The war of the ego about an unrealizable illusion

[unstable]

Marchello, agree with you.

Momentarily I walk away from here for a while, I have other things to do.

John, what would it be so secret to the point of not being able to write it publicly ? I did not ask you to tell me the story of your life but only what leads you to be so convinced about the wheel of Bessler.

[Oystein]

Freemasons/RC/Illumini conspiracies: meh.... we each have our thing. But these Oy’s attempts of indoctrination? That should bother everyone!!!

Since I haven't yet publicly shown or proven what historical figure Bessler's code lead to yet, I am bit sceptic about people commenting on the validity! Actually it would be stupid to attack rather than just read it and be curious at the next step at this time!

At the time of reading this I had decided and started to make graphic material for a new thread here on BW, where I would show the first historical figure that Bessler's code happens to lead to. What the number 88 really is and describe how it represents the same figure as some other people drew. His numbers was signalled to a receiver for a reason.

As for "indoctrination" you of course mean that you don't understand. Or else it would be called teaching, explaining or showing. It says more about you then. Because I haven't shown where it leads and I haven't shown anything that isn't consistent, true, repeated elsewhere and provide an actual explanation to the anomalies and show they have a purpose! Bessler wrote that he was taught secret stuff of a Jesuit priest and a Rabbi. So there is your conspiracy! They had secret things, that he traded by giving them his Perpetual Motion knowledge. A conspiracy..? You know the word is used as a simple way to try to place yourself above the other part (myself)? In Norway it is called a "Rouling-technique" based on avoiding pointing it out, in this case because you don't know.

How can you attack me when you haven't seen where the code leads yet?

ME: Explain to ALL how the Sir Francis Walsingham code is a conspiracy!

You say I indoctrinate conspiracies, while I actually presents facts for free. Facts you haven't seen before and should be curious and grateful about. JC saw it in minutes, and I guess he thought of it as "nice to know", nice to have observed and understood,

I have decided to leave out the whole post showing what 88 is, as it only will create more attacks and stupid comments! Since it only explains the first part of the actual figure, I will be attacked not for showing the whole figure or show how it all is a complete running wheel with a video attached.

This figure you would probably have seen several times in your life, but you have no idea what it means though. My explanation was meant to show that the codes leads to actual constructions and "a construction".

Posting it would only saddens me, so I will leave it be. I'm in no hurry to show you things for free. It's enough for me that when I show it in a book where the reader must read it in the progression that I have writen it, and can't be sidetracked by attack me while reading, they are not only satisfied but amazed. Also amazed by the apparent stupidity of the people shouting conspiracy or teaching how stupid it is to not follow consensus. I have more than enough to do anyway. Now on my way to the funeral for my father-in-law

ØR

[Art]

Helmholtz's lecture for the curious:

https://www.bartleby.com/30/125.html

Good lecture , - he didn't use the term 'energy' even once !


" That a perpetual motion could not be produced by the aid of the then known mechanical forces could be demonstrated in the last century by the aid of the mathematical mechanics which had at that time been developed. But to show also that it is not possible even if heat, chemical forces, electricity, and magnetism were made to co-operate, could not be done without a knowledge of our law in all its generality. The possibility of a perpetual motion was first finally negatived by the law of the conservation of force, and this law might also be expressed in the practical form that no perpetual motion is possible, that force cannot be produced from nothing; something must be consumed."

-------

He is doing fine up until he gets to that paragraph about perpetual motion and those last 4 words "something must be consumed" .

In the paragraph he intimates the definition of perpetual motion to be a machine producing force from nowhere , where the correct definition of perpetual motion is a machine which continually repeats its motion 'perpetually' ie repeatedly unless prevented from doing so .

Who or what is being produced from nowhere is strictly an add on from the observer's biases !

Those last words if he must put them in should be :- "the force must be traceable to an identified source"

His imprecise language is due to his preconceived notion that force cannot be transmitted in ways other than those common in 19th century mechanics !

[John Collins]

Marchello I was referring to the few people who have dismissed the likelihood of Bessler having left any codes nor needing to seek acknowledgement after his death. I did mean to include everyone who does not agree with me.

I cannot simply reveal the clues because the collecting of them has been an extremely long winded process. I have already written over 30 pages including numerous drawings, explaining each clue, where it is and how I interpreted it.

There are, for instance, clues which indicate if an angle is locked or free to open and close; others which indicate the true length of a lever, and some which reveal by the way they are placed whether there is hidden part which indicates a pivot or not. There is so much that I have to include to prove that my interpretation is correct that, if my wheel does not work due to a mistake on my part or poor workmanship, my claims will not stand but, rather, will fall.

If this should happen my work on the clues might well be dismissed. So hang in there and let me finish the wheel and I will publish what I know on my website freely, so there can be no accusations of simply being here to sell books.

Sorry for the long post, I usually try to keep them short!

JC

[ovyyus]

As for "indoctrination" you of course mean that you don't understand. Or else it would be called teaching, explaining or showing.

Classic :D

[unstable]

Sorry John, but how long has this story been going on ? From here I was absent a lot of time, I remember that over 10 years ago you moved in the same way. Who believes you is undoubtedly more "out of mind" then you. A rip off in the light of the sun always remains a rip off. It is difficult for me to excuse the ingenuity of certain users who, after all this time, still hang from your lips. Who are you, Nostradamus? How can you find clues and classify them as such? It is clearly a subjective vision, it is only the result of your imagination. Anyone could proceed in your own way but probably their conscience stop them to do so. I've never seen anything like a mechanism, a linkage, in short, something useful from you... just words. Okay, glad you ... I hope people here wake up and open their eyes.
Excuse me for the personal attack but I really can not stand your farce anymore. Better to avoid selling false hopes. To me, yours, it seems a wrong behavior and a little "fraudulent".

[ovyyus]

Claudio, I think you're being rude. John asks nothing from you. If you don't want to participate in his point of view then you are free look away. Calling John a fraud is poor form. I'm sure you can think of more deserving targets for a crusade against those selling 'false hope'.

[Art]

Sorry John, but how long has this story been going on ? From here I was absent a lot of time, I remember that over 10 years ago you moved in the same way. Who believes you is undoubtedly more "out of mind" then you. A rip off in the light of the sun always remains a rip off. It is difficult for me to excuse the ingenuity of certain users who, after all this time, still hang from your lips. Who are you, Nostradamus? How can you find clues and classify them as such? It is clearly a subjective vision, it is only the result of your imagination. Anyone could proceed in your own way but probably their conscience stop them to do so. I've never seen anything like a mechanism, a linkage, in short, something useful from you... just words. Okay, glad you ... I hope people here wake up and open their eyes.
Excuse me for the personal attack but I really can not stand your farce anymore. Better to avoid selling false hopes. To me, yours, it seems a wrong behavior and a little "fraudulent".

Sorry Claudio ,

I don't see this post and a few previous as being at all constructive .

I am withdrawing my 'Greenie' based on that ,

May I suggest that you take Ovyyus's advice and find a suitable 'cause' to vent your frustration on but please at least make an attempt to check out whatever evidence is available about it before you jump back and forth on half baked conclusions .

You owe it to yourself as much as to your 'target' .

[Oystein]

As for "indoctrination" you of course mean that you don't understand. Or else it would be called teaching, explaining or showing.

Classic :D

Classic answer.

After John praised you for being short..the shorter you got, until unconstructive and ridiculously short :)

You try to ridicule me but then, what has Sir Francis Walsingham's Poem to do with "indoctrination"? Isn't it showing or teaching? Not? Indoctrination is usually seen as fed erroneous information so many times that you will believe it. Tell me, are you or me doing the indoctrination?

How could you dismiss a result before you the answer? You or "ME" simply haven't read what figure I found in MT yet, because I said it will have to wait until I'm ready. On the way I share. But on the way you call me names! Why couldn't you just wait until the figure is disclosed? Then you could sit down and find out if I made mistakes or not! You will discover that it's not even my invention. It can easily be found through google, and it's not mine, and it existed prior to Bessler. you will see when you search the correct word/pages.

I simply claim that MT had two purposes. And it should really interest you as you are seeking the truth. One about a Perpetual Motion Machine, and another about a Geometric figure that is now public knowledge! How is that such a shame? While you on the other hand is claiming to know that Bessler lied about the energy source was. I, others and google can prove the figure i found, but you can't prove what Bessler hid in his machine. Still you try to stay on your high horse ridiculing me. I haven't seen the alcohol (V) driven Besslerwheel of yours yet??

As I am ridiculed on my way while sharing pieces of what led me to the figure, I feel uncomfortable to go on and show where it leads. Work payed in ridicule is a waste, while a smile is often payment enough.

ØR

[unstable]

Ok, I take note, but this is my thought. There is no codes and useful clues have long been known. Everything else has the sole purpose of keeping the theater. If you want to share your ideas or your own interpretations of Bessler's writings, you do it. If (as he does) you want to keep things for yourself, I do not see the sense of advertising about the found clues and entice the users. There is only one purpose to behave that way, and you all know it ... but apparently, to you all, that's okay.
I have expressed my point of view.
My apologies for the term "fraud", maybe a little exagerated.


Art, frustration about what ? More then you I hate the lies and falsehood. Sorry.

[Senax]

If he found such a mechanism it's understandable he devised codes so future generations will give him credit for being the original discoverer.

Why would Bessler need to encode anything for credit from future generations when he expected to sell his wheel?

Since Bessler rabbits on about things swinging...

Where does Bessler 'rabbit on' about things swinging?

I assume he encoded stuff after he realised that he was unlikely to sell his wheel. Can't see why he would bother otherwise. After all, if he sold his wheel the secret would soon be out anyway since the buyer would probably want to capitalise on his purchase

I seem to remember reading somewhere he talked about things swinging. Perhaps I mis-remembered. :-)

[Oystein]

Ok, I take note, but this is my thought. There is no codes and useful clues have long been known. Everything else has the sole purpose of keeping the theater. If you want to share your ideas or your own interpretations of Bessler's writings, you do it. If (as he does) you want to keep things for yourself, I do not see the sense of advertising about the found clues and entice the users. There is only one purpose to behave that way, and you all know it ... but apparently, to you all, that's okay.
I have expressed my point of view.
My apologies for the term "fraud", maybe a little exagerated..

A fair response,that clearly explains the problem:

It's really not possible to thoroughly document and present 20 years of research, and what I see as "my life's work" in som forum posts. Sorry! I still wanted to share some and give something back to the site and members that I have learned from and heard from since the past millennium, by giving heads up and presenting some of the initial results and show that there seems to be a code or hidden system in Bessler's work. I also wanted to thank John by providing information that confirms his initial finding of 50,5 and 55. I gave an alternative explanation of what the numbers seems to represent by showing some of the outcome of knowing my work. If you don't like that I show results of what I have discovered before a book is ready, you can just skip my posts! No need to worry!

My initial thought was that it would indeed be beneficial and interesting for any peer researcher of Bessler to discover information that further hints at the existence of a code (Not only JC's words). Certainly I would do. If not, you may not really be interested in Bessler, as a whole case, but just interested in be the one that discover Perpetual Motion yourself, or discover something related/similar but extraordinary as Bill &c. That's of course fine by me, but dismissing the existence of a code that you haven't even seen completely yet, seems irrational. Maybe a code would explain the he actually was a fraud, or what the fraud was about? Or teach you other things? Maybe Bessler knew other things than PM also..

As an example, as an old researcher of Bessler I was extremely excited when I found out that his reference to Saturn, Mars and Jupiter actually had a historical solution already! Was he talking about Pythagoras and Freemasonry? Freemasonry is about geometry, as can be seen by their symbol. By dismissing it, you will never find out!

Why on earth wouldn't that be a great disclosure or discovery for any researcher of Bessler??? Why would you attack someone when showing you this?? I am really lost..

As I said, because I am attacked for not presenting all my research at once (as you demand) I will stop any planned disclosures. Sorry to those that is interested. I think you understand. Anyway you know where to reach me.

[John Collins]

I was offended momentarily by your accusations of fraud against me, but then I thought, you don’t know me or anything about me, all you know is what you’ve been taught.

I think that Claudio, you came here and got interested in the discussions taking place here, and entered the discussions with a number of ideas, which were well received.

Then you got disheartened by a few failures, but I think the thing that really upset you was a discussion I suspect you had with someone who told you in no uncertain terms that we were all frauds,or some the posters here were naive people who were being taken in by something which everyone knew was false, fake, a scam - call it what you will.

That is the only way I can account for your remarkable about turn from open minded researcher to someone with a blinkered outlook, unable or unwilling to consider the evidence.

Am I right, did you have that conversation with a conventional dogmatist?

JC

[eccentrically1]

Helmholtz's lecture for the curious:

https://www.bartleby.com/30/125.html

Good lecture , - he didn't use the term 'energy' even once !


" That a perpetual motion could not be produced by the aid of the then known mechanical forces could be demonstrated in the last century by the aid of the mathematical mechanics which had at that time been developed. But to show also that it is not possible even if heat, chemical forces, electricity, and magnetism were made to co-operate, could not be done without a knowledge of our law in all its generality. The possibility of a perpetual motion was first finally negatived by the law of the conservation of force, and this law might also be expressed in the practical form that no perpetual motion is possible, that force cannot be produced from nothing; something must be consumed."

-------

He is doing fine up until he gets to that paragraph about perpetual motion and those last 4 words "something must be consumed" .

In the paragraph he intimates the definition of perpetual motion to be a machine producing force from nowhere , where the correct definition of perpetual motion is a machine which continually repeats its motion 'perpetually' ie repeatedly unless prevented from doing so .

Who or what is being produced from nowhere is strictly an add on from the observer's biases !

Those last words if he must put them in should be :- "the force must be traceable to an identified source"

His imprecise language is due to his preconceived notion that force cannot be transmitted in ways other than those common in 19th century mechanics !

He says in the paragraph following the one you've quoted:

What I have to-day mentioned as to the origin of the moving forces which are at our disposal, directs us to something beyond the narrow confines of our laboratories and our manufactories, to the great operations at work in the life of the earth and of the universe. The force of falling water can only flow down from the hills when rain and snow bring it to them. To furnish these, we must have aqueous vapour in the atmosphere, which can only be effected by the aid of heat, and this heat comes from the sun. The steam engine needs the fuel which the vegetable life yields, whether it be the still active life of the surrounding vegetation, or the extinct life which has produced the immense coal deposits in the depths of the earth. The forces of man and animals must be restored by nourishment; all nourishment comes ultimately from the vegetable kingdom, and leads us back to the same source.
You see then that when we inquire into the origin of the moving forces which we take into our service we are thrown back upon the meteorological processes in the earth’s atmosphere, on the life of plants in general, and on the sun.

The force (energy) is traceable. The method of transmission he earlier says is irrelevant. 19th, 20th, 21st centuries; it doesn't matter.

His definition is correct. a PMM is one that would not require an external driving force to sustain its motion.

Your definition begs the question: what is preventing all of these attempts from keeping their motion? All input energy in a system is eventually lost to heat as Helmholtz says.

But the question is, where does Helmholtz say in his lecture that, since no one has ever produced a perpetual machine, it must be impossible, so therefore laws of Thermodynamics hold? His reasoning is not circular as some believe.

[ME]

Let me see.
*puts on glasses, grabs a notebook to count the deflections*

Since I haven't yet publicly shown or proven what historical figure Bessler's code lead to yet, I am bit sceptic about people commenting on the validity! Actually it would be stupid to attack rather than just read it and be curious at the next step at this time!

You make the same slipping mistake as John Collins... I'm not criticizing what you didn't write, I'm criticizing the additional nonsense you did write.
How can I validate your research? And I actually didn’t. How can I? As you say, you haven't even published.

Instead, as an example to paint the a picture, we have to deal with the following (I think typical) reasoning skills... it's not a sporadic mistake, but a trend.

My reason for pointing to the likely incompleteness of physics just because (1) I want to be sure if physics is complete. If physics is complete(2a), Bessler's wheel was fake, and I would like to move on. If physics isn't complete (2b) I have a reason to keep working.

So (3) physics doesn't seems to be complete.

http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... 220#161220

I inserted those numbers:
1. You don't know if physics is complete. (I agree. it's a valid question, and any "scholar" will agree it is a "work in progress")
2. You present your proposed binary options + implication.
3. So now you select your option based in your own preferred implication?

Because some may think that one example is no example, here another one:

FACTS:
- With a very critical mind you go nowhere.
- With a very open mind, you go anywhere and everywhere.

With first a very open mind to receive all available information without letting prejudices colour the information, and then later you may apply just the correct amount of critical mind, then you can get the longest.
http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... 242#161242

In that case you apparently mix "critical mind" and "closed mind".
Why do I think such a thing – here, hear my motivation:
The "critical mind" IS that "open mind".
But an always "open mind"... is a fragile mind!!!
Hence, one needs to learn how to handle the randomness others throw at all our senses.
We need to learn how to filter what is important, and how to filter outside opportunism.
We need some sort of mental latch... I hope some recognize Maxwell's Deamon here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%27s_demon. I think an appropriate metaphor.

As you, Oystein, are the one who referenced Plato, then please explain what an open mind has to do with this "task of squaring circles". How is that in any way relevant, or connected, or a metaphor for....<what?> ( I have an idea about your reply, but I guess that’s still irrelevant)
I would like to confront you with the blatant misuse of Plato and present the following text which obviously is relevant:

Socrates demonstrated that having authority does not ensure accurate knowledge. He established the method of questioning beliefs, closely inspecting assumptions and relying on evidence and sound rationale. Plato recorded Socrates' teachings and carried on the tradition of critical thinking. Aristotle and subsequent Greek skeptics refined Socrates' teachings, using systematic thinking and asking questions to ascertain the true nature of reality beyond the way things appear from a glance.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_thinking

I really hope this quoted part conveys exactly what you really meant and intended to say (mistakes happen)... or otherwise I'm afraid I'll reach a new level of disappointed.
In any case:
1. Why do I have to be the one figure it out what you mean?
2. Why do you use such rhetoric for kicking academic studies, "learned men" and Science in general? (You could find objectionable people everywhere, if you want)

Plato's real intentions are not that hard to find. (I use Wikipedia as a no-nonsense and least cluttered website reference).
[*a: moved]

As for "indoctrination" you of course mean that you don't understand. Or else it would be called teaching, explaining or showing. It says more about you then. Because I haven't shown where it leads and I haven't shown anything that isn't consistent, true, repeated elsewhere and provide an actual explanation to the anomalies and show they have a purpose!

You keep hammering about your codes, and deeper levels of understanding, so we learn about more codes and intrigues, and babies don't forget the babies, an numbers, and fractions, and how well you already understand, and how well we all are able to understand it too once we put in the right effort...
I don't want to understand Masonic cultures, because what is made clear over-and-over is that MISINFORMATION IS THEIR KEY.

I think I understand perfectly. Your deflections are exactly the same kind of misinformation.
Otherwise you simply would/could motivate your opinion and not point fingers and mystify the hell out of simple things. as is yet again demonstrated.

Again - for clarity sake-, you point once again to things you "haven't shown", I react to things you have shown and wrote right here in this very topic.
And as a courtesy, and a way to show what I mean: I react, I try to reference, and I try to motivate... so that you on your part could motivate to me exactly what it is you disagree with.
That's a way to at least attempt open uncluttered communication. And even when that fails, it still shows intent.

Bessler wrote that he was taught secret stuff of a Jesuit priest and a Rabbi. So there is your conspiracy!

Eeuh, that’s not a conspiracy you show there.
The conspiracy about this text is that you need to tell me that this text written by Bessler is seemingly implied to be weird and strange (perhaps it is, but that's not entirely clear from that text). You emphasize "secret" and you had to add "conspiracy". That doesn’t make that claim true.
The actual conspiracy is that you...for how many possible times... deflect straight answers with your convoluted distractions.
Because (motivation) did you mention Jesuits and Rabbi's in any reply in this whole topic before? Nooo.
So, I ask rhetorically, why do you introduce it here?

They had secret things, that he traded by giving them his Perpetual Motion knowledge. A conspiracy..? You know the word is used as a simple way to try to place yourself above the other part (myself)? In Norway it is called a "Rouling-technique" based on avoiding pointing it out,

Hmm I actually agree with most of it. Great job.
I could point to several instances where you used status-related motivations....But let's not.

How can you attack me when you haven't seen where the code leads yet?

I don't attack you because of your use of codes. I just point out the rest of your nonsense.
As is demonstrated with the following (and motivate earlier):

You would never find a person with a position to admit to any law breaking! He would loose his academic position in a hurry. Sorry they will not even touch it. It's too humiliating for anybody in academia. Sorry.
http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... 276#161276

Surprisingly, for once, I agree with the causal effect (not the example itself).
In general, it is indeed humiliating that close-mindedness does compartmentalize groups of people by assuming all kinds of additional unrelated stuff.

ME: Explain to ALL how the Sir Francis Walsingham code is a conspiracy!

Why?
Explain first why I should care. It has nothing to do with anything, but has everything to do with your personal hobby. It is totally irrelevant to Bessler, or his wheel, or some possible code… besides having shown that you have found secret encoding somewhere as proof of finding codes everywhere... ok, there's a hidden code, check!
By the way, haven’t you noticed that I really don’t care about conspiracies?

You say I indoctrinate conspiracies, while I actually presents facts for free. Facts you haven't seen before and should be curious and grateful about. JC saw it in minutes, and I guess he thought of it as "nice to know", nice to have observed and understood,

Oh my FOMO... How can I ever add anything to such a nice demonstration?
I guess you really haven’t got a clue what I mean. *Throws away full notebook*
But why hide behind J.C.?

[*a: put here for a better flow]

At the time of reading this I had decided and started to make graphic material for a new thread here on BW, where I would show the first historical figure that Bessler's code happens to lead to. What the number 88 really is and describe how it represents the same figure as some other people drew. His numbers was signalled to a receiver for a reason.

Yes, at least WW II related.
Maybe it is interesting to read what you have figured out. It’s likely ancient…and secret.

I have decided to leave out the whole post showing what 88 is, as it only will create more attacks and stupid comments! Since it only explains the first part of the actual figure, I will be attacked not for showing the whole figure or show how it all is a complete running wheel with a video attached.

Ok. That was quick. Now I need to worry about that FOMO all by myself then?

This figure you would probably have seen several times in your life, but you have no idea what it means though. My explanation was meant to show that the codes leads to actual constructions and "a construction".

I see many things several times in my life I don’t understand…
I tell you it’s even worse. I see many things several times in this very topic I will never understand.
When you point to that Scientific American thingy, that’s not a construction, but that’s something you didn’t understand.
Nevertheless thanks for pointing to those interesting papers (even if I had to find them myself), perhaps I’ll eventually create a topic about some findings.

Posting it would only saddens me, so I will leave it be.

ok, can't comment on that.

Also amazed by the apparent stupidity of the people shouting conspiracy or teaching how stupid it is to not follow consensus.

Well motivated….not.
Please explain and motivate for the sake of Reason: Why do you think that is “stupid�?
And about “Stupid to NOT follow consensus�: For the sake of communication-purposes, I agree. But what happened to your "open mind"?

I have more than enough to do anyway. Now on my way to the funeral for my father-in-law

Really for what it is worth at this point, my condolences to you and your wife.

But despite that, sympathy is still not a valid argument.