Five 400-Year-Old Encryptions by John Dee Reveal the Author of Shakespeare's Works 

It truly infuriates me that the whole of literary academia ignore this. It really is the smoking gun. Dee and Devere were like brothers. Alexander Waugh (and Alan Green) are cryptic geniuses to break this code. It is telling you (almost screaming at you silently) who the author of The Shakespeare canon really is. For Stratfordians to just sweep this under the carpet and ignore it, isn't just woeful neglect of the elephant in the room; it is colossal, even willful stupidity and lack of scholarly duty and integrity. In short it is barbaric. These Stratfordians steal livings.They really need to be kicked out of their posh college houses and told to seek different employment.

Brilliant work, building beautifully on Waugh's astonishing discoveries. Thank you so much.

Great vid. I love Waugh's work too. The best part is listening "experts" explain this all away as mere "coincidence", despite the fact that the maths prove otherwise. Cheers

A fantastic piece of work.

This is so fulfilling! Thank you for sharing your work in a clear and articulate manner. Your clarity exemplifies your knowledge and understanding. Its wonderful that you site other people’s work/findings as I have seen a few others take credit for the revelations hidden in the sonnets.

This is fantastic Lyle. Well done

Excellently done! I look forward to more!

I’m subbed to three major Oxfordian authorship sites and YT waits 3 months to pop this up. Glad to see your excellent work. Please do more. From the comments it appears not all have followed the work of Waugh et al. A key for me was learning the why of Oxford’s hiding: he was high aristocracy and such types just didn’t, weren’t allowed to, would be slapped into the tower for making such a below stairs move as to write and publish plays. And yet Queen Liz had him write because he made her laugh. Then got mad at him because Southampton mixed it up with Essex and, somehow, maybe that was Oxford’s fault. And when it came to possible treason, they took your head back then for somehows and maybes. Earlier comments make it sound like it was all a grand conspiracy that is just oh so very implausible. No, it’s as simple as saying Oxford was not allowed to be Shakespeare. You know, in the same exact way today’s Charles was not allowed to marry his heart’s desire. That ended badly, too. So saying a Queen Elizabeth could not have ordered Oxford and all those who knew who wrote what to have a cover story is nonsense. Dee and crew were probably following her orders while secretly telling the truth. Though 400 years apart both Elizabeths had the same motivation: royalty royalty royalty above all, who cares if heads roll or cars crash.

Wonderful presentation thank you. Using a 34 column grille as suggested by the 34 letters in the Latin line immediately above the English epitaph in Holy Trinity I have also found the names Hermes, Marlowe, FSBacon , Ral (for the recently beheaded Ralegh also a Hermetist, and Stanley, in addition to Dee and de Vere. All names are arranged in the pictorial fashion you describe in shapes that have Masonic significance.

Pertaining to this question: Have you heard Mark Twain’s Is Shakespeare Dead? Right here on YT. Easy to find and listen to. Written circa 1908 but it might as well be 2008 for its astute timeliness. Explains where he first heard Shakespeare. Hits many points the 20-21st century folks do but with chuckles. As expected.

Your work on "curst be" is very interesting. Well done! I'm quite certain we need to be working with the original. Anyway, I've got another 3D for you on the Sonnets title page.

Excellent!!

Congratulations Lyle. Thoroughly enjoyable, your voice is easy to listen to and not only did you explain Dee's involvement by explaining known ciphers, but you also revealed some finds of your own. Please look into the mindblowing findings of Alan Green. His work which relates the whole structure of the Sonnets to the mathematics of the Giza pyramid just adds another level of complexity. I believe Dee, Oxford, Bacon and Jonson were Rosecrutian brethren who had access to secret knowledge, brought to Europe by Crusaders. How in heaven's name can Stratfordians fail to address these issues?

Thanks, very clearly articulated. However, if Dee signed Jonson's "To The Reader," how do you make sense of the fact that Dee died in 1608 or 1609, but The First Folio with "To The Reader" didn't appear until 1623? Are you assuming that Jonson actually wrote the poem 15 years or so earlier with Dee's collaboration?

Okay, I have gone through this a couple of times now & I have to say I am not as yet convinced by what I have seen. Getting 3-letter words is proof of nothing at all, and I would be a lot more inclined to accept this as genuine if - for example - the 'decrypted cross' at 35 minutes actually meant something - but it doesn't. John Dee was a genius. Of this there is no doubt at all. Did he write the so-called 'Gravestone Epitaph'? It's unlikely, unless he did this years before he died in 1609 (or 1608 according to some sources) and I seriously doubt that he wrote the poem attributed to Ben Johnson either in the First Folio. I may of course be utterly mistaken - time will no doubt tell, but Dee would not have used a combination of English & French - much more likely he would have used one of what he called 'The Three Primary Alphabets', ie Latin, Greek & Hebrew, for anything Gematria related. The Sonnets encryption on the title pages is verified as is pointed out by statistical analysis - it's real. Both the Stratford 'Epitaph' and Memorial writings are doubtless hiding something. Alexander Waugh has - for me - clearly decoded the 'Read if thou cans't etc' message (it basically tells you to look for the Grave not in Stratford but in London at Westminster where (somewhat ironically) thanks to the addition by the Birthplace trust tells you to go look in Stratford-upon-avon - as Alexander commented 'Someone has been assing around') and I consider it highly likely the original version of the supposed 'Epitaph' is also hiding an encryption but until we can see what the original looked like it is hard to say - Dee? Possibly yes, as if the image shown here at 45 minutes is accurate it does bear the hallmarks of Dee, as to quote from his Heiroglyphic Monad book - specifically the note to the printers that "There are, therefore, two things, which I earnestly ask of you. The first is that you carefully copy (as best you can) the Various Letters, Points, Lines, Diagrams, Shapes, Numbers and oother things' and continues to explain why this is necessary that 'This, the Same Body to which I have given birth, perfect in every part, will not be Mutilated or Deformed due to Printer's Negligence, as it is brought forth into the light' (all punctuation & capitalization is Dee's) which is basically saying that everything on the pages of the original manuscript is there for a reason - every mark, dot or 'printer's error' is meant to be there and is not in error. For that reason, I will agree that it has the hallmarks of John Dee writ large as the whole thing reeks of a hidden message. This is extremely interesting as it implies Dee created this many years before Stratford Shakspere died but it is much more likely that the Secret Masonic Society that put up this 'memorial' encoded this using a similar method to Dee, who was using Hermeticism amongst other ideas (the 'Triple Tau' is also taken to be a reference to 'Hermes Trismegistus' as well as the Temple of Solomon and for this I have no obvious candidate of my own as yet - I still seriously doubt Bacon was involved in hiding who Shakespeare really was when you consider his behaviour towards Essex & Southampton after the Essex Uprising where between himself & Raleigh they succeeded in having Essex beheaded, and tried the same for Southampton too but his sentence was commuted to imprisonment in the Tower, commuted as soon as Elizabeth died & James I took over - whom Edward De Vere officiated at his Coronation in his last public act, remembering too that his previous public appearance was to try & counter the forces against Essex & Southampton at their 'Trial' (as he also attempted for Mary QoS). It's still a suggestive piece though, and I'll doubtless go through it again

40 could be DeVere, but 33 could be Bacon, making all occasions of TT a reference to Thirty Three and to Bacon. These identifications are subjective and not generally agreed upon for good reason. Who would have written what then? There's a problem here with accepting some attributions and disavowing others. What if we are being sent in the direction of a triangle of men here who have exercised influence in the production of the works? How would we know how to tease that out as an interpretation? The word deciphering is being abused in this presentation. A cipher is a quite formal and will always yield an objective, clear message. Methods used to generate suggestions that are described as statistically impressive are not by definition ciphers. Those can always be produced by reverse engineering and employ as many steps as is useful.

Love Alexander Waugh's work.

It was she, E. Ver.

I'm puzzled by the T above the Y in these writings, have you noticed and what does it mean?

8:15 Odin/Woten is also known as the "Spear-Shaker"/ Biflindi.

Might any incriptor use DEE as a key, not necessarily JD himself?

As a Baconian, I have no problem with Dee being highly involved with the Shakespeare ouvre. I love been saying for years that Dee must have taught Bacon the Kabbalah

Dee and De vere were ENEMIES, not "brothers" as one says below. The plays constantly mock Dee. Nice to see that this liar was able to tell the truth once, even if it was expressed in his signature cowardly fashion.

14:30 - It is impossible to construct any triangle with sides 6-2-4.

The dedicatory poems are weird, there's no doubt about that. And for all I know Oxford could have written the plays. The poems attributed to him aren't very good mind you. What I have an allergy towards are these massively complicated ciphers. I simply don't believe any mathematics which suggests they couldn't have happened by chance. That's because you allow yourself (as do the others) too much contingency and latitude. The fact that you find multiple messages supporting your foregone conclusion in multiple different ways in the same poem doesn't reinforce your conclusion. It detracts from it.

You might like to see Cardanus comforte by Cardano Girolamo (1501-1576) a favourite book of de Vere's 'I thinke a man better or more fytlye named then of the Spaniard, who in their lan∣guage do terme a man, shadow. And sure ther is nothing to be found of lesse assurance or soner pas∣sed then the lyfe of man, no, nor y• may more right∣lye be resembled to a shadow.' Seems some inspiration found there. :)

6-2-4 is not a right triangle and it certainly is not the sides of a 30-60-90 (as indicated in the diagram of the graves. What gives? I guess that I'll check out Waugh's talk.

I wish there was a better VO on this - the diction here is so sloppy it detracts from the information.

Why "vide shadows"? That seems really weak. How about "EDV is shadow" - seems a little more clear.

b 6 4 b

John Heminges, Henry Condell, and Richard Burbage, three actors of The Lord Chamberlain's Men, a famous acting company that included William Shakespeare, were given money by William Shakespeare of Stratford in his Last Will and Testament in 1616. Two of these actors, John Heminges and Henry Condell, were responsible for having 36 of Shakespeare's plays published in the First Folio in 1623. Ben Jonson's eulogy in the First Folio clearly praises Shakespeare as a great writer. He states that "thy writings to be such, /As neither Man, nor Muse, can praise too much." Heminges and Condell also praise Shakespeare as a writer, stating that "he thought, he uttered with that easinesse, that wee have scarse received from him a blot in his papers. But it is not our province, who onely gather his works, and give them you, to praise him." These are "his works" and "his papers" that they are publishing. He is clearly presented as the writer of these works in the First Folio. The Last Will and Testament of William Shakespeare of Stratford clearly connects him with the 1623 First Folio through Heminges and Condell and it is clear that Shakespeare is presented as the author of the plays.

I don't see anything here BUT PURE PLAGIARISM from Alexander Waugh's last 8-years of research. I don't know WHY PEOPLE ARE PRAISING & THANKING YOU as you a copyist. It's only from 33:00 that you make your own solutions.