"Shakespeare Crackpot" Live at Shakespeare's Globe, London, UK. 

Thanks so much!

The situation is much better now. Stay tuned.

As sceptics pointed out, the carbon dating says the 14th century and the first time the Shroud is mentioned history is the 14th century. Amazing that the carbon dating should date "incorrectly" from exactly the time that the Shroud is first mentioned in history. What appears to be happening is Christians are desperate for a solution so they're coming up with bizarre theories. My favorite is the one that claims when God resurrected Jesus it changed the carbon dating of the fabric to falsely read in Carbon Dating as the 14th Century. I think that's a better one for you to go with. The key point is that no matter what evidence science comes up with to demonstrate the Should is a fake, those that seek a talisman to bolster their faith will not accept this kind of evidence. Ultimately, even if science shows unequivocally that the Shroud is not connected to Jesus, these so-called "true believers" will just say, "God created the Shroud to look like it is a fake to test our faith." Those that need to believe in the Shroud will always believe in the Shroud. For my part, the Carbon 14 dating is sufficient to dismiss the Shroud. Particularly since the the dating and the first appearance of the Shroud in history are the same.

callyharley, thank you for your detailed explanation. I agree entirely that personal revelation of the sort described by Prof Fanti is far from being convincing evidence. The reason that I am prepared to believe that the Shroud is considerably earlier than the 14th century date is based on a type of evidence that could hardly be considered as "proof". But, at the same time, it is the sort of evidence proposed by those who are seeking an author for Shakespeare's works other than Shaksper of Stratford on Avon. The evidence that I see is that the Shroud itself appears to have been used as a source for images of Jesus. Conversely, the image on the Shroud does NOT seem to have been created as a response to early Jesus pictures. I won't go into this in detail, because this is not the right place.

Very true. And also, even if one does accept the paltry signatures as enough of a sample, many letters do not line up. The "K" in Shakespeare is completely different in Hand D. The sad fact about Hand D is the claim only exists because there is no other evidence, so inadequate and demonstrably false evidence is pushed forward by Stratfordians.

@@keircutler Nothing exists today of any non-titled people 400 years ago. Shakespeare was not famous till the 1700s.

@@michaelrowsell1160 Nothing for anyone? You're being silly. There are over 70 documents from Shakspere's life. Not nothing, 70! None of them relate to his being a writer!

Just crap..

De Vere. Da Bard.

agree!

Writers were not paid royalties back then. The theatre company owned the play. All money fron performances went to the theatre owners. Shakspere was a partial owner of the Globe Theatre.

There are many reasons why a writer would disguise his name. One significant one is that it would be shameful for a noble to write for profit. So if Shakespeare were of noble birth, and they wanted their works performed in the theatre, he or she would have a pseudonym. There is also the theory that Shakespeare was a front for several writers. A catchall for those who for various reasons did not want their name associated with plays or poems. Keep in mind writers were routinely arrested, jailed and in some cases tortured. Remaining anonymous would have been a very wise choice. As for whether Shakespeare's plays were more risqué than others. Writing in general was dangerous. There were censors, and anyone could get into very hot water by writing the wrong thing. Keep in mind the works of Shakespeare came on the heals of both Marlowe and Kidd being arrested in 1593.

It's an interesting question. But we don't need to know why a pseudonym was used in order to be sure that one was used. The Author did not want his name known. That is why he used a pseudonym. His friends wanted to follow his wishes after he died and his enemies wanted him to remain anonymous for their own reasons. You may want to have a look at the series of videos that Alexander Waugh has uploaded to youtube that give one possible answer.

@@stevenhershkowitz2265 Surely once he was dead... there would be no reason to keep his identity secret? De vere died in 1604... what possible reason would there be to publish the first folio in 1623... 19 years later... as a pseudonym. Makes literally no sense. Although i adore the romantic Marlowe theory... this would also make no sense. The entire pseudonym theory make no sense.

@@beniteztheconman There only needs to be one reason - that his friends and his enemies wanted him to remain anonymous. His friends because they were his friends, his enemies because they hated him. Why abandon the pen-name - ever? The money was made under the name Shake-speare and there was more money to be made. Why change a winning formula that literally no one wants changed? Why would they even have the word "pseudonym" if having makes no sense? Why would the word even have been invented if no one ever used one? It's hard to understand in today's money driven world, but some people write because they have something to say not because they were trying to earn a living. Edward de Vere certainly didn't need the money or the recognition - he was literally born famous, his birth celebrated by the Queen herself. He didn't need to be known for something as common as writing but he still wanted to express himself like any other writer, but In the course of expressing himself he insulted a lot of powerful people by caricaturing them in his works . So long as the name Shakespeare is on the plays those caricatures are not recognized and those powerful people escape going down in history as having being ridiculed by the greatest writer ever. It would be in their interest to keep the real writer's name off the plays for as long as they could, forever if possible. (e.g. Richard III is based on Vere's brother-in-law Robert Cecil. Cecil was Elizabeth's chief minister and King James after him. He didn't want to be remembered as one of history's greatest villains, so he was all too happy and able to keep the secret for decades after Vere's death)

@@stevenhershkowitz2265 sounds extremely far fetched.

The name Shakespeare was famous add a writer at the time of the writing. We have letters from many of the other famous writers.

That's an unintelligent reply! If Shakespeare was a person, famous and recognised as such, of course there would be correspondence still in existence..! There is plenty from all his poetry peers of the time!

Yes, that was an error. My mistake.

Actually you're wrong. The 1st century dating was a fraud. Not accepted by anyone other than fanatical believers, and has been throughly discounted! In 2013, Giulio Fanti performed new dating studies on fragments obtained from the shroud. He performed three different tests including ATR-FTIR and Raman spectroscopy (absorption of light of different colors). The date range from these tests date the shroud between 300 BC and 400 AD.These studies have been publicly disregarded by Cesare Nosiglia, archbishop of Turin and custodian of the shroud. Cardinal Nosiglia stated that "as it is not possible to be certain that the analysed material was taken from the fabric of the shroud no serious value can be recognized to the results of such experiments".