Wells Gallup mystery unveiled plainly, concisely

         from 1623 first folio Shakespeare Collected Plays—

the Digges dedicatory page reads:  “ TO THE MEMORIE of the deceased…” ), as Wells Gallup showed in her 1910 book on the supposed cipher which she claimed to discover:)  -as shown above-

https://books.google.com/books?id=Q84yAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA79&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=4#v=onepage&q&f=false

  

  But then Wells Gallup within a few following pages of her 1910 book gave

her “decryption” of this Digges page using her :system”.  

  It is a most simple thing to look at the first set (actual 1623 first folio) of small letters

“e” —notice the plain 1623 font presentation of the 4 “e”  letters in the phrase “of the deceased”.

  But when the reader of Wells Gallup’s 1910 book where she wants to show us how she decrypts the Shakespeare stuff, she puts the phrase “1623 first folio” at top, YET it is not actually the first folio at all but her replacement thereof, CONTAINING her idealized version of 2 font faces for small letters “e”.  Look closely and you will see in her “decryption” at “of the deceased” that the first and last “e” are rather open in contrast to the second and third “e” letters that are rather tight-wound, that is, she  suddenly was showing two contrasting type-faces for the letter “e”.  So her insertion just where she intended to prove in writing her decrypting system (which readers long pleaded for her to show just how she was decrypting), well, it is very false of her.  This then is why there is no biliteral code put by Bacon into the collected works of 1623:  why?  Well, there is no evidence that such code depending on 2 contrasting type-faces or font-faces is there in the 1623 folio.  Not shown to exist, though Wells Gallup asserted it was there in the very 1623 folio.  It was only in her imagination, these 2 contrasting type-faces.  No one else has found her claim to be true, through 110 years of time since her published phony proof.   -R, Mt. Shasta