The Christopher Marlowe William Shakespeare Authorship Controversy and the New Oxford Collaborative Co-Authorship for Henry VI Based on New Evidence

As one can see further down on this page, our most popular posting EVER is:

Legal Graphologists : A Query to You : What About the Christopher Marlowe - William Shakespeare - Controversy and The Signatures of These Two Authors? Are They By the Same Hand?

There are new developments of importance relating to this question.

As headlined in a story by Jay Bennett at Popular Mechanics,
Oxford to Co-Credit Christopher Marlowe on Multiple Shakespeare Plays.

Bennett is reporting on a story by Dalya Alberge from The Guardian titled Christopher Marlowe credited as one of Shakespeare's co-writers. 

Take a look at those links concerning the discussion of the new evidence unearthed regarding the Christopher Marlowe William Shakespeare authorship controversy.

Richard Posner Biography Takes on the Strengths and Weaknesses of the Federal Judiciary in the USA

Judge Richard Posner is the most cited jurist of our era, so that a now published Oxford University Press biography of Posner by William Domnarski is of course of great interest to the legal community -- especially as it concentrates quite a bit on the Federal judiciary of the United States, which in recent years, mostly because of the applied anti-judicial antics of political organs, has ceased to be the bright model for other nations that it used to be.

Debra Cassens Weiss at the ABA Journal whets our reading appetite through her headline that Posner says Supreme Court is 'awful,' top two justices are OK but not great".

Weiss writes that:

"Posner said “probably only a couple of the justices,” namely Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer, “are qualified."

Heady stuff.

We ourselves are very critical of the judges in the Federal Judiciary, especially those who represent political, economic, social or technological "extremes" or "causes". Judges should not be extremists. Judges should be impartial.

Our major criticism is not that Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court lack "qualification". They are all certainly qualified to be judges per se.

Rather, we have difficulty accepting judges who represent fixed partisan, legal, economic or political MINDSETS -- which they exercise while judging.

We think that any judge who rises this high in the judiciary must don a cloak of impartiality and also constantly wear a cap of demonstrable decision-making wisdom (made visible to all, if possible, by the results of the decisions made), thus leaving behind the petty banalities of political partisanship and one-sided dogmatic belief in theoretical dogmas such as originalism or similar.

The job of judges in the country as a whole is to decide cases -- according to the law, not according to the law of yesterday, not according to the law that may come in the future, not according to the lowly political demands of ephemeral demagogues in Congress, but according to present law in force.

Judges can not be "figureheads" for legal dogmas or causes. A judge abandons his robe as an "advocate" when he takes a seat on the bench of a federal court. Rightly seen, he or she no longer represents any particular view or any particular cause or vested interest.

Politics, personal -- almost always -- biased preferences, theoretical legal inclinations, and similar "weaknesses" should not be part of the desired or applauded qualification spectrum. What is needed is a U.S. Constitution with a human face. Judges are the "embodiment" of the codes of law on the books.

The best judges always have a deep UNDERSTANDING of law and society, as well as a sincere appreciation of and inner consent to the essential and important role of serious jurisprudence within the body politic of the nation.

Sometimes the judges on the present U.S. Supreme Court demonstrate a lack of that comprehensive understanding, but on the whole, we think they are sincere in their work. If only they could get rid of their biased mindsets....

More often than is done, each judge should ask: WHAT IS MY JOB?
and on the U.S. Supreme Court that should extend to asking:
WHAT IS MY CONSTITUTIONAL JOB?

We think in any case that the present U.S. Supreme Court is most certainly better qualified man-to-man and lady-to-lady than the present membership of a divisive, seemingly do-nothing Congress that is not doing its job properly.

In the last analysis, however, it is the JOB of the VOTING CITIZENS to cast off their selfish voting practices, to stop voting for political candidates who only tell them what they want to hear, and to throw out of office the legislative pretenders who currently are blocking normal processes that have worked for the nation for centuries. Such people are doing far more harm to the country and its citizens than any purported evils that such Congresspersons are trying to battle or any purported good that they are allegedly trying to achieve.

People who are destroying the basic workings of the system... are destroying the system, are harming the nation in the eyes of the world, and are weakening the strength of democracy. Their perhaps supportable motivations are ... irrelevant. The ends do not justify the means. Wise men do not destroy the processes of an established judicial system for ephemeral and what often prove to be short-term political reasons.

Precession of the Equinoxes (Axial Precession) and the Stonehenge Station Stones : A Graphic-Based Decipherment Encore

This posting explains the Stonehenge Station Stones as marking the locations of the Solstices and Equinoxes in the galactic Milky Way context of ca. 26000 years of "Precession of the Equinoxes". The more modern term for that is axial precession.

Some such new terms instituted by the International Astronomical Union would seem to generate more confusion than good. Constantly renaming things is not good science, especially when the history of astronomy is replete with the older terms, which are far better known to everyone. We say that as a dictionary author too. Increased creative but remote "jargonizing" of terminology acts as subject obfuscation, not as clarification.

At Stonehenge Decipherment Panorama 15 we wrote previously that these outer stones show that the ancients understood the ca. 26000-year cycle of Precession of the Equinoxes together with its "galactically" asymmetrical effect on the locations of the Autumn and Vernal Equinoxes in the stars (that is, the stars visible behind the Equinoxes at the time of their occurrence).

Below are our two seemingly complicated (but in fact easily understandable) graphics explaining the matter and commented in greater detail below, showing how the large rectangle at Stonehenge formed by the four station stones with its sides in a length ratio of 5 to 12 constitute a starry recordation of their understanding of the Precession of the Equinoxes.

Our images below show that the stars that the ancients used, when connected by lines, also show that same 5 to 12 ratio of the length of the shorter to the longer sides. The reader can measure them himself to check that out.

Please note, however, that only two station stones remain and whether the other two ever existed or whether the remaining mounds themselves instead of missing stones are the original markers is unclear.

The Stonehenge Station Stones show us the following galactic understanding as we have marked that same rectangle in the stars:

Stonehenge Station Stones : Precession of the Equinoxes 1

When the Summer Solstice is at Gemini and Sirius, the Winter Solstice is at ca. the top stars of the Teapot of Sagittarius, while the Autumn Equinox is at Crux, the Southern Cross, and the Vernal Equinox is at Diphda (Deneb Kaitos in Cetus). That variant position of the Solstices and Equinoxes in the stars is shown below by the lower half of the rectangle (for which reason we have cross-hatched out the top half):

Stonehenge Station Stones : Precession of the Equinoxes 2

On the other hand, when the Winter Solstice is at Gemini and Sirius, the Summer Solstice is, as expected, symmetrically at the top stars of the Teapot of Sagittarius, BUT, then the Autumn Equinox is at Fomalhaut and the Vernal Equinox is at ca. the stars alpha and beta Centauri, which both straddle the Galactic Equator, each on the other side of it, so one may have taken a middle route marked by two Aubrey Stones (and not the expected one) on top of Mound 92 at Stonehenge. That variant position of the stars is shown below by the upper half of the rectangle (for which reason we have cross-hatched out the bottom half):

TAKEN TOGETHER -- the ancients have combined BOTH variants into ONE rectangle -- those two variants explain the Stonehenge Station Stones, but it took this decipherer YEARS to figure that out, because the Stonehenge manner of recording that understanding with one rectangle it is not obvious. We first had to understand the galactic nature of Stonehenge to get it right.

As for the causes of precession, one can say that the wobble of the earth on its axis of rotation is a "cause", but of course, it is much more complicated than that, which we need not get into here. We refer generally to Milankovitch Cycles for discussion of the Earth's eccentricity, axial tilt, and precession.

Astronomers call axial tilt obliquity. As written at the Wikipedia link on Axial Tilt, "Earth's obliquity has varied between 22° 2′ 33″ and 24° 30′ 16″, with a mean period of 41,040 years."

How much the builders of Stonehenge specifically knew about "astronomy" in the formal sense of modern understanding is of course subject to discussion, but our decipherment images above suggest clearly that they understood precession of the Equinoxes to be a long-term astronomical, "galactic" cycle involving changes in the seasons respective to the stars, a development that they saw related to a ca. 24° variable of some kind.

In any case, in our decipherment view, the Station Stones at Stonehenge mark Precession of the Equinoxes, thousands of years before Hipparchus.