Posted by David (199.60.107.1) on June 19, 2003 at 11:11:22:
I have to agree with Ovyyus. I ran across Parks article a while ago, thought it too weird to read it fully. Reread it a lille while ago. The ten percent, and that's being generous, comes from John Collins book. The rest, Parks mental ramblings, are his own. It's okay to come up with ideas on how you think something might work, it's also okay to try and break a supposed code, and even speculate what someones thoughts might have been. But to write a very lengthy article FIRST PERSON, that is as if Bessler himself wrote it, is more than deceitful, and wuite frankly really ticks me off. He then has a disclaimer which you get to after reading pages and pages of his mental vomit (sorry if I am a little rough here...but) stating it has occured to me I may have placed my own interpretation on most of Besslers book. Escuse me...may have, and most?!!! That's an oxymoron. He knows what he did, and from what I can gather it's just another decitful way of getting you to read his stuff. It's actually obvious when he starts quoting subatomic energy reactions, and quantuum gates. What I find funny, is he went and built HIS device, it didn't work, but then claims the reason he's not going to patent it is because he feels he and Bessler knew each other once and were good friends, and he wouldn't want to claim Besslers stuff because when they meet again, Bessler might no longer be his friend.
Man...Whatever||!
David