Heinrich Göbel (April 20, 1818 – December 4, 1893) was a German-born American precision mechanic and inventor also known by his anglicized name Henry Goebel.

In 1893, magazines and newspapers reported that 25 years earlier Göbel had developed incandescent light bulbs comparable to those invented in 1879 by Thomas Alva Edison.

There are no sources to confirm training as watchmaker, but Göbel likely learned by doing work comparable to a precision mechanic before he began operating his one-person business repairing and selling clocks.

At the age of 30, Göbel migrated to New York City with his family, leaving Germany through Bremen in November 1848 on the sailing ship J.W.

In New York City, Göbel opened a shop in Monroe Street called Jewelry, Horology and Optician's Store.

On March 23, 1865, he took the oath on the Constitution of the United States and was henceforth an American citizen, signing with Henry Goebel.

[5] Two patents were granted to Heinrich Göbel in 1882: an improvement of the Geissler system of vacuum pumps, and a solution to connect carbon-filaments and metal-wires in a light bulb.

The counsels of the Goebel-Defense didn't provide any documentation or convincing proof which could be dated without any doubt to a time earlier than 1880, the year the patent was granted to Thomas Edison.

The most surprising story for the public was the alleged usage of incandescent lamps for the advertisement of Goebel's telescope in the center of New York for years.

[10] Professor van der Weyde, an 80 years old physicist, said in his affidavit, he had seen Goebel's telescope and his incandescent lamps.

This is manifest from the history of the art for the past fifty years, the electrical laws which since that time have been discovered as applicable to the incandescent lamp, the imperfect means which then existed for obtaining a vacuum, the high degree of skill necessary in the construction of all its parts, and the crude instruments with which Goebel worked.

Such evidence is to be received with great caution, and the presumption of novelty arising from the grant of the patent is not to be overcome except upon clear and convincing proof.

[11]The opinion of Judge Hallett in the case Edison Electric Light Co. vs. Columbia Incandescent Lamp Co., St. Louis:[12] It is said that Goebel is involved in contradictions and misstatements of fact, due to the lapsing memory of old age, or to untruthfulness.

Whatever may be said as to Goebel's veracity, he is supported at many points by witnesses of good repute, who speak with precision, and apparently with deliberation. ...

The injunction will therefore be refused, if the respondents shall give a bond in the sum of $20,000, conditioned for the payment of such sum, if any, as may be decreed in favor of complainants on the final hearing of this cause.The opinion of Judge Seaman in the case Edison Electric Light Co. vs. Electric Manufacturing Co., Milwaukee: Prof. Thomson, of the Thomson-Houston Company, investigated it in 1882, -when it would have been of vital interest to his company to make use of it against this patent, if tenable, -and, after visiting Goebel, rejected its consideration.

A. Moses, an inventor, with similar object, visited Goebel frequently, but came to the same conclusion, and says he was unable to produce any lamps.

[13]The opinion of Judge Jenkins in the case Electric Manufacturing Co. vs. Edison Electric Light Co., appeal, Chicago was based on the last development of the Goebel-Defense with new affidavits and withdrawn affidavits in May, 1894: Without assuming to say that the story of this invention is untrue, and without designing to suggest what result should be reached upon final hearing, we are compelled to say that the story is surrounded by such an atmosphere of improbability that, until it shall have been thoroughly sifted and sustained upon final hearing, the claim ought not to be permitted to invade the monopoly accorded to, another for the same invention, whose claim has passed safely the ordeal of judicial scrutiny.

In Philadelphia another injunction was granted in a suit filed by the Edison Electric Light Co. to stop the usage of patent infringing lamps at some companies.

During the litigations most newspapers reported with a neutral point of view, but some raised doubts about the alleged Goebel anticipation.

This and the lack of independent sources in the archives to confirm claims of Henry Goebel support the thesis, the Goebel-Defense was fraudulent.

Probably Goebel told his story in 1882 to present himself as experienced in the art of construction of electric lamps to promote his intended business.

Münchhausen is a rare family name in Germany and Münchhausen is the name of a literary figure in a collection of tales with title The Surprising Adventures of Baron Munchausen of Rudolf Erich Raspe (published 1785) and in another version of Gottfried August Bürger (published 1786), a popular book in Germany; a man telling lies and incredible stories.

A thesis on this is, that Henry Goebel, an old man, was under pressure of lawyers to provide affidavits and got pangs of conscience and this was his way to indicate the story was untrue.

In January 1893 Franklin Pope wrote an article published on the head page of the Electrical Engineer titled The Carbon Filament Lamp of 1859—The Story of an Overlooked Invention.

The reputation of Franklin Pope and his article in The Electrical Engineer is the reason for the existing view in some countries that Henry Goebel developed a carbon filament lamp many years before Thomas Edison did it.

As a matter of fact there is a lack of convincing evidence for the information about the lamps of Henry Goebel given by Franklin Pope in his article.

In a dissertation published 2007 it is stated, that the article was part of the fraudulent Goebel-Defense and the intention was to produce credibility for the Goebel-Story and sympathy for Henry Goebel, an "underdog" who anticipated the famous Thomas Edison.

[17] In the case Edison Electric Light Co. vs. Columbia Incandescent Lamp Co. Judge Moses Hallett denied the granting of a preliminary injunction.

That are misstatements of Judge Hallett's decision, and the source of the legend that the priority of Henry Goebel for the invention of the practical incandescent light bulb was established at court.

In the year 1923 the story of an important national inventor was created; the report of Franklin Pope was the main source.