Appendix - Part C

Keywords: UFO, unidentified flying objects, Bible, flying saucers, prophecy, Paleo-SETI, ancient astronauts, Erich von Däniken, Josef F. Blumrich, Zecharia Sitchin, Ezekiel, biblical prophecy, spacecraft, spaceship, NASA, Roswell, aircraft, propellant, extraterrestrial hypothesis, Jacques Vallee, interdimensional hypothesis, Project Blue Book, Condon Report, ancient history, Jesus, Judaism, Christianity, Middle East, end times, engines, rockets, helicopters, space travel, aliens, abductions, alien abductions, crop circles, extraterrestrials, astronomy, economics, biology, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Space Shuttle, Apollo, stars, planets, solar system, scriptures, design, fuel tank, aerodynamics, fuels, hydrogen, oxygen, wheels

Appendix

5. The wheels - (unworkable traditional interpretation)

    For two and one half millennia the wheel was the only structural element of the entire spaceship for which human knowledge and experience existed. It was therefore the only one that was interpreted in a technical sense—as a wheel—throughout this long period of time. Until now, all those who tried to interpret Ezekiel made the mistake of basing their findings on the appearance of the wheel, which is conveyed in a single short expression by the words ''as though one wheel were within another" (Chapter 1, Verse 16). Since nobody knew about the reality of the spacecraft, the description of the function was overlooked, which is given repeatedly and clearly. It is precisely the function, however, from which the actual design can be derived and which can best serve to test the correctness of an interpretation.  [p.153]

    In Chapter 1, Verse 17, Ezekiel says clearly: "When they went, they went in any of their four directions without turning as they went," and again in Chapter 10, Verse 11: "When they went, they went in any of their four directions without turning as they went. . ." Another passage is of interest in this connection. It is Chapter 10, Verse 13: "As for the wheels, they were called in my hearing 'galgal' (wheel work)." All these functional descriptions indicate that the wheels could move in any direction from a given point. They also leave no doubt that these movements could be performed without any change of the orientation of the wheel relative to the spacecraft.

    Before we proceed to a functionally correct interpretation of that description, it appears desirable to have a closer look at the conventional interpretation, the "crossed wheels." The concept of such a pair of intersecting wheels is a spontaneous reaction, so to speak, which has found its expression in words and pictures. For this very reason it is necessary first to show that such a solution is completely untenable. The required function states—to say it again—that the wheel can move in any direction from a given point.

    Let us begin in Fig. 17 with the starting position illustrated in sketches a and b. The wheel can obviously roll in directions 1 and 2; a movement in direction 3, which is somewhat in between, is possible only if that direction lies exactly halfway between 1 and 2, that is, at an angle of 45°. In that case, however, the wheel "wobbles" considerably because it rolls on an elliptical cylinder. It has a substantially increased power consumption, makes for a most uncomfortable ride, and cannot be stopped in every position.

    We now return for a moment to the starting position as shown in sketches a and b and let the wheel make a quarter turn in direction 1. It will then be in the position illustrated by sketches c and d. From here, the wheel can roll only in direction 1; a movement in the transverse direction would make it fall into the position shown in sketch e and thus block any further movement.

    In trying yet to save the customary interpretation, one could assume the wheel to change its direction only after half a revolution. After half a revolution its position is exactly like the initial position and the movement could now be continued in the direction of the second rim. That means a course change by a right angle. The same applies to the new direction, which means that further course changes will again be possible only after a half turn or multiples thereof, and each time again only by exactly 90°. Such a course would therefore consist of straight stretches arranged perpendicular to each other. If we consider, finally, that the wheel has a diameter of about 6-1/2 feet, we come to realize that course changes are possible only about every 10 feet. Such a severely restricted mobility is of course entirely unacceptable, and the "crossed wheel" concept must therefore be excluded from any further consideration.  [p.156]

5. The wheels - (workable versions)