Besslers Codes

[Oystein]

Thank you, they have been corrected now. That is why I wrote: "I have a dialogue with another forum-member to assist me in language and spelling, unbiased feedback and editing of the site. " I should have written: "that will assist me". We have not gotten to that stage yet. I am from Norway, so it`s hard for me to express myself correctly in English, and also see spelling mistakes etc.

I could also run everything through a spellchecker (but that still doesn't make it good grammar) but at this point it is more important for me to get all the content in place.

[MrTim]

Glad to now you're still working on it! My own work has taken a slightly different path but I'm confident that a working proof-of-principle will be revealed this year, based on (I think) a different set of Bessler codes.

JC

As far as Bessler's codes, I'm throwing my hat into the ring, too. Maybe tomorrow.... ;-)

[Oystein]

Update: The last weeks I have finished up my documentation of "The Orffyrean Code", and the step-by-step documentation of a complete "protocol" for understanding and proving the method used. The method has never been documented anywhere on paper as far as I have been able to find. The method is concrete and has no "clues", or interpretations but is a proven and provable method, also confirmed by several other people.

By an "accident" I happened to apply it at some "Shakespeare?" pages, and I was baffled and almost in a state of chock. A variation of the same method was used in the Shakespeare plays! (!!!!!) So far I have identified 28 pages using the same kind of protocol as used by Bessler in AP and MT etc. The main difference is the appearance of the basic "grid-system" used.

Some part of the protocol is identical, but most of it is variations around the same kind of "language".

This have to be a secret undocumented method used by the Rosicrucian society in the 1600-1700s. Their leader and/or founder? was (in England) Francis Bacon and their hidden manifesto was "Shakespeare". The deepest I have gotten is to find out what their "Masonry" really was and that they by publishing the First Folio invented a new (star) constellation to forever prove their "protocol", and that Shakespeare was written by Bacon (the concealed poet) in corporation with the Rosicrucian society. (Ben Ionson etc.)

I have step-by-step documented this also, and it has become my second project. Around 300 pictures with comments so far. It was okay to get a break from Bessler and at the same time learn more. I hope to get more done on my Bessler-project soon.

I also are in a corporation with a writer to possibly publish a novel based on the mysteries I have uncovered.

I am ambivalent about Bessler being an RC. He show a special RC secret sign in one place, and he knows and uses their general methods, and you have the watermark in AP. AP was most likely printed in corporation with at least one RC-member (if Bessler was not an RC adept). The special printing methods used to apply the code is a special printing protocol.

My health recovery allows me to go back to the replication attempt of Besslers wheel soon.

[Grimer]

Rosicrucian[ roh-zi-kroo-shuhn, roz-i-]
noun
1.
(in the 17th and 18th centuries) a person who belonged to a secret society laying claim to various forms of occult knowledge and power and professing esoteric principles of religion.

Sold his soul to the devil. That would explain why no one has found the secret.

[Tarsier79]

Grimer, I'm not sure the devil has any thing to do with it. Rosicruscians were the grandfather of the modern Masons andd they claim to be followers of God/Jesus. But due to the secrecy, there are still accusations of devil worship. This reminds me of witch hunts in the middle ages. People are scared of things they don't understand.

[Oystein]

I have no interest in religion, but I have found no linkage to any "devil worshiping." RC was about attaining and accumulating knowledge through alchemy/experiments and philosophy. Especially knowledge about our physical world. But also knowledge about religion. Bessler was a Christian, and his references to the devil was some special coincidences where some "devilish" values and symbols matched the appearance of the geometry of his code and finally his secret mechanism.

As an example can a pentagram be viewed as satanic, but that is up to the viewer to decide! An educated RC would know that it just means 5 sides, and could just as well mean the 5 elements, and would not turn satanic just because a page is turned upside down etc. Their focus was not to put satanic meaning into things, even if they could.

Their "Gold" was knowledge!! thus the Golden Cross was part of their emblem.

[Fletcher]

Oystein .. quite by coincidence (which I think you will find interesting) I find myself thinking back to this episode of "Curse of Oak Island" on History Channel I saw a month or two back.

Episode 4 of Season 1 "The secret of Solomon's Temple"

Anyway, what was interesting is that a Norwegian guy turns up saying he has deciphered a code in Shakespeare, and goes thru the code and the geometry of the code and ciphers.

Have a look at the linked pages and read about the Shakespear & Bacon connection. The video of episode 4 shows the geometric cipher etc.

It may relate to what you have found by the sound of it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oak_Island ... anuscripts

http://translate.google.com/translate?h ... rev=search

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x230xd ... _lifestyle

[Oystein]

It relates and I know the whole story! Many things of what he found is true, but he does a lot of speculations and has really not found the proven system. He has several "findings" that show Bacon and RC but the findings can`t be proven. I found the system, and show why his findings was there.

As an example, he found a (near 37 degrees) line going from "Rossill" through O - s-y-M (and several other letters not related to rosy crosse) and ending at "crosse", and used that as a proof that Rosy crosse was the author. You can`t use Rossill - O -s-y - M - crosse as proof, but indications. That is why I took a look at the page in the first place. (reviewing his work online. )

When looking closer at the page I stmbled upon the Masonic system built on what I found to be "the Masonic building-brick system" using many of the rules in "the Orffyrean Code".

Mason = "stone/brick/block-mason". Free-Mason = "brick-mason" using square and compass. I found this method to be used with great accuracy on many other pages and putting all speculative information in a perfect system. The method eliminates the need for speculations and indications etc.

When investigating I found many of his "findings" to be speculative and some to be false. Some close and some true. My discovery does not point to a treasure-map, but points us to another mystery. A star-constellation that was unknown at the time, but was announced at a later time by a Freemason.

[MrVibrating]

Have to admit i'm a little skeptical about the merits of prioritising the search for cyphers over practical engineering principles... Silvertiger's "expanded nothing hypothesis" seems the most promising lead at the moment, and useful or not, he didn't come up with it by delving into esoteric cryptologies.

I've said it before - woolly Cabalistic fishing forays can find any 'hidden' messages in any text; it's merely a matter of confirmation bias and perseverance.

Show me a mechanism or physical principle i can test...

In the meantime it all seems very reminiscent of this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uywIYQEHZLs

[Oystein]

I am very skeptical about building anything else than what Bessler built, as he said that his machine was the only principle that could work and nobody else has succeeded in building a gravity PM!

According to me "everything else" is a waste of time! This is to put things in a perspective.

Everybody know that Bessler did hide something, it can bee seen and proven, but nobody seems to have the will, ability and stamina to work it out.

Let others do the failed building, and let me document what Bessler hid. I think that at this point that is the only sensible thing to do. So many thousands of people have wasted their lives on unworkable building.

[justsomeone]

Ok Oystein, we will just wait for you to finish. Thanks for saving me the time and expense.

[rlortie]

I am very skeptical about building anything else than what Bessler built, as he said that his machine was the only principle that could work and nobody else has succeeded in building a gravity PM!

According to me "everything else" is a waste of time! This is to put things in a perspective.

Everybody know that Bessler did hide something, it can bee seen and proven, but nobody seems to have the will, ability and stamina to work it out.

I for one totally disagree with you! I have pursued Bessler and those who have attempted to reveal his secret for way to many years.

I am taking a totally new approach based on not levers, weights and pendulums, but the gravitational movement of molecular mass.

A movement of Newtonian fluid heavier than water that seeks its own level and is always flowing from ascent to descent without having to be lifted creating back torque.

Ralph

[MrVibrating]

@Oystein

Obviously i agree there's hidden codes there - the deliberate, repeated errors in the Kassel prints are enough to convince me of this. But proof of having decoded them would be a mechanism or principle... my anticiaption dropped a notch when you mentioned the widely discredited Bacon / Shakespeare theory..

But then what's more discredited than PM? I'm ready and willing to be convinced. Publish and be damned, eh!

[Oystein]

My answer to you is: The RC-like codes in AP show true items! Together with manipulated words/sentences following a strict self-proven system. The same in Shakespeare! Even more in MT, where parts already in the drawing fits the solutions.

What you have to remember is that a code MUST appear in the same predictable manner in many many places to be true. Only then can speculation and coincidences be ruled out. It also has to count for "errors" and anomalies in print.

I have worked like this: What if Jola Sigmond should review my work. I would have to account for everything, and speculations must be put in a separate folder marked: "speculations". If it don`t belong in the speculation folder, then it is added to "the house" of true information. And if I want to prove just the mechanism Bessler wanted to hide, I can`t put my own speculations into it. That must be placed in a different "folder."

The problem with general ciphers is that people think ciphers is manipulation of the letters order, value or mathematical manipulations and abbreviations etc. These methods can never be proven as long as they don`t show a full logic sentence without spelling errors in several places. Often answers like this is used as "proof": (The same must be proven with acrostics.)

Typically adding 4 letters (or whatever) in the alphabet and we get something like this:
IMFBWSXHFB Then the person is telling us that of course this means:
"I`M Francis Bacon William Shakespeare ShaXper Here Francis Bacon." So the person makes a set of rules that is NOT (self-)proven!

If you say that FB = Francis Bacon. Then that fact has to appear somewhere! You can`t assume anything without finally prove it, then the "house" will fall!

I agree that these theories are so SAD to read. How people try to force meaning into rubbish. This is what most existing theories try to do!

When solving a RC-like cipher you have to use logic. Computers can`t crack it. That is just practically impossible. Only the eye can see what is being manipulated. You have to build a "house" of logic. If A=B and A=1 then B=1, then you just have to build upon that. Any information that will break a part of the "house" will make all of the house fall.

The codes are built around symmetry and manipulation and is a mixed visual code. It uses letters, words, sometimes the sentences in the print, word-play, "assignments" and mixed with a self-proven fixed geometry pattern.

In Besslers work, the same mechanism and words is proven over and over again in (I guess 30-50 places, I have not counted). Everytime it is solving another anomaly in the page. Everything you wonder about in MT, AP and the portraits etc, is made clear without room for speculation when it is applied. Not all pages contain code, and here lies the confusion. This has several reasons. 1. It would be too easy to spot if every page used the same system. 2. It would be to much work to apply it. 3 Not every page would naturally contain the words, fonts or letters etc. that you need.

Some simple signs are even shown in regular print. Like abnormal spacing, miss-spelling, the font: C=3, so you can sometimes see a C that looks like 3 turned around etc. Both in AP and in Shakespeare. So the printers back then knew of these methods. Some simple and some advanced.

The secret language is there, but it is up to the writer and printer to apply it and provide their own dialect/version.

I will stop trying to convince people, because I and the ones I share with are satisfied, and it will all be evident when published.

[MrVibrating]

Well certainly sounds tantalizing. As you say, if a cipher can be consistently applied throughout a work then that's harder to dismiss. Either way i'm eagerly anticipating further updates...