Peter Bull's "Cipher"

Discussion:

(too old to reply)

Terry Ross

2004-11-24 20:54:51 UTC

A few weeks ago, in a post that has disappeared from my server, Peter Bull
posted that he was now convinced that the message he thought he had found
in *Shakespeare's Sonnets* "has no validity as a cipher." See
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=***@posting.google.com

I held off responding here in order to give people a chance (if they so
desired) to try their luck at Peter's Marlowe "cipher"; since nobody has
chimed in, I guess I may as well have my say.

Peter found "KIT MARLOWE WROTE THIS" in the first letters of the lines of
*Shakespeare's Sonnets*, and he believed that what he had found was a
genuine cipher. I looked at Peter's methods, and I was able to satisfy
myself that what he had found was NOT a genuine cipher, but when I told
Peter of my findings I was very surprised to hear him say that he agreed.
This is a very rare occurrence; in my experience, once a person has
persuaded himself that he has found a genuine Baconian or Oxfordian or
Marlite cipher in Shakespeare, he finds it almost impossible to surrender
his belief, even if his proposed cipher fails to meet the standards
described by William and Elizebeth Friedman in *The Shakespearean Ciphers
Examined*, and even if he himself claims to accept the soundness of the
Friedmans' methods.

I have put up a page showing what Peter found:
http://shakespeareauthorship.com/cipher/bmarlowe1.html

This page contains an array of the first letters of each line of the
sonnets. The header row lists the numbers of the sonnet lines from 1 to
15 (Shakespeare's 99th sonnet is 15 lines long), and the first column
gives the number of each sonnet in descending order, from 154 down to 1.

If you look in the line for sonnet 132, in the column for sonnet-line 2,
you will see a red "K"; this is the first letter in Peter's message.
Let's call this position 132.2 (i.e., the position containing the first
letter of the second line of sonnet 132). At 126.5 there is an "I"; at
120.8 there is a "T"; at 114.11 there is an "M". Notice that the letters
K-I-T-M are separated by the same interval; for any letter, the next one
is 6 rows down and 3 columns to the right.

The interval now changes. The next letter is the "A" at 107.8, which is 7
columns down and 3 to the left of the "M" at 114.11; then comes "R" at
100.5 and "L" at 93.2. Then the interval changes again. Here are all the
letters in Peter's message and their locations in the array:

K 132.2
I 126.5
T 120.8
M 114.11
A 107.8
R 100.5
L 93.2
O 88.7
W 83.12
E 70.10
W 57.8
R 44.13
O 39.9
T 34.5
E 32.8
T 30.11
H 29.10
I 28.9
S 27.9

The resulting message is KIT MARLOWE WROTE THIS.

Why is this not a valid cipher? There is no unambiguous rule or key that
determines the location of the letters that are selected. Rather, Peter
arbitrarily changes the intervals between the letters he is selecting in
order to force the kind of result he wishes to find. Peter speaks of the
"sections" of the "zigzag" that comprises his message as having equally
spaced intervals, but the sections are very short. "KITM" and "MARL," at
4-letters in length, are the longest "sections" in Peter's message. The
minimum possible length for any section is 2, so a 4-letter maximum does
not seem extraordinary, and two of Peter's sections are at the minimum
possible length. Here are his sections with their respective lengths:

4 KITM
4 MARL
3 LOW
3 WEW
2 WR
3 ROT
3 TET
3 THI
2 IS

The message is 19 letters long, but since the letters at the ends of the
sections within the message are counted twice, the sum of the zigzag
section lengths is 27. There are 9 sections in Peter's message, giving
him an average section length of 3.00.

Peter's loosest "rule" or "key" -- the one used to choose the final "S" --
seems to allow picking any letter at any interval so long as it is in a
row below the previous one. Peter had 29 different S's to choose from
that were below the "I" in "THIS". Using his loosest "rule" it would be
possible to construct many kinds of messages. Given that the minimum
average section length is 2, an average of 3.00 seems unimpressive. In
fact, the average length declines throughout Peter's zigzag; each segment
after the second one reduces the average further.

It also needs to be pointed out that with nine sections of zigzag there
is an average of exactly three equally spaced letters on each section -
I maintain that it is a virtual impossibility to find any other such
highly ordered message in the grid using the same method. It might be
possible to concoct some rather weird, meaningless and short message -
but even so, there is no way the average number of letters per section
would anywhere close to three.

Peter's requirements seemed arbitrary. Suppose I had found an alternative
message that was comparable in overall length but had a slightly lower
average section length - say 2.80 to Peter's 3.00. On what basis would
his be declared the on that had been intentionally placed into the
*Sonnets* by their author or arranger? Still, I thought I could meet his
challenge without too much difficulty.

I thought the easiest way would be to find a word or phrase to add to the
beginning or end of Peter's message that would change its meaning.
Peter's final word "this" seemed open-ended: "this" what? There could be
a noun or noun phrase that could be added after "this" that would turn the
message around. On the other hand, it might be possible to find something
to insert before his message that would turn it into indirect discourse;
something such as "You'd have to be a fool to believe that ..."

I wrote a little script that searched for strings, and I played around
with the array; the result may be seen here:
http://shakespeareauthorship.com/cipher/bmarlowe2.html

Where Peter had found "KIT MARLOWE WROTE THIS," I found "TWITS WISH" to
stick at the head of his message, revealing that what he had found was
merely a subset of the true message:

TWITS WISH KIT MARLOWE WROTE THIS.

Here are the locations for the letters I inserted before Peter's:

T 148.12
W 146.12
I 144.12
T 142.12
S 138.7
W 137.7
I 136.7
S 135.7
H 134.7

Here are the sections and their lengths for the full message:

4 TWIT
2 TS
5 SWISH
2 HK
4 KITM
4 MARL
3 LOW
3 WEW
2 WR
3 ROT
3 TET
3 THI
2 THIS

My message is at least as meaningful as Peter's, but it is 47% longer (28
letters compared to his 19), and it has a longer average section length
(40 letters in 13 sections gives an average length of 3.08, compared to
Peter's 3.00). What Peter had declared was a "virtual impossibility"
proved to be easy to do, and within a day of Peter's sending me the
details of his proposed "cipher," I had sent him my refutation.

The news for me was not that Peter had failed to find a demonstrably valid
cipher. As I told the members of the Shakespeare Fellowship when I spoke
at their conference in October, one useful notion to keep in mind whenever
one is faced with a proposed Shakespearean "cipher" is that the "cipher"
is probably not valid. There have been innumerable claims to have found
Shakespearean ciphers in the last 120 years or so, and I don't know of any
one of them that can be shown to be valid. Similar claims will continue
to be made, and it is very likely that most if not all of the proposed
ciphers will also turn out not to be valid.

Thus even before I looked at Peter's "cipher," I thought it was likely
that it was not valid; I also thought it would not be hard to show the
invalidity; but I thought it was extremely doubtful that I could ever
persuade Peter. Instead, to my surprise, he made a very gracious
concession. The usual reaction I get from people who think they have
found valid ciphers, and whose methods I have looked at and found wanting,
is that I must be blind, that I lack imagination, or that I have an
insufficient appreciation of the Elizabethan fondness for something or
other.

Let me not overestimate the extent of Peter's concession. He still thinks
he has found SOMETHING, and he will send me more details of the "special
form of cryptogram" (albeit not a demonstrably valid cipher) that he
thinks lurks in the *Sonnets*. I doubt he has found anything other than
what he has projected onto an innocent set of letters, but I will take a
look. I think the shift from "cipher" to "cryptogram" is probably an
attempt to avoid having to make a case; Peter may think the rules for
"cryptograms" are so loose that he can get away with whatever he wants,
but this dodge will not save him, and it demonstrates a fundamental
misunderstanding of cryptography.

I have taken a look at Peter's page wherein he used to make these claims
about his "cipher":

"This message is authentic and verifiable by standard techniques of
cryptology."

"The form of the message is cryptologically sound in its own right."

The page has since been revised, but Peter says nothing about his now
knowing that his earlier claims were false. In fact, one would never know
that Peter had ever changed his mind at all. Peter now says this:

"A sensational cryptogram is revealed by means of an acrostic letter grid,
in which 'Kit Marlowe' claims authorship of the Sonnets. The text of the
message is explicitly signalled and it also embodies cabalistic features
that prove its intentionality beyond doubt. The acrostic grid also has
other underlying patterns pointing to Marlowe's claim to authorship."

http://www.masoncode.com/Marlowe%20wrote%20Shakespeare's%20Sonnets.htm

This is, of course, utter tosh, and more than a little misleading, since
Peter knows that there is an even more "sensational cryptogram" that
characterizes those who think Marlowe wrote the *Sonnets* as "twits."
Why does he hide this news from visitors to his site?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Terry Ross Visit the SHAKESPEARE AUTHORSHIP home page
http://ShakespeareAuthorship.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Art Neuendorffer

2004-11-25 13:50:36 UTC

Permalink

--------------------------------
http://shakespeareauthorship.com/cipher/bmarlowe1.html

132 T K H L A B N D A O T A
131 T A F T Y T T A A A O T
130 M C I I I B A T I T I M
129 T I I S I P P O M H A B
128 H V W T D T W A T A O M
127 I O B A F F S B T H A S
126 O D W T I A S M Y S H A
125 W W O W H L F P N A W B
124 Y I A W N I V W I W B T
123 N T T T O W A T T N F M
122 T F W B O H T O T N T T
121 T W A N F G O W N A I B
120 T A N V F A A T O M A T
119 W D A S W W H I O T A G
118 L W A W E T A T T T A W
117 A W F W T A T W B A B B
116 L A W O O T I W L W L B
115 T E Y M B C T D A M W C
114 O D O A T S C A O A M A
113 S A D S F O O N F T T T
112 Y W F S Y T N T I O T M
111 O T T T T A T P W P N N
110 A A G M M A T A N M O A
109 O T A A T L I S N A T T
108 W W W T N I C E S W N B
107 N O C S T A I A N M S W
106 W I A I T O I E S O A T
105 L N S T K S T O F F A T
104 T F S H T I T S A S S H
103 A T T T O L T D W T F T
102 M I T T O W A A N T B A
101 O F B S M T B B B E T A
100 W T S D R I S A R I I A
99 T S I W I T A T O A A B
98 F W H T Y O C O N N T D
97 H F W W A T B L Y B F A
96 S S B T A T S T H I H I
95 H W D O T M C N O W W A
94 T T W V T A T O T T B T
93 S L M T F T I I B T W T
92 B F A F T W I T T S O H
91 S S S S A W B A T R O A
90 T N I A A C G T I W B A
89 S A S A T T A I B T L A
88 W A V A W V O T A F T D
87 F A T M F A T A T O S C
86 W B T M W A N G H W A I
85 M W R A I A T I H A B T
84 W T I W L T B T L N A M
83 I A I T A T H S T W F W
----------------------------------
[K]nowing thy heart torments me with disdain,
[I]f Nature, sovereign mistress over wrack,
[T]o weigh how once I suffered in your crime.
[M]ine eye well knows what with his gust is 'greeing,
[A]nd peace proclaims olives of endless age.
[R]eturn, forgetful Muse, and straight redeem
[L]ike a deceived husband; so love's face
[O]f faults conceal'd, wherein I am attainted,
[W]hen others would give life and bring a TOMB.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1850 Melville: "IN Shakespeare's TOMB LIES infinitely more than
Shakepeare EVER wrote. And if I magnify Shakepeare it is not so much
for what he did do but for what he did not do, or refrained from doing.
For in this world of LIES, TRUTH is forced to fly like a scared
white doe in the woodlands; and only by cunning glimspes
will she REVEal herself, as in Shakespeare.."
-----------------------------------------------------------
Titus Andronicus Act 2, Scene 3

TITUS ANDRONICUS:

For, by my father's r[EVEREND TOMB, I] vow

______________ "DE VERE IN TOMB"
______________ "MENTE VIDEBOR"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DRAZIW L(CU)LIW EREVIV EVIL
WIZARD O(XF)ORD VIVERE VERO
----------------------------------------------------------------
QUICK, a. [As. cWic, CUCU, cWiCU, cWUCU, LIVING;
L. ViVus LIVING, VIVERE to LIVE]
--------------------------------------------------------------
As You Like It Act 5, Scene 1 SCENE I. The forest.

to[UC]h. So, so, is good, VERY good, VERY excellent good:
and yet it is not, it is but so, so: Art thou VVise?

VVIL[]L. I sir, I haue a prettie VVIT.

to[UC]h. VVhy, thou saist VVell. I do now remember a say-
ing: The Foole doth thinke he is VVise, but the VViseman
knowes himselfe to be a Foole. The Heathen Philoso-
pher, VVhen he had a desire to eate a Grape, VVould open
his lips VVhen he put it into his mouth, meaning there-
by, that Grapes VVere made to eate, and lippes to open.
You do loue this maid?

VVIL[]L. I do sir.
to[UC]h. Giue me your hand: Art thou Learned?

VVIL[]L. No sir.
to[UC]h. Then learne this of me, To haue, is to haue.
For it is a figure in Rhetoricke, that drink being powr'd out
of a CUp into a glasse, by filling the one, doth empty the
other. For all your VVriters do consent, that ipse is hee:
now you are not ipse, for I am he.

VVIL[]L. VVhich he sir?
to[UC]h. He sir, that must marrie this VVoman: Therefore
you Clowne, abandon: VVhich is in the VULGAR, leaue the
societie: VVhich in the boorish, is companie, of this fe-
male: VVhich in the common, is VVoman: VVhich toge-
ther, is, abandon the society of this Female, or Clowne
thou perishest: or to thy better vnderstanding, dyest; or
(to VVIT) I kill thee, make thee away, translate thy life in-
to death, thy libertie into bondage:

I VVILL deale in poy-son VVITh thee, or in bastinado, or in steele:
I VVILL bandy VVITh thee in faction,
I VVILL ore-run thee VVITh policie:
I VVILL kill thee a hundred and fifty VVayes,
therefore trem-ble and depart.
----------------------------------------------
<<As You Like It (1936) is noteworthy for two reasons:
it was the first feature-length British sound
Shakespeare film - though it came after
Hollywood adaptations of The Taming of the Shrew (1929),
A Midsummer Night's Dream (1935)
and Romeo and Juliet (1936) -
and it contains the earliest of Laurence Olivier's
Shakespeare performances to be recorded for posterity.

VVILLiam, a Country Fellow .... Peter Bull (actor)

Son of Sir VVILLiam Bull, MP for South Hammersmith
(& ELEANOR Bull?)

Art Neuendorffer
-----------------------------------------------------

Post by Terry Ross
A few weeks ago, in a post that has disappeared from my server, Peter Bull
posted that he was now convinced that the message he thought he had found
in *Shakespeare's Sonnets* "has no validity as a cipher." See
I held off responding here in order to give people a chance (if they so
desired) to try their luck at Peter's Marlowe "cipher"; since nobody has
chimed in, I guess I may as well have my say.
Peter found "KIT MARLOWE WROTE THIS" in the first letters of the lines of
*Shakespeare's Sonnets*, and he believed that what he had found was a
genuine cipher. I looked at Peter's methods, and I was able to satisfy
myself that what he had found was NOT a genuine cipher, but when I told
Peter of my findings I was very surprised to hear him say that he agreed.
This is a very rare occurrence; in my experience, once a person has
persuaded himself that he has found a genuine Baconian or Oxfordian or
Marlite cipher in Shakespeare, he finds it almost impossible to surrender
his belief, even if his proposed cipher fails to meet the standards
described by William and Elizebeth Friedman in *The Shakespearean Ciphers
Examined*, and even if he himself claims to accept the soundness of the
Friedmans' methods.
http://shakespeareauthorship.com/cipher/bmarlowe1.html
This page contains an array of the first letters of each line of the
sonnets. The header row lists the numbers of the sonnet lines from 1 to
15 (Shakespeare's 99th sonnet is 15 lines long), and the first column
gives the number of each sonnet in descending order, from 154 down to 1.
If you look in the line for sonnet 132, in the column for sonnet-line 2,
you will see a red "K"; this is the first letter in Peter's message.
Let's call this position 132.2 (i.e., the position containing the first
letter of the second line of sonnet 132). At 126.5 there is an "I"; at
120.8 there is a "T"; at 114.11 there is an "M". Notice that the letters
K-I-T-M are separated by the same interval; for any letter, the next one
is 6 rows down and 3 columns to the right.
The interval now changes. The next letter is the "A" at 107.8, which is 7
columns down and 3 to the left of the "M" at 114.11; then comes "R" at
100.5 and "L" at 93.2. Then the interval changes again. Here are all the
K 132.2
I 126.5
T 120.8
M 114.11
A 107.8
R 100.5
L 93.2
O 88.7
W 83.12
E 70.10
W 57.8
R 44.13
O 39.9
T 34.5
E 32.8
T 30.11
H 29.10
I 28.9
S 27.9
The resulting message is KIT MARLOWE WROTE THIS.
Why is this not a valid cipher? There is no unambiguous rule or key that
determines the location of the letters that are selected. Rather, Peter
arbitrarily changes the intervals between the letters he is selecting in
order to force the kind of result he wishes to find. Peter speaks of the
"sections" of the "zigzag" that comprises his message as having equally
spaced intervals, but the sections are very short. "KITM" and "MARL," at
4-letters in length, are the longest "sections" in Peter's message. The
minimum possible length for any section is 2, so a 4-letter maximum does
not seem extraordinary, and two of Peter's sections are at the minimum
4 KITM
4 MARL
3 LOW
3 WEW
2 WR
3 ROT
3 TET
3 THI
2 IS
The message is 19 letters long, but since the letters at the ends of the
sections within the message are counted twice, the sum of the zigzag
section lengths is 27. There are 9 sections in Peter's message, giving
him an average section length of 3.00.
Peter's loosest "rule" or "key" -- the one used to choose the final "S" --
seems to allow picking any letter at any interval so long as it is in a
row below the previous one. Peter had 29 different S's to choose from
that were below the "I" in "THIS". Using his loosest "rule" it would be
possible to construct many kinds of messages. Given that the minimum
average section length is 2, an average of 3.00 seems unimpressive. In
fact, the average length declines throughout Peter's zigzag; each segment
after the second one reduces the average further.

Peter's requirements seemed arbitrary. Suppose I had found an alternative
message that was comparable in overall length but had a slightly lower
average section length - say 2.80 to Peter's 3.00. On what basis would
his be declared the on that had been intentionally placed into the
*Sonnets* by their author or arranger? Still, I thought I could meet his
challenge without too much difficulty.
I thought the easiest way would be to find a word or phrase to add to the
beginning or end of Peter's message that would change its meaning.
Peter's final word "this" seemed open-ended: "this" what? There could be
a noun or noun phrase that could be added after "this" that would turn the
message around. On the other hand, it might be possible to find something
to insert before his message that would turn it into indirect discourse;
something such as "You'd have to be a fool to believe that ..."
I wrote a little script that searched for strings, and I played around
http://shakespeareauthorship.com/cipher/bmarlowe2.html
Where Peter had found "KIT MARLOWE WROTE THIS,"
I found "TWITS WISH" to stick at the head of his message,
revealing that what he had found was
TWITS WISH KIT MARLOWE WROTE THIS.
T 148.12
W 146.12
I 144.12
T 142.12
S 138.7
W 137.7
I 136.7
S 135.7
H 134.7
4 TWIT
2 TS
5 SWISH
2 HK
4 KITM
4 MARL
3 LOW
3 WEW
2 WR
3 ROT
3 TET
3 THI
2 THIS
My message is at least as meaningful as Peter's, but it is 47% longer (28
letters compared to his 19), and it has a longer average section length
(40 letters in 13 sections gives an average length of 3.08, compared to
Peter's 3.00). What Peter had declared was a "virtual impossibility"
proved to be easy to do, and within a day of Peter's sending me the
details of his proposed "cipher," I had sent him my refutation.
The news for me was not that Peter had failed to find a demonstrably valid
cipher. As I told the members of the Shakespeare Fellowship when I spoke
at their conference in October, one useful notion to keep in mind whenever
one is faced with a proposed Shakespearean "cipher" is that the "cipher"
is probably not valid. There have been innumerable claims to have found
Shakespearean ciphers in the last 120 years or so, and I don't know of any
one of them that can be shown to be valid. Similar claims will continue
to be made, and it is very likely that most if not all of the proposed
ciphers will also turn out not to be valid.
Thus even before I looked at Peter's "cipher," I thought it was likely
that it was not valid; I also thought it would not be hard to show the
invalidity; but I thought it was extremely doubtful that I could ever
persuade Peter. Instead, to my surprise, he made a very gracious
concession. The usual reaction I get from people who think they have
found valid ciphers, and whose methods I have looked at and found wanting,
is that I must be blind, that I lack imagination, or that I have an
insufficient appreciation of the Elizabethan fondness for something or
other.
Let me not overestimate the extent of Peter's concession. He still thinks
he has found SOMETHING, and he will send me more details of the "special
form of cryptogram" (albeit not a demonstrably valid cipher) that he
thinks lurks in the *Sonnets*. I doubt he has found anything other than
what he has projected onto an innocent set of letters, but I will take a
look. I think the shift from "cipher" to "cryptogram" is probably an
attempt to avoid having to make a case; Peter may think the rules for
"cryptograms" are so loose that he can get away with whatever he wants,
but this dodge will not save him, and it demonstrates a fundamental
misunderstanding of cryptography.
I have taken a look at Peter's page wherein he used to make these claims
"This message is authentic and verifiable by standard techniques of
cryptology."
"The form of the message is cryptologically sound in its own right."
The page has since been revised, but Peter says nothing about his now
knowing that his earlier claims were false. In fact, one would never know
"A sensational cryptogram is revealed by means of an acrostic letter grid,
in which 'Kit Marlowe' claims authorship of the Sonnets. The text of the
message is explicitly signalled and it also embodies cabalistic features
that prove its intentionality beyond doubt. The acrostic grid also has
other underlying patterns pointing to Marlowe's claim to authorship."
http://www.masoncode.com/Marlowe%20wrote%20Shakespeare's%20Sonnets.htm
This is, of course, utter tosh, and more than a little misleading, since
Peter knows that there is an even more "sensational cryptogram" that
characterizes those who think Marlowe wrote the *Sonnets* as "twits."
Why does he hide this news from visitors to his site?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Terry Ross Visit the SHAKESPEARE AUTHORSHIP home page
http://ShakespeareAuthorship.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

richard kennedy

2004-11-28 05:31:16 UTC

Permalink

Here's an example of Terry Ross that puts the man way down
amongst such roaches that crawl about the hlastrat kitchen.

Peter Bull, a Marlovian, offered a cipher, as you see,
published it, but when called to notice the error of his
method, admitted that he knew it himself, and had unpublished
his cipher as much as that's possible on the net. That's big.
The man was wrong, he admitted it.

For this touch of grace, Ross then puts Bull in the company of
"twits."

Ross fancies himself an expert in cryptography, and I suppose
he knows no more than I do. Therefore, a challenge. If Ross
would like to discuss the Scudamore poem, as printed and
discussed by the Friedmans, I'll defend the acrostic spelled
out, and he may take Friedman's argument or invent one of his
own. Let him begin, he seems to have time for such foolery.

Peter's requirements seemed arbitrary. Suppose I had found an alternative
message that was comparable in overall length but had a slightly lower
average section length - say 2.80 to Peter's 3.00. On what basis would
his be declared the on that had been intentionally placed into the
*Sonnets* by their author or arranger? Still, I thought I could meet his
challenge without too much difficulty.
I thought the easiest way would be to find a word or phrase to add to the
beginning or end of Peter's message that would change its meaning.
Peter's final word "this" seemed open-ended: "this" what? There could be
a noun or noun phrase that could be added after "this" that would turn the
message around. On the other hand, it might be possible to find something
to insert before his message that would turn it into indirect discourse;
something such as "You'd have to be a fool to believe that ..."
I wrote a little script that searched for strings, and I played around
http://shakespeareauthorship.com/cipher/bmarlowe2.html
Where Peter had found "KIT MARLOWE WROTE THIS," I found "TWITS WISH" to
stick at the head of his message, revealing that what he had found was
TWITS WISH KIT MARLOWE WROTE THIS.
T 148.12
W 146.12
I 144.12
T 142.12
S 138.7
W 137.7
I 136.7
S 135.7
H 134.7
4 TWIT
2 TS
5 SWISH
2 HK
4 KITM
4 MARL
3 LOW
3 WEW
2 WR
3 ROT
3 TET
3 THI
2 THIS
My message is at least as meaningful as Peter's, but it is 47% longer (28
letters compared to his 19), and it has a longer average section length
(40 letters in 13 sections gives an average length of 3.08, compared to
Peter's 3.00). What Peter had declared was a "virtual impossibility"
proved to be easy to do, and within a day of Peter's sending me the
details of his proposed "cipher," I had sent him my refutation.
The news for me was not that Peter had failed to find a demonstrably valid
cipher. As I told the members of the Shakespeare Fellowship when I spoke
at their conference in October, one useful notion to keep in mind whenever
one is faced with a proposed Shakespearean "cipher" is that the "cipher"
is probably not valid. There have been innumerable claims to have found
Shakespearean ciphers in the last 120 years or so, and I don't know of any
one of them that can be shown to be valid. Similar claims will continue
to be made, and it is very likely that most if not all of the proposed
ciphers will also turn out not to be valid.
Thus even before I looked at Peter's "cipher," I thought it was likely
that it was not valid; I also thought it would not be hard to show the
invalidity; but I thought it was extremely doubtful that I could ever
persuade Peter. Instead, to my surprise, he made a very gracious
concession. The usual reaction I get from people who think they have
found valid ciphers, and whose methods I have looked at and found wanting,
is that I must be blind, that I lack imagination, or that I have an
insufficient appreciation of the Elizabethan fondness for something or
other.
Let me not overestimate the extent of Peter's concession. He still thinks
he has found SOMETHING, and he will send me more details of the "special
form of cryptogram" (albeit not a demonstrably valid cipher) that he
thinks lurks in the *Sonnets*. I doubt he has found anything other than
what he has projected onto an innocent set of letters, but I will take a
look. I think the shift from "cipher" to "cryptogram" is probably an
attempt to avoid having to make a case; Peter may think the rules for
"cryptograms" are so loose that he can get away with whatever he wants,
but this dodge will not save him, and it demonstrates a fundamental
misunderstanding of cryptography.
I have taken a look at Peter's page wherein he used to make these claims
"This message is authentic and verifiable by standard techniques of
cryptology."
"The form of the message is cryptologically sound in its own right."
The page has since been revised, but Peter says nothing about his now
knowing that his earlier claims were false. In fact, one would never know
"A sensational cryptogram is revealed by means of an acrostic letter grid,
in which 'Kit Marlowe' claims authorship of the Sonnets. The text of the
message is explicitly signalled and it also embodies cabalistic features
that prove its intentionality beyond doubt. The acrostic grid also has
other underlying patterns pointing to Marlowe's claim to authorship."
http://www.masoncode.com/Marlowe%20wrote%20Shakespeare's%20Sonnets.htm
This is, of course, utter tosh, and more than a little misleading, since
Peter knows that there is an even more "sensational cryptogram" that
characterizes those who think Marlowe wrote the *Sonnets* as "twits."
Why does he hide this news from visitors to his site?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Terry Ross Visit the SHAKESPEARE AUTHORSHIP home page
http://ShakespeareAuthorship.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Art Neuendorffer

2004-11-28 09:00:54 UTC

Permalink

Post by richard kennedy
Here's an example of Terry Ross that puts the man way down
amongst such roaches that crawl about the hlastrat kitchen.
Peter Bull, a Marlovian, offered a cipher, as you see,
published it, but when called to notice the error of his
method, admitted that he knew it himself, and had unpublished
his cipher as much as that's possible on the net. That's big.
The man was wrong, he admitted it.
For this touch of grace,
Ross then puts Bull in the company of "twits."

Peter Bull (assuming that he is a real Marlovian) deserves to be
called a "twit" if he was convinced by Ross's pathetic argument.

------------------------------------------------------------

http://shakespeareauthorship.com/cipher/bmarlowe1.html

137 T T T Y I B[W]W W W O T
136 I S A[T]W I[I]A[T]T F T
135 W A M[T]W N[S]A[T]A S O
134 S A M[T]B F[H]V[T]T A S
133 B F[I]B M A O A P B W T
132 T[K]H L A B N D A O T A
131 T A F T Y T T A A A O T
130 M C I I I B A T I T I M
129 T I I S I P P O M H A B
128 H V W T D T W A T A O M
127 I O B A F F S B T H A S
126 O D W T[I]A S M Y S H A
125 W W O W H L F P N A W B
124 Y I A W N I V W I W B T
123 N T T T O W A T T N F M
122 T F W B O H T O T N T T
121 T W A N F G O W N A I B
120 T A N V F A A[T]O M A T
119 W D A S W W H I O T A G
118 L W A W E T A T T T A W
117 A W F W T A T W B A B B
116 L A W O O T I W L W L B
115 T E Y M B C T D A M W C
114 O D O A T S C A O A[M]A
113 S A D S F O O N F T T T
112 Y W F S Y T N T I O T M
111 O T T T T A T P W P N N
110 A A G M M A T A N M O A
109 O T A A T L I S N A T T
108 W W W T N I C E S W N B
107 N O C S T A I[A]N M S W
106 W I A I T O I E S O A T
105 L N S T K S T O F F A T
104 T F S H T I T S A S S H
103 A T T T O L T D W T F T
102 M I T T O W A A N T B A
101 O F B S M T B B B E T A
100 W T S D[R]I S A R I I A
99 T S I W I T A T O A A B
98 F W H T Y O C O N N T D
97 H F W W A T B L Y B F A
96 S S B T A T S T H I H I
95 H W D O T M C N O W W A
94 T T W V T A T O T T B T
93 S[L]M T F T I I B T W T
92 B F A F T W I T T S O H
91 S S S S A W B A T R O A
90 T N I A A C G T I W B A
89 S A S A T T A I B T L A
88 W A V A W V[O]T A F T D
87 F A T M F A T A T O S C
86 W B T M W A N G H W A I
85 M W R A I A T I H A B T
84 W T I W L T B T L N A M
83 I A I T A T H S T W F[W]
------------------------------------
[K]nowing thy heart torments me with disdain,
[I]f Nature, sovereign mistress over WRACK,
[T]o weigh how once I suffered in your crime.
[M]ine eye well knows what with his gust is 'greeing,
[A]nd peace proclaims olives of endless age.
[R]eturn, forgetful Muse, and straight redeem
[L]ike a deceived husband; so love's face
[O]f faults conceal'd, wherein I am attainted,
[W]hen others would give life and bring a TOMB.
--------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer

Terry Ross

2004-11-28 15:41:40 UTC

Permalink

Peter Bull (assuming that he is a real Marlovian) deserves to be called
a "twit" if he was convinced by Ross's pathetic argument.

The argument was not "pathetic"; there was no particular appeal to the
emotions, but rather I showed that according to the standards Peter Bull
himself proposed, my solution was superior to his.

Peter Bull:

I maintain that it is a virtual impossibility to find any other
such highly ordered message in the grid using the same method.
It might be possible to concoct some rather weird, meaningless
and short message - but even so, there is no way the average
number of letters per section would anywhere close to three.

The message "TWITS WISH KIT MARLOWE WROTE THIS" is no weirder and is at
least as meaningful as "KIT MARLOWE WROTE THIS"; the fuller message is 47%
longer, AND it has a higher "average number of letters per section" (3.08
compared to Peter's 3.00).

Peter Farey independently found "KIT MARLOWE WROTE BADLY" and "KIT MARLOWE
WRIT HONESTLY" -- each of which is meaningful, is longer than Peter Bull's
message, and has an "average number of letters per section" that is just a
tad under 3.00 (2.82 and 2.91, respectively).

Thus Peter Bull's claim has been refuted, as he has gracefully conceded.

Unfortunately, Peter still believes that "KIT MARLOWE WROTE THIS" -- sans
the prefixes and suffixes suggested by Peter Farey and me -- is a genuine
"cryptogram" that was deliberately concealed by Christopher Marlowe. He
has no rational basis for this belief that I can see, but at least he has
dropped the claim that what he found in his word-find game was "a message
[that] is authentic and verifiable by standard techniques of cryptology."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Terry Ross ***@bcpl.net
SHAKESPEARE AUTHORSHIP http://ShakespeareAuthorship.com
CHRISTMAS POEMS http://ShakespeareAuthorship.com/xmas/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Art Neuendorffer

2004-11-28 16:31:51 UTC

Permalink

Post by Terry Ross

Post by Art Neuendorffer

Post by richard kennedy
Here's an example of Terry Ross that puts the man way down
amongst such roaches that crawl about the hlastrat kitchen.

-------------------------------------------------------
Bringing London's History Alive
By RICHARD LOURIE
Published NY Times, November 28, 2004

<<It is in the specialized tours that the talents and passions of the
Blue Badge Guide [http://www.blue-badge-guides.com] come to the
fore. For example, Guide No. 1609, the effervescent, erudite,
eccentric Simon Rodway, not only creates his own tours but will,
with reasonable notice, also tailor one to a client's own tastes
and interests. His walks last from an hour to an hour and a half
and adhere to his principle that the distance covered should
not exceed that between subway stops. Mr. Rodway's walk
entitled "Will on the Hill" brings Shakespeare's success to
life by saying that he was rich enough to have a hedgehog
in his kitchen to eat the cockroaches. >>
-----------------------------------------------------
PALINDROME: "GIPSY'S PIG" the hedgehog. (OED2)
-----------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Weir wrote HLAS:
.
<<I just stumbled on to a recipe in the OED, of all places.
It described this dish in which almonds were stuck into
slits in hog jowls. It was called 'Urchin' which evokes
both baked hedgehog (herchin) and sea Urchin. >>
-----------------------------------------------------
As Francis Bacon, in Sylva Sylvorum, a natural historic,
observes, " The Bear, the Hedgehog. . . . wax fat when they Sleep."
-------------------------------------------------------------
Urchin, n. [OE. urchon, irchon, a hedgehog, OF. ire[,c]on, eri[,c]on,
heri?on, herichon, F. h['e]risson, a derivative fr. L. ericius, from
er a hedgehog, for her; akin to Gr. ?. Cf. {Herisson}.]

1. A hedgehog.

3. A mischievous elf supposed sometimes to take the form a hedgehog.

``We 'll dress [them] like Urchins, ouphes, and fairies.'' --Shak.
--------------------------------------------------------------
<<The chief difficulty Alice found at first was in managing her
flamingo: she succeeded in getting its body tucked away,
comfortably enough, under her arm, with its legs hanging down,
but generally, just as she had got its neck nicely straightened
out, and was going to give the hedgehog a blow with its head,
it would twist itself round and look up in her face, with
such a puzzled expression that she could not help bursting out
laughing: and when she had got its head down, and was going to
begin again, it was very provoking to find that the hedgehog had
unrolled itself, and was in the act of crawling away: besides all
this, there was generally a ridge or furrow in the way wherever
she wanted to send the hedgehog to, and, as the doubled-up
soldiers were always getting up and walking off to other parts
of the ground, Alice soon came to the conclusion
that it was a very difficult game indeed.

'I don't think they play at all fairly,' Alice began, in rather a
complaining tone, 'and they all quarrel so dreadfully one can't
hear oneself speak--and they don't seem to have any rules in
particular; at least, if there are, nobody attends to them--and
you've no idea how confusing it is all the things being alive;
for instance, there's the arch I've got to go through next
walking about at the other end of the ground--and
I should have croqueted the Queen's hedgehog just now,
only it ran away when it saw mine coming!'

The hedgehog was engaged in a fight with another hedgehog,
which seemed to Alice an excellent opportunity for croqueting one
of them with the other: the only difficulty was, that her flamingo
was gone across to the other side of the garden, where Alice
could see it trying in a helpless sort of way to fly up into a tree.>>
-----------------------------------------------------

Post by Terry Ross

Post by Art Neuendorffer

Post by richard kennedy
Peter Bull, a Marlovian, offered a cipher, as you see,
published it, but when called to notice the error of his
method, admitted that he knew it himself, and had unpublished
his cipher as much as that's possible on the net. That's big.
The man was wrong, he admitted it.
For this touch of grace,
Ross then puts Bull in the company of "twits."

Peter Bull (assuming that he is a real Marlovian) deserves to be
called a "twit" if he was convinced by Ross's pathetic argument.

The argument was not "pathetic"; there was no particular appeal to the
emotions, but rather I showed that according to the standards Peter Bull
himself proposed, my solution was superior to his.
Unfortunately, Peter still believes that "KIT MARLOWE WROTE THIS" -- sans
the prefixes and suffixes suggested by Peter Farey and me -- is a genuine
"cryptogram" that was deliberately concealed by Christopher Marlowe. He
has no rational basis for this belief that I can see, but at least he has
dropped the claim that what he found in his word-find game was "a message
[that] is authentic and verifiable by standard techniques of cryptology."

---------------------------------------------------------------
Hello Peter <***@tnn.net>,

You wrote HLAS:

<<A few weeks ago I wrote a thread related to a cipher message
I believed I'd found written into an acrostic letter grid derived from
the Sonnets, attributing authorship to Marlowe. Since then I have been
corresponding with Terry and trying to prove to him the validity of my
cipher. Unfortunately for me, Terry has been able to turn the tables
and convince me instead that the message has no validity as a cipher.
Following the same rules that I used to discover the message, Terry
was able to prefix it with the two words "TWITS WISH . . ." He thereby
demonstrated that my methodology was far too loose to constitute
legitimate ciphering ( and made me look rather foolish at the same
time). However I do have reasons for believing that the message
may yet be justified, albeit by different criteria
(as a special form of cryptogram).>>
---------------------------------------------------------
Indeed! The name is the important & unambiguous part.

Besides: "TWIT" wasn't a noun in Shakespeare's day
(WIT was however).

Your 14 letter "TIK-KITM-MARL-LOW" is somewhat
less impressive but quite similar to John Rollett's 15 letter
discovery of HENRY-WR-IOTH-ESLEY in the
Sonnets dedication (: i.e., a name closely associated
with William Shakespeare which is broken into 4 pieces).

Rollett's solution is clearly statistically significant
in its own right. Your "TIK-KITM-MARL-LOW"
is probably statistically significant as well given
the apriori existence & legitimacy of Rollett's find.
----------------------------------
TIK: (Dutch) count, knock, tick.
----------------------------------
Love's Labour's Lost Act 3, Scene 1

BIRON : I seek a wife!
A woman, that is like a German clock,
Still a-repairing, ever out of frame,
And never going aright, being a watch,
But being watch'd that it may still go right!
----------------------------------
The Watch that Was Hatched from the "Nuremburg Egg"
http://www.love-watches.com/Invention-Watch.htm

<<"Every day," wrote Johannes Coeuleus, in 1511,
"produces more ingenious inventions. A clever and comparatively young
man--Peter Henlein--creates works that are the admiration of leading
mathematicians, for, out of a little iron he constructs clocks with
numerous wheels, which, without any impulse and in any position,
indicate time for forty hours and strike, and which can be
carried in the purse as well as in the pocket."

It is said that Edward VI was the first Englishman to possess a watch.
Mary Queen of Scots had a small watch shaped like a skull-
-a cheerful fashion of the time.

Queen Elizabeth and her court selected watches as modern women do their
hats--to match their various costumes. These watches were usually worn on a
chain or ribbon round the neck and were largely for display. Several outside
cases were often supplied with watches of that period, and they were made
to fit on over that which held the works; these were variously ornamented
with jewels, tortoise-shell and intricate pierced work in gold, almost as
delicate as lace. The covers were decorated with miniature paintings.>>
----------------------------------
[T]ou wilt restore, to be my comfort still:
[I]s't not enough to torture me alone,
[K]nowing thy heart torments me with disdain,
[I]f Nature, sovereign mistress over WRACK, [short sonnet!]
[T]o weigh how once I suffered in your crime.
[M]ine eye well knows what with his gust is 'greeing,
[A]nd peace proclaims olives of endless age.
[R]eturn, forgetful Muse, and straight redeem
[L]ike a deceived husband; so love's face
[O]f faults conceal'd, wherein I am attainted,
[W]hen others would give life and bring a TOMB.
------------------------------------------------------------
[W]hy of eyes' falsehood hast thou forged hooks,
[I]n things of great receipt with ease we prove
[S]hall Will in others seem right gracious,
[H]e learn'd but surety-like to write for me
------------------------------------------------------------
http://shakespeareauthorship.com/cipher/bmarlowe1.html

137 T T T Y I B[W]W W W O T
136 I S A[T]W I[I]A[T]T F T
135 W A M[T]W N[S]A[T]A S O
134 S A M[T]B F[H]V[T]T A S
133 B F[I]B M A O A P B W T
132 T[K]H L A B N D A O T A
131 T A F T Y T T A A A O T
130 M C I I I B A T I T I M
129 T I I S I P P O M H A B
128 H V W T D T W A T A O M
127 I O B A F F S B T H A S
126 O D W T[I]A S M Y S H A
125 W W O W H L F P N A W B
124 Y I A W N I V W I W B T
123 N T T T O W A T T N F M
122 T F W B O H T O T N T T
121 T W A N F G O W N A I B
120 T A N V F A A[T]O M A T
119 W D A S W W H I O T A G
118 L W A W E T A T T T A W
117 A W F W T A T W B A B B
116 L A W O O T I W L W L B
115 T E Y M B C T D A M W C
114 O D O A T S C A O A[M]A
113 S A D S F O O N F T T T
112 Y W F S Y T N T I O T M
111 O T T T T A T P W P N N
110 A A G M M A T A N M O A
109 O T A A T L I S N A T T
108 W W W T N I C E S W N B
107 N O C S T A I[A]N M S W
106 W I A I T O I E S O A T
105 L N S T K S T O F F A T
104 T F S H T I T S A S S H
103 A T T T O L T D W T F T
102 M I T T O W A A N T B A
101 O F B S M T B B B E T A
100 W T S D[R]I S A R I I A
99 T S I W I T A T O A A B
98 F W H T Y O C O N N T D
97 H F W W A T B L Y B F A
96 S S B T A T S T H I H I
95 H W D O T M C N O W W A
94 T T W V T A T O T T B T
93 S[L]M T F T I I B T W T
92 B F A F T W I T T S O H
91 S S S S A W B A T R O A
90 T N I A A C G T I W B A
89 S A S A T T A I B T L A
88 W A V A W V[O]T A F T D
87 F A T M F A T A T O S C
86 W B T M W A N G H W A I
85 M W R A I A T I H A B T
84 W T I W L T B T L N A M
83 I A I T A T H S T W F[W]
--------------------------
Sincerely Yours,

Art Neuendorffer

richard kennedy

2004-11-28 23:05:54 UTC

Permalink

Supposing that Ross might want to take up the challenge to
debate the Scudamore cipher, I searched the archives to refresh
my memory of the arguments on either side, and found that in
discussing the matter with Ross, he advanced his debating technique
in this way.

"let us not give up on Richard Kennedy, he may have fallen
off the wagon, torn up the pledge.'

"you might want to lay off the loco weed"

"It may be time for him to take the old brain pan into the shop and
have it looked at."

"Your metaphor makes me worry about any cattle you may have
been in recent contact with. Have you been feeding candy to the
livestock again?"

Well, what can one say? Ross is a nasty-minded man. I had
forgotten his style of debate, a sort of clubbing arrogance and
schoolboy waggery. Therefore I repent I invited him to a discussion
of the Scudamore cipher. I don't want to talk with a man who
supposes such pandering repartee to be scholarship and a display
of his wit.

Anyway, the Scudamore discussion is in the archives if anyone is
interested. One thing only I'll mention, since Ross has brought it up,
regarding the chief objection of Friedman regarding the Scudamore
cipher.

We are told in the title of the poem that it ciphers the name of a man,
evidently alive in the 1570s. The cipher spells out the name of Edward
de Vere. Friedman worked at the cipher, and proved that it also ciphers
out the name of Lewis Carroll, which of course is 200 years beside the
point, and the original solution stands.

Terry Ross

2004-11-30 20:03:51 UTC

Permalink

The entire post from which Richard quotes is available here:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.GSO.4.10.9909210554010.559-***@mail.bcpl.net

I see that in this post I offered Richard the hand of friendship and even
addressed him as "brother" -- yes, my "debating technique" is harsh
indeed.

"you might want to lay off the loco weed"

Let's see a bit more context on this one:

==================================

But the Scudamore

Terry:

At last you admit that Gascoigne's poem is for John Scudamore. I guess it
finally dawned on you that Scudamore = l'escu d'amor = shield of love.
Thus is Scudamore's name both ciphered and deciphered in the poem's very
first line.

poem is a cud for Terry Ross to chew, and he can chew it for a long,
long time without doing any better than the solution we have, and at
long last he must stomach it though it settle like sour ball in his
guts.

Terry:

Your metaphor makes me worry about any cattle you may have been in recent
contact with. Have you been feeding candy to the livestock again? How
many times do I have to tell you: alfalfa good; sour balls bad. I guess
we know now why the milk went bad so quickly. And don't let the the
cattle graze in the loco weed again (come to think of it, you might want
to lay off the loco weed yourself).

=================

It all seems rather mild by newsgroup standards -- certainly milder than
many of Richard's own posts -- and he probably SHOULD lay off the loco
weed.

"It may be time for him to take the old brain pan into the shop and have
it looked at."

Alas, this suggestion seems to have gone unheeded.

"Your metaphor makes me worry about any cattle you may have been in
recent contact with. Have you been feeding candy to the livestock
again?"

See above -- I was but extending Richard's own metaphor.

Well, what can one say? Ross is a nasty-minded man. I had forgotten his
style of debate, a sort of clubbing arrogance and schoolboy waggery.
Therefore I repent I invited him to a discussion of the Scudamore
cipher. I don't want to talk with a man who supposes such pandering
repartee to be scholarship and a display of his wit.

Some years ago Richard Nathan collected a few samples of Richard Kennedy's
own repartee:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=7v62ms%247re%***@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net

Noel Coward he ain't.

Anyway, the Scudamore discussion is in the archives if anyone is
interested. One thing only I'll mention, since Ross has brought it up,
regarding the chief objection of Friedman regarding the Scudamore
cipher.

I don't know whether Kennedy has read the Friedmans' book-- if he were
familiar even with the title page, he would know that two people named
Friedman were involved.

We are told in the title of the poem that it ciphers the name of a man,
evidently alive in the 1570s.

The title of the poem is "The absent lover (in ciphers) deciphering his
name, doth crave some spedie relief as followeth."

Gascoigne wrote a number of poems for other people, as he tells us, and
this one seems to have been written for Sir John Scudamore -- variations
on the family name and motto appear in the poem's first two lines.

L'Escu d'amour, the shield of perfect love,
The shield of love, the force of steadfast faith,

As the Friedmans note, "One of the most plausible theories put forward so
far is the work of Prof. Charles T. Prouty. In *A Hundreth Sundrie
Flowers* (University of Missouri Studies, 1942) he clarifies the enigma by
suggesting that the name 'in ciphers' is Scudamore. The motto of the
Scudamore family was a pun on their name, 'Scuto Amoris Divini'; the poem
parallels this by beginning with the words 'L'Escu d'amor'."

The cipher spells out the name of Edward de Vere.

It does not. Have you even read the poem? The "absent lover" is John
Scudamore, who "deciphers" his name by elaborating on his love as a
metaphorical shield.

Friedman worked at the cipher, and proved that it also ciphers out the
name of Lewis Carroll, which of course is 200 years beside the point,
and the original solution stands.

The Oxfordian B. M. Ward used a "string cipher" technique borrowed from
the Baconians (thereby dooming his exercise from the start) and found the
name "Edward de Vere" by arbitrarily picking the letters he wanted.
Ward's method is not that of a genuine cipher, in which a rule or key
selects the positions of the letters to be selected.

The Friedmans again: "Ward's rules do not by any means 'eliminate the
possibility of chance'; nor is it 'highly improbable' that his discovery
of de Vere's name 'should be a fluke'. If anyone were prepared to take the
trouble, they could find several alternative signatures." The one
"alternative signature" that the Friedmans display is "Lewis Carroll," but
many others are possible.

This page shows Gascoigne's original poem for Sir John Scudamore as well
as many of the names that can be found in it by the string-cipher method:

http://shakespeareauthorship.com/sf/lescumany.html

Ward's method was to read the odd-numbered lines from left to right, and
the even-numbered lines from right to left, searching for the desired
letters among the first letters of words (or other "important" letters).
You can see the results on my page, immediately after the original poem.
The letters used to spell "Edward de Vere" downwards are in red; those
used to spell the name upwards are in blue; those which are used both
upwards and downwards are in purple.

Ward actually missed another way to get "Edward de Vere" in the poem. If
he had read each line backwards (rather than half of them forwards and
half backwards) he could have found the name, reading both upwards and
downwards.

The Friedmans' alternative, "Lewis Carroll," is given next. The Friedmans
say this about their "Lewis Carroll" solution:

"This meets all Ward's specifications: we begin on a prominent letter in
the first line, finish exactly on a letter in the last line, and then read
the name LEWIS CARROLL backwards through the poem, beginning and ending on
the same two letters. And, like Ward, we use only the initial letters of
words. If we were to allow ourselves Frisbee's modification of the 'string
cipher', using any letter anywhere, it would be easy to find in addition
Lewis Carroll's real name, Charles Lutwidge Dodgson, and the title *Alice
in Wonderland.* But enough is as good as a feast, and this is enough of
Booth and his various imitators. None of their improvements and
innovations has been able to lend his system any kind of cryptological
validity; the foundations are so shaky that it would be hopeless to try."

Next on my page comes "Lord Admiral" -- a contemporary of Oxford, whose
title may be found in Gascoigne's poem using Ward's methods.

I also show how one can find the names of Edward Stafford, Edward
Sibthorpe, Lewis Theobald, Lydia Maria Child, Edith Sitwell, and others.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Terry Ross ***@bcpl.net
SHAKESPEARE AUTHORSHIP http://ShakespeareAuthorship.com
CHRISTMAS POEMS http://ShakespeareAuthorship.com/xmas/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Art Neuendorffer

2004-11-30 20:18:11 UTC

Permalink

Gee, Terry; how come you'll talk to Richard and not me.

Scared?

Art

Terry Ross

2004-11-30 22:04:54 UTC

Permalink

Post by Art Neuendorffer
Gee, Terry; how come you'll talk to Richard and not me.

Art, believe I have responded to you more than to anyone else (and on two
different forums) the last few weeks.

Post by Art Neuendorffer
Scared?

That must be it.

I see you've been playing with Peter Bull's array and your favorite
statistical toy, but you seem to be relying on Peter's counts, which may
not be accurate. How many "regularly formed KITs" (that is, "segments"
comprising the letters K, I, and T) do you think there are in the array of
first letters in *Shakespeare's Sonnets*?
http://shakespeareauthorship.com/cipher/bmarlowe2.html

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Terry Ross ***@bcpl.net
SHAKESPEARE AUTHORSHIP http://ShakespeareAuthorship.com
CHRISTMAS POEMS http://ShakespeareAuthorship.com/xmas/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Art Neuendorffer

2004-12-01 00:18:29 UTC

Permalink

Post by Terry Ross

Post by Art Neuendorffer
Gee, Terry; how come you'll talk to Richard and not me.

Art, believe I have responded to you more than to anyone
else (and on two different forums) the last few weeks.

You should talk to your wife more then.

Post by Terry Ross

Post by Art Neuendorffer
Scared?

That must be it.

That's what I figured.

Post by Terry Ross
I see you've been playing with Peter Bull's array and your favorite
statistical toy, but you seem to be relying on Peter's counts, which may
not be accurate. How many "regularly formed KITs" (that is, "segments"
comprising the letters K, I, and T) do you think there are in the array
of first letters in *Shakespeare's Sonnets*?
http://shakespeareauthorship.com/cipher/bmarlowe2.html
of first letters in *Shakespeare's Sonnets*?

I haven't taken anyone's word.

I calculated a probability of ~ 1 / 3,600,000

for Peter Bull's "KITM-MARL-LOW"
PLUS 4 close "KIT"s in the first 12 lines.

and explained in detail my calculations.
What would you calculate?
---------------------------------------------------------
http://shakespeareauthorship.com/cipher/bmarlowe1.html

<= 12 =>

137 T T T Y I B W W W W O T
136 I S A T W I I A T T F T
135 W A M T W N S A T A S O
134 S A M[T]B F H V T T A S
133 B F[I]B M A O A P B W T
132 T[K]H L A B N D A O T A
131 T A F T Y T T A A A O T
130 M C[I I]I B A T I T I M
129 T I[I]S I P P O M H A B
128 H V W[T]D[T]W A T A O M
127 I O B A F F S B T H A S
126 O D W[T|I]A S M Y S H A
125 W W O W H L F P N A W B
124 Y I A W N I V W I W B T
123 N T T T O W A T T N F M
122 T F W B O H T O T N T T
121 T W A N F G O W N A I B
120 T A N V F A A[T]O M A T
119 W D A S W W H I O T A G
118 L W A W E T A T T T A W
117 A W F W T A T W B A B B
116 L A W O O T I W L W L B
115 T E Y M B C T D A M W C
114 O D O A T S C A O A[M]A
113 S A D S F O O N F T T T
112 Y W F S Y T N T I O T M
111 O T T T T A T P W P N N
110 A A G M M A T A N M O A
109 O T A A T L I S N A T T
108 W W W T N I C E S W N B
107 N O C S T A I[A]N M S W
106 W I A I T O I E S O A T
105 L N S T K S T O F F A T
104 T F S H T I T S A S S H
103 A T T T O L T D W T F T
102 M I T T O W A A N T B A
101 O F B S M T B B B E T A
100 W T S D[R]I S A R I I A
99 T S I W I T A T O A A B
98 F W H T Y O C O N N T D
97 H F W W A T B L Y B F A
96 S S B T A T S T H I H I
95 H W D O T M C N O W W A
94 T T W V T A T O T T B T
93 S[L]M T F T I I B T W T
92 B F A F T W I T T S O H
91 S S S S A W B A T R O A
90 T N I A A C G T I W B A
89 S A S A T T A I B T L A
88 W A V A W V[O]T A F T D
87 F A T M F A T A T O S C
86 W B T M W A N G H W A I
85 M W R A I A T I H A B T
84 W T I W L T B T L N A M
83 I A I T A T H S T W F[W]
-------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------
"KITM-MARL-LOW" probability ~ 1/760
-------------------------------------------------------
Consider the "Bull Sonnets Acrostic Array" at Terry's site:

http://shakespeareauthorship.com/cipher/bmarlowe1.html

Use a 'String Find' to count (in first 12 columns):

4 K's
68 M's
41 L's

This automatically gives:

4 x 68 "K-M" pairs and
68 x 41 "M-L" pairs

However, each "K**M" or "M**L" 4 LETTER string
must be separated by multiples of 3 rows & 3 columns

Hence, the [E]xpected [V]alue number of interesting
"K**M" or "M**L" 4 LETTER strings
in the Bull array

"K**M" E.V.: ~ 4*68/(3*3) ~ 30
"M**L" E.V.: ~ 67*41/(3*3) ~ 305
----------------------------------------------------
Now use 'String Find' {e.g., on "I T" & "T I"}
to count (for whole 14 lines):

50 "IT"s (left right pairs out of ~ 4000)
8 "AR"s (left right pairs out of ~ 4000)
31 "OW"s (left right pairs out of ~ 4000)

"IT" probability: 50/4000
"AR" probability: 8/4000
"OW" probability: 31/4000
----------------------------------------------------
Now applying the

"IT" prob: 50/4000 = 1/80
"AR" prob: 8/4000 = 1/500

to the [E]xpected [V]alue of interesting
"K**M" or "M**L" 4 LETTER strings

gives [E]xpected [V]alue of

"KITM" E.V. = 30 / 80
"MARL" E.V.= 305 / 500

Hence one would be lucky to expect ONE of each
(which presumeably is what Peter Bull found)
-------------------------------------------------------
However, one would NOT expect these
two (expected) 4 LETTER strings:
"KITM" & "MARL" to share the SAME "M"!

For these two strings to share the SAME "M"

"KITM-MARL" E.V.: 30*305/(80*500*68) ~ 1/297
------------------------------------------------------
The additional of "LOW" adds a little bit more to this:
--------------------------------------------------
Given the prior spacings in "KITM" & "MARL"
it would be reasonable to look for the "O"
of the "OW" pair in one of 62 positions:

[L]M T F T I I
F A F T W I T
S S S A W B A
N I A A C G T
A S A T T A I
A V A W V[O]T
A T M F A T A
B T M W A N G
W R A I A T I

Only one "[O]W" is found out of 62.

How does this compare with and
expected "OW" prob: ~31/4000?
-----------------------------------------
Fisher's Exact Test
http://www.matforsk.no/ola/fisher.htm

TABLE = [ 1 , 61 , 31 , 3970 ]
2-Tail : p-value = 0.38980385512773885
-----------------------------------------
So the [E]xpected [V]alue of
the final "OW" is ~0.39

"KITM-MARL-LOW" probability: 0.39/297 ~ 1/760

A respectable if not overly impressive number in itself.
------------------------------------------------------------
Now things get interesting:
------------------------------------------------------------
"KITM-MARL-LOW" + 4 close "KIT"s probability?
------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Bull points out:

<<1 The beginning of the message is very clearly signposted. The
K forming the first letter of the message is the starting point of no
less than five regularly formed KITs, one of which appears in adjacent
squares and all of which are straight-line examples, with left to
right orientation and tight letter spacing. This KIT node is 'highly
anomalous' in the grid. It is eye-catching. Its occurence is highly
unlikely to be the product of random forces.

2. The line of the message as it unfolds from the initial K is
also indicated because the KITM of the first section is exactly
superimposed on a seperate KIT line. This is a signal of its
intentionality. It is an anomaly compounded.>>
-----------------------------------------------------
So what about the four other "regularly formed KITs"

The pertinent I's lie within the 25 spaces
of a half-diamond surrounding the K in "KITM":

S
A M
A M[T]
F[I]B M
[K]H L A B
A F T Y
C[I I]
I[I]
V [T] [T]

[T]

So 4 of these 25 spaces produce
the "I" for a "KIT" while 19 do not
[; ignoring the "K" & "T"]

Compare this with the 50 "IT"s found in ~ 4000
left right pairs in the "Bull array":
-----------------------------------------------
Fisher's Exact Test
http://www.matforsk.no/ola/fisher.htm

TABLE = [ 4 , 19 , 50 , 3950 ]
2-Tail : p-value = 0.00021257190299677967
-----------------------------------------------
Therefore there is only ~ 1/4700!! probability
for this close clustering of 4 "KIT"s!
-------------------------------------------------
Hence, the chance of "KITM-MARL-LOW"
PLUS 4 close "KIT"s

~ 1 / (760 x 4700) ~1 / 3,600,000!!!
------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer

richard kennedy

2004-12-01 03:10:09 UTC

Permalink

Regarding the Scudamore cipher/poem, Dr. W.W. Greg of great renown
as a Shakespearean scholar, examined the case and said of the Edward
de Vere solution: "In this poem we are told that a name is concealed,
and the acrostic found is an excellent one. I should be reluctant to
believe that its presence could be due to chance."

Now, one does not need be a cryptographer to follow the solution. Greg
was not, I am not, nor is Terry Ross anything but an amateur. The
Friedmans debunked the cipher, and offered the Lewis Carroll solution.
That's the best they could do, a name hundreds of years away from the
poem, of absolutely no worth in deciding about the cipher.

I'd suggest that the Friedmans knew that Edward de Vere had entered the
Authorship controversy with some authority by the time they wrote their
book, "The Shakespeare Ciphers Examined," 1958, and as the text of the
book suggests, they were in the debunking business. The Scudamore poem
offers up the name of Edward de Vere, and, being one of the claimants to
the works, he must be put out of the way. Therefore, they went to a bunko
solution of the cipher.

The Friedmans book, by the way, was dedicated to Joseph F. Galland,
"Whose unpublished work DIGESTA ANTI-SHAKESPEAREANA
HAS BEEN OF INVALUABLE ASSISTANCE TO US."

The cipher proves nothing at all regarding Edward de Vere's authorship of
the Works of Shakespeare. If his name was spelled out in a cipher in a
poem, what matter? Even the writer of the poem is a question, and what
matter is that? It isn't even much of a poem, and would get little attention
except in the title we are told that the thing spells out a name in cipher.
Sort of an Elizabethan game, they loved such puzzles.

So then we have Terry Ross, writhing about in his 1999 posts (see the
archives) trying to take Edward de Vere out of the question, the same as
the Friedmans tried to do. But it doesn't work, the cipher is there and
stands solid against the Lewis Carroll solution or whatever wonderland
Ross wants to put in its place.

And yet Ross must keep on like he knows what he's talking about
because the hateful name of Edward de Vere is found in an obscure poem
of no worth in deciding the authorship question. Like Claudius, Ross is
frighted with false fire, even the name of Oxford heats his trousers, his
cool is gone, and pissing on the cipher, or on me, is not going to help him.

-------------

Post by richard kennedy
Supposing that Ross might want to take up the challenge to
debate the Scudamore cipher, I searched the archives to refresh
my memory of the arguments on either side, and found that in
discussing the matter with Ross, he advanced his debating technique
in this way.
"?let us not give up on Richard Kennedy, he may have fallen
off the wagon, torn up the pledge.'
"?you might want to lay off the loco weed?"
"It may be time for him to take the old brain pan into the shop and
have it looked at."
"Your metaphor makes me worry about any cattle you may have
been in recent contact with. Have you been feeding candy to the
livestock again?"
Well, what can one say? Ross is a nasty-minded man. I had
forgotten his style of debate, a sort of clubbing arrogance and
schoolboy waggery. Therefore I repent I invited him to a discussion
of the Scudamore cipher. I don't want to talk with a man who
supposes such pandering repartee to be scholarship and a display
of his wit.
Anyway, the Scudamore discussion is in the archives if anyone is
interested. One thing only I'll mention, since Ross has brought it up,
regarding the chief objection of Friedman regarding the Scudamore
cipher.
We are told in the title of the poem that it ciphers the name of a man,
evidently alive in the 1570s. The cipher spells out the name of Edward
de Vere. Friedman worked at the cipher, and proved that it also ciphers
out the name of Lewis Carroll, which of course is 200 years beside the
point, and the original solution stands.

Terry Ross

2004-12-01 18:35:21 UTC

Permalink

Greg's reluctance, such as it was (and it would be unwise to exaggerate
it), could have been overcome. He did not, at that time, have the benefit
of Prouty's explanation of the poem's real ciphering (Scudamore == L'escu
d'amour == the shield of love) or of the Friedmans' demonstration that
other names could be found following Ward's methods.

Greg did NOT, by the way, think Oxford had written that poem -- or any of
the poems Ward tried to steal from Gascoigne. Even if the acrostic had
been genuine (which it is not), that would not mean that it was a
signature.

Now, one does not need be a cryptographer to follow the solution.

Indeed one does not -- all one needs to know is that Gascoigne from time
to time wrote poems on behalf of other people, and (to identify the
"absent lover") that Sir John Scudamore's family name and motto could have
to do with a "shield of love." Even if one has not made the
"Scudamore/l'escu d'amour/shield of love" connection, there is still no
reason whatsoever for stealing some of Gascoigne's poems and assigning them
to Oxford.

Greg was not, I am not, nor is Terry Ross anything but an amateur.

Greg thoroughly debunked ward's "case" for Oxford's contribution to
Gascoigne's *Hundreth Sundrie Flowres*. Prouty was no cryptographer, but
he deciphered Gascoigne's light cipher. The Friedmans, of course, WERE
experts, but one does not have to be an expert to be able to understand
their analysis.

The Friedmans debunked the cipher, and offered the Lewis Carroll
solution. That's the best they could do, a name hundreds of years away
from the poem, of absolutely no worth in deciding about the cipher.

No, they offered the "Lewis Carroll" as one counterexample -- only one is
needed -- but they said that it would be easy to find others. I have
followed their lead and found the names or titles of some of Gascoigne's
contemporaries (and more could be found) as well as the names of people
who lived long after. See some examples here:
http://shakespeareauthorship.com/sf/lescumany.html

If an amateur such as I am could use Ward's methods and find several names
other than "Edward de Vere" and "Lewis Carroll," then perhaps the amateur
Richard Kennedy could find still more names.

If Ward had found a genuine cipher, finding multiple solutions would have
been impossible. Here is a genuine acrostic that DOES spell a name and
title.

E xcept I should in freendship seeme ingrate,
D enying duty, where to I am bound:
W ith letting slip your Honnors woorthy state,
A t all assayes, which I haue Noble found.
R ight well I might refrayne to handle pen:
D enouncing aye the company of men.

D own dire despayre, let courage come in place,
E xalt his fame whom Honnor dooth imbrace.

V ertue hath aye adornd your valiant hart,
E xampled by your deeds of lasting fame:
R egarding such as take God Mars his parte,
E che where by proofe, in Honnor and in name.

E che one dooth knowe no fables I expresse,
A s though I should encroche for priuate gayne:
R egard you may (at pleasure) I confesse,
L etting that passe, I vouch to dread no paine.
E che where, gainst such as can my faith distaine.

O r once can say, he deales with flatterye:
F orging his tales to please the fantasye.

O f mine intent your Honnor iudge I craue,
X ephirus blowe your Fame to Orient skyes:
E xtoll I pray this valiant Brittayne braue,
N ot seeming once Bellona to despise.
F or valliantnes beholde young Cfsar heere,
O r Hanniball loe Hercules in place:
R ing foorth (I say) his Fame both farre and neere,
D out not to say, De Vere will foes deface.

Anybody who takes the first letter of each line will get the same answer
as anybody else who applies the same technique. You will NOT get "Lewis
Carroll" or "Edward Sibthorpe" or "Edith Sitwell" -- a few of the many
names that can be found if looks for a string-(non)cipher in Gascoigne's
poem, as Ward did.

I'd suggest that the Friedmans knew that Edward de Vere had entered the
Authorship controversy with some authority by the time they wrote their
book, "The Shakespeare Ciphers Examined," 1958, and as the text of the
book suggests, they were in the debunking business.

If you had read the book you would know that they discuss another invalid
Oxfordian cipher -- although most of their attention is devoted to
Baconian cipher-mongering.

The Scudamore poem offers up the name of Edward de Vere, and, being one
of the claimants to the works, he must be put out of the way.
Therefore, they went to a bunko solution of the cipher.

There was no particular need to "put [Oxford] out of the way" since he was
never IN the way. Oxford never claimed to have written any of
Shakespeare's or Gascoigne's works. The Friedmans' interest in Ward's
string-cipher was an offshoot of their detailed examination of Baconian
string-ciphers.

The Friedmans book, by the way, was dedicated to Joseph F. Galland,
"Whose unpublished work DIGESTA ANTI-SHAKESPEAREANA HAS BEEN OF
INVALUABLE ASSISTANCE TO US."

If you have read the book's dedication, why not read the rest of the book?

The cipher proves nothing at all regarding Edward de Vere's authorship
of the Works of Shakespeare.

There is no genuine cipher of Oxford's name in Gascoigne's poem, but there
IS in the poem I quoted above, and that poem proves nothing at all
regarding Oxford's authorship of the works of Shakespeare OR of Oxford's
authorship of the poem that DID contain an acrostic on his name. In fact
the author of that poem was Anthony Munday.

If his name was spelled out in a cipher in a poem, what matter?

See Anthony Munday's poem, in which (unlike in Gascoigne's poem) Oxford's
name was deliberately placed by the author.

Even the writer of the poem is a question, and what matter is that?

No, there's no question who wrote the Gascoigne poem; it was George
Gascoigne.

It isn't even much of a poem,

The extended "shield of love" metaphor is reasonably well handled.

and would get little attention except in the title we are told that the
thing spells out a name in cipher.

It gets some attention from readers of Gascoigne's works -- a rather small
set. It gets more attention from Oxfordians who have for the better part
of a century allowed Ward's many, many, many errors and misreadings to
blind them.

Sort of an Elizabethan game, they loved such puzzles.

I'm sure Gascoigne hoped Scudamore would enjoy it.

So then we have Terry Ross, writhing about in his 1999 posts (see the
archives) trying to take Edward de Vere out of the question, the same as
the Friedmans tried to do.

Edward de Vere is not in the question. Ward was wrong to try to steal
some of Gascoigne's poems for Oxford, Greg dealt very well with Ward's
arguments in his review of the book. Prouty's work should have finished
off whatever was left of Ward's boo-boos, and the Friedmans' exploded
Ward's claim that he had found Oxford's name uniquely concealed.

But it doesn't work, the cipher is there and stands solid against the
Lewis Carroll solution or whatever wonderland Ross wants to put in its
place.

I'm sure there are other Oxfordians who are as reluctant to give up the
theft from Gascoigne as you appear to be, and who are as incapable of
accepting Greg's, Prouty's, and the Friedmans' dismantling of Ward.

And yet Ross must keep on like he knows what he's talking about because
the hateful name of Edward de Vere is found in an obscure poem of no
worth in deciding the authorship question.

See the Munday poem, quoted above. I have no problem with Oxford's name
appearing in Munday's poem -- in fact, I have often uses it as an example
of a genuine cipher. Ward's string method, however, is demonstrably not
valid, as it may be used to produce multiple "solutions."

Like Claudius, Ross is frighted with false fire, even the name of Oxford
heats his trousers, his cool is gone, and p*ss*ng on the cipher, or on
me, is not going to help him.

You must have seen a very strange production of *Hamlet*.

I see Richard has once again snipped my response to him so that he can
pretend in his usual fashion that his prose is unanswerable, rather than

The entire post from which Richard quotes is available here:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.GSO.4.10.9909210554010.559-1000
***@mail.bcpl.net

I see that in this post I offered Richard the hand of friendship and even
addressed him as "brother" -- yes, my "debating technique" is harsh
indeed.

" you might want to lay off the loco weed "

Let's see a bit more context on this one:

========================= =========

But the Scudamore

"It may be time for him to take the old brain pan into the shop and have
it looked at."

Alas, this suggestion seems to have gone unheeded.

"Your metaphor makes me worry about any cattle you may have been in
recent contact with. Have you been feeding candy to the livestock
again?"

See above -- I was but extending Richard's own metaphor.

Some years ago Richard Nathan collected a few samples of Richard Kennedy's
own repartee:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=7v62ms%247re%***@bgtnsc03.worldnet.a
tt.net

Noel Coward he ain't.

I don't know whether Kennedy has read the Friedmans' book-- if he were
familiar even with the title page, he would know that two people named
Friedman were involved.

We are told in the title of the poem that it ciphers the name of a man,
evidently alive in the 1570s.

The cipher spells out the name of Edward de Vere.

It does not. Have you even read the poem? The "absent lover" is John
Scudamore, who "deciphers" his name by elaborating on his love as a
metaphorical shield.

Friedman worked at the cipher, and proved that it also ciphers out the
name of Lewis Carroll, which of course is 200 years beside the point,
and the original solution stands.

The Oxfordian B. M. Ward used a "string cipher" technique borrowed from
the Baconians (thereby dooming his exercise from the start) and found the
name "Edward de Vere" by arbitrarily picking the letters he wanted. Ward's
method is not that of a genuine cipher, in which a rule or key selects the
positions of the letters to be selected.

The Friedmans again: "Ward's rules do not by any means 'eliminate the
possibility of chance'; nor is it 'highly improbable' that his discovery
of de Vere's name 'should be a fluke'. If anyone were prepared to take the
trouble, they could find several alternative signatures." The one
"alternative signature" that the Friedmans display is "Lewis Carroll," but
many others are possible.

This page shows Gascoigne's original poem for Sir John Scudamore as well
as many of the names that can be found in it by the string-cipher method:

http://shakespeareauthorship.com/sf/lescumany.html

Ward's method was to read the odd-numbered lines from left to right, and
the even-numbered lines from right to left, searching for the desired
letters among the first letters of words (or other "important" letters).
You can see the results on my page, immediately after the original poem.
The letters used to spell "Edward de Vere" downwards are in red; those
used to spell the name upwards are in blue; those which are used both
upwards and downwards are in purple.

Ward actually missed another way to get "Edward de Vere" in the poem. If
he had read each line backwards (rather than half of them forwards and
half backwards) he could have found the name, reading both upwards and
downwards.

The Friedmans' alternative, "Lewis Carroll," is given next. The Friedmans
say this about their "Lewis Carroll" solution:

"This meets all Ward's specifications: we begin on a prominent letter in
the first line, finish exactly on a letter in the last line, and then read
the name LEWIS CARROLL backwards through the poem, beginning and ending on
the same two letters. And, like Ward, we use only the initial letters of
words. If we were to allow ourselves Frisbee's modification of the 'string
cipher', using any letter anywhere, it would be easy to find in addition
Lewis Carroll's real name, Charles Lutwidge Dodgson, and the title *Alice
in Wonderland.* But enough is as good as a feast, and this is enough of
Booth and his various imitators. None of their improvements and
innovations has been able to lend his system any kind of cryptological
validity; the foundations are so shaky that it would be hopeless to try."

Next on my page comes "Lord Admiral" -- a contemporary of Oxford, whose
title may be found in Gascoigne's poem using Ward's methods.

I also show how one can find the names of Edward Stafford, Edward
Sibthorpe, Lewis Theobald, Lydia Maria Child, Edith Sitwell, and others.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Terry Ross ***@bcpl.net
SHAKESPEARE AUTHORSHIP http://ShakespeareAuthorship.com
CHRISTMAS POEMS http://ShakespeareAuthorship.com/xmas/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Art Neuendorffer

2004-12-03 23:36:27 UTC

Permalink

------------------------------------------------------------
dd VV-R-I-OTHES(l)EY
------------------------------------------------------------
_Faerie Queene_ Dedication
[http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~rbear/fqintro.html]

T(O)
THE MOST HIG(H),
MIGHTI(E)
an{d}
MAGNIFICEN(T)
EMPRESSE RENO(VV-)
MED FOR PIETIE, VE(R-)
TVE, AND ALL GRATIOV(S)
GOVERNMENT ELIZABETH B(Y)
THE GRACE OF GOD QVEEN(E)
OF ENGLAND FRAVNCE an{d}
IRELAND AND OF VIRG(I-)
NIA, DEFENDOVR OF THE
FAITH, &. HER MOST
HVMBLE SERVANT
EDMVND SPENSER
DOTH IN ALL HV-
MILITIE DEDI-
CATE, PRE-
SENT
AND CONSECRATE THESE
HIS LABOVRS TO LIVE
VVITH THE ETERNI-
TIE OF HER
FAME.
-------------------------------------------------------------
From the Ross/Kathman site
http://www.clark.net/pub/tross/ws/barksted.html

<<The Oxfordian reading of Barksted assumes that living poets were
never spoken of in terms that might also apply to the dead, but this
assumption is false. In fact, Shakespeare was apparently referred to as
dead as early as 1598, six years before Oxford died (and eighteen years
before Shakespeare himself died). Here is a passage from Richard
Barnfield's poem "A Remembrance of Some English Poets,"
which appeared in his Poems in DiVERs Humours (1598):

[BARNFIELD, RICHARD, 1605,
Remembrance of some English Poets. ]

"And Shakespeare thou, whose hony-flowing Vaine,
(Pleasing the World) thy Praises doth obtaine.
Whose Venus, and whose Lucrece (sweete, and chaste)
Thy Name in FAMES immortall Booke haue plac't.
LIVE EVER YOU, at least in FAME LIVE EVER:
Well may the Bodye DYE, but FAME DIES NEVER."

.. Not only does Barnfield seem to allude to
Shakespeare's death, but he says "live EVER" twice,
parallel to the "EVER-living" of the Sonnets dedication.>>
-------------------------------------------------------------

Here is a genuine acrostic that DOES spell a name and title.

E xcept I should in freendship seeme ingrate,
D enying duty, where to I am bound:
W ith letting slip your Honnors woorthy state,
A t all assayes, which I haue Noble found.
R ight well I might refrayne to handle pen:
D enouncing aye the company of men.

D own dire despayre, let courage come in place,
E xalt his FAME whom Honnor dooth imbrace.

V ertue hath aye adornd your valiant hart,
E xampled by your deeds of lasting FAME:
R egarding such as take God Mars his parte,
E che where by proofe, in Honnor and in name.

E che one dooth knowe no fables I expresse,
A s though I should encroche for priuate gayne:
R egard you may (at pleasure) I confesse,
L etting that passe, I vouch to dread no paine.
E che where, gainst such as can my faith distaine.

O r once can say, he deales with flatterye:
F orging his tales to please the fantasye.

O f mine intent your Honnor iudge I craue,
X ephirus blowe your FAME to Orient skyes:
E xtoll I pray this valiant Brittayne braue,
N ot seeming once Bellona to despise.
F or valliantnes beholde young Cfsar heere,
O r Hanniball loe Hercules in place:
R ing foorth (I say) his FAME both farre and neere,
D out not to say, De Vere will foes deface.
-------------------------------------------------------
King Richard III Act 3, Scene 1

PRINCE EDWARD:
That Julius Caesar was a FAMOUS man;
With what his valour did enrich his wit,
His wit set down to make his valour live
Death makes no conquest of this conqueror;
For now he lives in FAME, though not in life.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.sourcetext.com/sourcebook/Vere/1580s/1580.html

1580: *Dedication to Oxford* by Anthony Munday
in _Zelauto, The fountaine of *FAME* _ :

Not long it will be before the rest be finished and
the renowned *Palmerin of England* with all
speede shall be sent you. Thus praying for
your prosperitie, and the increase of your
Honourable dignitie: I commend your
woorthye state to the heauenly erernitie.

Your Honours moste dutifull
seruaunt at all assayes.
Antony Munday.
--------------------------------------------------
Samuel Taylor Coleridge epitaph

Stop, Christian passer-by: Stop, child of God,
And read, with gentle breast. Beneath this sod
A poet lies, or that which once seem'd he--
O, lift one thought in prayer for S. T. C.--
That he who many a year with toil of breath
Found death in life, may here find life in death:
Mercy for praise--to be forgiven for *FAME* --
He ask'd, and hoped through Christ. Do thou the same.
------------------------------------------------------
King Henry VI, Part ii Act 1, Scene 1

GLOUCESTER O peers of England, shameful is this league!
Fatal this marriage, cancelling your FAME,
Blotting your names from books of MEMORY,
Razing the characters of your renown,
Defacing monuments of conquer'd France,
Undoing all, as all had never been!
----------------------------------------------------------
Stanley TONG epitaph

Ask who lyes heare but do not weep
He is not dead he doth but sleep
This stoney register is for his BONES
His FAME is more perpetual than these STONES
And his own goodness with himself being gone
Shall lyve when earthlie monument is none

Not monumental stone preserve our FAME
Nor SKY aspyring PYRAMIDS our NAME
The MEMORY of Him for whom this stands
Shall outlive marble and defacers Hands
When all to tyme's consumption shall be geaven
Standley for whom this stands shall stand in Heaven.
----------------------------------------------------
John Milton (Second Folio)

What needs my Shakespeare for his honour'd BONES,--
The LABOUR of an age in piled STONES?
Or that his hallow'd relics should be HID [HUT]
Under a STAR-y-pointing PYRAMID?
Dear son of *MEMORY*, great HEIR of FAME,
What need'st thou such weak witness of thy NAME?
-----------------------------------------------------
SONNET 33

Full many a glorious morning have I seen
Flatter the mountain tops with sovereign eye,

http://www.sirbacon.org/gallery/pyramid.html

<= 33 =>

T OT [H] EONLIEBEGETTEROFTHESEINSVINGS
O NN [E T] SMRWHALLHAPPINESSEANDTHATETE
R NI [T(I)E] PROMISEDBYOVREVERLIVINGPOET
W IS [H E T H] THEWELLWISHINGADVENTVRERIN
-------------------------------------------------------
TOTHEO /N/LIE BEG E. TTER [oF] THESEINS
UINGS /O/NNET SMRW\H\ ALLH [A] PPINESSE
ANDT /H/ATETE RNITI\E\ PRO [M] ISEDBYOU
REV /E/RLIVIN GPOETW\I\ SH [E] THTHEWEL
LW /I/SHINGAD VENTURE\R\ IN SETTINGF
O /R/TH

"Leaving *NO HEIR* begotten of his body" -- Henry VI Part 1
-------------------------------------------------------
King Richard III Act 3, Scene 1

GLOUCESTER I say, without characters, FAME lives long.

[Aside] Thus, like the formal vice, Iniquity,
I moralize two meanings in one word.
-----------------------------------------------------------
King Henry VI, Part i Act 4, Scene 4

LUCY His FAME lives in the world, his shame in you.
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Comedy of Errors Act 3, Scene 2

LUCIANA: Shame hath a bastard FAME, well managed;
Ill deeds are doubled with an EVIL word.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Love's Labour's Lost Act 1, Scene 1

FERDINAND Let FAME, that all hunt after in their lives,
LIVE register'd upon our BRAZEN TOMBS
And then grace us in the disgrace of death;
When, spite of cormorant devouring Time,

BIRON Why, all delights are vain; but that most vain,
Which with pain purchased doth inherit pain:
As, painfully TO PORE upon a book
To seek the light of TRUTH; while TRUTH the while
Doth falsely blind the eyesight of his look:
Light seeking light doth light of light beguile:
So, ere you find where light in darkness lies,
Your light grows dark by losing of your eyes.
Study me how to please the eye indeed
By fixing it upon a fairer eye,
Who dazzling so, that eye shall be his heed
And give him light that it was blinded by.
Study is like the heaven's glorious sun
That will not be deep-search'd with saucy looks:
Small have continual plodders ever won
Save base authority from others' books
These earthly godfathers of heaven's lights
That give a name to every fixed star
Have no more profit of their shining nights
Than those that walk and wot not what they are.
Too much to know is to know nought but FAME;
And every godfather can give a name.
------------------------------------------------------
King Henry VIII Act 5, Scene 5

CRANMER: Let me speak, sir,
For heaven now bids me; and the words I utter
Let none think flattery, for they'll find 'em TRUTH.
This royal infant--heaven still move about her!--
Though in her cradle, yet now promises
Upon this land a THOUSAND THOUSAND blessings,
Which time shall bring to ripeness: she shall be--
But few now living can behold that goodness--
A pattern to all princes living with her,
And all that shall succeed: Saba was never
More covetous of wisdom and fair virtue
Than this pure soul shall be: all princely graces,
That mould up such a mighty piece as this is,
With all the virtues that attend the good,
Shall still be doubled on her: TRUTH shall nurse her,
Holy and heavenly thoughts still counsel her:
She shall be loved and fear'd: her own shall bless her;
Her foes shake like a field of beaten corn,
And hang their heads with sorrow: good grows with her:
In her days every man shall eat in safety,
Under his own vine, what he plants; and sing
The merry songs of peace to all his neighbours:
God shall be truly known; and those about her
From her shall read the perfect ways of honour,
And by those claim their greatness, not by blood.
Nor shall this peace sleep with her: but as when
The bird of wonder dies, the maiden phoenix,
Her ashes new create another heir,
As great in admiration as herself;
So shall she leave her blessedness to one,
When heaven shall call her from this cloud of darkness,
Who from the sacred ashes of her honour
Shall star-like rise, as great in FAME as she was,
And so stand fix'd: peace, plenty, love, TRUTH, terror,
That were the servants to this chosen infant,
Shall then be his, and like a vine grow to him:
Wherever the bright sun of heaven shall shine,
His honour and the greatness of his name
Shall be, and make new nations: he shall flourish,
And, like a mountain CEDAR, reach his branches
To all the plains about him: our children's children
Shall see this, and bless heaven.
------------------------------------------------------
The Taming of the Shrew Act 5, Scene 2

KATHARINA: Fie, fie! unknit that threatening unkind brow,
And dart not scornful glances from those eyes,
To wound thy lord, thy king, thy governor:
It blots thy beauty as frosts do bite the meads,
Confounds thy FAME as whirlwinds shake fair buds,
------------------------------------------------------
Much Ado About Nothing Act 2, Scene 1

BENEDICK Troth, my lord, I have played the part of Lady FAME.
I found him here as melancholy as a lodge in a
warren: I told him, and I think I told him true,
that your grace had got the good will of this young
lady; and I offered him my company to a willow-tree,
either to make him a garland, as being forsaken, or
to bind him up a rod, as being worthy to be whipped.

Act 5, Scene 3

Done to death by slanderous tongues
Was the Hero that here lies:
Death, in guerdon of her wrongs,
Gives her FAME which never dies.
So the life that died with shame
Lives in death with glorious FAME.
Hang thou there upon the tomb,
Praising her when I am DUMB.
------------------------------------------------------
Pericles Prince of Tyre Act 3, DUMB SHOW.

FAME answering the most strange inquire,
To the court of King Simonides
Are letters brought,

Act 3, Scene 2

First Gentleman: The heavens,
Through you, increase our wonder and set up
Your FAME forever.
------------------------------------------------------
Troilus and Cressida Act 3, Scene 3

ACHILLES I see my reputation is at stake
My FAME is shrewdly gored.

Act 4, Scene 5

HECTOR Not Neoptolemus so mirable,
On whose bright crest FAME with her loud'st Oyes
Cries 'This is he,' could promise to himself
A thought of added honour torn from Hector.
------------------------------------------------------
Hamlet, Prince of Denmark Act 4, Scene 7

KING CLAUDIUS We'll put on those shall praise your
excellence And set a double varnish on the FAME
------------------------------------------------------
The Rape of Lucrece Stanza 172

'This brief abridgement of my will I make:
My soul and body to the skies and ground;
My resolution, husband, do thou take;
Mine honour be the knife's that makes my wound;
My shame be his that did my FAME confound;
And all my FAME that lives disbursed be
To those that live, and think no shame of me.

Sonnet 80

O, how I faint when I of you do write,
Knowing a better spirit doth use your name,
And in the praise thereof spends all his might,
To make me tongue-tied, speaking of your FAME!

Sonnet 84

That to his subject lends not some small glory;
But he that writes of you, if he can tell
That you are you, so dignifies his story,
Let him but copy what in you is writ,
Not making worse what nature made so clear,
And such a counterpart shall FAME his wit,
Making his style admired every where.
---------------------------------------------------------
CHAPTER XXI

"Thou speakest not amiss, Sancho," answered Don Quixote, "but before that
point is reached it is requisite to roam the world, as it were on probation,
seeking adventures, in order that, by achieving some, name and FAME may be
acquired, such that when he betakes himself to the court of some great
monarch the knight may be already known by his deeds, and that the boys, the
instant they see him enter the gate of the city, may all follow him and
surround him, crying, 'This is the Knight of the Sun'-or the Serpent, or any
other title under which he may have achieved great deeds.
-------------------------------------------------------------
THE KNIGHT OF THE SUN, ALPHEBO, TO DON QUIXOTE.

MY sword could not at all compare with thine,
Spanish Alphebo! full of courtesy;
Nor thine arm's valour can be match'd by mine,
Though I was fear'd where days both spring and die.
Empires I scorn'd, and the vast monarchy
Of th' Orient ruddy (offer'd me in vain),
I left, that I the sovereign face might see
Of my Aurora, fair Claridiane,
Whom, as by miracle, I surely lov'd:
So banish'd by disgrace, even very hell
Quak'd at mine arm, that did his fury tame.
But thou, illustrious Goth, Quixote! hast prov'd
Thy valour, for Dulcinea's sake, so well
As both on earth have gain'd eternal FAME.
------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer

richard kennedy

2004-12-02 04:02:54 UTC

Permalink

Terry Ross puts up several pages to say a simple thing. His dog
don't hunt. Ross can't search out a solution to the Scudamore
acrostic/cipher that's any better than what the Friedmans could
find. The "Lewis Carroll" solution is admirable, and cost the
Friedmans a good deal of labor no doubt, but the good Rev.
Dodgson has no business in an Elizabethan poem. Unless Ross
can do better, he must be happy with the "Edward de Vere"
solution. There is no rabbit hole for him to duck into, and that
Jabberwocky poem is on his case.

A quotation from Fletcher Pratt's "Secret and Urgent. The Story
of Codes and Ciphers," 1939:

"the use of acrostic signatures was not even new in Elizabethan
times. Some of the most delicate of Villon's ballads are acrostic
More recently Edgar Allan Poe had published his "Enigma" sonnet,
in which the name of Sarah Anna Lewis can be discovered by
reading the first letter of the first line, the second of the second, the
third of the third and so to the endIn cryptography acrostics are
difficult it takes more literary skill than most cipherers possess
to construct a text which reads well yet contains an acrostic
meaning but not impossible"

From Fred B. Wrixon's "Codes and Ciphers," 1998:

"During the First World War, the Germans tried to disguise a secret
dispatch in a press cable as follows:

PRESIDENT'S EMBARGO RULING SHOULD HAVE IMMEDIATE
NOTICE. GRAVE SITUATION AFFECTING INTERNATIONAL LAW.
STATEMENT FORESHADOWS RUIN OF MANY NEUTRALS.
YELLOW JOURNALS UNIFYING NATIONAL EXCITEMENT
IMMENSELY.

The first letters of each word spell, "Pershing sails from N.Y. June 1."

And the Friedman's testify against themselves with this quotation, p. 100.

"The second point in their favor (acrostic hunters) is that acrostics
have unquestionably been used to establish claims to authorship. A
striking example is found in an anonymous Latin work published in
1616. The consecutive initial letters of each of the fifty-three section
into which the book is divided spell, without a single deviation, the
sentence Franciscus Godwinvvs Landavensis Episcopus hos
conscripsit'.

The Scudamore is one level more complicated than this example below,
but the method is the same. See if you can find the acrostic "Richard
Kennedy."

"Rather than preach, I will teach the cipher hidden in the Scudamore
acrostic. You must read carefully to discover the hidden name. Those
with a knack for puzzles might enjoy this nice number, which enters
my name into this dear labor of lines as you will see."

----------------------------

Post by richard kennedy
Regarding the Scudamore cipher/poem, Dr. W.W. Greg of great renown
as a Shakespearean scholar, examined the case and said of the Edward
de Vere solution: "In this poem we are told that a name is concealed,
and the acrostic found is an excellent one. I should be reluctant to
believe that its presence could be due to chance."
Now, one does not need be a cryptographer to follow the solution. Greg
was not, I am not, nor is Terry Ross anything but an amateur. The
Friedmans debunked the cipher, and offered the Lewis Carroll solution.
That's the best they could do, a name hundreds of years away from the
poem, of absolutely no worth in deciding about the cipher.
I'd suggest that the Friedmans knew that Edward de Vere had entered the
Authorship controversy with some authority by the time they wrote their
book, "The Shakespeare Ciphers Examined," 1958, and as the text of the
book suggests, they were in the debunking business. The Scudamore poem
offers up the name of Edward de Vere, and, being one of the claimants to
the works, he must be put out of the way. Therefore, they went to a bunko
solution of the cipher.
The Friedmans book, by the way, was dedicated to Joseph F. Galland,
"Whose unpublished work DIGESTA ANTI-SHAKESPEAREANA?
HAS BEEN OF INVALUABLE ASSISTANCE TO US."
The cipher proves nothing at all regarding Edward de Vere's authorship of
the Works of Shakespeare. If his name was spelled out in a cipher in a
poem, what matter? Even the writer of the poem is a question, and what
matter is that? It isn't even much of a poem, and would get little attention
except in the title we are told that the thing spells out a name in cipher.
Sort of an Elizabethan game, they loved such puzzles.
So then we have Terry Ross, writhing about in his 1999 posts (see the
archives) trying to take Edward de Vere out of the question, the same as
the Friedmans tried to do. But it doesn't work, the cipher is there and
stands solid against the Lewis Carroll solution or whatever wonderland
Ross wants to put in its place.
And yet Ross must keep on like he knows what he's talking about
because the hateful name of Edward de Vere is found in an obscure poem
of no worth in deciding the authorship question. Like Claudius, Ross is
frighted with false fire, even the name of Oxford heats his trousers, his
cool is gone, and pissing on the cipher, or on me, is not going to help him.
-------------

Terry Ross

2004-12-02 16:53:18 UTC

Permalink

Post by richard kennedy
Terry Ross puts up several pages to say a simple thing.

Evidently not simple enough for one reader.

The simple thing is if a cipher method is valid, there is only one
meaningful solution that it can produce from a given ciphertext. A
standard way to demonstrate that a proposed system is invalid is to show
that it may produce multiple solutions. Ward incorrectly thought his
method uniquely produced "Edward de Vere" from Gascoigne's poem for Sir
John Scudamore; the Friedmans proved that other solutions were possible,
including "Lewis Carroll." Therefore Ward's proposed cipher is not valid.

Post by richard kennedy
His dog don't hunt. Ross can't search out a solution to the Scudamore
acrostic/cipher that's any better than what the Friedmans could find.

Their solution is as valid as Ward's; in fact, the fact that they were
able to produce an alternative solution is enopugh to invalidate Ward's
methods. I have found several more solutions using Ward's methods (to be
more precise, by using a script that searches for solutions that satisfy
his methods), and even Richard could probably do the same, with a bit of
coaching and effort.

Post by richard kennedy
The "Lewis Carroll" solution is admirable, and cost the Friedmans a good
deal of labor no doubt, but the good Rev. Dodgson has no business in an
Elizabethan poem.

I doubt it took a great deal of effort for the Friedmans, but the energy
expended is not the test. The fact is that Ward's method does NOT produce
a unique solution and is therefore to be rejected. If you don't think
Lewis Carroll has any place in an Elizabethan poem, then you might wonder
why the author of the poem, George Gascoigne, put him there. The answer
is that he did not; nor did he put Edward de Vere or Lord Admiral or
Edward Sibthorpe or Edith Sitwell or any of the many other names that
Ward's system may be used to generate.

Post by richard kennedy
Unless Ross can do better, he must be happy with the "Edward de Vere"
solution. There is no rabbit hole for him to duck into, and that
Jabberwocky poem is on his case.

Once again, here is a page showing Gascoigne's poem, Ward's "Edward
deVere" solution, the Friedmans' "Lewis Carroll" solution, and several
other demonstrations of the invalidity of Ward's methods:
http://shakespeareauthorship.com/sf/lescumany.html

Greg's reluctance, such as it was (and it would be unwise to exaggerate
it), could have been overcome. He did not, at that time, have the benefit
of Prouty's explanation of the poem's real ciphering (Scudamore == L'es cu
d'amour == the shield of love) or of the Friedmans' demonstration that
other names could be found following Ward's methods.

Greg did NOT, by the way, think Oxford had written that poem -- or any of
the poems Ward tried to steal from Gascoigne. Even if the acrostic had
been genuine (which it is not), that would not mean that it was a
signature.

Post by richard kennedy
Now, one does not need be a cryptographer to follow the solution.

Post by richard kennedy
Greg was not, I am not, nor is Terry Ross anything but an amateur.

Post by richard kennedy
The Friedmans debunked the cipher, and offered the Lewis Carroll
solution. That's the best they could do, a name hundreds of years away
from the poem, of absolutely no worth in deciding about the cipher.

Post by richard kennedy
I'd suggest that the Friedmans knew that Edward de Vere had entered the
Authorship controversy with some authority by the time they wrote their
book, "The Shakespeare Ciphers Examined," 1958, and as the text of the
book suggests, they were in the debunking business.

If you had read the book you would know that they discuss another invalid
Oxfordian cipher -- although most of their attention is devoted to
Baconian cipher-mongering.

Post by richard kennedy
The Scudamore poem offers up the name of Edward de Vere, and, being one
of the claimants to the works, he must be put out of the way. Therefore,
they went to a bunko solution of the cipher.

Post by richard kennedy
The Friedmans book, by the way, was dedicated to Joseph F. Galland,
"Whose unpublished work DIGESTA ANTI-SHAKESPEAREANA HAS BEEN OF
INVALUABLE ASSISTANCE TO US."

If you have read the book's dedication, why not read the rest of the book?

Post by richard kennedy
The cipher proves nothing at all regarding Edward de Vere's authorship
of the Works of Shakespeare.

Post by richard kennedy
If his name was spelled out in a cipher in a poem, what matter?

See Anthony Munday's poem, in which (unlike in Gascoigne's poem) Oxford's
name was deliberately placed by the author.

Post by richard kennedy
Even the writer of the poem is a question, and what matter is that?

No, there's no question who wrote the Gascoigne poem; it was George
Gascoigne.

Post by richard kennedy
It isn't even much of a poem,

The extended "shield of love" metaphor is reasonably well handled.

Post by richard kennedy
and would get little attention except in the title we are told that the
thing spells out a name in cipher.

Post by richard kennedy
Sort of an Elizabethan game, they loved such puzzles.

I'm sure Gascoigne hoped Scudamore would enjoy it.

Post by richard kennedy
So then we have Terry Ross, writhing about in his 1999 posts (see the
archives) trying to take Edward de Vere out of the question, the same as
the Friedmans tried to do.

Post by richard kennedy
But it doesn't work, the cipher is there and stands solid against the
Lewis Carroll solution or whatever wonderland Ross wants to put in its
place.

Post by richard kennedy
And yet Ross must keep on like he knows what he's talking about because
the hateful name of Edward de Vere is found in an obscure poem of no
worth in deciding the authorship question.

Post by richard kennedy
Like Claudius, Ross is frighted with false fire, even the name of Oxford
heats his trousers, his cool is gone, and p*ss*ng on the cipher, or on
me, is not going to help him.

Post by richard kennedy
" you might want to lay off the loco weed "

Let's see a bit more context on this one:

========================= =========

Post by richard kennedy
But the Scudamore

Post by richard kennedy
poem is a cud for Terry Ross to chew, and he can chew it for a long,
long time without doing any better than the solution we have, and at
long last he must stomach it though it settle like sour ball in his
guts.

Post by richard kennedy
"It may be time for him to take the old brain pan into the shop and have
it looked at."

Alas, this suggestion seems to have gone unheeded.

Post by richard kennedy
"Your metaphor makes me worry about any cattle you may have been in
recent contact with. Have you been feeding candy to the livestock
again?"

See above -- I was but extending Richard's own metaphor.

Post by richard kennedy
Well, what can one say? Ross is a nasty-minded man. I had forgotten his
style of debate, a sort of clubbing arrogance and schoolboy waggery.
Therefore I repent I invited him to a discussion of the Scudamore
cipher. I don't want to talk with a man who supposes such pandering
repartee to be scholarship and a display of his wit. >

Some years ago Richard Nathan collected a few samples of Richard Kennedy's
own repartee:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=7v62ms%247re%***@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net

Noel Coward he ain't.

Post by richard kennedy
Anyway, the Scudamore discussion is in the archives if anyone is
interested. One thing only I'll mention, since Ross has brought it up,
regarding the chief objection of Friedman regarding the Scudamore
cipher.

I don't know whether Kennedy has read the Friedmans' book-- if he were
familiar even with the title page, he would know that two people named
Friedman were involved.

Post by richard kennedy
We are told in the title of the poem that it ciphers the name of a man,
evidently alive in the 1570s.

Post by richard kennedy
The cipher spells out the name of Edward de Vere.

It does not. Have you even read the poem? The "absent lover" is John
Scudamore, who "deciphers" his name by elaborating on his love as a
metaphorical shield.

Post by richard kennedy
Friedman worked at the cipher, and proved that it also ciphers out the
name of Lewis Carroll, which of course is 200 years beside the point,
and the original solution stands.

The Oxfordian B. M. Ward used a "string cipher" technique borrowed from
the Baconians (thereby dooming his exercise from the start) and found the
name "Edward de Vere" by arbitrarily picking the letters he wanted. Ward's
method is not that of a genuine cipher, in which a rule or key selects the
positions of the letters to be selected.

The Friedmans again: "Ward's rules do not by any means 'eliminate the
possibility of chance'; nor is it 'highly improbable' that his discovery
of de Vere's name 'should be a fluke'. If anyone were prepared to take the
trouble, they could find several alternative signatures." The one
"alternative signature" that the Friedmans display is "Lewis Carroll," but
many others are possible.

This page shows Gascoigne's original poem for Sir John Scudamore as well
as many of the names that can be found in it by the string-cipher method:

http://shakespeareauthorship.com/sf/lescumany.html

Ward's method was to read the odd-numbered lines from left to right, and
the even-numbered lines from right to left, searching for the desired
letters among the first letters of words (or other "important" letters).
You can see the results on my page, immediately after the original poem.
The letters used to spell "Edward de Vere" downwards are in red; those
used to spell the name upwards are in blue; those which are used both
upwards and downwards are in purple.

Ward actually missed another way to get "Edward de Vere" in the poem. If
he had read each line backwards (rather than half of them forwards and
half backwards) he could have found the name, reading both upwards and
downwards.

The Friedmans' alternative, "Lewis Carroll," is given next. The Friedmans
say this about their "Lewis Carroll" solution:

"This meets all Ward's specifications: we begin on a prominent letter in
the first line, finish exactly on a letter in the last line, and then read
the name LEWIS CARROLL backwards through the poem, beginning and ending on
the same two letters. And, like Ward, we use only the initial letters of
words. If we were to allow ourselves Frisbee's modification of the 'string
cipher', using any letter anywhere, it would be easy to find in addition
Lewis Carroll's real name, Charles Lutwidge Dodgson, and the title *Alice
in Wonderland.* But enough is as good as a feast, and this is enough of
Booth and his various imitators. None of their improvements and
innovations has been able to lend his system any kind of cryptological
validity; the foundations are so shaky that it would be hopeless to try."

Next on my page comes "Lord Admiral" -- a contemporary of Oxford, whose
title may be found in Gascoigne's poem using Ward's methods.

I also show how one can find the names of Edward Stafford, Edward
Sibthorpe, Lewis Theobald, Lydia Maria Child, Edith Sitwell, and others.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Terry Ross ***@bcpl.net
SHAKESPEARE AUTHORSHIP http://ShakespeareAuthorship.com
CHRISTMAS POEMS http://ShakespeareAuthorship.com/xmas/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

David L. Webb

2004-12-03 03:58:37 UTC

Permalink

Post by Terry Ross

Post by richard kennedy
Terry Ross puts up several pages to say a simple thing.

Evidently not simple enough for one reader.
The simple thing is if a cipher method is valid, there is only one
meaningful solution that it can produce from a given ciphertext. A
standard way to demonstrate that a proposed system is invalid is to show
that it may produce multiple solutions. Ward incorrectly thought his
method uniquely produced "Edward de Vere" from Gascoigne's poem for Sir
John Scudamore; the Friedmans proved that other solutions were possible,
including "Lewis Carroll." Therefore Ward's proposed cipher is not valid.

It is scarcely possible to explain the Friedmans' refutation more
clearly and succinctly than this, but I fear that for Richard Kennedy
the light still has not dawned.

Post by Terry Ross

Post by richard kennedy
His dog don't hunt. Ross can't search out a solution to the Scudamore
acrostic/cipher that's any better than what the Friedmans could find.

I marvel at your optimism, Terry -- you have undoubtedly read much
more of Kennedy's drivel than I have, yet you are more sanguine than I
concerning his ability to benefit from coaching, effort, and other thus
far ineffectual expedients. In Kennedy's own forays into cryptanalysis,
anagramming, etc., he has been unable even to keep the letters straight:

<http://groups.google.com/groups?q=haec+group:humanities.lit.authors.*+au
thor:ross&hl=en&lr=&c2coff=1&selm=Pine.GSO.4.44.0208110527470.11503-10000
0%40mail&rnum=2>.

Post by Terry Ross

Post by richard kennedy
The "Lewis Carroll" solution is admirable, and cost the Friedmans a good
deal of labor no doubt, but the good Rev. Dodgson has no business in an
Elizabethan poem.

Post by richard kennedy
Unless Ross can do better, he must be happy with the "Edward de Vere"
solution. There is no rabbit hole for him to duck into, and that
Jabberwocky poem is on his case.

Once again, here is a page showing Gascoigne's poem, Ward's "Edward
deVere" solution, the Friedmans' "Lewis Carroll" solution, and several
http://shakespeareauthorship.com/sf/lescumany.html

Greg's reluctance, such as it was (and it would be unwise to exaggerate
it), could have been overcome. He did not, at that time, have the benefit
of Prouty's explanation of the poem's real ciphering (Scudamore == L'es cu
d'amour == the shield of love) or of the Friedmans' demonstration that
other names could be found following Ward's methods.
Greg did NOT, by the way, think Oxford had written that poem -- or any of
the poems Ward tried to steal from Gascoigne. Even if the acrostic had
been genuine (which it is not), that would not mean that it was a
signature.

Post by richard kennedy
Now, one does not need be a cryptographer to follow the solution.

Post by richard kennedy
Greg was not, I am not, nor is Terry Ross anything but an amateur.

No, they offered the "Lewis Carroll" as one counterexample -- only one is
needed -- but they said that it would be easy to find others. I have
followed their lead and found the names or titles of some of Gascoigne's
contemporaries (and more could be found) as well as the names of people
http://shakespeareauthorship.com/sf/lescumany.html
If an amateur such as I am could use Ward's methods and find several names
other than "Edward de Vere" and "Lewis Carroll," then perhaps the amateur
Richard Kennedy could find still more names.
If Ward had found a genuine cipher, finding multiple solutions would have
been impossible. Here is a genuine acrostic that DOES spell a name and
title.
E xcept I should in freendship seeme ingrate,
W ith letting slip your Honnors woorthy state,
A t all assayes, which I haue Noble found.
D enouncing aye the company of men.
D own dire despayre, let courage come in place,
E xalt his fame whom Honnor dooth imbrace.
V ertue hath aye adornd your valiant hart,
R egarding such as take God Mars his parte,
E che where by proofe, in Honnor and in name.
E che one dooth knowe no fables I expresse,
R egard you may (at pleasure) I confesse,
L etting that passe, I vouch to dread no paine.
E che where, gainst such as can my faith distaine.
F orging his tales to please the fantasye.
O f mine intent your Honnor iudge I craue,
E xtoll I pray this valiant Brittayne braue,
N ot seeming once Bellona to despise.
F or valliantnes beholde young Cfsar heere,
R ing foorth (I say) his Fame both farre and neere,
D out not to say, De Vere will foes deface.
Anybody who takes the first letter of each line will get the same answer
as anybody else who applies the same technique. You will NOT get "Lewis
Carroll" or "Edward Sibthorpe" or "Edith Sitwell" -- a few of the many
names that can be found if looks for a string-(non)cipher in Gascoigne's
poem, as Ward did.

If you had read the book you would know that they discuss another invalid
Oxfordian cipher -- although most of their attention is devoted to
Baconian cipher-mongering.

That is a VERY big "if"! One of my favorite Kennedy threads is the
Chamberlain diary thread (although Kennedy, true to form, confuses John
Chamberlain with John Manningham -- but that's pretty close for him).
In that thread Kennedy, not having read the text itself, had evidently
confined himself to reading the index (if even that), and thereby was
deluded into the belief that the diarist had mentioned Beaumont, Field,
Chapman, Hayward, Middleton, Sidney, Suckling, etc., when in fact many
of these men were mentioned not by the diarist but by the commentator:

<http://groups.google.com/groups?q=stark+reminder+group:humanities.lit.au
thors.*+author:kathman&hl=en&lr=&c2coff=1&selm=EHI8EH.1qs%40midway.uchica
go.edu&rnum=3>

<http://groups.google.com/groups?q=stark+reminder+group:humanities.lit.au
thors.*+author:kathman&hl=en&lr=&c2coff=1&selm=EtDxMG.KBD%40midway.uchica
go.edu&rnum=2>

An excerpt from Dave Kathman's very informative reply still makes very
amusing reading:
----------------
As for Kennedy's supposed examples, he's wrong on
just about every count, but I'm pretty sure I know how
he got his bogus "facts". I'll go through them one by one.

* Francis Beaumont is nowhere mentioned in the letters,
though Chamberlain does note the death in 1598 of the
future dramatist's father and namesake, who was a Justice
of the Common Pleas. McClure does mention Beaumont
the dramatist twice in his notes and commentary, but I'm
hesitant to believe that even Kennedy would be so confused
as to not distinguish between the letters themselves and
scholarly commentary written 300 years later.

* George Chapman is likewise nowhere mentioned in the
letters, but Chamberlain does make a 1596 reference (well
known to theater historians) of a newly popular "play of
humours"; this has been conjectured to be Chapman's
*Humorous Day's Mirth*, and McClure's noting of this
conjecture is the only place he mentions Chapman in his
commentary.

* Nathan Field, like Beaumont and Chapman, is never
once mentioned by Chamberlain, though his name occurs
once in McClure's footnotes.

* By "Hayward", I assume Kennedy means Sir John Hayward,
the author of *The Historie of Henry the IIII* (1599).
Chamberlain does mention Hayward once (as "Dr. Hayward"),
but Hayward was not a playwright. Was Kennedy confusing
him with Thomas Heywood? Hayward's *Henry IIII* was
a prose history which got Hayward into trouble because his
fawning dedication to the Earl of Essex, attached to a work
describing the deposition of a king, caused a scandal at a time
when Essex was widely (and correctly) though to have designs
on the throne. Even so, Chamberlain's letter where he discusses
the scandalous book makes no mention of its author; his lone
mention of Hayward comes years later.

* Thomas Middleton, like Beaumont, Chapman, and Field,
is never mentioned a single time by Chamberlain. There is
one famous letter where Chamberlain discusses the scandal
aroused by Middleton's play *A Game at Chess* (which he calls
"the play of Gondomar"), but he does so without ever
mentioning the author of the play, or showing any apparent
interest in who the author was.

In addition to the above playwrights, Chamberlain also failed
to ever mention John Fletcher, John Marston, Thomas Dekker,
John Webster, and Philip Massinger, among many others; as I
said, the only professional playwright he mentions is Jonson.
McClure writes in his introduction: "Of the theatre Chamberlain
wrote little. In an age when great drama was being made possible
by the support of the unlettered crowd and of courtiers and
gallants, he shared the half-hostile, half-tolerant view of the
sober, respectable middle class. To the players themselves he
applies the somewhat contemptous terms 'fellows' and
'companions'." McClure then goes on to describe the few times
Chamberlain did report theatrical news, including those I cited
above, but he notes that "[i]nteresting as these glimpses of the
theatre are, they disappoint; they omit what moderns readers
would value most." It is then that McClure notes that Chamberlain
never mentions Shakespeare, but Kennedy has predictably
omitted most of the sentence in which he does so. Here it is in
full: "Doubtless Chamberlain often passed [Shakespeare] in the
street, often rubbed elbows with him in the crowded center aisle
of St. Paul's, often heard mention of him and his plays, often
saw his thin quartos offered for sale in St. Paul's Churchyard;
he may have known the man well, may have talked with him
often; but nowhere in the letters is there any indication that
Chamberlain even so much as knew of the existence of
Shakespeare." Or of any playwright except the self-promoting
Jonson, I might add. As McClure had just shown, in the few
times Chamberlain relayed theatrical news, he showed little interest
in the names of those involved.

Chamberlain does mention a few nondramatic poets, but here
again Kennedy has distorted things. One by one:

* Sir Philip Sidney is mentioned twice in successive letters, but
only because his daughter had died; Chamberlain was reporting
the rumor that she would be buried next to her father.

* Chamberlain does mention Spenser's death once in a famous
passage, calling him "our principall poet". Spenser was by far
the most famous poet in England at the time, being routinely
compared to Chaucer.

* I assume that by "Suckling", Kennedy means the poet Sir
John Suckling, but he is nowhere to be found in the letters.
Chamberlain does mention (several times) the courtier Sir John
Suckling, but McClure makes it clear in his notes that this is the
father of the more famous poet. Since Kennedy assures us that
he has read the letters (as opposed to just finding "Suckling" in
the index, for example), I find it hard to see how he could have
made this mistake.

* George Wither is mentioned once, in a 1623 letter describing
how Ben Jonson has made fun of Wither.

* Sir Walter Raleigh is mentioned many times, since he was
a very famous public figure, but Chamberlain unsurprisingly
makes no mention of the poetry Raleigh had written years before.
If you're going to include Raleigh as a poet mentioned by
Chamberlain, you might as well include Queen Elizabeth and
King James too, since they both also wrote poetry.

* John Donne is mentioned numerous times, but almost always
in connection with a sermon he had given or an office he was
seeking (two of Chamberlain's favorite topics). Chamberlain
does mention Donne's poetry a couple of times, but makes it clear
that he thinks such frivolity was below the Dean of St. Paul's:
"I send you here certain verses of our Dean of Paules upon the
death of the Marquis Hamilton, which though they be reasonably
wittie and well don yet I could wish a man of his yeares and place
to geve over versifying."

I've written about enough. If you ask me, it looks like what
Kennedy did was go through the index of McClure's edition
looking for the names of poets and playwrights, never actually
looking in the text to see whether those names occur in the
actual letters or in McClure's notes and commentary, or whether
they refer to the right person as opposed to a namesake. That's
a pretty shoddy excuse for scholarship, coming from a man who
feels entitled to lecture others on their "ignorance".
---------------------------------

Post by Terry Ross

Post by richard kennedy
The Friedmans book, by the way, was dedicated to Joseph F. Galland,
"Whose unpublished work DIGESTA ANTI-SHAKESPEAREANA HAS BEEN OF
INVALUABLE ASSISTANCE TO US."

If you have read the book's dedication, why not read the rest of the book?

See above!

Post by Terry Ross

Post by richard kennedy
The cipher proves nothing at all regarding Edward de Vere's authorship
of the Works of Shakespeare.

Post by richard kennedy
If his name was spelled out in a cipher in a poem, what matter?

See Anthony Munday's poem, in which (unlike in Gascoigne's poem) Oxford's
name was deliberately placed by the author.

Post by richard kennedy
Even the writer of the poem is a question, and what matter is that?

No, there's no question who wrote the Gascoigne poem; it was George
Gascoigne.

Post by richard kennedy
It isn't even much of a poem,

The extended "shield of love" metaphor is reasonably well handled.

Post by richard kennedy
and would get little attention except in the title we are told that the
thing spells out a name in cipher.

Post by richard kennedy
Sort of an Elizabethan game, they loved such puzzles.

I'm sure Gascoigne hoped Scudamore would enjoy it.

Post by richard kennedy
So then we have Terry Ross, writhing about in his 1999 posts (see the
archives) trying to take Edward de Vere out of the question, the same as
the Friedmans tried to do.

Post by richard kennedy
But it doesn't work, the cipher is there and stands solid against the
Lewis Carroll solution or whatever wonderland Ross wants to put in its
place.

To paraphrase Nabokov freely, better Terry's supposed wonderland than
Kennedy's grotesque blunderland.

Post by Terry Ross
I'm sure there are other Oxfordians who are as reluctant to give up the
theft from Gascoigne as you appear to be, and who are as incapable of
accepting Greg's, Prouty's, and the Friedmans' dismantling of Ward.

Post by richard kennedy
Like Claudius, Ross is frighted with false fire, even the name of Oxford
heats his trousers, his cool is gone, and p*ss*ng on the cipher, or on
me, is not going to help him.

You must have seen a very strange production of *Hamlet*.

Kennedy evidently sees a great many strange things.

Post by Terry Ross
I see Richard has once again snipped my response to him so that he can
pretend in his usual fashion that his prose is unanswerable, rather than

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.GSO.4.10.9909210554010.559-1000
I see that in this post I offered Richard the hand of friendship and even
addressed him as "brother" -- yes, my "debating technique" is harsh
indeed.

Post by richard kennedy
" you might want to lay off the loco weed "

========================= =========

Post by richard kennedy
But the Scudamore

At last you admit that Gascoigne's poem is for John Scudamore. I guess it
finally dawned on you that Scudamore = l'escu d'amor = shield of love.
Thus is Scudamore's name both ciphered and deciphered in the poem's very
first line.

Your metaphor makes me worry about any cattle you may have been in recent
contact with. Have you been feeding candy to the livestock again? How
many times do I have to tell you: alfalfa good; sour balls bad. I guess
we know now why the milk went bad so quickly. And don't let the the
cattle graze in the loco weed again (come to think of it, you might want
to lay off the loco weed yourself).
=================
It all seems rather mild by newsgroup standards -- certainly milder than
many of Richard's own posts -- and he probably SHOULD lay off the loco
weed.

Post by richard kennedy
"It may be time for him to take the old brain pan into the shop and have
it looked at."

Alas, this suggestion seems to have gone unheeded.

Post by richard kennedy
"Your metaphor makes me worry about any cattle you may have been in
recent contact with. Have you been feeding candy to the livestock
again?"

See above -- I was but extending Richard's own metaphor.

Some years ago Richard Nathan collected a few samples of Richard Kennedy's
t

There are other examples of Kennedy's scintillating wit as well, but
they are definitely not for the squeamish:

Here's a sample of Richard Kennedy's own prose, which evidently is
what he takes for the civility he finds wanting in Terry Ross, among the
mildest, most civil, and unprovocable participants in the newsgroup's
history:

"Maybe Grumman wants to enter the contest, which is to guess at the
Zensearch Kennedy. He says he has an opinion, and let us hear what
it is. And, as he says, I must confess that I have long time
disturbed the Stratfordians at this place. Zensearch has been
disturbed down to the cost and trouble of a new email address, down
to his ratsoul , down to his loins, and he is down on his knees
sucking at my cyber-cock . Guarantee yourself that I can keep him
there until he has knee-scabs and a sore glottis, for I can fuck
him in his cyber-mouth till his eyes goggle, his brains gurggle
and his sinus spouts ratshit, believe it."

Astonishingly, Kennedy later speaks approvingly and even with pride of
the above effusion:

"Rather well done, a choice bit of righteous indignation put in the
language that the Strat bastard could understand...."

In view of posts like this and the one that Terry quoted above, it is
really rather amazing that Richard Kennedy characterizes Terry Ross as
"a nasty-minded man"; the case is a classic instance of the pot calling
the kettle black (or perhaps of the crackpot calling the kettle black).
Of course, Kennedy has severe difficulties in ascertaining authorship,
and like Dr. Stritmatter, in the past he has confused Terry Ross with
Tom Reedy (and perhaps with others as well), so such errors in
attribution may account for at least some of his animus -- but Tom Reedy
does not merit such opprobrium either.

Post by Terry Ross
Noel Coward he ain't.

Agreed -- although he might have a future as a radio shock-jock, for
whom invective substitutes for wit.

Post by Terry Ross

I don't know whether Kennedy has read the Friedmans' book--

I don't know for certain, but I can make an educated guess. In any
case, the most charitable interpretation is that he has never read it.

Post by Terry Ross
if he were
familiar even with the title page, he would know that two people named
Friedman were involved.

If he had read the Chamberlain diary he would have known who was and
who was not mentioned therein -- but if frogs had wings, they could fly.

Post by Terry Ross

Post by richard kennedy
We are told in the title of the poem that it ciphers the name of a man,
evidently alive in the 1570s.

The title of the poem is "The absent lover (in ciphers) deciphering his
name, doth crave some spedie relief as followeth."
Gascoigne wrote a number of poems for other people, as he tells us, and
this one seems to have been written for Sir John Scudamore -- variations
on the family name and motto appear in the poem's first two lines.
L'Escu d'amour, the shield of perfect love,
The shield of love, the force of steadfast faith,
As the Friedmans note, "One of the most plausible theories put forward so
far is the work of Prof. Charles T. Prouty. In *A Hundreth Sundrie
Flowers* (University of Missouri Studies, 1942) he clarifies the enigma by
suggesting that the name 'in ciphers' is Scudamore. The motto of the
Scudamore family was a pun on their name, 'Scuto Amoris Divini'; the poem
parallels this by beginning with the words 'L'Escu d'amor'."

Post by richard kennedy
The cipher spells out the name of Edward de Vere.

It does not. Have you even read the poem?

See above.

Post by Terry Ross
The "absent lover" is John
Scudamore, who "deciphers" his name by elaborating on his love as a
metaphorical shield.

The Oxfordian B. M. Ward used a "string cipher" technique borrowed from
the Baconians (thereby dooming his exercise from the start) and found the
name "Edward de Vere" by arbitrarily picking the letters he wanted. Ward's
method is not that of a genuine cipher, in which a rule or key selects the
positions of the letters to be selected.
The Friedmans again: "Ward's rules do not by any means 'eliminate the
possibility of chance'; nor is it 'highly improbable' that his discovery
of de Vere's name 'should be a fluke'. If anyone were prepared to take the
trouble, they could find several alternative signatures." The one
"alternative signature" that the Friedmans display is "Lewis Carroll," but
many others are possible.
This page shows Gascoigne's original poem for Sir John Scudamore as well
http://shakespeareauthorship.com/sf/lescumany.html
Ward's method was to read the odd-numbered lines from left to right, and
the even-numbered lines from right to left, searching for the desired
letters among the first letters of words (or other "important" letters).
You can see the results on my page, immediately after the original poem.
The letters used to spell "Edward de Vere" downwards are in red; those
used to spell the name upwards are in blue; those which are used both
upwards and downwards are in purple.
Ward actually missed another way to get "Edward de Vere" in the poem. If
he had read each line backwards (rather than half of them forwards and
half backwards) he could have found the name, reading both upwards and
downwards.
The Friedmans' alternative, "Lewis Carroll," is given next. The Friedmans
"This meets all Ward's specifications: we begin on a prominent letter in
the first line, finish exactly on a letter in the last line, and then read
the name LEWIS CARROLL backwards through the poem, beginning and ending on
the same two letters. And, like Ward, we use only the initial letters of
words. If we were to allow ourselves Frisbee's modification of the 'string
cipher', using any letter anywhere, it would be easy to find in addition
Lewis Carroll's real name, Charles Lutwidge Dodgson, and the title *Alice
in Wonderland.* But enough is as good as a feast, and this is enough of
Booth and his various imitators. None of their improvements and
innovations has been able to lend his system any kind of cryptological
validity; the foundations are so shaky that it would be hopeless to try."
Next on my page comes "Lord Admiral" -- a contemporary of Oxford, whose
title may be found in Gascoigne's poem using Ward's methods.
I also show how one can find the names of Edward Stafford, Edward
Sibthorpe, Lewis Theobald, Lydia Maria Child, Edith Sitwell, and others.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
SHAKESPEARE AUTHORSHIP http://ShakespeareAuthorship.com
CHRISTMAS POEMS http://ShakespeareAuthorship.com/xmas/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Art Neuendorffer

2004-12-03 17:10:44 UTC

Permalink

---------------------------------------------------------
You must have some colleagues
who can do REAL Mathematics, Dave.

Ask them to figure out the probability for Peter Bull's
"KITM-MARL-LOW" PLUS 4 close "KIT"s (the first 12 lines)
---------------------------------------------------------
I calculated a probability of ~ 1 / 3,600,000

for Peter Bull's "KITM-MARL-LOW"
PLUS 4 close "KIT"s in the first 12 lines.

and explained in detail my calculations.
What would you calculate?
---------------------------------------------------------
http://shakespeareauthorship.com/cipher/bmarlowe1.html

<= 12 =>

137 T T T Y I B W W W W O T
136 I S A T W I I A T T F T
135 W A M T W N S A T A S O
134 S A M[T]B F H V T T A S
133 B F[I]B M A O A P B W T
132 T[K]H L A B N D A O T A
131 T A F T Y T T A A A O T
130 M C[I I]I B A T I T I M
129 T I[I]S I P P O M H A B
128 H V W[T]D[T]W A T A O M
127 I O B A F F S B T H A S
126 O D W[T|I]A S M Y S H A
125 W W O W H L F P N A W B
124 Y I A W N I V W I W B T
123 N T T T O W A T T N F M
122 T F W B O H T O T N T T
121 T W A N F G O W N A I B
120 T A N V F A A[T]O M A T
119 W D A S W W H I O T A G
118 L W A W E T A T T T A W
117 A W F W T A T W B A B B
116 L A W O O T I W L W L B
115 T E Y M B C T D A M W C
114 O D O A T S C A O A[M]A
113 S A D S F O O N F T T T
112 Y W F S Y T N T I O T M
111 O T T T T A T P W P N N
110 A A G M M A T A N M O A
109 O T A A T L I S N A T T
108 W W W T N I C E S W N B
107 N O C S T A I[A]N M S W
106 W I A I T O I E S O A T
105 L N S T K S T O F F A T
104 T F S H T I T S A S S H
103 A T T T O L T D W T F T
102 M I T T O W A A N T B A
101 O F B S M T B B B E T A
100 W T S D[R]I S A R I I A
99 T S I W I T A T O A A B
98 F W H T Y O C O N N T D
97 H F W W A T B L Y B F A
96 S S B T A T S T H I H I
95 H W D O T M C N O W W A
94 T T W V T A T O T T B T
93 S[L]M T F T I I B T W T
92 B F A F T W I T T S O H
91 S S S S A W B A T R O A
90 T N I A A C G T I W B A
89 S A S A T T A I B T L A
88 W A V A W V[O]T A F T D
87 F A T M F A T A T O S C
86 W B T M W A N G H W A I
85 M W R A I A T I H A B T
84 W T I W L T B T L N A M
83 I A I T A T H S T W F[W]
-------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------
"KITM-MARL-LOW" probability ~ 1/760
-------------------------------------------------------
Consider the "Bull Sonnets Acrostic Array" at Terry's site:

http://shakespeareauthorship.com/cipher/bmarlowe1.html

Use a 'String Find' to count (in first 12 columns):

4 K's
68 M's
41 L's

This automatically gives:

4 x 68 "K-M" pairs and
68 x 41 "M-L" pairs

However, each "K**M" or "M**L" 4 LETTER string
must be separated by multiples of 3 rows & 3 columns

Hence, the [E]xpected [V]alue number of interesting
"K**M" or "M**L" 4 LETTER strings
in the Bull array

"K**M" E.V.: ~ 4*68/(3*3) ~ 30
"M**L" E.V.: ~ 67*41/(3*3) ~ 305
----------------------------------------------------
Now use 'String Find' {e.g., on "I T" & "T I"}
to count (for whole 14 lines):

50 "IT"s (left right pairs out of ~ 4000)
8 "AR"s (left right pairs out of ~ 4000)
31 "OW"s (left right pairs out of ~ 4000)

"IT" probability: 50/4000
"AR" probability: 8/4000
"OW" probability: 31/4000
----------------------------------------------------
Now applying the

"IT" prob: 50/4000 = 1/80
"AR" prob: 8/4000 = 1/500

to the [E]xpected [V]alue of interesting
"K**M" or "M**L" 4 LETTER strings

gives [E]xpected [V]alue of

"KITM" E.V. = 30 / 80
"MARL" E.V.= 305 / 500

Hence one would be lucky to expect ONE of each
(which presumeably is what Peter Bull found)
-------------------------------------------------------
However, one would NOT expect these
two (expected) 4 LETTER strings:
"KITM" & "MARL" to share the SAME "M"!

For these two strings to share the SAME "M"

"KITM-MARL" E.V.: 30*305/(80*500*68) ~ 1/297
------------------------------------------------------
The additional of "LOW" adds a little bit more to this:
--------------------------------------------------
Given the prior spacings in "KITM" & "MARL"
it would be reasonable to look for the "O"
of the "OW" pair in one of 62 positions:

[L]M T F T I I
F A F T W I T
S S S A W B A
N I A A C G T
A S A T T A I
A V A W V[O]T
A T M F A T A
B T M W A N G
W R A I A T I

Only one "[O]W" is found out of 62.

How does this compare with and
expected "OW" prob: ~31/4000?
-----------------------------------------
Fisher's Exact Test
http://www.matforsk.no/ola/fisher.htm

TABLE = [ 1 , 61 , 31 , 3970 ]
2-Tail : p-value = 0.38980385512773885
-----------------------------------------
So the [E]xpected [V]alue of
the final "OW" is ~0.39

"KITM-MARL-LOW" probability: 0.39/297 ~ 1/760

A respectable if not overly impressive number in itself.
------------------------------------------------------------
Now things get interesting:
------------------------------------------------------------
"KITM-MARL-LOW" + 4 close "KIT"s probability?
------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Bull points out:

<<1 The beginning of the message is very clearly signposted. The
K forming the first letter of the message is the starting point of no
less than five regularly formed KITs, one of which appears in adjacent
squares and all of which are straight-line examples, with left to
right orientation and tight letter spacing. This KIT node is 'highly
anomalous' in the grid. It is eye-catching. Its occurence is highly
unlikely to be the product of random forces.

2. The line of the message as it unfolds from the initial K is
also indicated because the KITM of the first section is exactly
superimposed on a seperate KIT line. This is a signal of its
intentionality. It is an anomaly compounded.>>
-----------------------------------------------------
So what about the four other "regularly formed KITs"

The pertinent I's lie within the 25 spaces
of a half-diamond surrounding the K in "KITM":

S
A M
A M[T]
F[I]B M
[K]H L A B
A F T Y
C[I I]
I[I]
V [T] [T]

[T]

So 4 of these 25 spaces produce
the "I" for a "KIT" while 19 do not
[; ignoring the "K" & "T"]

Compare this with the 50 "IT"s found in ~ 4000
left right pairs in the "Bull array":
-----------------------------------------------
Fisher's Exact Test
http://www.matforsk.no/ola/fisher.htm

TABLE = [ 4 , 19 , 50 , 3950 ]
2-Tail : p-value = 0.00021257190299677967
-----------------------------------------------
Therefore there is only ~ 1/4700!! probability
for this close clustering of 4 "KIT"s!
-------------------------------------------------
Hence, the chance of "KITM-MARL-LOW"
PLUS 4 close "KIT"s

~ 1 / (760 x 4700) ~1 / 3,600,000!!!
------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer

richard kennedy

2004-12-03 05:22:03 UTC

Permalink

The solution to the acrostic I put up goes like
this, first the text:

Rather than preach, I will teach the cipher hidden
in the Scudamore acrostic. You must read carefully
to discover the hidden name. Those with a knack for
puzzles might enjoy this nice number, which enters
my name into this dear labor of lines as you will see.

R Rather
I I
C cipher
H hidden
A acrostic
R read
D discover

K knack
E enjoy
N nice
N number
E enters
D dear
Y you

Essentially, that's the drill for the Scudamore acrostic/
cipher, although the poser complicated it a bit more.
If someone were to solve this simple acrostic with the name
of Lewis Carroll, we'd suppose he couldn't do any better,

And so with the Friedmans. They could find no 16th century
man whose name could game with the poem. If they could have,
they would have, can anyone doubt it?

The Scudamore acrostic is a good example of the Elizabethan
frenzy of mind to create double-meaning and other cute
troubling with words, and the Sonnets our best model of the
day. Ben Jonson tells us a litany of word-games, escaping
such usage himself, ahem, in his "Execration on Vulcan" poem,
published when he was dead and didn't have to answer for this
damning accusation that someone had burned him out of his
house and manuscripts.

Word games and deceptions such as acrostics, anagrams, and
secret wording was a fad, Elizabethan poety is full of it.
Nothing like it today or in any other historical-literary
context. They were word-freaks, they could fold a sentence
like a omelet, so mouth-watering and lovely besides, but
there's always the question of what's in it. And the best
cook of this scramble was Shakespeare.

But there's no trust in ciphers entirely, Mary lost her head.
Ross has also lost his.