SAT Conference 2017 - 6 - Alexander Waugh - A Grave Problem 2

Alexander Waugh outlines his theory that the title page of the Aspley version of Shake-speare's Sonnets (1609), combined with the dedication of same, tell us where the true author of those sonnets is buried. Filmed at the Shakespearean Authorship Trust conference, October 29th 2017.

Apologies for problems with the sound.

Filming by Tim Pieraccini

[brianminghella]

It was many years ago now when a dear friend and mentor ( ex naval Intelligence) started to teach me the basics of this very same style of encryption. It is still used today.
So I was both surprised and delighted by this presentation of truth. Thank you Mr Waugh and all the good people at SAT. The truth will prevail because its keepers know the power of well kept secrets when the times come to tear away the veil of lies.
It has always been the duty of Bards to vouchsafe the truth.

[downtonviewer]

I've been waiting for this!!!! Thank you for posting!

[jayare]

Wow as cryptic a trail as I ever followed. Regardless, lets start digging!

[onefeather]

Cracking the Shakespeare Code, on YouTube and Amazon prime, I might not agree with the outcome but all the research and codes that Petter from Norway did is amazing.

[CulinarySpy]

Actually this has some merit if the claims about Christian symbology of the day are historically accurate. I note that none of the 'pseudo-skeptics' commenting here bother (or will ever bother) to do the kind of research that confirms the claims about the significance of Christian numerology of the day. I have no idea, but I can pick dismissive comments that don't have any foundation behind them when I read them. Looking forward to some kind of book or scholarly article that provides references to such research, such as it is.

[CulinarySpy]

Fascinating analysis - is this hypothesis yet down in writing somewhere? I heard some mention of a newsletter (?) in Alexander's talk, would somebody be so kind as to point me to it if it exists?

[brooke]

"d for T." as the reverse of ox-for-d is cheap. Is it really your third key?

[aryehfinklestein]

I'm a great fan of the speaker's grandfather, but ( with respect ) find the fanciful thesis proffered here by his grandson egregiously unconvincing.

[juniorflip]

How completely wonderful! Your analysis gave me chills....even upon the third viewing with three of my fellow Oxforfdians (it's a sad commentary that spell-check still underscores that term in red!) Ugh. Anyway, THANK YOU!

[treedy]

Bwahahahahahahahahahaha! "In a nutshell" is right!

[NlHILIST]

More invention than discovery methinks.

[MG-yehu]

Sorry Mr. Waugh, this is not convincing. If there would be one clear pattern that would reveal a clear sentence it would make sense but this mashup of letters, abbreviations, geometry and symbols is just too random. With this method you get everything you want out of a bunch of letters and dots.

This will eventually rather hurt the cause. Also the Baconians back then discredited themselves with this kind of hocuspocus.

[raymondnewman]

I would like Charlton Ogburn to have seen this after his wish that he would like to have seen Oxford get the credit he was due.He said in1989I'd like to put his cause aright to the unsatisfied.I would like to  help do that.

[zeerust]

Interesting. But I suspect he is reading far, far too much into these documents. It reminds me of all the codes and ciphers in the Da Vinci Code. I'm not convinced.