Discussion:
why thy face is valanct since I saw thee last
(too old to reply)
Arthur Neuendorffer
2018-02-22 18:11:46 UTC
Permalink
<< [To] what order [do I belong], Art?>>
The Rumpelstiltskins?
KAOS?
Lea wrote: <<KAOS is a fictitious entity, Art.>>
Michael Dunn is a very real Oxfordian.

---------------------------------------------------
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Get_Smart#KAOS
<<But Art -- if Oxfordians were to get smart,
then they could no longer be Oxfordians!>>
If Oxfordians were to get smart, then they would be Groupists!
<<If they were *truly* smart, they could neVER have been
duped by anti-Stratfordian rubbish in the first place!>>
If they were *truly* smart, they would have rejected the
Stratman back when they rejected the tooth fairy & Easter Bunny.
<<Don't dismiss the Easter Bunny or the tooth fairy out of hand, Art >>
-------------------------------------------------
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2018/02/14/legend-held-that-monks-domesticated-rabbits-for-food-the-truth-is-more-complex/?utm_term=.2dae4b03a5a6

Legend held that monks domesticated rabbits for food. The truth is more complex.

The Washington Post by Ben Guarino February 14

<<The story of how rabbits became domesticated animals is a *STRANGE* one. Around the year 600, the tale goes, Pope Gregory the Great issued a papal edict declaring that fetal rabbits were not meat. Because fluid-filled amniotic sacs surrounded rabbit fetuses, they counted as fish. Eaten this way the rabbits were a delicacy — a snack called laurices (always plural because, like potato chips, you wouldn't eat just one). French Catholic monks, who abstained from meat while observing Lent, pounced on the opportunity. Monks began to breed the animals like, well, rabbits. Skittish wild animals went into the monastery. After a few generations, out came tame and fluffy pets.

This just-so story was plausible enough that the scientific community swallowed it.

The location made sense: Wild European rabbits from the Iberian peninsula and France are the closest genetic relatives to pet rabbits. Greger Larson, a biologist at the University of Oxford who studies domestication, recalled hearing about Pope Gregory at a conference a few years ago. The rabbit genome had just been sequenced. The problem, as Larson and his colleagues discovered, is the story isn't true. “It turned out that the whole thing was a house of cards,” he said.

Larson did not set out to debunk a legend. In fact, his initial goal was to find proof of the date. Researchers like Larson use rates of mutation, in a method called a molecular clock, to estimate the age of domesticated species. But this method comes with baked-in ambiguities. If rabbits had a known domestication date, Larson could use the timeline to improve these molecular methods, like setting a watch to an atomic clock. He asked archaeologist and computer scientist Evan Irving-Pease, then working on a master's thesis, to hunt down a copy of the papal document or any supporting information.

Irving-Pease began to unwind knotty citations and references until he reached the end of the thread: Pope Gregory never issued such an edict. Laurices didn't appear to be popular during Lent. Instead, Irving-Pease, Larson and their colleagues mapped out a much more complex picture of rabbit domestication, which the journal Trends in Ecology & Evolution published on Wednesday.

Archaeological evidence from about 20,000 years ago in southwest Europe indicates that the first interaction between humans and rabbits was that of hunter and food. “If there's a protein source, you’ll go and exploit it,” Larson said. “Lots of people were eating rabbit.”

An analysis of wild rabbit fossils indicates a genetic divergence 15,000 years ago, the study authors said. In Larson's view, this represents a split in wild populations, as Ice Age glaciers moved, and does not show effects of domestication.

Larson says that past knowledge of animal husbandry does not easily translate to domesticating new ones. Even the most recent cases have been accidents, he said: The first hamsters housed in captivity, a very recent addition to the pet pantheon, were not meant to be pets — they were captured from Syria in the 1930s to be medical subjects.

So when exactly over the last 20,000 years were the rabbits domesticated? Ultimately, rabbit domestication was not a moment in time but a continuum, Larson has concluded. At the very least, it's safe to say that hungry monks were not responsible.>>
-------------------------------------------------
Lea wrote:

<<This has nothing whateVER to do with either the Tooth Fairy or the Easter Bunny, Art.>>
I turn LXXII on Mercurii.
<<Is it really your birthday tomorrow, Art? If so, how do you plan to
celebrate? A friendly colloquy with George Mason's sculptural
simulacrum?
What is St. Carolyn giving you for the occasion, Art? John Michell's
_The new view over Atlantis_? Erich Von Däniken's _Chariots of the
Gods?_,
perhaps? Steven Thomas's _The moon landing hoax: The eagle that never
landed_? John Mack's _Abduction: Human encounters with aliens_?
Something by Graham Hancock or Francis Carr? You must be a VERy easy
guy to shop for, Art.>>
If you are going to make fun of me by the company I keep
<<You actually *keep company* with the above assorted nut jobs, Art?!
Among friends, does Francis Carr go by Frank? Or Crank?
I have not conversed with Francis Carr (but I'm a fan).
Lea wrote: <<No doubt you're a fan of Carr >>
No doubt!
----------------------------------------------------
http://www.sirbacon.org/carrmemorial.htm

"If a man will begin with certainties, he will end in doubts;
but if he will be content to begin with doubts,
he will end in certainties."--Sir Francis Bacon

http://www.sirbacon.org/links/carrquixote.html
-------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.philipcarr-gomm.com/my-father-francis-bacon-and-don-quixote/

<<When [Francis Carr] was editing Past & Future or working with the recitals, [he] was also busy with his passion for solving the mystery of the authorship of the Shakespeare plays. He published articles in his magazine about it, founded The Shakespeare Authorship Information Centre, and for over thirty years, right up until he died, edited a digest of press comment about the question, that he entitled ‘The Stratford Tragi-Comedy’. He favoured the theory that Francis Bacon wrote the plays, and was a member of the Francis Bacon Society, travelling to Canonbury Tower in Islington and London University for their meetings right up until earlier this year. He also believed that Bacon wrote Don Quixote, normally attributed to Cervantes, and in 2004 his book ‘Who Wrote Don Quixote?’ was published, that laid out his theory in detail. Such was his fascination for the Shakespeare authorship question that Jane was pleased to be able to read out to him, just before he died, an article in the Sunday Telegraph that announced new developments in the authorship puzzle.

Ronald Hutton, who is the Professor of History at Bristol University, and a newly appointed Commissioner of English Heritage, on hearing of Francis’ death, wrote to me saying that he was a ‘remarkable personality’ and ‘a significant player on the English cultural scene of his time, and although his literary causes were unorthodox, I think that posterity will be interested in them.’>>
-------------------------------------------------------------
But at least two of the
above nutcases presumably exhibit as much indifference to your society as
George Mason does, Art -- indeed, John Mack has been dead since 2004,
while
Michell has been dead since 2009.>>
--------------------------------------------------
1) right wing nutjobs,
2) promoting crazy non-authorship ideas,
3) Putin puppets,
<<There you go, Art -- that's all the *more* reason that you should
be burnishing your resumé and angling for a top job in the Trump
administration! You possess not only the requirements for the job --
among those are illiteracy and unshakable imperviousness to established
fact -- but if you're in contact with Putin puppets, then you also have
the right connections!>>
I no longer converse with Mickey Leaks/Peter Nockolds (and I'm not a fan).
Lea wrote: <<Why not, Art?!>>
Nockolds has betrayed his own country and attacked mine
(apparently all in exchange for a Putin provided Moscow mistress).
Lea wrote: <<Huh?! What on earth are you talking about, Art?!>>

Betrayal?
4) Stratfordian math professors specifically assigned to me.
<<How many mathematics professors from Stratford do you know, Art?>>
How many Oxfordians from Oxford do you know, Dave?
<<Oxford University is an elite institution whose faculty and students
have both relevant disciplinary training and the ability to weigh
evidence rationally...>>
Oxford students like Edward de Vere?
Lea wrote:

<<Oxford's uniVERsity degrees were purely honorary, Art.>>

Why would the honor him, Dave?
It's a pretty SAD group overall.
<<But Art -- "overall" is an anagram of "A Ver?! LOL!"
INPNC = 3/7
Lea wrote: <<That's better than most of your "anagrams", Art.>>
Examples?
Lea wrote: <<There are many, Art.

One of the most idiotic is "INCHAINS", which boasts as INIPNC score of zero.>>

"INC(ha)IN(s)"
"INI(p)NC"

I'm *GUILTY OF NOTHING* !
-------------------------------------------------------
http://www.philological.bham.ac.uk/anagrams/
.............................................
. HENRICUS URIOTHESLEUS
_____ per anagramma
. THESEUS NIL REUS HIC RUO
.
. [I]ure quidem poteras hanc fundere ab ore querelam,
. [S]ors tibi dum ficto crimine dura fuit:
."[N]IL reus en Theseus censura sortis iniquae
. [H]ic ruo, livoris traditus arbitrio."
. [A]t nunc mutanda ob mutata pericla querela est.
. [I]nclite, an innocuo pectore teste rues?
. [N]on sane. Hac haeres vacuo dat *VIVERE* cura,
. [C]ollati imperii sub Iove sceptra gerens.
.............................................
. *ISNHAINC* {anagram} *IN CHAINS*
.
*Victorious though IN CHAINS* ) "In Vinculus Invictus"
Motto in Tower Painting: http://www.gorki.net/Art/fa12.html
.............................................
. HENRY WRIOTHESLEY by an anagram
. ('HERE I FALL, *THESEUS, GUILTY OF NOTHING* ')
.
Justly you were able to pour *FORTH* this complaint from
your mouth, your lot was harsh while a false accusation
prevailed. *L.O. , Theseus is guilty of NOTHING, HERE*
I fall by an unfair lot's *CENSURE*, betrayed by *ENVY's* whim.'
But now the complaint is to be altered, because of
altered perils. Great man, do you take a fall
with an innocent heart bearing witness? Not at all.
The HEIR, wielding the scepter of rule conferred
under Jove's auspices, grants you to live free of this
.............................................
http://www.philological.bham.ac.uk/anagrams/text.html
--------------------------------------------------------
. Antony and Cleopatra > Act V, scene II
.
CLEOPATRA: Rather a ditch in Egypt
. Be gentle grave unto me! rather on *NILUS' MUD*
. Lay me *STAR(k) NAKED* , and let the water-flies
. Blow me into abhorring! rather make
. My country's high pyramides my gibbet,
. And *HANG ME UP IN CHAINS* !
.
CLEOPATRA: Hast thou the pretty *WORM of NILUS* there,
. That kills and pains not?
...........................................
____ *NIL VERIUS*
____ *NILUS VERI* : *WORM of NILUS*
-----------------------------------------------------
Alan correctly points out that the Sonnets title page includes a hidden
circle with Pythagorean triangles (ideas later stolen and expanded upon
by Alexander Waugh). However, not knowing when to stop,
<<...a VERy common trait among anti-Stratfordian cranks...
Alan blunders on to state that also hidden
1) e = 2.718281
<<Is he (or are you) unaware that e is irrational
(in fact, transcendental), Art?>>
Alan can be irrational (if not transcendental).
Lea wrote: <<Evidently.>>
2) Brun's constant &
3) Euler's constant.
<<I assume that you mean the Euler-Mascheroni constant, jocularly
characterized as the sum of the harmonic series minus the log of
infinity, rather than e, which is also (somewhat inaccurately)
called Euler's constant by some.>>
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lea wrote:

<<There is no uniVERsal consensus on the terminology, Art;
some call e the Euler number in honor of Euler's celebrated
formula e^{iπ}=-1, which is not unreasonable.>>
---------------------------------------------------------
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Cotes

<<Roger Cotes FRS (10 July 1682 – 5 June 1716) was an English mathematician, known for working closely with Isaac Newton by proofreading the second edition of his famous book, the Principia, before publication. He also invented the quadrature formulas known as Newton–Cotes formulas and first introduced what is known today as Euler's formula [e^{iπ}+1=0]. In correspondence with Isaac Newton, Cotes designed a heliostat telescope with a mirror revolving by clockwork. He recomputed the solar and planetary tables of Giovanni Domenico Cassini and John Flamsteed, and he intended to create tables of the moon's motion, based on Newtonian principles. Cotes was born in Burbage, Leicestershire. His parents were Robert, the rector of Burbage, and his wife Grace née Farmer. Cotes died from a violent fever in Cambridge in 1716 at the early age of 33. Isaac Newton remarked, "If he had lived we would have known something."
--------------------------------------------------------------
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euler%27s_identity

<<It has been claimed that Swiss mathematician Leonhard Euler's identity [e^{iπ}+1=0] appears in his monumental work of mathematical analysis published in 1748, Introductio in analysin infinitorum. However, it is questionable whether this particular concept can be attributed to Euler himself, as he may never have expressed it. (Moreover, while Euler did write in the Introductio about what we today call Euler's formula, which relates e with cosine and sine terms in the field of complex numbers, the English mathematician Roger Cotes (who died in 1716, when Euler was only 9 years old) also knew of this formula and Euler may have acquired the knowledge through his Swiss compatriot Johann Bernoulli.>>
-----------------------------------------------------------------
<<I didn't say that the attribution of the discoVERy to Euler was *correct*,
Art, merely that honoring Euler in this way is not unreasonable.>>
If it ain't *correct* then it ain't reasonable!
Lea wrote:

<<In that case, nothing you write is eVER reasonable, Art!>>

You're being unreasonable, Dave.
<<The Arnol'd Principle: If a notion bears a personal name,
then this name is not the name of the discoverer.
The Berry Principle: The Arnold Principle is applicable to itself.>>
-----------------------------------------------------------------
If an Elizabethan play bears a personal name,
then this name is probably not the name of the author.
Lea wrote:

<<Unlike Arnol'd's principle, for which there are some confirming instances,
there is no credible evidence for the Noonedafter Principle, Art.>>

I've nEVER heard of the Noonedafter Principle, Dave.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E_(mathematical_constant)
<<The number e is a mathematical constant, approximately equal to 2.71828,
which appears in many different settings throughout mathematics. It was
discovered (in 1683) by the Swiss mathematician Jacob Bernoulli
(6 January 1655 – 16 August 1705) while studying compound interest.>>
----------------------------------------------------------
.
"Like the fella says, in Italy for 30 years under the Borgias
they had warfare, terror, murder, and bloodshed, but they produced
Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, and the Renaissance. In Switzerland
they had brotherly love - they had 500 years of democracy and peace,
and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock."
----------------------------------------------------------
<<There are plenty of Swiss scientific and cultural contributions, Art;>>
And Euler's identity [e^{iπ}+1=0] apparently isn't one of them.
Lea wrote:

<<Euler's contributions to mathematics and science were both prolific and deep, Art.>>

And Bernoulli discoVERED the number e.
<No, Art. If that's true, then you are confirmed as a demented belieVER
that...the title page to Shakespeare's sonnets encodes the Euler number e
!>>
-------------------------------------------------------------
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euler_number
The odd-indexed Euler numbers are all zero.
<<Those are the Euler numbers (plural), Art.
There are also the Euler class, the Euler characteristic, etc. --
lots of things are named for Euler, and for good reason.>>
And yet, the Houston Eulers are now the Tennessee Titians!
Lea wrote: <<You're confusing _Titian_ with _Titan_, Art.>>
----------------------------------------------------------------
Note the resemblance of Titian's "Venere" & "(L)V(C)R{E|C)E":

http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venere_e_Adone_%28Tiziano_Roma%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarquin_and_Lucretia_%281571_painting%29

Titian used the same model...as did Edward de VEER:
........................................................
http://tinyurl.com/okjju6s
.
. L{V}C{R|E}C{E}
.......................
. {V}
. C{E}C(i)L
. {E}
. {R}
------------------------------------------------------------
<<Huh?! What "resemblance"? The face in _Venere e Adone_ cannot be seen
clearly (the female figure has her back to the viewer, while the view in
_Tarquin and Lucretia_ is mostly from the front), so any "resemblance" is
merely that of virtually *any* two nearly nude female bodies of moderate
proportions.>>
So... you're an expert on such matters?
Lea wrote:

<<I am expert enough to detect the folly in claiming that a face that
cannot be seen is the same that one that is partly visible, Art.??

The Folies Bergère?
<<For some reason, many anti-Stratfordian crackpots are also right-wing
political crackpots. Most conspicuous, perhaps, are Enoch Powell and
Joseph Sobran, not to mention h.l.a.s.'s own Mr. Streitz.>>
I gave up on Dyerite Jones Harris (in part) for his right wing views.
Lea wrote: <<I haven't heard of him.>>
https://brooklynrail.org/2013/02/books/shake-speare-fission
<<Thanks, Art -- this, too, is hilarious!
I'll tell the Grand Master about it;
maybe he'll assign someone to Harris.
That all sounds rather Dyer!
<<Not really, Art - I suspect that the agent assigned to him
will demolish his "argument" in VERy short order.>>
..................................................................
Jones's "politics" are terrible but [NED DYER] is clearly there:

[no doubt, one of the many contributions of his good friend
Fulke Greville: Recorder of Stratford (1606-1628)]
---------------------------------------------------
*TELLESTICKS* found by Jones Harris & John Rollett
............................................................
The Names of the *26* Principall Actors in all these Playes.

[William Shakespeare]
Richard B(ū)rba(D)ge.
John Hemmings.
Augusti(ñ)e Phillip [S].
William Kemp [T].
Thom(ā)s Poop (e).
George Brya (N).
Henry C(O)n[D]el [L].
W(I)l(L)iam S(L) (Y|E).
{R}ichard Cowl [Y].
John Low(I)ne.
Samuell Crosse.
A(L|E]xander Co(O)k{E}.
---------------------------------------------------------------
*STONE*, n. [OE. ston, *STAN*; akin to OS. & OFries. *STEN*,
D. *STEEN*, G. stein, Sw. *STEN*, Dan. *STEEN*, Gr. a pebble.]
..........................................................
Prob. of 'St(e)nley' or 'St(a)nley' ~ 1 in 2,500,000
.................................................................
Prob. (at least) 6 of the 7[ST(e)NLEY] guys were Lord *STRANGE's*
Men while only (at most) 3 of the other 19 PA's were ~ 1 in 450
----------------------------------------------------------------
Samuel Gilburn{E}.
[R]obert Armi(N).
Will(I)am Ostl(E)r.
(N)athan Field.
............................
John Underwoo [D].
{N}icholas T(O)ole {Y}.
William Eccl[E]ston {E}.
Joseph Taylo {R}.
Robert Be[N]fiel {D}.
Robe(R)t Gough {E}.
Richar{D} Robinso {N}.
John Shancke.
John Rice.
.........................................................
. <= *26* =>
.
. [W i l l i a m S h a k e s p e a r e] R i c h a r d B
. (U) r b a(D)g e.J o h n H e m m i n g s.A u g u s t i
. (N) e P h i l l i p[S]W i l l i a m K e m p [T] T h o m
. (A) s P o o p(e)G e o r g e B r y a(N) H e n r y C o n
. [D] e l l.W i l(L)i a m S l(Y|E|R}i c h a r d C o w l
. [Y] J o h n L o w(I)n e.S a m u e l l C r o s s e.A l
. [E] x a n d e r C o(O)k{E}S a m u e l G i l b u r n E
. [R] o b e r t A r m i(N)W i l l i a m O s t l E r N a
. t h a n F i e l d.J o h n U n d e r w o o [D] N i c h
. o l a s T o o l e{Y}W i l l i a m E c c l [E] s t o n
. e. J o s e p h T a y l o r.R o b e r t B e [N] f i e l
. d.
.........................................................
(UNA) 26 : *SPENSER* _FQ_ personification of "Truth"
[DYER] 26
[NED] -26
-------------------------------------------------------------
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/26_%28number%29
.
*26* is the gematric number, being the sum of the Hebrew characters
(Hebrew: יהוה‎) being the name of the god of Israel – YHWH (Yehweh).
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sir Philippe [SIDNEI] died of gangrene *26* days later
......................................................
<<[Sir PHILIP SIDNEI (30 November 1554 - 17 October 1586)] joined Sir John Norris in the Battle of Zutphen, fighting for the Protestant cause against the Spanish. During the battle, he was shot in the thigh and died of gangrene *26* days later. According to the story, while lying wounded he gave his water to another wounded soldier, saying, "Thy necessity is yet greater than mine". As he lay dying, Sidney composed a song to be sung by his deathbed..>>
--------------------------------------------------------
. The Original 1590 quarto edition!
...............................................
http://tinyurl.com/pma5gmz
http://tinyurl.com/nsvfzdm
.
The Covntesse of Pembrokes Arcadia,
. written by Sir Philippe [SIDNEI].
.
London, Printed {For} William Ponsonbie, Anno Domini, 1590.
----------------------------------------------------------------
*125* is the gematric number, being the sum of the English
characters for PHILIP SIDNEI = [(15+8+9+11+9+15)+(18+9+4+13+5+9)]

The "intentionally concealed message" in Sonnet 125 is
that Fulke Greville: Recorder of Stratford (1606-1628)
And [NED] [DYER] (b. October 1543 – d. May 1607)
*both* "bore the canopy" {For}[SIDNEI]:

http://tinyurl.com/ptpxsdu
-------------------------------------------------------------
{Ned}[DYER] then "bore the canopy" for PHILIP SIDNEI
............................................................
Sonnet *125*

. WEr't ought to me I "bore the canopy",
. With my extern the outward honoring,
. Or layd great bases {For} eternity,
. Which proues more [S]hort then wast or ruining?
. Haue [I] not seene dwellers on forme an[D] fauor
. Lose all,and more by payi[N]g too much rent
. For compound sw[E]et;Forgoing simple sauor,
. Pitt[I]full thriuors in their gazing spent.
. Noe,let me be obsequious in thy heart,
. And take thou my oblacion,poore but free,
. Which is not mixt with seconds,knows no art,
. But mutuall render onely me for thee.
. Hence,thou subbornd Informer, a trew soule
. When most impeacht,stands least in thy controule.
.......................................................
. <= *26* =>
.
. {F o r} e t e r n i t y,W h i c h p r o u e s m o r e
. [S] h o r t t h e n w a s t o r r u i n i n g?H a u e
. [I] n o t s e e n e d w e l l e r s o n f o r m e a n
. [D] f a u o r L o s e a l l,a n d m o r e b y p a y i
. [N] g t o o m u c h r e n t F o r c o m p o u n d s w
. [E] e t;F o r g o i n g s i m p l e s a u o r,P i t t
. [I] f u l l t h r i u o r s i n t h e i r g a z i n g
.
{For}[SIDNEI] *26* [starting in the middle of the 3rd line]
------------------------------------------------
Four years later:

The Covntesse of Pembrokes Arcadia,
. written by Sir Philippe SIDNEI.
.
London, Printed For William Ponsonbie,
. Anno Domini, 1590.
---------------------------------------
{For}[SIDNEI] can also be found coincidentally as Bible Code
in the KJV bible...but only with a very large ELS skip:
.................................................
My "CodeFinder Bible Code Software"
http://www.research-systems.com/codes/codefind.html

Shows me that the shortest ELS skip in _Moby Dick_
for {For}[SIDNEI] or {For}[SIDNEY] = 2818 skip

And the shortest ELS skip in (a modern) KJV
for {For}[SIDNEI] or {For}[SIDNEY] = 869 skip:
.................................................
. Exodus
.
21:36 he shall surely pay ox {For} ox.......
22:8 the master of the house [S]hall be brought unto the judges...
22:15 it came for h[I]s hire.......
22:27 an[D] it shall come to pass.......
23:6 Thou shalt not wrest the judgment of thy poor i[N] his cause..
23:15 Thou shalt keep the feast of unleaven[E]d bread.......
23:23 For m[I]ne Angel shall go before thee,.......
.
https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Exodus-Chapter-21/
------------------------------------------------------------
Now, in spite of all this, one might still consider the Sonnet 125
{For}[SIDNEI] Equidistant Letter Sequence a random fluke...
... except for the fact that it occurs again in Sonnet 47:
----------------------------------------------
. Sonnet 47 (= 125 - 3 x 26)

. BEtwixt mine eye and heart a league is tooke,
. And each doth good turnes now vnto the other,
. When that mine eye is famisht {For} a looke,
. Or heart in loue with [S]ighes himselfe doth smother;
. W[I]th my loues picture then my eye [D]oth feast,
. And to the painted ba[N]quet bids my heart:
. An other tim[E] mine eye is my hearts guest,
. And [I]n his thoughts of loue doth share a part.
. So either by thy picture or my loue,
. Thy seife away,are present still with me,
. For thou nor farther then my thoughts canst moue,
. And I am still with them,and they with thee.
. Or if they sleepe, thy picture in my sight
. Awakes my heart,to hearts and eyes delight.
.......................................................
. <= *26* =>
.
. {F o r} a l o o k e,O r h e a r t i n l o u e w i t h
. [S] i g h e s h i m s e l f e d o t h s m o t h e r;W
. [I] t h m y l o u e s p i c t u r e t h e n m y e y e
. [D] o t h f e a s t,A n d t o t h e p a i n t e d b a
. [N] q u e t b i d s m y h e a r t:A n o t h e r t i m
. [E] m i n e e y e i s m y h e a r t s g u e s t,A n d
. [I] n h i s t h o u g h t s
.
{For}[SIDNEI] *26* [starting in the middle of the 3rd line]
...............................................
I calculate the probability of yet another Sonnet
skip *26* ELS {For}[SIDNEI] at around 1 chance in 150,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note that Thomas Lant's: http://tinyurl.com/ptpxsdu
.
_The Procession at the Obsequies of Sir Philip Sidney_
features exactly 344 engraved figures (mostly in pairs).
.
. 344 = 2 x [(Sonnet *125* + Sonnet 47)]
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ergo:

1) {For}[SIDNEI] *26* in Sonnet *125* provides an excellent story
that Fulke Greville: Recorder of Stratford (1606-1628)
probably honored his deceased good friends:
Ned Dyer & Philip Sidnei in the Sonnets

2) {For}[SIDNEI] *26* in Sonnet 47 verifies that story mathematically.
------------------------------------------------------------
https://archive.org/details/ghostrichardthi00collgoog
.
The ghost of Richard the Third. A poem, printed in 1614, and founded
upon Shakespeare's historical play. Reprinted from the only known
copy in the Bodleian library by Brooke, Christopher, d. 1628

The Ghost of Richard the Third

*STANLEY* with Richmond joines his regiment
Some fled, some stood at gaze, the rest were seene
With idle action to maintaine the field :
Powre faintly answer’d argues will to yeeld.
...........................................................
https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo/A16936.0001.001/1:7?rgn=div1;view=fulltext

. THE LEGEND OF RICHARD THE THIRD [START]
.
"To him that *IMPT my FAME* with Clio's quill
Whose magick rais'd me from oblivion's den,
That writ my storie on the Muses' hill,
And with my actions dignifi'd his pen;
He that from Helicon sends many a rill,
Whose nectared veines are drunke by thirstie men;
Crown'd be his stile with fame, his head with bayes,
And none detract, but gratulate his praise.

Yet if his scaenes have not engrost all grace
The much fam'd action could extend on stage;
If time or memory have left a place
For me to fill, t' enforme this ignorant age,
To that intent I shew my horrid face,
Imprest with feare, and characters of rage:
Nor wits, nor chronicles, could ere containe
The hell-deepe [R]each[E]s of m[Y] soun[D]l{E}s{S}[E] brai[N]e."
.............................................................
. <= 5 =>
.
. [R] e a c h
. [E] s o f m
. [Y] s o u n
. [D] l {E} s {S}
. [E] b r a i
. [N] e.
..............................................
[NEDYER] -5 : Prob. at start ~ 1 in 5000
{SED} -2
..............................................
. THE LEGEND OF RICHARD THE THIRD [END]
.
Now Englands Chaos was reduc't to order
By God-like Richmond; whose successive Stems,
The hand of Time hath Branch't in curiou(S) [B]order,
Unto the mem'rie o{F} thrice {R}oyall (I)[A]mes:
An A{N}gels Trumpe be his *TRUE FAMES* Re[C]order,
And (M)ay that Britt(A)ine Phoebus f(R)[O]m his Beame{S}
(I)n Glories lig(H)t h{I}s influe[N]ce exten{D},
His Off-spring, cou{N}tles; Peace, nor Dat{E}, nor End.
....................................................
. <= 17 =>
.
. w h o s e s u c c e s s i v e S t
. e m s T h e h a n d o f T i m e h
. a t h B r a n c h t i n c u r i o
. u (S)[B] o r d e r U n t o t h e m e
. m r i e o{F}t h r i c e{R}o y a l
. l (I)[A] m e s A n A{N}g e l s T r u
. m p e b e h i s t r u e F a m e s
. R e [C] o r d e r A n d(M)a y t h a
. t B r i t t(A)i n e P h o e b u s
. f (R)[O] m h i s B e a m e{S|I)n G l
. o r i e s l i g(H)t h{I}s i n f l
. u (E)[N] c e e x t e n{D}H i s O f f
. s p r i n g c o u{N}t l e s P e a
. c e n o r D a t{E}n o r E n d
.
{FRAN.} 7
[BACON] 34 : Prob. at end ~ 1 in 387
(MARI.H.) 12 : Prob. at end ~ 1 in 328
{SIDNE.} 16 : Prob. at end ~ 1 in 120
----------------------------------------------------
____ Richard III Q1 (1597)
.
The Tragedy of King Richard the third. Containing, His
treacherous Plots against his brother Clarence : the pittiefull
murthe(R) of his innocent nephewes : his tyrannicall vsurpation
: with the whole cours(E) of his de{TEST}ed life,
and most deserued death. As it hath beene
lately Acted b[Y] the Right honourabl[E]
the Lord Chamberlai[N]e his seruants.
At Lon[D]on, Print(eD) by Valent[I]ne Sims,
for Andrew Wi[S]e, dwelling in Paules
{CHURCH-YARD}, at (the sig(N)e of the Angell). 1597.
...........................................
. <= 63 =>
.
murth e(R) ofhisinn o centneph e weshisty r annicall v surpatio n withthew h ol
ecour s(E) ofhisdeT E STedlife a ndmostde s erueddea t hAsithat h beenelat e ly
Acted b[Y] theRight h onourabL[E]THELordC h amberlai[N]ehisseru a ntsAtLon[D]on
Print (eD) byValent[I]neSimSfo r AndrewWi{SED}welLin g inPaules{C}HURCHYAR D}at
thesi g(N) eoftheAn g ell

(N/e/DYER) -63
...........................................
. <= 18 =>
.
. m u r t h e (R) o f h i s i n n o c e
. n t n e p h e w e s:h i s t y r a n
. n i c a l l v s u r p a t i o n:w i
. t h t h e w h o l e c o u r s(E)o f
. h i s d e{T E S T}e d l i f e,a n d
. m o s t d e s e r u e d d e a t h.A
. s i t h a t h b e e n e l a t e l y
. A c t e d b [Y] t h e R i g h t h o n
. o u r a b L [E] T H E L o r d C h a m
. b e r l a i [N] e h i s s e r u a n t
. s A t L o n [D] o n P r i n t e(D)b y
. V a l e n t [I] n e S i m S f o r A n
. d r e w W i {S E D} w e l L i n g i n
. P a u l e s {C} H U R C H Y A R D}a t
. (t h e s i g N e o f t h e A n g e l l)
.
{SED} 1
[{C}SIDNEY] -18: Prob. of [SIDNEY] ~ 1 in 2150

{C}ountesse of pembrooke: mary [SIDNEY]
-----------------------------------------------------
. As You Like It : Act II, scene VII
.
Duke Senior: If that you were the good (SIR) [R]owlands son,
. As you hav[E] whisper'd faithfully [Y]ou were,
. And as mine eye [D]oth his effigies witn[E]sse,
. Most truly limn'd, a[N]d living in your face,
. Be truly welcome hither: I am the Duke
. That lov'd your Father, the residue of your fortune,
. Go to my Cave, and tell mee.
............................................
. <= 15 =>
.
. I f t h a t y o u w e r e t h e g o o
. d (S I R)[R] o w l a n d s s o n,A s y o
. u h a v [E] w h i s p e r'd f a i t h f
. u l l y [Y] o u w e r e,A n d a s m i n
. e e y e [D] o t h h i s e f f i g i e s
. w i t n [E] s s e,M o s t t r u l y l i
. m n'd,a [N] d l i v i n g i n y o u r f
. a c e,
.
(SIR)[NEDYER] -15 : Prob. in Shakespeare ~ 1 in 50
...................................................
(SIR) EDward DYER (October 1543 – May 1607)
......................................................
. Act III, scene vii
.
ROSALIND: Good my complection, dost thou think though
. I am caparison'd like a man, I have a doublet and hose in
. my disposition? One inch of delay more, is a South-sea
. of discoverie. I pre'thee tell me, who is it quickely, and
. speake apace: I would thou couldst stammer, that thou
. might'st powre this conceal'd man out of thy mouth, as
. Wine comes out of a narrow-mouth'd bottle: either too
. much at once, or none at all. I pre'thee take the Corke
. o[UT] of thy {M}o[UT]h, th{A}t I may d{R}inke th{Y} tyding{S}.
.........................................................
. <= 7 =>
.
. t h e C o r k
. e o [U T]o f t
. h y {M}o[U T]h,
. t h {A}t I m a
. y d {R}i n k e
. t h {Y}t y d i
. n g {S}.

[UT]{MARY S.} 7
-----------------------------------------------------------------
{T}homas {NASHE}’s preface to Robert Greene’s (1589) _Menaphon:
...............................................................
It is a common practise now a daies amongst a sort of shifting companions,
that runne through EVERy arte and thrive by none, to leave the trade of
Noverint, whereto they were borne, and busie themselves with the in(D)evors
of Art, that could sca[R]c(E)lie lati{N}ize their (N)ecke-v[E]r(S)e if they
(S)h{O}uld hav(E) neede; [Y]et English S(E|N)e{C}a rea(D) by ca(N|D]le
light yeel(D|E)s m{A}nie good s[E]ntences, as Blou(D) is a {B}egger, a[N|D)
so foorth; and, if you intreate him faire in a frostie morning, {he will
affoord you whole HAMLETS}, I should say handfulls of tragical speaches.
.......................................................
____ <= *26* =>
.
. b u s i e t h e m s e l v e s w i t h t h e i n(D)e
. v o r s o f A r t,t h a t c o u l d s c a[R]c(E)l i
. e l a t i{N}i z e t h e i r(N)e c k e-v[E]r(S)e i f
. t h e y(S)h{O}u l d h a v(E)n e e d e[Y]e t E n g l
. i s h S(E|N)e{C}a r e a(D)b y c a(N|D]l e l i g h t
. y e e l(D|E)s m{A}n i e g o o d s[E]n t e n c e s,a
. s B l o u(D)i s a{B}e g g e r,a[N|D)s o f o o r t h;
. a n d,i f y o u i n\t\r e a t/e/h i m f a i r e i n
. a f r o s t i e m o r\n\i n/g{h e w i l l a f f o o
. r d y o u w h o l e H A M L E T S}I s h o u l d s a
. y h a n d f u l l s o f t r a g i c a l s p e a c h e s
.............................................................
{BACON} -27 : Prob. in 'whole Hamlets' sentence ~ 1 in 787
[NEDYER] -25 : Prob. in 'whole Hamlets' sentence ~ 1 in 660
............................................................
(NED) 25,26,26
(S.E.D.) -25,26 : Prob. of 5 NED/SED's in array ~ 1 in 150
..............................................................
Sir [ED]ward [DYER] (Oct. 1543 – May 1607) in 1589 was sent to Denmark.
----------------­-----------------------------------------­-
. THE FAMOUS VICTORIES of HENRY THE FIFTH
CONTAINING THE HONOURABLE BATTELL OF AGIN-COURT:
AS IT WAS PLAIDE BY THE QUEENES MAIESTIES PLAYERS
. LONDON: Printed by Thomas Creede, 1598
.
HENRY 5: I prethee [NED], mend thy *MANNERS*,
. and be more mo{DES}ter in thy tearm{E}s,
. Fo[R] my unfei[NE{D}] gre{E}f[E] i{S} not to be ruled b[Y] thy flattering
. An[D] dissembling talk[E], thou saist I am cha[N]ged,
. So I am i[N]d[E]e[D], and so must thou be, and that quickly,
. Or else I must cause thee to be chaunged.
...........................................................
. <= 16 =>
.
. I p r e t h e e [N E D]m e n d t
. h y *M A N N E R S*a n d b e m o
. r e m o{D E S}t e r i n t h y t
. e a r m{E}s,F o [R]m y u n f e i
. [N E {D}]g r e{E}f [E]i{S}n o t t o
. b e r u l e d b [Y]t h y f l a t
. t e r i n g A n [D]d i s s e m b
. l i n g t a l k [E]t h o u s a i
. s t I a m c h a [N]g e d,S o I a
. m i [N] d[E]e[D]a n d s o m u s t
. t h o u b e,a n d t h a t q u i
. c k l y,O r e l s e I m u s t c
. a u s e t h e e t o b e c h a u
. n g e d.
.................................................
[NEDYER] -16
{SED} -1,-4,-14
----------------­------------------------------­-
SEJANUS: HIS FALL
http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/5232/pg5232.txt

Silius: Have I for this so oft engaged myself?
. Stood in the heat and fervour of a fight,
. When Phoebus soo[N]er hath forsook th[E] day
. Than I the fiel[D], against the blue-{E|Y]ed Gauls,
. And cri{S}p[E]d Germans? when our [R]oman eagles
. Have fann'd the fire, with their labouring wings,
. And no blow dealt, that left not death behind it?
..............................................
. <= 16 =>
.
. W h e n P h o e b u s s o o[N] e
. r h a t h f o r s o o k t h[E] d
. a y T h a n I t h e f i e l[D],a
. g a i n s t t h e b l u e{E|Y] e
. d G a u l s,A n d c r i{S}p[E] d
. G e r m a n s?w h e n o u r[R] o
. m a n e a g l e s
...........................................................
[NEDYER] 16
{SED} -15
------------------------------------------------------------
. Hamlet (Quarto 2) Act I, scene III
.
OPHELIA: I shall the effect of this goo{D} l{E}s{S}on keepe
. As watchma[N] to my hart, but good my brother
. Do[E] not as some ungracious pastors [D]oe,
. Showe me the steepe and thorn[Y] way to heaven
. Whiles a puft, and r[E]ckles libertine
. Him{S}elfe the p[R]imrose path of dalienc{E} treads.
. And reakes not his owne ree{D}.
...........................................................
. <= 28 =>
.
. t h e e f f e c t o f t h i s g o o{D}l{E}s{S}o n k e e
. p e A s w a t c h m a[N]t o m y h a r t,b u t g o o d m
. y b r o t h e r D o[E]n o t a s s o m e u n g r a c i o
. u s p a s t o r s[D]o e,S h o w e m e t h e s t e e p e
. a n d t h o r n[Y]w a y t o h e a v e n W h i l e s a p
. u f t,a n d r[E]c k l e s l i b e r t i n e H i m{S}e l
. f e t h e p[R]i m r o s e p a t h o f d a l i e n c{E}t
. r e a d s.A n d r e a k e s n o t h i s o w n e r e e{D}.
.
[NEDYER] 27
{SED} -2,29
------------------------------------------------------------
. Hamlet (Quarto 2) Act I, scene III
. Enter the Players (MAISTER MASONS).
.
Hamlet: You are welcome *MAISTERS* , welcome all, I am glad to see
. thee well, welcome good friends, oh old friend, why thy face is
. valanct since I saw thee last, com'st thou to beard me in Denmark?
. what my young Lady and mistris, by lady your Ladishippe is
. nerer to heauen, then when I saw you last by the altitude of a
. chopine, pray God your voyce like a peece of vncurrant *GOLD* ,
. BEE NOT CRACKT WITHIN THE RING: *MAISTERS* you are all welcome...
------------------------------------------------------------
. Sonnet 53
.
WHat is your substance, whereof are you made,
That millions of *STRA[N]GE SHADDOW[E]S* on you ten[D]?
Since *EVER[Y] one*, hath *EV[ER]y one*, one shade,
An{D} you but on{E}, can *EVERy {S}HADDOW* lend:
..................................................
. <= 10 =>
.
. T h a t m i l l (I)o
. n s o f*S T R A [N]G
. E S H A D D O W [E]S*
. o n y o u t e n [D]S
. i n c e*E V E R [Y]o
. n e*h a t h*E V [E R]
. y o n e*o n e s h a
. d e,A n{D}y o u b u
. t o n{E}c a n*E V E
. R y{S}H A D D O W*l
. e n d:

[(I)NEDYE/R] 10
{SED} -9
-------------------------------------------------
. (E)DW(E)ED [DYER/DEVERE]
...............................................
. Sonnet 76 (1609)

WHy is my verse so barren of new pride?
So far from variation or quicke change?
Why with the time do I not glance aside
To new found methods, and to compounds *STRANGE* ?

Why write I still all one, [EVER] the same,
And keepe inuention in a *NOT[(E)D W(E)ED]*,
That *[EVER]y WOR<D>* [D]oth almo{S|T} fel {M[Y] NAME},
Shewing th[E]ir birth, and whe[R]e they did proce[E]d?

O know sweet lo[V]e I alwaies writ[E] of you,
And you an[D] love are still (Y) argument:
So all (M)y best is dressing old words new,
Spending againe what is already spent:
..................................................
____ <= 14 =>
.
. A *N O T[(E) D W (E) E D] T h {A}{T}
. E V E R y w o r <D>[D] O t h a
. l m o {S}{T} F E L m [Y] N a m {E}
. S h e w i n g t {H}[E]<I> r b i
. r t h a n d w h e [R] e t h {E}
. y (D) i d p r o c e [E] d O <K> n
. o w s w e {E} t l o [V] e I a l
. w a i e s w r i t [E] o f y o
. u A n d y o u a n [D] l (O) v (E)
. a r e s t i l l m (Y) a r g u
. m e n t: S o a l l (M) y b e s
. t i s d r e s s i n g o l d
. w o r d s n e w,
..................................................
[DYER] 14 {Found by A.W.Burgstahler}
.
[(MY) DE VERE] -14 {Found by James Ferris}
.
[DYEREVED] 14 Prob. in any sonnet ~ 1 in 9375
..................................................
Edward de Vere & Edward Dyer:
.
1) Only two Shakespeare authorship candidates
. named Edward: http://tinyurl.com/6yqvqwz
.
2) Only two Shakespeare authorship candidates
. sharing yet another authorship controversy:
..........................................................
- [King Richard the Third (Quarto 1, 1597) 3.1]
.
Buckingham: [A HA] my Lord this prince is *NOT AN EDWARD* :
. He is not lulling on a lewd day bed,
. But on his knees at meditation:
--------------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
nordicskiv2
2018-02-23 14:36:09 UTC
Permalink
On Thursday, February 22, 2018 at 1:11:48 PM UTC-5, Arthur Neuendorffer (aka Noonedafter) wrote:

[Lunatic logorrhea snipped]
<<Don't dismiss the Easter Bunny or the tooth fairy out of hand, Art >>
-------------------------------------------------
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2018/02/14/legend-held-that-monks-domesticated-rabbits-for-food-the-truth-is-more-complex/?utm_term=.2dae4b03a5a6
[Repetitive, irrelevant idiocy snipped]
-------------------------------------------------
<<This has nothing whateVER to do with either the Tooth Fairy or the Easter Bunny, Art.>>
My point stands, Art: the rubbish that you quoted has nothing whateVER to do with the Eastern Bunny. Nor does it alter in any way the fact that there is much more evidence in support of the existence of the Easter Bunny than there is that Oxford (or Derby, or Dyer, or Bacon, or Marlowe, etc.) wrote the works of Shakespeare.

[Lunatic logorrhea snipped]
1) right wing nutjobs,
2) promoting crazy non-authorship ideas,
3) Putin puppets,
<<There you go, Art -- that's all the *more* reason that you should
be burnishing your resumé and angling for a top job in the Trump
administration! You possess not only the requirements for the job --
among those are illiteracy and unshakable imperviousness to established
fact -- but if you're in contact with Putin puppets, then you also have
the right connections!>>
I no longer converse with Mickey Leaks/Peter Nockolds (and I'm not a fan).
Lea wrote: <<Why not, Art?!>>
Nockolds has betrayed his own country and attacked mine
(apparently all in exchange for a Putin provided Moscow mistress).
Lea wrote: <<Huh?! What on earth are you talking about, Art?!>>
Betrayal?
What on earth are you talking about, Art? What is Nockolds's country, and exactly how did he betray it? And what makes you think (usual disclaimer) that Putin provided him with a Moscow mistress? Your usual standard of "evidence"?

But don't way that I didn't warn you long ago about anti-Stratfordian Nockolheads, Art.
4) Stratfordian math professors specifically assigned to me.
<<How many mathematics professors from Stratford do you know, Art?>>
How many Oxfordians from Oxford do you know, Dave?
<<Oxford University is an elite institution whose faculty and students
have both relevant disciplinary training and the ability to weigh
evidence rationally...>>
Oxford students like Edward de Vere?
<<Oxford's uniVERsity degrees were purely honorary, Art.>>
Why would the [sic] honor him, Dave?
Is English your native tongue, Art? If you mean why was Oxford awarded an honorary degree, then the answer is that he was one of highest ranking peers in the realm. And such was Oxford's reputation among his contemporaries that you should feel free to interpret the word "peer" in Mr. Crowley's demented sense if you wish, Art.
It's a pretty SAD group overall.
<<But Art -- "overall" is an anagram of "A Ver?! LOL!"
INPNC = 3/7
Lea wrote: <<That's better than most of your "anagrams", Art.>>
Examples?
Lea wrote: <<There are many, Art.
One of the most idiotic is "INCHAINS", which boasts as INIPNC score of zero.>>
"INC(ha)IN(s)"
"INI(p)NC"
...none of which alters in the slightest the fact that "INCHAINS" has an INIPNC score of zero, Art. Only an idiot would demand examples of something that he obligingly provided in his own post!
I'm *GUILTY OF NOTHING* !
That depends upon your location, Art. HoweVER, it is true that in some jurisdictions, the culpability of a demonstrated moron is legally reduced.
http://www.philological.bham.ac.uk/anagrams/
.............................................
. HENRICUS URIOTHESLEUS
_____ per anagramma
. THESEUS NIL REUS HIC RUO
.
. [I]ure quidem poteras hanc fundere ab ore querelam,
."[N]IL reus en Theseus censura sortis iniquae
. [H]ic ruo, livoris traditus arbitrio."
. [A]t nunc mutanda ob mutata pericla querela est.
. [I]nclite, an innocuo pectore teste rues?
. [N]on sane. Hac haeres vacuo dat *VIVERE* cura,
. [C]ollati imperii sub Iove sceptra gerens.
.............................................
. *ISNHAINC* {anagram} *IN CHAINS*
INIPNC score zero, Art.

[Lunatic logorrhea snipped]
Alan correctly points out that the Sonnets title page includes a hidden
circle with Pythagorean triangles (ideas later stolen and expanded upon
by Alexander Waugh). However, not knowing when to stop,
<<...a VERy common trait among anti-Stratfordian cranks...
Alan blunders on to state that also hidden
1) e = 2.718281
<<Is he (or are you) unaware that e is irrational
(in fact, transcendental), Art?>>
Alan can be irrational (if not transcendental).
Lea wrote: <<Evidently.>>
2) Brun's constant &
3) Euler's constant.
<<I assume that you mean the Euler-Mascheroni constant, jocularly
characterized as the sum of the harmonic series minus the log of
infinity, rather than e, which is also (somewhat inaccurately)
called Euler's constant by some.>>
-------------------------------------------------------------
<<There is no uniVERsal consensus on the terminology, Art;
some call e the Euler number in honor of Euler's celebrated
formula e^{iπ}=-1, which is not unreasonable.>>
[...]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euler%27s_identity
<<It has been claimed that Swiss mathematician Leonhard Euler's identity
[e^{iπ}+1=0] appears in his monumental work of mathematical analysis
published in 1748, Introductio in analysin infinitorum. However, it is
questionable whether this particular concept can be attributed to Euler
himself, as he may never have expressed it. (Moreover, while Euler did
write in the Introductio about what we today call Euler's formula, which
relates e with cosine and sine terms in the field of complex numbers,
the English mathematician Roger Cotes (who died in 1716, when Euler was
only 9 years old) also knew of this formula and Euler may have acquired
the knowledge through his Swiss compatriot Johann Bernoulli.>>
-----------------------------------------------------------------
<<I didn't say that the attribution of the discoVERy to Euler was *correct*,
Art, merely that honoring Euler in this way is not unreasonable.>>
If it ain't *correct* then it ain't reasonable!
<<In that case, nothing you write is eVER reasonable, Art!>>
You're being unreasonable, Dave.
Not at all, Art -- by your own assertion, if something is not correct, it is not reasonable. Since practically nothing you say is eVER correct, it cannot be reasonable.

Besides, you're not being VERy consistent: despite aVERring that you were not a fan, you did say that Nockolds's activities were (t)reasonable, Art!
<<The Arnol'd Principle: If a notion bears a personal name,
then this name is not the name of the discoverer.
The Berry Principle: The Arnold Principle is applicable to itself.>>
-----------------------------------------------------------------
If an Elizabethan play bears a personal name,
then this name is probably not the name of the author.
<<Unlike Arnol'd's principle, for which there are some confirming instances,
there is no credible evidence for the Noonedafter Principle, Art.>>
I've nEVER heard of the Noonedafter Principle, Dave.
It's another (more accurate) name for what you call the Neufer Principle, Art.

HoweVER, the phrase could be a source of ambiguity: if you subscribe to the PT/DT lunacy, Art, as many of the far lunatic fringe Oxfordians (e.g., Streitz) do, then the "Neufer Prince'n'Pal" ought to refer to the Earl of Oxford and Orazio Cogno.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E_(mathematical_constant)
<<The number e is a mathematical constant, approximately equal to 2.71828,
which appears in many different settings throughout mathematics. It was
discovered (in 1683) by the Swiss mathematician Jacob Bernoulli
(6 January 1655 – 16 August 1705) while studying compound interest.>>
----------------------------------------------------------
.
"Like the fella says, in Italy for 30 years under the Borgias
they had warfare, terror, murder, and bloodshed, but they produced
Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, and the Renaissance. In Switzerland
they had brotherly love - they had 500 years of democracy and peace,
and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock."
----------------------------------------------------------
<<There are plenty of Swiss scientific and cultural contributions, Art;>>
And Euler's identity [e^{iπ}+1=0] apparently isn't one of them.
I didn't say that it was, Art. HoweVER, Euler's contributions dwarf that particular identity that is often attributed to him. The same could be said of Bernoulli, who was also Swiss.
<<Euler's contributions to mathematics and science were both prolific and deep, Art.>>
And Bernoulli discoVERED the number e.
And Bernoulli was Swiss, Art.

Switzerland has produced much more than just the cuckoo clock, Art.

HoweVER, District Heights appears to have produced nothing more than a cuckoo crock, most of it consisting of crackpot cryptography: Crone and Neuendorffer is probably correct but certainly not original, while the rest of Neuendorffer's output is probably original, but certainly not correct (_vier_ as Spanish for "four" being typical).

[Lunatic logorrhea snipped]
--------------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer (aka Noonedafter)
Loading...