Think twice about what you think you know!

[sleepy]

Howdy all,
Let me start by saying that the work done by John Collins and his colleagues is outstanding.We have all benefited from their research and information compilings.So,no offense meant by the following post.

This is to help all working on Bessler and PM to keep an open mind to new and outrageous ideas.

1.The Drawings (woodcuts) of the wheels-We are not sure who made them or when.Could they have been plans drawn BEFORE the wheel was made? Are they actually pictures of the wheels that were witnessed by the group?Do they bear any resemblance to the actual working wheels?These questions cannot be answered with any certainty.

2.The remarks made by the group that witnessed the wheel-Who recorded these remarks?Are they intact,or are they excerpts from longer statements?Are they taken out of context or possibly edited (by Bessler)? Again,no way to be sure.

3.Bessler's own writings-It seems Bessler was a temperamental and possibly paranoid individual.It is VERY possible that everything he wrote was purposely misleading.

In closing,I just want to remind everyone to consider the impossible and implausible.We have some real geniuses working on this puzzle,and it would be a shame to miss some necessary avenues due to assumption.

[John Collins]

Sorry - I wrote a long and detailed response and it got lost on the way! I'll rewrite it tomorrow.

John

[Silver Eyes]

Okay, but if 1,2,and 3 are misleading then non of it can be called ligitimate history. You can't argue that Bessler was paranoid so he lied and changed everything and also argue that he was honest and created a true working wheel.

[rlortie]

I want to get involved in this thread, I am biting my tongue as I type. but I am not going any further until John posts his reply. Until he responds as stated, I feel he has the floor.

There is a lot to debate here, I for one would like to see it done in a formal manner.

Regards,

Ralph

[John Collins]

Thanks for the kind words sleepy (and IÂ’m open to criticism!)

1.The Drawings (woodcuts) of the wheels-We are not sure who made them or when.Could they have been plans drawn BEFORE the wheel was made? Are they actually pictures of the wheels that were witnessed by the group?Do they bear any resemblance to the actual working wheels?These questions cannot be answered with any certainty.

1) I ‘m confident that the drawings were done by Bessler - and after he had invented his wheel. The first wheel was described in the local newspaper in 1712, before the publication of the first Merseberg drawing in 1715. The drawings are signed by Bessler and I can’t imagine that anyone else would have signed his name on them. I don’t think the wheels were necessarily drawn exactly as the spectators saw them - the drawings were part of his sales pitch and were designed to intrigue and yet reveal as little as possible. At the same time I think that they do contain coded information and I do understand some of it. The purpose was to enable him to point to the evidence at a later date, allowing him to prove priority – or else he left it there for us who followed, to decode and understand – as we are attempting to do.

2.The remarks made by the group that witnessed the wheel-Who recorded these remarks?Are they intact,or are they excerpts from longer statements?Are they taken out of context or possibly edited (by Bessler)? Again,no way to be sure.

2)The descriptions of the wheel are taken verbatim from letters, news reports and other official documents. Some are about Bessler and not written to him and he would not necessarily even be aware of them.

3.Bessler's own writings-It seems Bessler was a temperamental and possibly paranoid individual.It is VERY possible that everything he wrote was purposely misleading.

3) Yes I agree, Bessler did try to mislead in his writings but then just as we all do, or are tempted to do, he could not resist leaving little clues. I believe that he left coded information for two reasons. Firstly, as I said, so that he could prove that he had priority in the discovery of PM if it became necessary and secondly for posthumous reasons as he commented at least once in Apologia. He said if no one bought his wheel then he would die with the secret. With the encrypted information which undoubtedly exists I have a strong conviction that he was genuine in his claims and we can duplicate what he did in due course. I am also certain that he did not lie in his writings, but yes he did mislead intentionally.

In closing,I just want to remind everyone to consider the impossible and implausible.We have some real geniuses working on this puzzle,and it would be a shame to miss some necessary avenues due to assumption.

I am doing my utmost to ensure that no potential avenues of research are left undiscovered, but it is the wide spectrum of people who know about Bessler and who together will solve this puzzle.

[sleepy]

Howdy,
I don't think my sentiment came across correctly in my original post.Let's revise.
To John Collins,
Thank you so much for your reply.You have shed much light,and renewed interest in both Bessler and PM.I certainly meant no disrespect toward your valuable work and contributions to this forum.

To All,
I was simply trying to help the great thinkers and tinkerers who are coming of age,to keep their minds and horizons open.You can't think outside of the box if you fail to recognize the box.At one time,folks were ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN that the world was flat.This belief was based entirely on popular opinion which had been stated as fact.Documents down through history have been altered,forged,edited,and fabricated.Ultimately,it is up to the reader to decide what are the facts.
Keep your mind open as you approach all subjects.It turns out that the George Washington and the Cherry Tree thing was made up by a local journalist of the period.Yet,in third grade(long ago)I was taught this story as a FACT.
Regards,Sleepy.

[rlortie]

First I would like to inform sleepy that I am strictly an out of the box person.

In reaction to Johns reply, I as a Tinkerer would like to ask the following.

First lets talk about how things and word terminology has changed over the years. As for dates what calendar was used during the period in question, Julian or Gregorian? Gregorian was not popular in east Russia until after their revolution in 1918. Therefore can we actually pin down the dates of BesslerÂ’s activities?

When did BesslerÂ’s region change calendars. And could this not cause a true biographical discrepancy

In defense of Bessler I would say that in all the books and paraphernalia I have researched I have found no author or material that rebukes his alleged discovery. Many write and show pictures of useless wheel formats for hundreds of years, but no mention of Bessler. They avoided him like the plague. The only reason I can see for this is that no one found any evidence to dispute him.

We are lead to believe that Sir Isaac Newton refused to visit the claimed discovery after being invited by a trusted friend. He was a man who feared publication and criticism, is this why would he not jump on such an opportunity? Newton released his fluxional methods in 1704, and was held in high esteem. This was after his famous work with Johannes Kepler who formulated "Three laws of Motion" announced in 1686. Was Newton afraid to inspect BesslerÂ’s work as it could ruin his own prestige and respect if he could not explain it.

My assumptions are, that yes there was such a number of working wheels. Man and nature have proved time and time again that for every law there is a loop hole.

On to pits, pendulums,parables and wood cuts later.

Ralph

[John Collins]

Hi Ralph,

The Gregorian calendar was customarily used in conjunction with old style (OS) dating so you find both dates on letters, which makes things easier, but then we are only talking about 11 days and I don't think the details of the legend are affected.

I don't think Sir Isaac Newton was invited to view the wheel, it was just that Fischer von Erlach wrote to Desaguliers and Professor 'sGravesend to Newton supporting the inventor's claims and Newton's curator of experiments possibly diverted them. He had his own reasons for down-playing the wheel (his own support of the Savery steam engine) and he had publicly ridiculed Bessler's claims. Also Newton was in an ongoing war of words with Leibniz, a known and highly influential supporter of Bessler, who he claimed had stolen his ideas about calculus from him.

Also Newton had had his few years of brilliance as a young man and now as a fairly elderly and definitely unpleasant man he probably sneered at such reports.

John Collins

[Silver Eyes]

Cheers John,

~ I am also certain that he did not lie in his writings, but yes he did mislead intentionally.


Can you explain this because I don't see a difference between misleading and lieing by the written word. Thanks.

[rlortie]

John,

I do believe you have it correct, as more research on my part has uncovered.

By 1703 Newton had move to London and was the president of the Royal Society, a position he held until his death in 1727. Not only did he have a bad time with Leibniz but also fought with astronomer John Flamsteed.

Time frame on this would put Newton in his 70's at the time of Besslers invention. Presidential responsiblities and age would have probably effected any idea of going to Germany if he had desired.

On another note If I have found the right Ficsher Von Erlack, you mentioned, he was the first and greatest Baroque Austrian architect. As a a friend of Bessler's, this could explain the Baroque organ sound box in the portraits.

I state "sound box" as there does not seem to be enough room behind Bessler for a key board and stop control panel.

Ralph

[jim_mich]

Can you explain this because I don't see a difference between misleading and lieing by the written word.

Someone invites you to his party that you know will be boring and you don't want to go. You tell him "Sorry, but I have to be somewhere that night." That somewhere might be at home with a good book. You didn't lie, you told the truth. He might assume something from your reply that you didn't actually say.

Your wife buys this real ugly looking dress and asks how she looks? You reply "You look beautiful." You told the truth since you always think she is beautiful. Just because you think the dress is ugly is no reason to make her unhappy, which would in turn make you unhappy. She might assume from you comment that the dress looks beautiful though you did not say that.

Telling the truth does not mean one must tell every single detail. Sometimes there are good reasons to withhold specific information or to phrase your words very carefully.

I think Mr. Bessler was very careful in what he wrote. If we are mislead by his writings then it is because we try to read into them meanings other than what he said.

[Silver Eyes]

Hello Jim,

I would rather John answer this for a couple of reasons. First I am not asking the difference between a stretch of the truth and a lie, BUT a stretch of the truth can be a lie, it depends on what you tell yourself I suppose. I want John to answer because a verbal satement and a written word are two completey different animals. I want to know if John had certain statements in mind and which ones they were.

Thanks John.

[bluesgtr44]

When a commitment is made to a certain path of ideology, and one or more sign on to that path...it is very difficult to remove them from that. It is a flaw in the human defense mechanism. Admitting a wrong could have tremendous effects on what some may have spent their whole life following.

A very good example of this is about 10-15 years ago, a young and aspiring archaeologist used modern technology to make a point about ancient egyptology and Giza Plateau. Maybe some of you remember this...he used computer graphics and, basically removed the sphinx from the foundation upon which it sat. He went to..I believe..6 or 7 of the foremost experts in this area and asked them what type of erosion they thought had created the worn ruts and ravines within this structure. THEY ALL said....water! He then placed the sphinx on top and asked them what they thought now. They were flabbergasted! And a bit angry. This has lead to many new postulations about the age of the sphinx or the foundation thereon which it sits as being over 4000 yrs. older than the rest of the structures.

Egyptologists who have spent an entire lifetime working under the "assumption" that they were all the same, are now looking at a lifetimes work...and their "legacy"...being dismissed. Now, who would want that to happen to them.

As I mentioned above...a flaw in the human defense mechanism.

Steve

[rlortie]

Sivver Eyes,

Can you explain this because I don't see a difference between misleading and lieing by the written word.

The difference in misleading and lying is what makes good public speakers and politicians. Can you talk for an hour with a convincing voice and say nothing

You are forgetting one benificial detail of history. It was still some what popular in my early years when entertainment was done with riddles and parables. We all realize that Bessler was good at this and used it to his fullest potential. Riddles and parables have changed through history like womans fashions of apparel.

I refer samples from Johns book, the peacock tail, the dog on a leash etc. I will give you an example of a very easy one that I remember from pre-school age. See if you can answer this;

Brothers and sister I have none, but that man there is my fathers son. Now write it in 300 year old German and then have some one translate it back. Let me know when you figure out who that man is.

This may sound off topic to some but I feel that it is very relevant if we are to ever understand exactly what is in the books.

Ralph

[Fletcher]

He's pointing at himself in a mirror ?!