the plays and poems (and how do you explain the sonnet that capitalises the word 'WILL' throughout? IT WAS WRITTEN BY A MAN CALLED WILLIAM) and they are still brilliant.



    And Ben Johnson may have criticised his style, I don't know. But I do that Ben Johnson, who I love, was a brutal, jealous bricklayer and a rival of Shakespeare's, and if he criticised his style all it means is... he criticised the style of a poet and playwright called William Shakespeare of Stratford on Avon who wrote plays, lived on Bankside, owned a theatre in Southwark and married a women called Anne Hathaway, who he referenced in his plays and poems, and had a kid called Hamnet who died five years before he wrote the play 'Hamlet'.



    Shakespeare was Shakespeare, Marlowe was Marlowe, Bacon was Bacon and Walter Raleigh was from Devon.



    Quote:

    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.....



    I didn't see your post. I was writing my second one. If you don't believe the moonlandings happened, say it proudly and boldy. Maybe someone else can take you up on that.
  • Reply 19 of 46
    hardeeharharhardeeharhar Posts: 4,841member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by segovius View Post


    heheheh well he did write Psalm 46 apparently!



    that is perhaps the worse serious use to the english language I have ever read...
  • Reply 20 of 46
    You've kinda ignored most of the evidence I posted!



    Segovius. This is one of those 'the planet is billions of years old'-type things. The evidence exists. It's real. If you can't see it or admit it, it's not a problem with the facts. I'm trying to convince you of this now. I accept that it's impossible.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by segovius View Post


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



    If you choose to be really bloody-minded and understand things counter to the facts, yes. There are 'questions' about absolutely anything you decide to question. My contention it that it's more your need to find question than the ambiguity of the facts, which were emphatically not in contention on Shakespeare's time, no matter what you say.



    Shakespeare's name appears appended to the texts attributed to him. Right?



    Quote:

    1a. In 1593, the narrative poem Venus and Adonis was published by Stratford native Richard Field, with a dedication to the Earl of Southampton signed "William Shakespeare." This dedication refers to the author's "unpolisht lines" and contains the typically fawning language of a commoner addressing a nobleman for patronage. It is manifestly not the work of one nobleman addressing another, as Oxfordians believe. The following year, The Rape of Lucrece was published, also with a dedication to Southampton signed by William Shakespeare. Both poems went through many editions over the next half century, all with the same dedications signed by William Shakespeare.



    1b. In 1601, the volume Loves Martyr by Robert Chester contained short poems by several well-known theatrical poets. One of these poems (untitled in the volume, but now known as "The Phoenix and the Turtle") is signed "William Shakespeare." This volume was printed by Richard Field, who had also printed Shakespeare's two narrative poems.



    1c. In 1609, the volume Shake-speares Sonnets was published by Thomas Thorpe. Whether one believes that the publication was authorized or not, the volume is clearly attributed to "Shakespeare."



    Damn right it was. And William Shakespeare was an actor in the plays that had William Shakespeare's name on when they were published?



    Quote:

    From 1594 on, the plays of William Shakespeare were performed exclusively by the acting company variously known as the Lord Chamberlain's Men (1594-96, 1597-1603), Lord Hunsdon's Men (1596-97), and the King's Men (1603-42). William Shakespeare was a prominent member of this acting company, as the following evidence demonstrates.



    2a. On 15 March 1595,the Treasurer of the Queen's Chamber paid "William Kempe William Shakespeare & Richarde Burbage servants to the Lord Chamberleyne" for performances at court in Greenwich on 26 and 27 Dec of the previous year.



    2b. On 13 March 1602, John Manningham of the Middle Temple recorded in his diary a racy anecdote about Richard Burbage and William Shakespeare:

    Upon a time when Burbidge played Richard III there was a citizen grew so far in liking with him, that before she went from the play she appointed him to come to her that night unto her by the name of Richard III. Shakespeare, overhearing their conclusion, went before, was entertained and at his game ere Burbage came. Then message being brought that Richard III was at the door, Shakespeare caused return to be made that William the Conqueror was before Richard III. Shakespeare's name William.

    The anecdote does not explicitly call Shakespeare an actor, but it places him at the theater with Burbage, the leading actor of the Chamberlain's Men. Manningham was a friend of William Shakespeare's friend and "cousin" Thomas Greene, who was then finishing up his studies at the Middle Temple and would move to Stratford the following year.



    2c. On 19 May 1603 the Lord Chamberlain's Men were licensed as the King's Men. The document lists "Lawrence Fletcher, William Shakespeare, Richard Burbage, Augustyne Phillippes, Iohn Heninges, Henrie Condell, William Sly, Robert Armyn, Richard Cowly" as members of the troupe. Shakespeare's prominence is indicated by the fact that he appears second on the list, behind only Lawrence Fletcher, who had acted for King James in Scotland.



    2d. The account of Sir George Home, Master of the Great Wardrobe, lists the names of "Players" who were given four yards of red cloth apiece for the investiture of King James in London on 15 March 1604. They are "William Shakespeare, Augustine Phillipps, Lawrence Fletcher, John Hemminges, Richard Burbidge, William Slye, Robert Armyn, Henry Cundell, and Richard Cowley." Here Shakespeare appears first among his fellows.



    2e. The will of Augustine Phillips, executed 5 May 1605, proved 16 May 1605, bequeaths, "to my Fellowe William Shakespeare a thirty shillings peece in gould, To my Fellowe Henry Condell one other thirty shillinge peece in gould . . . To my Fellowe Lawrence Fletcher twenty shillings in gould, To my Fellowe Robert Armyne twenty shillings in gould . . . ." All of the people who Phillips calls his "fellows" were actors in the King's Men. Augustine Phillips's bequest of 30 shillings to his "Fellowe" Shakespeare was written 11 months after the Earl of Oxford's death. If Oxford were Shakespeare, Phillips would have known that he was dead.



    2f. The 1616 Folio of Ben Jonson's Works contains cast lists for his plays. The cast list for Jonson's Every Man in His Humor, performed in 1598, includes "Will Shakespeare, Aug. Philips, Hen. Condel, Will. Slye, Will. Kempe, Ric. Burbadge, Ioh. Hemings, Tho. Pope, Chr. Beeston, and Ioh. Duke." Once again, Shakespeare is listed first among his fellows.



    2g. The cast list for Jonson's Sejanus, performed in 1603, includes "Ric. Burbadge, Aug. Philips, Will. Sly, Ioh. Lowin, Will. Shake-Speare, Ioh. Hemings, Hen. Condel, and Alex. Cooke."



    Damn right he was.



    And William Shakespeare the player was from Stratford on Avon?



    Quote:

    3a. In or around 1568, John Shakespeare applied to the Heralds' College for a coat of arms, but he fell on hard times and let the application lapse. In October of 1596, following the success of his son, John Shakespeare of Stratford upon Avon applied again for a coat of arms, which was granted sometime before 1599. Thereafter he and his sons were entitled to put "gentleman" after their name, and it often appears when William Shakespeare's name is recorded in legal documents after 1599. This title was reserved for those of the gentility who were below knights but who had been granted the right to bear arms. That John's son, William, initiated the application is probable. Shakespeare was a product of the Elizabethan era, and he accepted the social order as it was and was ambitious to rise.



    3b. In 1602, Peter Brooke, the York Herald, accused Sir William Dethick, the Garter King-of-Arms, of elevating base persons to the gentry. Brooke drew up a list of 23 persons whom he claimed were not entitled to bear arms. Number four on the list was Shakespeare. Brooke included a sketch of the Shakespeare arms, captioned "Shakespear ye Player by Garter." Unless one is prepared to argue that John Shakespeare was an actor, or that William Shakespeare's brother Edmund initiated the arms application when he was 16 and was a known player by the time he was 22, "Shakespear ye Player" can only be the Shakespeare identified in other documents as an actor, William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon, gentleman. This is the same coat-of-arms that appears on the poet's tomb in Stratford.



    3c. In his will, William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon left a bequest "to my ffellowes John Hemynge Richard Burbage & Henry Cundell xxvj s viij d A peece to buy them Ringes." Heminges, Burbage, and Condell had been fellow actors in the King's Men with William Shakespeare (see the many records in (2) above), and Heminges and Condell later edited the First Folio, in which they attributed thirty-six plays to their "friend and fellow" William Shakespeare. Oxfordians try to smear this record as a forgery, but it is undoubtedly genuine. (See David Kathman's essay on Shakespeare's Will.)



    3d. Shakespeare bought the Blackfriar's Gatehouse in London in 1613. On the deed dated 10 March 1613, John Hemmyng, gentleman (also spelled Hemming on the same page) acted as trustee for the buyer, "William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon." This property is disposed of in Shakespeare's will.



    Er, yes, it appears that incontrovertibly, he was, according to the, er, let's call it 'evidence' above.



    Finish. End. Right there.



    Quote:

    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.



    So Shakespeare was accused of plagiarism? So what? Maybe he ripped people off left, right and centre. Maybe people in the jealous world of Elizabethan theatre, who were slagging each-other off all the time, in pamphlets, poems and even in play texts themselves.



    Shakespeare quotes Marlowe, really affectionately, after his death. I can't remember the play. I think it might be The Tempest.



    Quote:

    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?



    But why? I love the Sonnets. They were clearly written by the same hand, and that hand wrote the plays. Did this 'group' all sleep with the same women, fall in love with the same young man, have the same wife, in short, live the same life?



    Quote:

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



    And they would be talking out of their arses, since Marlowe died before the end of Shakespeare's writing career.



    Quote:

    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.



    But this is a) conjecture, and b) horseshit. Apart from the fact that there were material advantages to having your own coat of arms, if I remember correctly it was Shakespeare's dad who first made the application. It was refused. When Shakespeare re-applied you could just as easily argue that he was a loving son trying to do something cool for his dad. Who knows? You can't use this as a serious argument. Certainly, if you do, you have to counter the argument that Shakespeare was of his time, may well have had a chip on his shoulder for being a bumpkin... whatever. Who cares.



    Quote:

    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.



    As if someone might have (dared) to take Johnson aside and say 'Hey, Ben, hold on a minute. A hundred years after William's death people are going to consider him the greatest writer in the English canon! You'd better lay off the disses!'



    No. Literary Elizabethan London was kinda... cut throat and Ben Johnson, who really liked fighting, in fact actually killed a man, wasn't a saint. He was Shakespeare's rival. It was kind of like New York of the '80s, all 'sucka MCs can kiss my stick'. He'd have lampooned him backwards and forwards, and if he did it doesn't make a blind bit of difference to the quality of the texts he was dissing.



    Quote:

    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.



    Au contraire. And I have the garden of kohl-eyed houris to prove it.
Sign In or Register to comment.