Sir Stanley Wells and Dr. Paul Edmondson wrote a book in 2011 called Shakespeare Bites Back. You can find it here:
In the book they state “A denial of evidence amounts to a lie about the past.” I wish they had followed that truthful precept but they didn’t. They assume from the outset that any reference to William Shakspere from Stratford is a reference to William Shakespeare the author.
No unambiguous primary source evidence exists to show that is true. Throughout the book Edmondson and Wells use ad hominem attack and deny evidence.
This second of a two part video series gives background that Edmondson and Wells conveniently ignore. It re-evaluates the evidence they present and shows it to be circular and based in faith, belief and hearsay – the very opposite of what they claim.
Both parts of the video can be viewed on oxfraudfraud.com
A literary strength of the Stratfordians is their creative ability to synthesize the possible into the plausible and then to the probable. Doubters might borrow this epistemological magic. Thus, for example: Stratford would have been living and colluding with the theater underworld and probably supplemented his earnings by facilitating the prostitution business commonly associated with the theaters. Simply, he would have probably been a pimp.
Thank you for pointing out two prominent logical fallacies from the Stratford camp of believers. They deny and dismiss evidence and use ad hominem attacks constantly, even in supposedly academic debates: witness the so-called “debate” between Alexander Waugh and Jonathan Bate from several years ago wherein Bate tries to bait Waugh (pun unintended?) into a mud-slinging fest. It is remarkable that given the amount of mud they sling in their opponents’ directions that none of it seems to get flung back at them. Then again, doubts about the Stratford claim are based not on the personalities of those who have questions about it, but on the evidence from historical records.