ep105-Zachary Hubbard

Be the 1st to vote.

Record time: Sunday, May 11, 2014 8:11 pm EDT

Guest: Zachary Hubbard of freetofindtruth.blogspot.ca/






No tags for this post.

19 thoughts on “ep105-Zachary Hubbard

  1. Pingback: Ep111-Blue Moon | Fakeologist.com

  2. Carys

    Interesting show. Marty Leeds at www.MartyLeeds33.com has also done some fascinating work in this area, especially relating to Pi.

    Might be a stretch, but Y2K could also be 9/11. Y is the 25th letter, K is the 11th letter. Y(2+5)+2=9 / K=11.

  3. Blue Moon

    Fascinating concept- Numbers as the foundation of language- I was thinking of Euclid when Rollo came on and mentioned the name- Pythagoras was the chief of a mystery cult based on the concept that all nature was at root structured mathematically- Two centuries-ish later, Euclid’s proof of the Pythagorean theorem (no.47, of course) made me see Zachary in a similar light- In the age of the internets it was inevitable that someone would crack the numerology from the outside and Zachary has gone some way in doing just that-
    Tossing it around in my own head, I now wonder about the relative youth of the English language and whether during the Elizabethan age the plays of Shakes the Clown and the others, like Marlowe, were something like think tank creations to sell this new language; a language which has a numerical armature- I think of John Dee and Francis Bacon and the alchemical component of these mind games they played with words, the narrative of a transformation from one thing/person into another- The structure of narrative drama (I’m thinking here of media hoaxes) involves an emotional investment by the audience and a cathartic moment of relief or sorrow or rage- A pre-planned reaction by the scriptwriters/alchemists and the possibly subconscious awareness in the audience of the mathematical foundation of the verbal incantations of dramatic dialogue and narration- This underlying numerical system gives the language a predictable order and therefore the narrative “seems” true and natural, even if a critical review would spot the falsities rather quickly-
    The important thing to keep in mind is that if “they” have a script and we don’t, then we will always be in a reactive/defensive mode (emotional)- Getting a look at the numerical grid, so to speak, might level the field somewhat- As the inexhaustible researcher Dave Emory would say: Food for thought and grounds for further research…

    1. Carole Thomas

      This whole Shakespeare thing is infinitely mysterious. Will Shaksper of Stratford has left us only six signatures in his hand ( possibly only five as the last one might have been written by a lawyer).

      Considering that the Stratford man is considered the greatest wordsmith of the English language it is surprising that there is :

      NO evidence of his education ( school or university records)
      NO record of correspondence concerning literary matters
      NO evidence of his having been paid to write
      NO evidence of a direct relationship with a patron
      NO extant original manuscript
      NO handwritten inscriptions, receipts, letters etc touching on literary matters
      NO commendatory verses, epistles or epigrams contributed or received
      No miscellaneous records referring to him personally or as a writer
      NO evidence of books owned, written in, borrowed or given
      NO announcement of death as a writer
      NO Facebook page – ok , just kidding.

      Everyone in Elizabethan England would have recognized the name Shakes- peare as a pseudonym Relating to the goddess Pallas Athena.

      In Greek mythology, Pallas Athena was the helmeted goddess of wisdom, philosophy, poetry, warfare and the fine arts. Her original name simply Pallas … from pallein, signifying to brandish or shake. Athens, the home of the drama, was under the protection of this spear-shaker. Plato derived her name as “she who has the mind of God (a theonoa – ? ??????)”

      The helmet she wore was supposed to convey invisibility. Interestingly the name “William” in German is “Wilhelm” – ” Helm” being the German word for helmet. is there a connection etymologically to “William”? Let’s consult Wickedpedia.
      William comes ultimately from the Germanic given name Wilhelm (cf. Old German Wilhelm > German Wilhelm and Old Norse Vilhjálmr). That is a compound of two distinct elements : wil = “will or desire”; helm; Old English helm “helmet, protection”;[1] > English helm “knight’s large helmet”.

      So to sum up – “William Shake-speare” is a carefully chosen pseudonym chosen to conjure up ideas of:

      Divine wisdom
      A desire for Invisibility or Protection
      Fighting Ignorance

      Why did the true Author choose these specific connotations and opt to fake an identity as Will Shakspere the grain merchant /play broker from Stratford? Mmm – thereby hangs a tale!

      1. ab Post author

        I subscribe to the Mozart paradigm. Shake a spear was a composite, a culture creation delivery vehicle. He is an author by committee. He is a conglomerate, a corporation. He is not one person – he is a sim created by the same Nutwork that leads us today. As usual, they brought us the story and the counter story to control the message. Like 9/11 and JFK, it appears to be going strong to this day!

        1. Carole Thomas

          Thanks Tom 🙂
          Yes, Ab – I agree that Shake-speare was a composite (albeit with a single editorial hand).
          I also agree that the purpose of Shake-speare was cultural creation.Shame that we don’t have such high standards any more though. Compare these two expressions of grief:

          1 9/11 victim tribute via www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic….
          ‘stepmother Esther Heymann’ “believing” her step-child to be dead says:
          My Darling,
          You are always in my heart and my arms are still around you. We enjoy so many memories of wonderful times, a lifetime of memories. Thank you for trusting me with that cherished phone call from the plane. I love you more.
          Momma Esti
          ~ Esther Heymann,
          Baltimore, Maryland
          www.legacy.com/guestbook/guest… … y=43058296

          2 Shakespeare tribute via King John

          Constance, who believing her son to be dead says:

          “Grief fills the room up of my absent child.
          Lies in his bed, walks up and down with me.
          Puts on his pretty looks, repeats his words.
          Remembers me of all his gracious parts.
          Stuffs out his vacant garments with his form.
          Then, have I reason to be fond of grief.

          if you take a cursory glance at Esther Herman’s tribute you just might buy it, but in the cold night of dawn* it appears laughable* and if you plough through all the unreal* 9/11 memorials ( what torture*!) you can get to feel really jaded*.

          *All the words with an asterisk are words which were first recorded or coined by Shakes-peare.
          Dawn- Henry V, Act IV prologue.
          Laughable – The Merchant Of Venice, Act I, Scene i.
          unreal – Macbeth, Act III, Scene iv.
          Torture – King Henry VI, Part II, Act II, Scene i.
          Jaded – King Henry VI, Part II, Act IV, Scene i.

          That’s what I call culture creation:-)

  4. Tom Dalpra

    Satan is 1 +1+2+1+5 =10

    Man is 4+1+5 =10

    Jesus is 1+5+1+3+1=11

    The eleven? The twin towers? 9/11 ? Bring down Jesus symbolically, without seeing the devil. For the rebirth. The devil works on a decimal system here it seems…and so do we, of course…

    Klu klux Klan is – 33

    1. Tom Dalpra

      King = 11+9+5+7 = 32
      Queen = 8+3+5+5+5 = 26

      Relevant anywhere? Well you may know that the numbers on a roulette wheel add up to 666?

      Either side of the zero, sit 26 and 32.

      The King and Queen sit either side of the big green zero. Some say, that is what gives the house the edge.
      The invisible man.

  5. columjaddica

    Where did the alphabet get its order? Why is latin script ordered A-B-C-D-E-F-G-H-I-J-K-L-M-N-O-P-Q-R-S-T-U-V-W-X-Y-Z? How and when did that come to be accepted, who promoted it, etc? A lot of the rest of the word games depends on the order.

    Good show!

  6. Jim Hollander

    Rubiks cube is not hard, when you but one, you get instructions on how to solve it.

    I can do 2×2, 3×3, 4×4, 5×5, 6×6 cubes.

    1. freetofindtruth

      Nice find. There was also Sirhan Sirhan.
      Sirhan = 1+9+9+8+1+5 = 33
      Sirhan = 1+9+9+8+1+5 = 33
      Kennedy = 2+5+5+5+5+4+7 = 33
      Robert = 9+6+2+5+9+2 = 33

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.