www.skeptic.com

Chris #conspiracy skeptic.com

Fact – William Shaksper of Stratford was mocked on the London stage, in multiple instances, for being illiterate, a braggart, a pretender, and for slightly changing the spelling of his name.

Fact – The Stratford tourist industry sells portraits of a man, who they claim is Shaksper, despite the fact that not a single PhD in art history not on their payroll believes it to be him. Why do they need to fraudulently posit this portrait as Shakes? Because they have no legitimate portrait, and if he did write the works, someone would have painted his picture.

Fact – Eminent Shakespearen scholar E.A. Honiggman lamented late in his career that he did not pursue scholarship of early dating of the plays. He urged the scholarly community to do so “no matter the results.” He recounted how as a young scholar he’d been warned off this avenue by the “whales” (read tourist industry), who told him that such pursuits would damage his career.

Even now, the heavy, corrupting hand of the tourist industry is evidence where every bit of scholarship into ‘collaboration’ is celebrated while remarkable work such as Dr. McCarthy’s into the precedence of tragedy over comedy in literary references is ignored. as that work raises troubling questions the tourist industry is unable to answer.

Barry Lee #conspiracy skeptic.com

Isn’t it funny what the people that want to believe the official story will do to keep their bubble of safety in their mind intact. As many have pointed out and besides the myriad of things that the author did not approach honestly and the other myriads of things he didn’t even approach, there are some of us that know beyond a doubt it was an inside job. Besides all of the beyond reasonable doubt proofs that already exist.

I will give you one undeniable reason. That very morning a friend was to go to work in the towers but was called by his uncle at about 7am and told not to show up today because something was going down.. Pretty amazing huh.. how prophetic. Something was going down allright— The buildings.. There have been many people with this same story threatened if they publish these facts in an accountable way. I wonder why..

Sit in your bubble while the insider rulers rip your country out from underneath your comfy office seat.. And you will deserve that seat being yanked from out beneath you. That old saying is well at work, the bigger the lie the easier it is believed.

Howard Schumann #conspiracy skeptic.com

In spite of the Stratfordian dogmatarians, the Shakespeare Authorship Question is a compelling literary mystery in which there are many unanswered questions.

It is not known if Oxford and Shaksper knew each other. Oxford could have used the pen name without Shaksper being a front or even being involved. We just don’t know. What I do know is that the case for Oxford being the true author is very strong.

Anyone who can read Charlton Ogburn’s “The Mysterious William Shakespeare” and come away with a different conclusion, in my view, simply needs to take the blinders off.

Howard Schumann #conspiracy skeptic.com

(This fundie is talking about the Shakespeare Authorship Question -- he thinks that the Earl of Oxford wrote Shakespeare's plays.)

Indeed, the cloth may have been offered simply to those listed by The Lord Chamberlain’s Men/ Kings Men as shareholders or players, since King James coming from Scotland most probably did not know the individuals at the time of his coronation.

The company most likely listed the name of Shakespeare as a player in order to protect the source of their plays. Edward, Earl of Oxford. Indeed this very Earl may have even occasionally acted in the company under the name William Shakespeare and made himself as he describes in the Sonnets “a motley to the view.”

In any event, the scarlet cloth is not evidence that William of Stratford was a writer.