BARDCODE : Sonnets Preview

[@ishakespeare0]

Please forgive my extended absence. I took over a year off to write and film Season One of a TV Series based on my 19 years’ research of the great Shakespeare mystery. I shall be posting details AT BARD CODE / BARDCAST - (my other KZbin platform) - within a few days so please stay tuned. I deeply appreciate your patience and continued support.

[@sonoluminescent]

Still the single greatest thing I have ever seen on the internet in my 30 years online. Well done.

[@TheBardCode]

@@sonoluminescent Thank you!

[@Dargonhalfchest]

I hope you’re not posting anything these days

[@devonvanhorn4802]

While this was all very interesting, my favorite thing about this video is how soothing your voice is. Intended in a completely non-creepy way of course.

[@ishakespeare0]

You know, it's really interesting because I've actually had a number of comments saying the reverse - how someone (or some bot, maybe?) can't STAND my voice! Now, that's creepy. :)

[@captiankidandcrew]

I haven't had a physical reaction to a video in a while. Well done. Brilliant work!

[@TheBardCode]

Thank you for joining the discussion and expressing it so... viscerally. But what was that reaction, pray tell?

[@captiankidandcrew]

BARDCODE I jerked out of a half laying position on the floor uptight when the globe panned to Giza.

[@TheBardCode]

yep - that'll do it!

[@ishakespeare0]

Thank you, RMFN.

[@Vladdie777]

His delivery gives me ASMR head tinglies!

[@iratozer]

That my friend was nothing short of incredible. Thank you beyond measure.

[@TheBardCode]

Thank you. But really... BEYOND Measure? :) Please check out @t for much more.

[@James-ev5dy]

The numbers don't add up. Even if it did it would just be a coincidence because there is a huge number of ratios. To make the claim that this is intentional you would have to ignore the large number of ratios that don't lead to any special number. At 3.10 he shows a grey triangle whose 2 sides are in the ratio pi. Cunningly he did not show the third side's measurement. Using Pythagoras Theorem we can calculate the third side, which is the diameter of the circle as 37.73 (he did not show the units). At 3.44 he shows a blue triangle whose 2 sides are in the ratio e. The third side for this triangle is 37.71. But blue and grey triangle share this side. So the length of the side (diameter of the circle) should be the same if calculated from the blue or grey triangle. I calculated the values of the diameter from all the other triangles he showed. All yield different values. Colour Long Side Short Side Diameter (Hypotenuse) Ratio Timestamp Grey 35.95 11.44 37.73 pi 3.10 Blue 35.39 13.02 37.71 e 3.44 Light Blue 32.61 18.98 37.73 e-1 4.53 Green 33.56 17.64 37.91 B2 5.09 So the figure he shows cannot exist and he made it up It doesn't get better even after 5 minutes. But he gets better at hiding his trickery. He doesn't show triangles completely so I have to do a lot of hopping back and forth across the video to get the sides. I have included timestamps where the measurements are shown in brackets. Colour Long Side Short Side Diameter (Hypotenuse) Orange 30.31 (7.38) 22.73 (5.39) 37.89 Purple 35.16 (7.38) 14.09 (5.39) 37.88 At 9.27 the line he shows as having the length of 13.12 is the altitude of the purple triangle and is actually 13.04 from calculation. The green and red angles that he says are exactly 20 degrees at 11.21 cannot be exactly 20 degrees. Take a look at 11:23, the black numbers are the angles just below them and the coloured numbers are the lengths of the same coloured side. The angles are derived from taking the arctan of the side ratios. The difference between the angle between diameter and the red side and the angle between diameter and the solid green side should be exactly forty according to this guy but it is not it is 40.482. These subtle differences matter because the original argument is that these measurements are too precise to be accidental. Also a 0.4 degree difference in coordinates leads to locations that are miles apart. Now to the crux of his argument, these must be intentionally placed because the odds of these ratios popping up coincidentally are very low. Is it really? There are 10 points in the book cover (6 dots and 4 line ends). This gives us 45 possible edges. The difference between the largest value of Hypotenuse and the smallest value of hypotenuse is 0.2. So we can assume each point is a circle of diameter 0.1. Assuming their lengths are limited to two decimal places. For each edge there are 20 possible lengths. 900 lengths for 45 edges in total. So the total number of ratios at our disposal are 809100. Among this many samples the chance that you run into some number that is close to some number that you consider important is very very high. Especially if what you consider important is as mundane as sqrt(5) and sqrt(6). All you now have to do is to ignore the vast majority ratios that don't lead to important ratios and make a video

[@vampirenv]

More people need to read this

[@9months2live7]

who's paying you bro

[@kevingronemeier9015]

James, oh ye of little faith

[@danielray2267]

@Dino Legovich what did you find?

[@danielray2267]

@Dino Legovich Very neat! I would look into it myself but I'm not very good with math

[@AwesomeAddictNo1]

I do like the idea of Shakespeare manically designing his cover page with perfect Pythagorean angles and connect-the-dots co-ordinates, in the hope that somebody with too much time on KZbin will eventually figure it out in 400 years.

[@AlanWilliamGreen]

Yeah. Me too.

[@narcoticrex]

i dont think it was meant to be figured out by people who werent "supposed to know"

[@hongry-life]

Neuer (German) = newer and Geld (Dutch) = money, currency. Why 2 different T's? Further I have reason to believe that the cursive text is not original (edited in) and the 2 lines look edited as well (elongated).

[@ishakespeare0]

​@@hongry-life In Renaissance England the letters 'v' and 'u' were interchangeable so it reads "Never". G. Eld was, ostensibly, the printer, George Eld - though I do believe there is a clever pun intended there since the common hypotenuse of all six triangles "cuts" through the name to indicate "Golden Cut" (a variant of the Golden Mean or Golden Ration, phi). 2 different 'T's' is definitely significant but was too much to go into in this intended short introduction to the subject. You'll find my explanation in future work arriving soon. The website is currently being upgraded to reflect my last 6 years' work. By 'cursive' text I assume you mean italicized? It's important to know there are thirteen extant copies of the 1609 Sonnets. Four bear the imprint "are to be solde by William Aspley". Seven bear the imprint "are to be solde by John Wright”. Two copies no longer have their title pages. All are deemed priceless, of course - held under tight security in various museums worldwide. The 'Aspley' versions all reveal the perfect geometry shown in the video. The 'Wright' versions very deliberately have none of it - no hidden right angles, no hidden circle, no hidden geographic coordinates of the Great Pyramid. They were clearly intended for two different 'audiences' - or, let's say, 'viewers' - since there is no contemporaneous reliable record of even one copy ever being sold. I think the whole thing was created as a ruse to allow the Aspley to be hidden away in aristocratic libraries for future discovery - and the Wright deliberately created as bait to be seized by the Cecil faction, on the lookout for hidden codes revealing the true Shakespeare. Thus they were indeed seized - before they could be sold - and, finding no clues, the hunt was assumed successful and Cecil's men would have ceased looking further. Their mission to silence the author... accomplished. (HIS mission to fool them... accomplished.) With typical Shakespeare brilliance - the "Wright" copy was the "wrong" one - the "Aspley" copy was the "right" one - in which he leaves a sly anagram letting posterity know he (William) "Playes" with us!

[@ishakespeare0]

Additionally - the idea that the text is edited in has some merit because in order for the geometry to be as exact as it is this could only be accomplished as an engraving… in other words the punctuation and the two horizontal lines could not be left to the inaccuracies of movable type in a Gutenberg press. I’ve examined all four Aspleys and find (as close as is possible given discrepancies in angle at which the originals have been photographed) that the dots and lines remain accurate whereas the text varies minutely - indicating two press runs. First would be the engraving for geometric accuracy - next would be a type print run that didn’t require such accuracy. But in that case it’s clear they would both have been done contemporaneously - it was not a ‘later’ editing in. The lines, by the way, are not ‘elongated’ for no reason. They too contain additional mathematical precision which I did not include in this short video. Thank you for your interest in this fascinating subject.

[@stig]

Just watched again Amazing

[@karllem531]

I watched this after your breakdown of the pyramids. Similar story different medium. Absolutely incredible. Mind blowing. You have done an amazing job. The mysteries that tie together secret societies, pyramids, ancient history, lost civilizations, sacred geometry and spirituality are coming more clear. Still very murky to me. Coding is all around us and hidden in plain sight. It feels like it is at my finger tips but infinitely far away. I am humbled by the brilliance. I only wish I could contribute, but I have not been blessed with the intellectual horse power (oxymoron?). Spreading the word is all I can offer at this time. Thank you. I hope you continue to share your insights.

[@ishakespeare0]

I believe we are now corresponding. Thanks for your outreach!

[@kuzjoe]

Latitude N is also the speed of light = 299 792 458 m / s.

[@chewTalkinboutWillis]

Thank you for your tireless efforts, my friend. Thank you!

[@TheBardCode]

Thank you back. Please check out @t for much more.

[@ManuSeyfzadeh]

Excellent work! Thales' Intercept Theorem may also be at play here, but it depends on some missing lengths only you can provide. Yet another way is this: The first (upper) of the two parallel secant lines derives from the π-Triangle's long leg and the perimeter of the Great Pyramid's core triangle by its side-slope... 35.95/(856/356) = 14.95 extended through the hypotenuse to the other side..thus you get a line divided by the hypotenuse into two segments (~22.18/14.95 =1.5 to 1). Now divide 14.95 by φ to construct the second (lower) secant line in parallel, 14.95/φ = 9.24. Extend to the other side and now you have the π-Triangle and the two parallel secant lines across with circle intersections to give you the two left triangles. This suggests that the designer could have obtained the "empty author lines" from the π-triangle geometrically and so e, e-1, and B2 all derived secondarily from π on a geometric derivation. That might explain the dilemma of these not having been discovered in 1609. This explains geometrically how these three constants appear on this page. It goes to show how math constants relate via geometry, not just via formulas and you may have discovered the geometric rationale for formulas not yet formulated. I vote Alan Green for Nobel Price in Math.

[@TheBardCode]

Thanks, Manu. Is my answer 3 years too late? Or did I get in just under the wire? tobeornottobe.org/math/sonnets-math-main/

[@stig]

I've seen this before, but having returned I noticed the top says SHAKE-SPEARS SONNETS , with NO apostrophe, but a hyphen separating the name we all know into two words. WTF? Anyone have an idea? Does he mention it later?

[@rev9enant335]

Somebody call an ambulance, my mind is blown! Seriously, at the end I was like wtf. As I explained to my cat, the world is still full of mystery.

[@TheBardCode]

And what did your cat say? Open the box! See if I'm alive or dead?

[@TheBardCode]

Please check out @t for much more.

[@crankymcgee]

This is the one thing that can unite college stoners and boring old people.

[@ishakespeare0]

From one of the boring, old people... thanks, Terrence! That's lit.

[@blooper4942]

white

[@KattoRomeo]

Zaza Meditation session

[@greg4629]

so what are we waiting for? isn't this the point where nathan drake goes to the pyramids and inadvertently destroys everything

[@TheBardCode]

Exactly. What ARE we waiting for? Get on www.ToBeOrNotToBe.org and VOTE!!!

[@APprojection]

Ok, I was not blown away at this magnitude for a long time

[@TheBardCode]

Glad to hear it. Please check out @t for much more.

[@ikonxp]

Please look into the similarities between this and the Sri Yantra. It is a very complex, old diagram whose characteristics might correspond to what is shown here. Hopefully, it'll yield interesting results. Cheers!

[@TheBardCode]

Thank you, Nikola. Truth is everywhere if we but look. Please check out @t for much more.

[@6610311174]

This is amazing, wonderful and a little disturbing. Thank you so much for this film (also to Alexander for the links).

[@TheBardCode]

Thanks, Mikael.

[@ishakespeare0]

Thank you. What parts do you find 'disturbing'?

[@HistoryMaze]

Fantastic - look forward to what comes next!...

[@alangreen1416]

Thank you, HM. I'll be launching a Resonance course soon at Nassim Haramein's online academy here: academy.resonance.is/?_ga=2.263480840.582761469.1561780020-909116273.1560737306 - please stay tuned. And don't forget to VOTE at: www.ToBeOrNotToBe.org/vote

[@HistoryMaze]

@@alangreen1416 voted!...I think we all agree it's best left undisturbed, as it is..... ;) tee hee.... joking of course!! I'd love to help spread the word - how would you feel if I made a video and used some clips from your presentation, plus screenshots from your website? Please take a look at my other work to get an idea of my aesthetic...I'd prob try to give it a 'creative' spin (if you say yes of course;)

[@jameskimmorley]

obviously whoever was behind these works was an initiate into the mystery schools

[@TheBardCode]

Of course. Rosicrucians at the time.

[@lex.cordis]

Perhaps the same could be said for those currently revealing this information?

[@davy_K]

Articles like this usually arouse suspicion from the basic tenet that if you look hard enough and manipulate numbers enough you will find something. But in this case it does seem to stand up - the calculations are consistent and there isn't really any arbitrary actions taken to arrive at results. The idea of lost and forgotten knowledge certainly isn't new - who knows what was lost in the burning of the library of Alexandria. One wonders though as to the purpose of actually doing this , apart from perhaps enshrining the knowledge hidden in plain view for future generations. Or maybe just showing off. :) Think I'll followup on the detailed video as this is extremely interesting.

[@AlanWilliamGreen]

Yes, I've wrestled with this question for many years, davy. One answer is that, at the time, such knowledge was considered heretical - the quickly switching church factions (Catholic but also, to a lesser extent, Protestant) were still burning people at the stake for daring to theorize mathematics and astronomy that didn't gel with the Geocentric view. But in this case that's only part of the story. It's too lengthy to cover in a comment. I've spent six years researching the Poetic Codes Shakespeare left (that's covered in Dee-Coding Shakespeare - www.tobeornottobe.org/books) and another six years on the Mathematical Codes (documented in BARDCODE: The Missing 'i' - due out in winter, 2017). If you're more into the math I'd wait for that book. Thanks for your interest.

[@EricsWormPlayground]

As you were loading up Google Earth, I was saying “please don’t be the pyramids, please don’t be the pyramids”. I need to absorb your other works. What do you recommend I start with?

[@babyrazor6887]

31.1299 Longitude only works if the Prime meridian is based where it is, Greenwich England. Who decided it should be there?

[@ishakespeare0]

Good point - please see my pdf on this under the MATH tab on my website.

[@johnnichols2088]

Two things: was Shakespeare behind the design for the cover page, and was he aware of the ratios or is there a likelihood that they appeared of necessity based on the more well known ratios that were intentional

[@latescott3483]

This was amazing. Subbed.

[@ishakespeare0]

Thanks, Late! Please visit the website - www.ToBeOrNotToBe.org - and VOTE! Because only through numbers will we challenge the powers-that-were to reveal the truth that surely lies within that altarstone. Much more to come in second book out soon.

[@Tritdry]

Interesting video. I'm just wondering what the take away from this is supposed to be? Some constants are represented before being "discovered", so is he trying to tell us he knew about these constants? Or is there a relationship between the constants that allows one to jump from one to the other without knowing the significance of each? And what is the significance of the coordinates for the pyramids of giza?

[@ishakespeare0]

I think it's more likely the latter - a presently unrecognized connection between te major constants. As for Giza - that goes much deeper, as I will discuss in the second book - out at the end of this year. Thanks for your interest, Tristan.

[@lex.cordis]

*"And what is the significance of the coordinates for the pyramids of giza?"* I would recommend you do some cursory research into freemasonry....

[@GrimReacts]

What a masterful video. Thank you.

[@ishakespeare0]

Thank you, Cruxal. Please check out this related video: www.youtube.com/watch?v=i7qQE... and, indeed​, the whole story, here: kzbin.info/www/bejne/eF6VcpR7odyEhpI

[@aLiEn23ViSiToR]

The truth is stranger then fiction...

[@TheBardCode]

And verse vicer. Please check out @t for much more.

[@louiscachet7681]

Fiction is made by those who hide the truth

[@marcoalfi]

I took it further and did some more advanced calculations, and found my keys!

[@ishakespeare0]

Very happy for you, marcoalfi! Usually they're behind the couch but in rare instances like this... waddaya know... they were right there on the Sonnets title page all along!

[@parisasun2541]

@@ishakespeare0 😅

[@TheBardCode]

@@parisasun2541 (wink emoji)

[@alexanderwaugh7036]

This is an extraordinarily interesting and intriguing video, which raises more questions that it answers. The Sonnets were first printed in 1609 in two editions. Alan Green's analysis pertains to the Aspley. Would it also pertain to the Wright Edition? Is the comma after 'Wright' in precisely the same spot as the dot after 'Aspley' or does Wright edition work (if at all) with the full stop after 'Christ Church gate' on the Wright copy? If the Thalean diagram does not pertain to the Wright edition what does this tell us about the Wright-Aspley connection? Is the purpose of all this to inform the wisest decrypting reader that the Sonnets are structures upon an equilateral triangle of base 17 as Alastair Fowler discovered in 'Triumphal Forms' (1970)? Does it in anyway help the reader to interpret the Sonnets? If Alan Green is right about this how can we explain the extraordinary precision of the compositors' work on the title page against the large number of acknowledged typographical errors in the main text? etc etc. Most intriguing! AW

[@ishakespeare0]

Alexander - you’ve asked precisely the right questions, as expected. 1) “Would it also pertain to the Wright Edition?” - No. Not a single right-angled triangle.. No Thales Theorem circle. Therefore no constants. 2) "what does this tell us about the Wright-Aspley connection?” - The Folger informed me that there are 12 extant copies (known so far). Two have no title page attached. That means only 4 complete Aspleys and 6 complete Wrights. (Other sources say there’s a 13th somewhere (Wright). My analysis has been done on the highest resolution version of the Aspley available (licensed from the Folger Shakespeare Museum - digitized at six times the original size - and further blown up in Keynote to five times that ) so this is as accurate as is possible at this moment in time. - My personal belief (suspend judgment for the moment on Oxford’s suspicious death, June 24, 1604 - 6:24 ) is that he knew Cecil’s men would be on the lookout for any attempts by him (or friends operating on his behalf) to encrypt his true story for posterity. He likely printed a large number of the Wright, knowing it would be pounced on and suppressed (as the scant evidence - the rest was silence - strongly suggests). I think he printed maybe a dozen (who knows) Aspleys with the specific intent of hiding them away in the libraries of his closest allies. (As far as we know that’s where these scattered few were found.) The Star Chamber thugs would’ve devoured the Wright copy - found nothing suspicious on the title page - and assumed they had foiled him. I cannot yet prove this of course but… - Only two Aspleys have been digitized accurately enough (i.e. on the required near perfectly flat axis) so that detailed software calculation of the line lengths and angles can be relied upon. I’ve examined the two superimposed and find that when the dots/punctuation are perfectly aligned, the text is not. Given the extraordinary skill required to produce 12 constants all to an accuracy of between 99.93% and 99.99% (not possible on a movable-type Gutenberg Press) this makes perfect sense. The only way it could’ve been done is a two-step process. The critical, mathematical precision of the ‘dots’ was done by engraving (some graver labour?) and a second pass through the presses would then add the text and rest of the title page - which does NOT have to be accurate positionally. (William Aspley? William plAyes with us, (w)right? Maybe. Not necessary - but typically fun.) 3) "Is the purpose … that the Sonnets are structures upon an equilateral triangle of base 17 as Alastair Fowler” etc…? - Yes. Absolutely. This is coming in my second book (see www.ToBeOrNotToBe.org ) but I’ll be happy to send you advance excerpts if you wish to delve deeper. 4) "Does it in anyway help the reader to interpret the Sonnets?” - Yes. Again, Book II. But for starters read sonnet 17 (the base of the pyramidal structure) from a math perspective. (I’ll send specifics when I have a moment in Egypt. Almost heading out the door now. 5) "how can we explain the extraordinary precision of the compositors' work on the title page against the large number of acknowledged typographical errors in the main text?” - I believe most (if not all) are deliberate. It’s Dee’s methodology, thoroughly documented in Book I. Again, I'll send detailed examples when time permits, if you wish. For now, ask yourself why sonnet 116 (day 116 of the year is April 26th - 4:26 - Shaksper’s so-called Baptism date) is mis-numbered #119? “If this be error (!) and upon me proved, I never writ, nor no man ever loved.” - 4:26 - Shaksper enters. - 6:24 - de Vere exits. - What if both are “ever fixed” marks?

[@alexanderwaugh7036]

Thank you very much for your considered answer to my questions. This really is a phenomenal discovery and I am most intrigued to discover where it is all leading. It proves, once again (if proof were needed) that Shakespearean scholarship is not, and should never have been, the jealous monopoly of Eng-Lit scholars - their Reich is too limited. Of course the Eng-liters have something to say and something useful to offer, but very few (if any) are 'Renaissance Men'. This research needs to be put under the noses of orthodox Shakespearean scholars, if only to remind them of that unsettling Nietzschean adage: 'the higher you soar the smaller you look to those who cannot fly.' Well done, Alan. A truly remarkable accomplishment. I should love to read more.

[@zombienomicon9682]

@@alexanderwaugh7036 English literature "scholars" lack all learning to even analyse the words properly, and enter the milieu with answers looking for questions. Doomed enterprise.

[@EccentricaGallumbits]

Alan - I found you through Alexander Waugh, and I find your work fascinating. However, the modern longitude of Giza could NOT have been hidden here in 1609. The Greenwich Observatory was not even proposed until 1674, and the Greenwich prime meridian was first used in 1851! In 1609, various non-standard prime meridians were used (often at Cape Verde or the Canaries), ALL of which would give quite different longitudes for Giza. Am I missing something?

[@ishakespeare0]

Thank you for your interest. Please go to www.ToBeOrNotToBe.org/math and scroll down to pdf #7 ... 7.Bardcode chapter (Greenwich Meridian) for full explanation.

[@invisibelle7590]

And yet ... kzbin.info/www/bejne/bnmynauYnqqoqNk

[@MK7779-]

Thank you for the knowledge.

[@asdfasdf3989]

Dude, you should write this up and publish it in an academic journal!

[@TheBardCode]

Thanks for your input, Asdf Asdf! (Mind if I just call you Asdf?) Well, of course it's written up - and soon coming out in a couple of books. But academics?... not very interested in anything that rocks their boat, y'know?

[@hongry-life]

@@TheBardCode Does triangulation work in spherical math?

[@ishakespeare0]

@@hongry-life not sure what you mean... car to elaborate?

[@hongry-life]

@@ishakespeare0 If earth's surface is curved, does the triangle has a straight level base?

[@ishakespeare0]

@@hongry-life Well, some people believe that, technically, there's no such thing as a straight line in our Universe since everything is constantly spinning and moving in spiral cycles. They therefore opine that Euclidean 2D geometry itself is a 'theoretical' exercise. Your thoughts?

[@neilk9585]

Fascinating. I've done some research myself. I was examining another title page, and I discovered some similar constants and ratios showing up, mostly the golden ratio and 3/4/5 triangles. The title page I looked at is the 1687 Othello one; now before you dismiss it because it's not the original or because it was printed around 80 years after the Sonnets, I have some theories: firstly, the original 1604 Othello title page may have been used as a template (the information regarding the 1687 performance does not contain any key points/anchors); and secondly, maybe it was a group of people printing these, maybe Shakespeare was part of a scientific community that had an interest in math and geometry. If you'd like to see my work, I can email it to you.

[@ishakespeare0]

Yes - please send to [e-mail]. I'd be most interested to see your work, Neil. Thanks for you interest in this intriguing subject.

[@GeneralThargor]

Crap, what have you found? that is only the first page, i've seen other videos like this where they've done similar work on larger pages. this is amazing, mind is blown.. well done sir, wow.

[@TheBardCode]

Thank you. Sorry it took me a long time to reply. Been busy on other discoveries! :) Please check out @t for much more.

[@mocmocmoc13]

Literally unbelievable! More people need to see this. Joe Rogan need to see this.... I need to watch it again!

[@BaamTheIrregular]

where is the youtube channel with the proof tho

[@angelk6329]

so we have a title page of a sonnet pointing to a monument inscribed with many of the same mathematical constants such as pi and the golden ratio, even the speed of light. what does all this information point to?

[@AlanWilliamGreen]

The long answer is coming out in the winter of 2017 - BARDCODE : The Missing 'i'. The short answer is, I believe, that the person who was "Shakespeare" was truly an enlightened being who came with a mission to connect poetry and mathematics - pointing us to a message of spiritual Unity.

[@lex.cordis]

That the creators of "Shakespeare" were the progeny of the same people who built the pyramids, and they still possess their knowledge. Putting the coordinates of the pyramids is like leaving your calling card.

[@lindarichardson5462]

Where can we watch this without the subtitles.

[@TheBardCode]

You can turn off subtitles by clicking on the CC (closed captions) button at the bottom of the screen.

[@adamw-o7p]

If the blank two lines were meant to connect points to a perfect circle, why do the lines extend PAST the circle on the left? This doesn't make a lot of sense

[@ishakespeare0]

Adam - this is just Part 1. Two more sections to come which document, in detail, the two T. T. Dots (not covered yet) - and the reason for the two extended lines. Well spotted - but stay tuned. It gets even more beautiful.

[@islandbuoy4]

It should be noted that the *'sacred geometry' contained within the 'sacred vesica piscis'* [based on two overlapping circles] reveals *sqrt 2, sqrt 3, and sqrt 5*

[@TheBardCode]

In fact - all the square roots up to 12 (except 11)

[@stcrussman]

In the second part of this video were it seems you are taking the current knowledge of the natural mathematical properties of triangles and circles, and acting like they only came into existence upon the discovery of such properties. A perfect circle drawn 2k years ago will have all the same properties of a circle drawn today, but our understanding of it has grown.

[@ishakespeare0]

No, the constant properties are eternal. Where did you get that idea? Seriously, please tell me because if that's the impression it gives I need to change that - not my intention at all.

[@Jonathan-tz7ss]

Mind blown, subbed.

[@TheBardCode]

Yeah, me too. Imagine the work, the genius, the incalculable creativity John Dee had to put into that to get it to work. It's beyond Beyond... anything else in the whole world of cryptography

[@bribri3432]

Where can I find the KZbin channel or video that lets me duplicate these findings and check the math? I'd very much like to calculate this myself.

[@shaina899]

Does all old stuff have these insane layers of mathematical inside jokes? And it always comes back to Pythagoras and the pyramids.

[@Pipebomb666]

Wow wtf lol. You got yourself a new subscriber!

[@TheBardCode]

Thanks pipe.

[@partaymaster82690]

Can you give us a link/PDF to the copy of the title page that you used?

[@AlanWilliamGreen]

I cannot because I licenced the most accurate, highest resolution version from the Folger in Washington, DC... and they protect their copyright vehemently. Please see the first two pdf files here - www.tobeornottobe.org/math - for a deeper explanation. Thanks for your interest.

[@KeveryKat]

This is great!

[@ddstar]

29.9796 , 31.1299 is the Tomb of Hemiunu

[@karllem531]

Ok, I slept on this and then read through the detailed math tabs on your website and it makes sense to me. Intuitively I believe your honest and this is as it seems. But this is so over the top and mind blowing I need to absolutely prove it to myself so I can go out in the world armed with this knowledge connecting math, pyramids, secret societies and God (constants). Would you mind providing exactly where to find the correct version at Harvard (specific link maybe) and what software you used? My suggestion is that you provide this information and then host a zoom conference helping a group of people willing to spend the time and expense to gather the data and tools needed. Those folks can then spread the word to critical thinkers with proofs and we may get somewhere. Thanks!

[@ishakespeare0]

Thank you for your enthusiasm and commitment to reading deeper, Karl. The link is not Harvard - it's at the Folger Shakespeare Library. You can just contact them at their site and ask to licence a copy of the Aspley Sonnets title page. (Make sure it's the Aspley because there are TWO COVERS - all part of the cover-up. The other version is called the WRIGHT title page and it has NO geometry on it - no triangles, no circle, no Great Pyramid coordinates. It was intended as a decoy to lead Cecil's men away from discovering the codes. I used an earlier version of Apple's Keynote which unfortunately is no longer available. It was slightly more accurate than the current latest versions because Apple decided to dumb-down their software for more general audiences. I will be happy to host Zoom calls for deeply interested parties - write to me directly at [e-mail]. And please be sure to visit the site here and VOTE on opening the Altar Stone where many of the answers will surely be found: www.ToBeOrNotToBe.org Thank you!

[@mjrchapin]

I have this in a permanent 're-watch' file because it is so amazing and has such profound implications. Yeah, we modern people think we're SO smart...

[@CaptainRetsuUnohana]

Written by a messenger of light.

[@TheBardCode]

LVX

[@abyssopelagic4813]

THIS IS THE BEST CRAZIEST LIFE CHANGING VIDEO EVER!!!!!!!!!!! REALLY TELLS EVERYTHING

[@TheBardCode]

EVER??????????? Why, thank you. Please pass it on!!!!!!!!!!! :)

[@paulMuadDibAtreides21]

Awesome video

[@TheBardCode]

Thank you, Sam. Please make sure to tune in to the Bardcasts live-streamed at facebook.com/bardcode/events.

[@checktheevidence]

A superb and fascinating presentation - it sounds like esoteric knowledge to me....

[@cjpartridge]

Most definitely, nowadays hidden behind occult mystery cools.

[@ishakespeare0]

Several people have taken the bull by the horns and made similar observations, not realizing that this video was only intended for a general audience as an 'entry-level' introduction to Shakespeare's mathematical genius. Naturally you’re correct that these right triangles (and the constants they reveal) cannot all co-exist with one common hypotenuse. They do not. That's the reason for the ‘G’ dot being so large compared to the others - it gave the cryptographer who created this the necessary leeway to have all vertices land on it at minutely differing angles. But such information would’ve been far too academic for an intended ‘popular’ video so I kept it simple. Nevertheless I DID state at the very start - precisely for people like yourself - that for those who wanted to go deeper there was a dedicated KZbin channel where they could double-check everything in great detail. For various reasons it seems that more intellectually curious people prefer their deep math data to be conveyed via pdf files, charts, and diagrams, rather than video. So that resource is now located under the MATH menu at this website: www.tobeornottobe.org/math. There you'll find all your questions and astute observations answered. Thanks for your interest. Please don’t hesitate to write me ([e-mail]) if all your concerns are not answered there.

[@ishakespeare0]

My favourite Hesse book of all!

[@simlucas]

@Dapdoi Ardon "debunked with ease" - oh dear, no, not even close. Alan replied to every attempt to debunk but Reddit 'rewarded' him by silently shadowbanning his user account. You can see his replies here: www.reddit.com/user/TheBardCode/. For those who prefer to think for themselves instead of relying on a reddit explainer to do the thinking for them, I encourage reading the linked Math pages in Alan's comment above instead. I did that, I followed the steps and even emailed Alan a few questions directly. He patiently explained and I can confirm that yes, he's right and the math does indeed check out as stated.

[@simlucas]

@Dapdoi Ardon such a relief you're always waiting here ready to tell us all what to think, cheers.

[@islandbuoy4]

take note that ME+me left the *37th* thumbs up for this comment ... ta da ... no such thing as coincidences at37.wordpress.com/2012/10/25/a-day-in-the-life-of-the-137-ss-mystic/

[@lunacmustcease7242]

You don't need to know the constants for the constants to come out of the ratios. All you need to show is that all your triangles are shapes that added together can tessellate a rectangle that can tessellate a plane. The demonstration for this is akin to one that is used to visually show the Pythagorean relationship. It's neat that it was used to construct the Sonnets page, but it's not eerie or magical. Give it a try with construction paper when you have time. It's a fun exercise to redo this page layout to see how it was done. It's basically showing off knowledge of Euclid which was very much the rage around this time. The detail about the coordinates can be added because the solution can be rotated to give parallels to a bottom reference line. Very clever stunt by whoever created it. It most certainly was not Shakespeare, but that is not surprising.

[@Bethaniji]

Alright! Big smile at the coordinates being those for ...

[@ishakespeare0]

😃 I'm SO glad. Made me smile too when I found it! If interested further please check my website, www.ToBeOrNotToBe.org, . We can't be sure yet of the exact launch date - but VERY SOON AFTER 4:26 it will completely upgrade with a new announcement about hidden, esoteric knowledge that Shakespeare (and many others, such as Da Vinci, John Dee, etc.) were aware of - and encoded into their works. We'll be releasing a free App in which you can play THE GAME of following all these clues to their ultimate destination! Thank you for your interest and support.

[@EyeOfTheVeda]

Thank you for making this video!

[@TheBardCode]

You're very welcome. Please check out @t for much more.

[@GASNICABRUNATNA]

Just when I thought I had run out of rabbit holes

[@TheBardCode]

There are PLENTY more. Please check out @t for much more.

[@realalreves]

Try to do a google search for R3V3S Pattern Recognition.

[@aramilalpha1]

All of this is easily explained by a few basic facts: almost any three points can be connected to create a triangle, unsurprisingly those same points can almost always be described by a circle. All of these constants are easily found all over the place so it should be no surprsie that, when one seeks them out, one finds them wherever you look. Lastly, our brains have evolved to seek patterns even where none exist. That all of this data can be manipulated to provide coordinates for the great pyramid is no more interesting than the overly forced manipulation of any set of numbers used to point to hang other half cocked conspiracy lunacy. All that being said, even if we somehow accept that either Shakespeare or his publisher were so mathematically and geometrically inclined (which is nigh impossible), to what end? Why go all to all this effort when there are far more simple means to encode data such as mathematical constants and GPS coordinates? Not to mention the degree of precision required to both construct and deconstruct this fallacious mess makes this incredibly unfeasible. If something important were truly being conveyed, why obfuscate it to such a high degree? Besides which, these folio were hardly mass market and already had a limited clientele let alone a need to highly 'encode' random maths and coordinates. This video is math-turbation entertainment at best, and a complete nonsensical waste of time at worst.

[@arrrthurk]

Any comments about the huge cavity in the altar, which is the main point of his work and was already *proven* to be true through scanning? kzbin.info/www/bejne/eF6VcpR7odyEhpI

[@aramilalpha1]

affemaria I know nothing of the matter whatsoever. Surely, the discovery of such a cavity is not, however, connected to this particular video. I can only assume the existence of the cavity is probably supported by more reasonable evidences.

[@arrrthurk]

It has everything to do with the whole issue, he is even asking people to go into his website and to vote in support of opening the alter without holding from the public all the content that is inside. You can check out the whole thing here, in his website: www.tobeornottobe.org/

[@mothurman]

Michael Willis you had zero evidence in your argument mind you.

[@krysstevecrimi1482]

Maybe my math isn't good, but I count 6 points, including the two line endpoints. "Almost any three points" "almost described by a circle" is an exaggeration, btw. 6 points forming a circle is intentional.

[@STie95]

did shakespeare design this page, though?

[@TheBardCode]

That's a big question I do my best to answer elsewhere - but in a nutshell I believe it was calculated by John Dee - but certainly with the real Shakespeare's knowledge, approval and cooperation. Dee is no poet - but Sonnet 17 gives a clue that the real author certainly understood the math. MATH-OETICS!

[@petergreenson]

Why would the co-ordinates of the USGS globe be on a Shakespearean manuscript.

[@TheBardCode]

Why indeed? Please check out @t for much more.

[@LeonidasSthlm]

The human mind is wired to see patterns. Sometimes it goes haywire and sees patterns where there are none.

[@TheBardCode]

Sometimes it does, you're right. And sometimes it sees NONE where there ARE!

[@TheTrumanZoo]

incredible.

[@TheBardCode]

Thank you. Sorry it's been a while! :) If you're still there - Please check out @t for much more.

[@iddddaduncan]

The earth is flat,BOOM! blew this theory right out of the water.NEXT!

[@erikpeterson4873]

But what does that mean?

[@AlanWilliamGreen]

See response to Angel Kamenov, above.

[@stevenbernard7164]

Magnificent

[@magopelotas]

Why is this not taught in school everywhere? WOW!

[@r3d0c]

because it's bullshit conspiritard morons believe in

[@Dargonhalfchest]

Because it’s NOT. It’s total pish

[@magopelotas]

@@Dargonhalfchest👍🏻

[@barryschwarz]

I'm curious about how likely/unlikely it is to find such patterns from such a source. If a different editor kept the same basic structure but the placement was different, would an intrepid mathematician likely find an array of famous ratios by triangulating based on a circle run through a number of points on the page? And have you tested that in some way?

[@ishakespeare0]

Quick answer is no. But I know the intrepid enquirer such as yourself will require more details. Obviously to get such accuracy with dots spaced in this certain way - the 'editor' (I presume the person who created it - not the one who found it) would need to have been both a brilliant mathematician and cryptographer. The only one who fits the bill for that period is John Dee. (Bacon maybe - but Dee has left his own personal signature all over this - see Book I listed on the website.) Book II - out in the winter of '17 - will go into even deeper detail on the math and the 'why'. Thanks for your interest.

[@milescend]

Illuminati confirmed. Seriously though, really fascinating!

[@sbrownfi]

Yeah. Umm. No. Shakespeare didn't actually publish the sonnets. He published nothing himself other than his long narrative poems. The Sonnets were published by Thomas Thorpe. What Shakespeare thought of the publication of his work, nor whether the sonnets are even in the correct order, is forever unknown. So much for the thesis of this absurd video.

[@CulinarySpy]

Does Alan claim in this video that Shakespeare personally published the sonnets? Do you think that is what he literally meant?

[@hongry-life]

It's called reversed engineering.

[@rewtaah]

What was the purpose of it tho, just to express that they knew of such hidden mathematics?

[@TheBardCode]

see above

[@kaloabdou]

you're saying that shakespear designed his posters?? graphic designers work thusly but why would you claim it's of shakespear doing?

[@ishakespeare0]

I don't actually claim Shakespeare himself did this. In my deeper works on the subject (and Book II to come out soon) I hypothesize John Dee is probably responsible - based on many other examples documented in Book I (Dee-Coding Shakespeare). Thanks for your interest.

[@kaloabdou]

This is quite interesting, thank you for being so smart sir : )

[@CribbsTV]

big if true

[@TheBardCode]

small if not

[@OrdoMallius]

This is fucking amazing please allow me to do a dub in Serbian when I have time I know many here that would love to hear it in Serbian or give me subtitles for it

[@TheBardCode]

Absolutely. Please do that - it would be very helpful in spreading the word. Please also don't forget to VOTE - at www.ToBeOrNotToBe.org. Thanks!

[@ManuSeyfzadeh]

DarkSt3ve: As far as I understand Alan Green's analysis, it is consistent with the idea that John Dee intentionally chose to enlarge the "G-Dot" to such extent that it would allow him to geometrically encode the constants as triangles on a unifying circle. Clearly, the G-Dot stands out and draws attention. I looked at other Title Pages made by G. Eld and did not find his name printed like that again. If you can produce another, non-trivial reason why the dot was made to that size, present your explanation. I understand that intent is difficult to prove especially when we are dealing with a variance device to better be able to unmistakably make a "point". Remember that in 1609, no one would have been able to measure these lengths with the accuracy afforded by either three-decimal fractions of inches or of centimeters on this title page. So we must look at this from within the context of the time. If the G-dot was in fact necessary to encode the constants, we must conclude that John Dee had a highly accurate measuring device at his disposal. In any case, his main goal was to encode the constants unmistakably. He wouldn't have left any doubt to an initiated observer. This means, the dot had to be made bigger or else the constants wouldn't compute. I might add that drawing the observer's attention to an error first to then reveal a hidden truth falls well within John Dee's Modus Operandi as Alan Green has proven with many examples in Part I, which I read. In support of Alan Green's contention that the dot is a geometric device to aid in the encoding of the math may therefore be the fact that the dot's size was not randomly enlarged. It was enlarged exactly to that degree necessary to produce the constants with the six pairs of right triangle legs. In order to confirm this, you will need professional drawing software and import into it an exact copy of the title page. Then you use fine point lines to see where the nodes terminate to make it work. Finally, you draw the minimum necessary circle to accommodate the nodes and compare it to the actual G-dot. What do you see?

[@TheBardCode]

:)

[@EliteRock]

How did you first see this geometry? Are we supposed to believe you saw it with your naked eye, that you "perceived" it "intuitively"? No. It HAD to have been pointed out to you. By who?

[@ishakespeare0]

I'm going to take you at your word and assume you're not being funny. So I'm not either. It was pointed out to me by the guy in the picture on your banner!

[@narcoticrex]

im actually interested in this too, this is the type of knowledge that has been handed down by secret societies throughout the ages. im not saying that you couldnt have just decoded it on your own, because thats what codebreakers do, but what gave you the idea to start connecting periods and lines? i agree the lines are suspicious and a clue, is that what first caught your attention?

[@ishakespeare0]

Thanks for your interest. The answer to your question is really an entire Book - my first in a series - Dee-Coding Shakespeare (under the BOOKS tab on my website: www.ToBeOrNotToBe.org ). Short answer? John Dee, Elizabethan magus, likely father of Rosicrucianism (Frances Yates), leading mathematician and cryptographer of the time. "Connecting the Dots" is literally his own enciphering invention - he uses it in many situations connected to the Shakespeare Authorship mystery. If you want a quick run-down on the whole story I'm giving a webinar, details here - mailchi.mp/binaryresearchinstitute/dont-miss-alan-green-shakespeares-secret-scripture-saturday-september-30-7-9pm-1444793?e=075e894c9f - except the date has been changed to Nov 4th, 7pm, PST.

[@ishakespeare0]

Updatedl ink: anandauniversity.org/event/2017-09-30-alan-green/?Don%27t+Miss+Alan+Green+%281%29&+Reminder+Alan+Green+1&

[@a_monkie]

yeah please tell me what units you used to calculate the size of the triangles please....

[@ishakespeare0]

The units don't mattter of course - but I used the highest res digital copy of the Sonnets title oage - licensed from the Folger - then additionally blown up in Keynote... so the software is measuring the vastly enlarged copy for greates possible accuracy. They show up in cms on these videos.

[@ZzspartazZ]

Are you trying to tell people that Shakespeare/Whoever did all this work, which I remind you is a lot of work, just so they could encode the coordinates for the great pyramids, for seemingly no reason? All in a coordinate system that hadn't been invented yet? That's about as close you can get to impossible. Also most of this is just gibberish anyway. Please read the other comment I made, and respond to that one. I go into detail why I know this isn't true, aside from what I've mentioned in this comment.

[@ZzspartazZ]

Like I said read my other replies.

[@keeksmarone818]

coordinates have been around longer than the 1600s lol.. credited to Eratosthenes in 300 BC.

[@Laserfish17]

is this not an accidental coincidence of placing lines through a perfect circle? Maybe the engineers behind the placements of the pyramids put lines through a circle a similar way as shakespear, and doing the math always ends in the same numbers?

[@TheBardCode]

Maybe. Please check out @t for much more.

[@joerose4848]

Incredible. /r/holofractal welcomes you

[@TheBardCode]

Thank you, Sam! I hope you might consider joining the webinar this sunday, Feb 19th, 11 am PST. Sign up is FREE here... www.learnitlive.com/class/10074/Alan-Green-DEE-Coding-Shakespeare-www-tobeornottobe-org Best to use Chrome browser and you must sign in with a password to be allowed into the group. I shall be covering Dee / the Sonnets sacred geometry / the Great pyramid connection / and results of my latest trip to Giza. Thanks for your interest.

[@joerose4848]

Awesome - I'll check it out! Have you gotten into the esoteric geometry of things such as squaring the circle? (i.e. the philosophers stone - checkout www.cropcirclesandmore.com/thoughts/201104ps.html (dont mind the crop circle name, he does work with geometries primarily) I wonder if Shakespeare (or whoever did this) also encoded the alchemical squaring the circle!

[@TheBardCode]

Yes, it's all there. More to come.

[@TheBardCode]

Yes, Sam. Squaring the Circle is indeed represented on the Sonnets title page. Stay tuned.

[@joerose4848]

Where at!? :) How are you Alan?

[@ZzspartazZ]

Given a large enough sample size I can create a link between data to make whatever you want to hear. "[Matt Parker] uses the Woolworths stores as an example of how seemingly meaningful patterns can be picked out from a large sample of data. He used 800 sites as his sample, so it is unsurprising that twelve could be made to fit an apparently deliberate design. He has arrived at his pattern by ignoring the majority of the data. This is exactly how Tom Brooks made his pattern and, as Matt Parker points out, Tom Brooks’s data set consisted of 1500 sites, almost twice as many." badarchaeology.wordpress.com/tag/woolworths/ Also: www.theguardian.com/science/2010/jan/16/ben-goldacre-bad-science-aliens-woolworths

[@TheBardCode]

This is 4 dots and two lines. Sorry I'm late replying I was connecting even fewer dots for a couple of years. :) Please check out @t for much more.

[@lex.cordis]

*"Given a large enough sample size I can create a link between data to make whatever you want to hear."* It's two lines and four dots, buddy. Please.

[@mygaffer]

1:05 - Is it? It really isn't.

[@kevingronemeier9015]

It really isn’t what?

[@idiedlastmonth]

The biggest question is: "How did Shakespeare know KZbin would be invented?"

[@ishakespeare0]

Incredible, isn't it? For the answer: please check my website, www.ToBeOrNotToBe.org, . We can't be sure yet of the exact launch date - but VERY SOON after May 17th it will completely upgrade with a new announcement about hidden, esoteric knowledge that Shakespeare (and many others, such as Da Vinci, John Dee, etc.) were aware of - and encoded into their works. We'll be releasing an App later in the year in which you can play THE GAME of following all these clues to their ultimate destination! Thank you for your interest and support.

[@HunGyilok]

hey man! i can upload this video with ''fake history'' title or somethin?

[@billkasperdotcom]

Brilliant.

[@TheBardCode]

Thank you. Sorry for the 4 years delay!! :) Please check out tobeornottobe.org/ for more

[@zemtherad]

Sir Francis Bacon was a Rosicrucian. Sir Frances Bacon was *also* William Shakespeare.

[@Fosvis]

What makes you think that ?

[@ckvlzlvxch]

They say the works of Shakespeare were actually by the mathematical genius Francis Bacon

[@ishakespeare0]

"They" do, don't they? That theory was initiated well over 150 years ago and it's understandable because there are certainly fingerprints of Bacon all over this. However... the evidence for Edward de Vere, I argue, is overwhelming... and I'll soon be releasing an App called "THE GAME" that will help bring that evidence to light in an entertaining and educational way. But the evidence for a cadre of initiates all in on this is also very convincing... and I firmly believe Bacon was one of those tasked with dropping (you might say - "breadcrumbs in the forest") to alert future generations to the subterfuge.. The Game... that the true Bard was inviting us all to play. "The Game's Afoot!" Stay tuned.

[@notyetrain]

My brain hurts.

[@TheBardCode]

Then wear a hankie on your head - it helps. Please check out @t for much more.

[@johnnichols2088]

So basically Shakespeare had the mind of God?

[@austintheis5324]

my mind has been sent into orbit. where the units of measurement arbitrary?

[@JacobGoodman]

Yes, they are, he only took ratios, and the ratio of two numbers is the same regardless of which unit you are measuring them in.

[@elchasai]

Yes, these are the relational propeties of arcs of a circle. tremendous and significant of nothing.

[@m1galler]

Knowing how to draw the diagrams and triangles does not really require knowledge of the concepts represented by them. Kind of like sacred geometry. Drawing a flower of life holds many concepts but you dont need to know them to draw a flower of life.

[@TheBardCode]

I don't think you've quite followed this. With a perfect flower of Life, yes - agree. But this is four dots and two lines that produce 12 of the most significant constants we know, the Universal Constant of Measure (Foot/Cubit/Metre relationship - which we STILL do not know fully) AND the geographic coordinates of the Great Pyramid - plus a whole lot of other stuff I had to not mention because it would be too much for most people to grasp on first view. You've obviously done enough research to be aware of some sacred geometry. Thanks for at least watching. Now let's open that flower up. Let's open our minds up! Do we, at this puny stage in our development, think we finally know it all? History tells us no. Never. Maybe there's more.

[@m1galler]

@@TheBardCode i follow it. What i was saying is just that.. You arent drawing a vesica pisces knowing there will be codes of light and music in them by default.. or to put it another way you arent thinking of light codes as you draw the overlapping of two circles.. just the process that places the circles in the right places.

[@m1galler]

@@TheBardCode not trying to argue with you at all in any way.. my main point i guess is that geometry that mimics the natural process in the universe are fractal in nature informationally and hold many more keys than the person making the picture may realize while drawing it..

[@TheBardCode]

​@@m1galler I agree there. Much of the math is there because it is inherent. It doesn't mean John Dee necessarily was aware of EVERY connection that I'm pointing out. Same with other work I'm doing on da Vinci with Robert Edward Grant. Or on quantum theory physics with Nassim Haramein for God's sakes! But honestly... there's a huge problem there that takes too long to go into but, short story - the Sonnets cover is not the ONLY place where Dee is telling us this. It shows up in textual codes as well that SAY, in so many words, that he DOES know the depth that appears in this geometry. It shows up in the plays that indicate, via coded messages, that the REAL Shakespeare (whoever he was - some combination of de Vere and Bacon and others, maybe?) KNEW this deeper stuff. Really knew it. Not just inherent in the basic geometry. But knew it enough that they went to the trouble of encoding it elegantly and VERY redundantly - to tell us so. So then we're stuck again. Either I have to deny the truth I know about having seen their knowledge written out in 20, 30 other places - or you (I don't mean you, personally, but anyone watching/reading these videos or writings) have an obligation to watch/read ALL the work - not just my own little sliver but the work of countless others working in these fields - before you can confidently say it's just there in the basic flower of life so they didn't necessarily know what I - or others - are saying they knew. In short, if it were just the Sonnets title page, you have a fair (-ish) argument. (Though even that, I believe, is countered by thinking deeper about it - may I suggest you go here and read all the math explanations on the site - tobeornottobe.org/math/) But it's NOT just the Sonnets. It's in 17/18 other documents by OTHER writers at the time who were in on the subterfuge - it's in anagrammatical clues in 36 Plays - it's in half a dozen other epitaphs on OTHER tombs in Westminster. I could go on but... I said 'in short'. To paraphrase Halliday's last quote from READY PLAYER ONE "Thanks for playing my game, Parzival." Yes. It's that big. And it IS intentional. Thanks for playing, Boo.

[@m1galler]

@@TheBardCode by saying it is inherent in the geometry im not really discrediting the research. In my mind atleast its just moving the credit from man to god as the creator of that information. I do follow all the alchemists and esoteric teachings through the ages and they come out in so many places throughout all of time. To some extend fall into the realm of "as above so below" which is just the same concept as indras web. Even a man like newton, or someone like jung or almost any great mind through history has climbed some form of esoteric path to connect to a greater source of information.. This path has definite rules of nature as its stages of progression. In climbing this path the laws of the universe are revealed to you in a way which seems like an occult/esoteric teaching of wacky mystical stuff... But it really isnt that. It is in a way proof of god in nature itself. Proof that the repeating patterns inherant in some parts of the world reflect in totally different parts of the worlds function. How you can scale down and scale up in perception from micro to macro and see the same things imbedded in this system. It also shows that in a way math and geometry is not a man made system. It shows that math is in a way a code of reality.. the code of god in a way. Which is why sacred geometry is more hidden and not explained in any way in math or in any part of school. The concepts of phi/golden ratios/fractals/pi etc even though seen all over in nature arent spoken of. If something is true in one place it has to be true in more than one place on more than one level because natural laws are always in play in everything natural. Math and geometry are one of the more simple versions of reality so its an easy starting point to reveal some of these truths. Hmm. i ranted a little. Maybe it means something.

[@dickbutt2897]

Thanks allot..I shit my pants when I saw the periods.

[@TheBardCode]

Well, that's a bonus testimony! Thanks. Please check out @t for much more.

[@HunGyilok]

even faking Columbus lived ''54 years'' and also Romulus [acc.to Plutarch] etc

[@TheBardCode]

Yep - 54 again.

[@lex.cordis]

@@TheBardCode 27, 54, 108, 216, 432, 864, 1728, 3456, etc. The "Cosmic Sequence".

[@neuraaquaria]

Ain’t no way 🤯🤯🤯

[@HunGyilok]

ye they coded everythi g, the year number ''1609'' is must be some code, i find i history many ''54''-s but i dont know what vanna be 6x9=54

[@TheBardCode]

For MANY more 54's - Please check out @t - new material - The Fisher Kings. ACT 3 (coming soon) contains the answers to the 54!!! Seriously.

[@clownworlddotfart]

All done by placement of the punctuation and two lines... and a lot of imagination on your part.

[@AChadWardenProduction]

HOLY FUCKING BALLS

[@TheBardCode]

One of the more astute comments. Thank you. May I quote you on that? :) Check out www.ToBeOrNotToBe.org for much more.

[@AChadWardenProduction]

BARDCODE lol yeah sure, why not?

[@TheBardCode]

@@AChadWardenProduction :)

[@petewheldon3069]

Can I recommend this as a companion piece: vimeo.com/album/1805493. Exploring the hidden depths of Dee's Monas Hieroglyphica. John Dee's famous library was located in his house at Mortlake, near London. If you divide the esoteric, 7 into 360 (the degrees of the earth) you get 51.428571, the exact latitude of Avebury stone circle. Take the pitch of the Great Pyramid; 51.51 (and all else associated with this angle) and find the centre point with 51.428571 (51.4692855) apply the result as latitude on Google Earth, and you will find the location of Dee's Mortlake house.

[@TheBardCode]

Thanks, Pete. I recall seeing maybe one of these episodes a while back. I'll re-visit.