Amatørkryptografen Petter Amundsen sår tvivel om William Shakespeare værkligen var forfatteren av dom verk som bær hans namn.
Vid att følga koder i litteraturen och klenodier runt førfattaren menar Amundsen att det kan vara andra som står bakom den værdskjænda litteraturen (han hænvisar til Rosenkranz).

Ett 400 år gammalt kodspår på Shakespears berømda gravsten stæmmer med en rad identiska koder på dom mest berømda Shakspear-klenodierna. Amundsen har ochså grævt fram betydliga spår i dom viktigaste publikasjonerna.

Boken "Førstefolioen" visar sig att bæra många av dom mystiska kodspåren, och ett namn går igjen øverallt; Sir Francis Bacon. I øver 200 år har det varit spekulerat i om den mystiska och hemlighetsfulla vetenskapsfilosofen kan ha varit den værkliga førfattaren bakom Shakespears værker, utan att någon har klarat av att bevisa det.

Naturligvis vil ingen akademiker tro på Amundsen. Baconianarna och kodjægarna ræknas som andrarangs vetenskapsmænn, och dom flesta av dagens forskare ær eniga om att det måste ha varit landsbydrængen Will Shakespear som var mannen bakom dom gudabegåvade skådespelen och dikterna.

Men Amundsen nekar att ge sig. Han vet att han har rætt, och begrundar det med att koder och pseudonymer eksisterade på den tiden. Det var et vanligt sætt at skydda sensitiv informasjon på. Det går før allvar upp før Amundsen att Shakespear inte kan ha varit ensam om denna sammansværgning, men vem konspierade han ihop med?

Petter Amundsen påstår att ha hittat till nu okjænda koder i Shakespears skådespel. Dom berættar at han inte ær den egentliga førfattaren, men dærimot en betald frontfigur i ett frimurarprosjekt.

Denna norskproduserade dokumentarserien i fyre delar viser hur organisten Petter Amundsen från Oslo avsløyar en skattkarta av koder i Shakespeares litteratur. Det leder inn i en historia som innbefattar tempelriddarna och den forsvunna tempelriddarskatten. Dan Brown berør dette i Da Vinci-koden, men Amundsens historia øvergår fiksjonen. Den er basert på fakta som alle kan efterprøvas.

Om Petter Amundsen uppnåraksept før sine teorier, vill litteraturhistorian måste skrives om. Han vill for alltid bli ståande som mannen som løste Shakespeares stora gåta. Skulle han mislyckas, vill han bli sittende igjen som en fantast i raden av naiva konspirasjonsteoretikare.


http://www.nrk.no/programoversikt/?p_ ... pp=Omtale&p_artikkel_id=0

intressant ämne.
vart kan jag hitta denna serie?

tack :)

Irriterande med den 6 innlæggsregelen, man måste værkligen prioritera vad man ska posta... :(

Snælla ændra det, det kommer jo att vara helt omøyligt at "jobba" något særskilt hær!

Hær kan ni se serien;
http://www1.nrk.no/nett-tv/klipp/584548

Mer om serien;
http://www.travelexplorations.com/sha ... omaker.4481303-27939.html

Tack för tipset, intressant.
Men jag får varken 2:a eller 3:e delen att spelas upp, någon annan som har samma problem?

Archaeological Conspiracy at Williamsburg: The Mystery of Bruton Vault
http://www.scribd.com/doc/6488965/Arc ... e-Mystery-of-Bruton-Vault

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

There are only six known examples of Shakespeare’s own handwriting, all signatures, and three of these are on his will. They reveal a man unfamiliar with a pen and a hand that was probably guided by another. His will included his second best bed and a broad silver gilt bowl, but nothing whatsoever to suggest that he wrote or owned a single work of literature! Nor is there one authentic portrait of Shakespeare. The differences in the depiction of him by artists confirm that no-one has any idea what he looked like. Yet the power of conditioning and accepting the official line attracts millions of people to Stratford from all over the world to see the home of the man who didn’t write the Shakespeare plays!

This is only one small example of how the official fairy story called ‘history’ is used to control current behaviour and perception. What else in history isn’t true? Just about everything. Behind the Shakespeare plays was the hidden hand behind most historical events of significance - the Brotherhood networks. And nothing sums up the attitude of this group better than the words Bacon/DeVere wrote for the witches in his play, Macbeth: “Fair is foul and foul is fair.” As Manly P. Hall, the Freemasonic historian, wrote of Bacon:


“He was a Rosicrucian, some have intimated the Rosicrucian. If not actually the Illustrious Father C.R.C. referred to in the Rosicrucian manifestos, he was certainly a high initiate of the Rosicrucian Order... those enthusiasts who for years have struggled to identify Sir Francis Bacon as the true “Bard of Avon” might long since have won their case had they emphasised its most important angle, namely, that Sir Francis Bacon, the Rosicrucian initiate, wrote into the Shakespearean plays the secret teachings of the Fraternity of R.C. and the true rituals of the Freemasonic Order, of which order it may be discovered that he was the actual founder.“


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

[There is no better English written this side of Shakespeare than that in the King James Translation."-Charlton Heston 1992]


"The 1611 King James Bible is ornamented with Bacon's symbols and in my own special copy of the record edition, also dated 1611, these symbols are Rosicrucianly marked to call the attention of the initiated to them and to tell them that the 1611 Bible is without possibility of doubt, one of Bacon's books.....When Bacon was born, English as a literary language did not exist, but once he died he had succeeded in making the English language the noblest vehicle of thought ever possessed by mankind. This he accomplished merely by his Bible and his Shakespeare."

-- Edwin D. Lawrence author of Bacon is Shakespeare and The Shakespeare Myth from a lecture October 9, 1912

------


...The Bible which all of us read and admire from a literary point of view because of it's peculiar and beautiful English was written in that form by Bacon who invented and perfected that style of English expression. The first editions of this Bible were printed under the same guidance and in the same manner as were the Shakespeare plays, and the ornaments for the various pages were drawn in pen and ink and on wood by artists engaged by Bacon who worked under his supervision. Everyone of the ornaments concealed some Rosicrucian emblem and occasionally a Masonic emblem or some initials that would reveal Bacon's name or the name of the Rosicrucians. Such ornaments were put not only in the Christian Bible that Bacon had rewritten but in the Shakespeare plays, and in some of Bacon's own books, and a few other books that were typically Rosicrucinan in spirit.

-- Dr. H Spencer Lewis Imperator of the Rosicrucian Order during the 1920-30's, from the Rosicrucian Digest, April 1930

-----

The first edition of the King James Bible, which was edited by Francis Bacon and prepared under Masonic supervision, bears more Mason's marks than the Cathedral of Strasburg.

--ManlyP. Hall from a lecture Rosicrucian and Masonic Origins 1929

Conclusion


The writer of Shakespeare’s works had to have a highly sophisticated, deeply ingrained understanding of the law. He could think law and speak law. If the Stratfordians wish to persist in claiming that William Shakspere wrote the works of Shakespeare, then they must answer Mark Twain’s conundrum:

[T]he man who wrote [the plays] was limitlessly familiar with the laws, and the law-courts, and law-proceedings, and lawyer-talk, and lawyer-ways—and if Shakespeare was possessed of the infinitely-divided star-dust that constituted this vast wealth, how did he get it, *428 and where, and when?[378]

In the longstanding authorship controversy, no camp has at this point achieved definitive proof of its theory of authorship. The Stratfordians have not proved William Shakspere wrote the plays, but neither has this theory been disproved. The same can be said for the cases for Bacon, Marlowe, and Oxford. All these theories are based partly on fact, partly on conjecture. All we can do at any time is look at the available evidence and calculate which theory has the highest ratio of fact to conjecture in its support. Meanwhile, we must continue to accumulate evidence, both external and internal. By external evidence, I mean such documents as stationers’ registers, payments of royalties, contemporary letters (no letter by William Shakspere—if he wrote one—has ever been found) that might indicate who was the author of the plays. Intensive searches through attics, castles, and village archives occasionally turn up new pieces of evidence.

http://www.shakespearefellowship.org/ ... classroom/Law/regnier.htm