a binary code about which some speculate to absurdity after absurdity

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1QOvPU-7Gx8&t=3s   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1QOvPU-7Gx8&t=3s   From 3:10 of this video the Messenger goes off on a great tangent of speculation by following people like Wells-Gallup.  Her research team apparently wrote the script that the Messenger reads from, herself not at all conversant with Wells Gallup at all.  Not at all.  Wells Gallup wrote probably a dozen books on her obsessed theme of herself discovering a great code embedded, she thought, in Shakespearean plays and elsewhere, a “bilateral/biliteral” or binary code.  

  Only at pp. 100 and 106 of Wells Gallup’s 1910 volume does she attempt to prove by evidence her thesis.  Unfortunately on p. 106 she purports that the material is from 1623 first folio, at the top of her page, but this material—the actual roman and italic typefaced letters—ARE NOT FROM THERE.  One can now find online first folio Shakespeare 1623 facsimiles (photocopies).  So one can easily prove this.  Where is p.106 of her 1910 volume from?  From Wells Gallup’s imagination, a deception in fact.  

  But Wells Gallup was pretty far gone by 1910.  She was caught by her own obsessed momentum.  Some others since, including Barsi-Greene in 1973, also got caught in Wells Gallup’s hypothetic discovery of a secret code supposedly placed by Lord Bacon in the first folio, 1623, while Bacon was alive.  The Bacon=Shakespeare thesis did not originate with either Dr. Oroville Owen or Wells Gallup but, rather, long before their time of 1890s-1920s.  Various people in England knew the secret of Bacon’s life, and some since have added real evidence; but evidence was not at all the forte of Dr. Owen or Wells Gallup.  They speculated, both of them, at great length, a vast passion which perhaps should have been dealt with more objectively by themselves and certainly also by the Messenger.    Why tie in to those two people so much?  It was an era, Victorian, of much complexity.  The evolutionary progress of Britain during that time, post-Romantic era, was opposed by the degradation of central banking and by the vast opium trade that Britain covertly pushed through Asia.  History is not so easy to fathom. 

  Having for 1.5 minutes totally garbled up pure reason into a mash of speculative silliness, the Messenger at 4:44 suddenly shifts toward sanity and Pallas Athena.  

  The Messenger’s staff has had a terrible time of self-correcting, self-monitoring; and one can communicate in their direction and get pretty much nowhere.  The Messenger in a number of her books which have followed this video of hers at Pasadena circa 1977 persisted in this very Wells Gallup vein, with some self-correction but not half enough correction.  Why are people so entranced?  It serves, obviously, a psychologic need in those who wed themselves to their obsession(s).

r, mt. shasta