Mystery Egg!

'Djedi' Robot expidition - The Mystery of Hidden Hieroglyphs in the Great Pyramid

The Mystery of Ancient Stone Spheres in Costa Rica and Bosnia

The voyniche manuscript - The Mysterious Book That Can't Be Read!

The Voynich manuscript, described as "the world's most mysterious manuscript", is a work which dates to the early 15th century (1404-1438), possibly from northern Italy. It is named after the book dealer Wilfrid Voynich, who purchased it in 1912. Some pages are missing, but the current version comprises about 240 vellum pages, most with illustrations. 

Much of the manuscript resembles herbal manuscripts of the 1500s, seeming to present illustrations and information about plants and their possible uses for medical purposes. However, most of the plants do not match known species, and the manuscript's script and language remain unknown and unreadable. Possibly some form of encrypted ciphertext, the Voynich manuscript has been studied by many professional and amateur cryptographers, including American and British codebreakers from both World War I and World War II. As yet, it has defied all decipherment attempts, becoming a cause célèbre of historical cryptology. The mystery surrounding it has excited the popular imagination, making the manuscript a subject of both fanciful theories and novels. 

None of the many speculative solutions proposed over the last hundred years has yet been independently verified. The Voynich manuscript was donated to Yale University's Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library in 1969, where it is catalogued under call number MS 408 and called a "Cipher Manuscript". 

Contreversy - Scottish Sailor Claims To Have Best Picture Yet Of Loch Ness Monster

ABC News - Legend has it that the Loch Ness Monster was first sighted in the sixth century by an Irish monk while preaching by the lake. Now, a Scottish sailor who has spent the last 26 years of his life searching for the elusive creature, says he has the best picture yet of “Nessie.”

George Edwards takes his boat, “Nessie Hunter,” out onto Loch Ness nearly every day, often with tourists who hope to see the creature for themselves. Early one morning in November of last year, Edwards was turning his ship back to shore after spending the morning searching for an old steam engine on the lake floor, when he

saw something else. “I saw something out of the corner of my eye, and immediately grabbed my camera,” Edwards told ABC News. “I happened to get a good picture of one of them.” The typical “media Nessie,” as Edwards calls it in his thick Scottish accent, depicts the creature with three humps sticking out of the water and a long neck with a head like a horse, but Edwards says that’s probably not what Nessie looks like. The picture Edwards took shows what he says is the back of one of the Loch Ness monsters.

“In my opinion, it probably looks kind of like a manatee, but not a mammal,” Edwards told ABC. “When people see three humps, they’re probably just seeing three separate monsters.” While many people think of the Loch Ness monster as a single creature, Edwards maintains that can’t be true. “It was first seen in 565 AD,” Edwards said. “Nothing can live that long. It’s more likely that there are a number of monsters, offspring of the original.” Edwards has a lot of theories about the Loch Ness monster, which he first became fascinated with when he was a 13-year-old boy and his father would take him fishing at the massive lake. He says he was a skeptic at first, but decades on Loch Ness have turned him into an ardent believer. “I grew up with the legend, like the boogeyman, or Big Foot in your part of the world, and most people start out thinking it’s a myth,” Edwards said. “But Loch Ness is so deep and dark and mysterious, when you start hearing more and more stories, you start believing more.”

He says his wife, who has been with him since before he started searching for Nessie full time, was initially a skeptic too, but after years of hearing stories from her husband and others, “she came around, and she’s a believer now.” There are other monster “hunters” in the area, but Edwards says it’s something a lot of people don’t want to talk about. “Many people loathe to talk openly about believing in Nessie for fear of ridicule,” Edwards told ABC News. “Of course I’ve faced the ridicule, but I can’t bury my face in the sand, when I know what’s out there.” The main argument Edwards says he hears from skeptics is that the lake has been searched, and nothing has ever been found proving the existence of a Loch Ness monster. “That’s a silly reason to not believe though, because those expeditions can’t prove anything one way or the other,” Edwards told ABC News. “It’s a massive body of water, deep and dark, and we simply don’t have the technology to really do that kind of search.” He likens the sonar searches he’s seen in the past to trying to do an ultrasound on a pregnant woman while she’s running down a hallway.

“If you can’t see the baby on the scan, will you say she isn’t pregnant?” Edwards said. Edwards has “every bit of electrical equipment available,” to aid in his search. He used to take it all out onto the lake seven days a week, but he says he’s going out a bit less these days. He doesn’t know if he’ll ever see the elusive creature again, but he plans to sail onto the lake as much as possible. “I’m 60 years old now, I can’t go out every day,” Edwards told ABC. “But I won’t stop going

out onto Loch Ness until they put me in a box six feet under.” He wakes up very early nearly every morning to get on the lake, regardless of the weather Capturing the picture at the end of last year “felt good,” Edwards said, “because it reinforced my beliefs, and might help convince other people.” Edwards told ABC News that because of personal matters that arose shortly after he took the picture — including the death of both his mother and sister – he did not immediately circulate the image. He said that he just recently started showing people the picture and it is now just picking up some steam.

This picture, he contends, clearly shows something that could only be the monster. He says the other monster hunters he’s shown it to have called it the best they’ve ever seen. “Lots of people have come up to me since the picture started getting attention, and telling me they’ve seen something similar,” Edwards said. And there’s no smoke without fire, so there must be something in that lake.”

Edwards has a few tips for monster hunters who want to see Nessie for themselves. “You have to be on the lake every day, with a camera and binoculars, and you have to be in the right place at the right time.”

Contreversy: The Shakespeare Enigma!

Extracts from a television documentary about the Shakespeare authorship controversy which has been sold around the world.

The Shakespeare authorship question is the controversy about whether the works traditionally attributed to William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon were actually composed by another writer or group of writers. The public debate dates back to the mid-19th century. It has attracted public attention and a thriving following, including some prominent public figures, but is dismissed by the great majority of academic Shakespeare scholars. Those who question the attribution believe that "William Shakespeare" was a pen name used by the true author (or authors) to keep the writer's identity secret. Of the numerous proposed candidates, major nominees include Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, who currently attracts the most widespread support, statesman Francis Bacon, dramatist Christopher Marlowe, and William Stanley, 6th Earl of Derby, who—along with Oxford and Bacon—is often associated with various "group" theories. Supporters of the four main theories are called Oxfordians, Baconians, Marlovians, and Derbyites, respectively.

In accordance with wikipedia, Authorship doubters believe that mainstream Shakespeare biographers routinely violate orthodox methods and criteria, and include inadmissible evidence in their histories of him. They also claim that some mainstream scholars have ignored the subject in order to protect the economic gains that the Shakespeare publishing world has provided them. Authorship doubters assert that the actor and businessman baptised as "Shakspere" of Stratford did not have the background necessary to create the body of work attributed to him, and that the personal attributes inferred from Shakespeare's poems and plays don't fit the known biography of him. Anti-stratfordians also note the lack of any concrete evidence that Shakespeare of Stratford had the extensive education doubters claim is evident in Shakespeare's works. They question whether a commoner from a small 16th-century country town, with no recorded education or personal library, could become so highly expert in foreign languages, knowledge of courtly pastimes and politics, Greek and Latin mythology, law, and the latest discoveries in science, medicine and astronomy of the time. Doubters also focus on the relationship between internal evidence (the content of the plays and poems) and external evidence (biographical or historical data derived from other sources).

The majority of academics specializing in Shakespearean studies, called "Stratfordians" by skeptics, generally ignore or dismiss these alternative theories, arguing they fail to comply with standard research methodology and lack supportive evidence from documents contemporary with Shakespeare. Mainstream scholars reject anti-Stratfordian arguments and say that authorship doubters discard the most direct testimony in favor of their own theories, overstate Shakespeare's erudition, and anachronistically mistake the times he lived in, thereby rendering their method of identifying the author from the works unscholarly and unreliable. Consequently, they have been slow to acknowledge the popular interest in the subject. Support for William Shakespeare as author rests on two main pillars of evidence: testimony by his fellow actors, and by his fellow playwright Ben Jonson in the First Folio, and the inscription on Shakespeare's grave monument in Stratford. Title pages, testimony by other contemporary poets and historians, and official records—the type of evidence used by literary historians that Stratfordians believe is lacking for any other alternative candidate—are also cited to support the mainstream view. Despite this, interest in the authorship debate continues to grow, particularly among independent scholars, theatre professionals and a small minority of academics.