Shakespeare wasn't Shakespeare - and there is a treasure.

Here is quite an interesting series of documentaries about the research a Norwegian cryptologist (Petter Amundsen) has done on W Shakespeare's work (or not his work ;)).
Its a wild ride he does and he faces some fierce opposition to his claim. But it is well worth a watch.

The Norwegian cryptologist Petter Amundsen claims, after a thorough investigation of Shakespeare’s works, to be able to prove that in fact several people were involved the writing of what is today known as the works of William Shakespeare

Amundsen has scrutinized the first editions of all of Shakespeare's works, and claims to have discovered an intricate code system hidden in the books. He furthermore insists on that these codes prove that Shakespeare was in fact not the writer we know today, but a name a secret brotherhood chose to hide behind.
But the story doesn't end with that. It gets even more tantalizing. Some may find it a bit intricate, but it is one helluva story. :)

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Shakespeare's work has captivated more than just humans. ;)

The follow-up move, and english version, called Shalespeare: The Hidden Truth is not available on-line yet. But here is a trailer, and a short sequence, of it.

A radio interview with Petter Amundsen about Shakespeare Ciphers & Oak Island Treasure

Here is an episode of the series The Curse of Oak Island, where Petter is taking contact with the brothers who are excavating the island, regarding his findings.

The Curse of Oak Island Ep. 4 of 5
Last edited:
I haven't watched the videos yet, though I'll try to get around to them in a bit . . .

For those that don't know, there is absolutely nothing that links the works of William Shakespeare to William Shakspere of Stratford . . .

The first example of how the mainstream has tried to lie about the whole ordeal is that most people don't even know that Shakspere of Stratford's name was never once spelled Shakespeare . . . ever . . . even though it would've been greatly to his advantage to connect himself to the works. But now mainstream academia simultaneously tries to play down this fact while changing the spelling of Shakspere of Stratford's name to Shakespeare . . . to the extent that it perpetuates the lie and most don't even know this very simple fact. Why can't they be upfront and just go ahead and admit that his name wasn't spelled that way?

As Alexander Waugh puts it: "Oddly, one will often hear it asked whether it matters how Shakspere spelt his name: it certainly does, or orthodox scholars would not be so keen to change it."

The most effective deception - the change to his name - took hold around 1916, the tercentenary of Shakspere's death. It was then that orthodox scholars, individuals and organizations involved in what had become the lucrative "Shakespeare business" began airbrushing the name "Shakespere" out of existence. In all new publications it would be replaced by Shakespeare, while every Shakspere family tree published became the Shakespeare family tree. By this technique, people would eventually believe the Shaksperes of Stratford were really called Shakespeare and doubts about it would be met with astonishment and incomprehension. With this bold approach, anyone who ever had a name vaguely like Shakspere would eventually be converted by orthodox scholars to a "Shakespeare," and our William Shakspere would disappear as a man in his own right.
Last edited:
Nonsense! I agree that there are no ironclad links but to say there is absolutely nothing is just silly.

As for your contention about the name -
I don't find the link very convincing at all. Point one is about the variation in how the name was spelled at the time. And so what about it? It does nothing to solve the blatant problem with the discrepancy. The man from Stratford had everything to gain by associating himself with the works, and he very, very much seemed like the type man to do it, but he never did. Not once. Ever. He never spelled his name Shakespeare. On all legal documents, he spells it other ways. Concering how the author spelt his name:

When the poem Venus and Adonis was published in 1593, its dedication had the name "Shakespeare" spelt the same in all five quarto editions and all eight octavo (half-quarto size) editions. For The Rape of Lucrece it was uniformly "Shakespeare" in the one quarto and five octavo editions. Nineteen of Shakespeare's plays were published in various quarto editions before the First Folio appeared in 1623. Of these editions, which numbered fifty-two in total, sixteen had no author's name. For the other thirty-six Quartos, all dated between 1598 and 1622, the author's name appeared thirty-nine times, three of which were in the announcements of the registration of particular quartos. On nineteen of those thirty-nine occasions, the name was given as "Shakespeare" and on fifteen it was "Shake-speare" with a hyphen. Of the remaining five, "Shak-speare" occurred twice and "Shakespere" three times. The Sonnet's author's name was given as "Shake-speare," as was the author of the odd (and originally untitled) The Phoenix and the Turtle. With this consistency - the playwright-poet's name being spelt Shakespeare or Shake-speare 92 percent of the time, and never Shakspere - it is nonsense to suppose the writer was someone who did not know how to spell his name, or that the consistency of its spelling on the plays was some enormous statistical aberration. It is also nonsense for one to think the writer was a William Shakspere, who never used the name Shakespeare in his life, even when others were using it in writing about him, and it would have been advantageous for him to do the same.
from The Man Who Was Never Shakespeare: The Theft of Shakespeare's Identity by A.J. Pointon, Ph.D.

The long and short of the authorship debate is that the orthodox scholarship is some of the shoddiest I've ever seen. While I don't mind responding to certain points here and there, it's very time consuming to type out a bunch of stuff - like even the paragraph above - that's written out elsewhere (in books) just to "score a point or two." That said, possibly if I have time, I'll try to find some links that are good enough to illustrate certain points and save me the infinite typing involved, but so far, most all of my knowledge on the subject comes from books. At any rate, if one acquaints oneself with the info and doesn't have any investment in the debate, it's close to a no-contest situation. And also, for those who don't know, the info on this subject is wide and varied and goes much further than merely a name spelling problem. The problems are enormously difficult to brush under the rug, while the evidence supporting authorship by the man from Stratfod is pretty much completely nonexistent.

For those who want some good articles, read the book sized compilation of writings edited by John M. Shahan and Alexander Waugh, titled Shakespeare Beyond Doubt? I would add that what the book seems to argue for first is simply that there is plenty, plenty of reasons to seriously doubt who authored the works . . . which is a very mild objective, considering the evidence. But in the effort, the contributors make the orthodox "scholars" look considerably foolish . . . because their arguments are unfounded.
Last edited:


The man from Stratford had everything to gain by associating himself with the works, and he very, very much seemed like the type man to do it, but he never did. Not once. Ever. He never spelled his name Shakespeare once.
The link that Saiko provided says his name was spelled Shakespeare 71 times.
The writer of the plays and sonnets appears to have been a member of the nobility and well travelled. The leading candidate is Edward de Vere, the seventeenth earl of Oxford.

A good post by Michael Prescott on this, at .

It is argued:

- that Shakespeare has a detailed personal knowledge of locations throughout the continent of Europe, but there is no evidence that William ever left England.

- that Shakespeare derived some of his material from sources that were available only in Italian, French, Spanish, or Greek, but there is no evidence that William knew how to read any of these languages.

- that Shakespeare is intimately acquainted with aristocratic pursuits, such as falconry, which were off-limits to commoners like William.

- that Shakespeare sympathizes with the aristocracy, makes in-joke references to the Elizabethan court, and seems to have personally experienced the life of a courtier, all of which is inexplicable if William wrote the plays.

- that Shakespeare had access to a considerable (and vastly expensive) library, which William probably did not.

- that Shakespeare has firsthand knowledge of traveling by sea, but there is no evidence that William ever set foot on a sailing vessel.

- that Shakespeare has firsthand knowledge of combat, but there is no evidence that William ever served in the military.

- that Shakespeare knows the ins and outs of the law and sprinkles legal terms throughout his writings, but there is no evidence that William was ever trained in the law.

- that Shakespeare views commoners, individually, as clowns and oafs, and, collectively, as dangerous mobs, a view that would come naturally to an aristocrat but not to a provincial farmboy like William.

- that Shakespeare weaves subtle political overtones into this plays and poetry that would probably have gotten William thrown in jail, as the commoner Ben Jonson was jailed for his "seditious" play The Isle of Dogs.

- that Shakespeare identifies himself in his sonnets as old, lame, and publicly disgraced, a description that does not fit William, a prosperous young man on the rise.

- that Shakespeare offers advice and, sometimes, warnings to the aristocratic recipient of the sonnets, something that a commoner like William would not have dared to do