Oera Linda Book and the Great Flood [Part 2]

[Atlantisresearch]

No thanks once is enough for me to understand your opinion....................You will need to blame me for Chronicles of Eri ...i am the only one who has been quoting it over the last couple of pages....not the other folks..., I don't agree with the title Pseudo , it is still an interesting topic for debate.which has not been proven false.....it also does not say that the Phoenician language is Scythian..but that the Chronicles of Gaalag used Phoenician letters in the Scythian language.

It was proven false/a forgery as soon as it was published.

On Certain Literary Frauds and Forgeries in Spain and Italy

Author(s): R. R. Madden

Source: Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy (1836-1869), Vol. 8 (1861 - 1864), pp. 354-371

http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/10.2307/20488846.pdf

Near the end of the paper:

"In our own times, too, we have the same monomania as that of John Annius de Viterbo and Father iiguera forcing itself obtrusively on

public attention, and manifesting openly and shamelessly the same per version of moral feeling, the same utter unconsciousness of all difference and distinction between truth and falsehood. We have all the ancient devices of literary impostors imitated by modern ones. We have the fabrication in America within the last quarter of a century, of " The Book of Mormon," by Ir. Joseph Smith; and we have the concoction of literary frauds in Ireland within the same period, by another monomaniac, half lunatic, half knave, Mr. Itoger O'Connor, in " The Chronicles of Eri."

[Atlantisresearch]

Some old review that appeared in the Irish Monthly:

The forger seems to have been an Irish version of a British Israelite. Like the reviewer says: no sober historian takes the view the Irish (or English) are Israelites serious. During the 19th century loads of crazy theories circulated about the lost ten tribes. The Irish=Israelite theory isn't even interesting or special.

[NO-ID-EA]

It was proven false/a forgery as soon as it was published.

On Certain Literary Frauds and Forgeries in Spain and Italy

Author(s): R. R. Madden

Source: Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy (1836-1869), Vol. 8 (1861 - 1864), pp. 354-371

http://www.jstor.org...07/20488846.pdf

Near the end of the paper:

"In our own times, too, we have the same monomania as that of John Annius de Viterbo and Father iiguera forcing itself obtrusively on

public attention, and manifesting openly and shamelessly the same per version of moral feeling, the same utter unconsciousness of all difference and distinction between truth and falsehood. We have all the ancient devices of literary impostors imitated by modern ones. We have the fabrication in America within the last quarter of a century, of " The Book of Mormon," by Ir. Joseph Smith; and we have the concoction of literary frauds in Ireland within the same period, by another monomaniac, half lunatic, half knave, Mr. Itoger O'Connor, in " The Chronicles of Eri."

Oh Dear, Oh Dear , are you actually presenting the above paper as proof of Roger O'Connors forgery of the Chronicles of Eri.......To give you the benefit of doubt , even though you have given no proof whatsoever , up to now . i have just read the entire paper you put forward as proof of O'Connors so called Monomania , the definition of which i hope you are aware could just as easily describe your stance on the matter .

and the bit you have highlighted is the total extent of the proof against him , a claim that he is half lunatic, half knave , you are an absolute time waster , at least in the paper they could spell his name correctly , i am afraid Mr Oliver.D.Smith you are showing yourself to be a bit of a todger, what a freudian slip

hopefully to save face , you have a bit more than the above farcical proof of O'Connors fraud to provide to this thread ,we will wait in anticipation.

[Atlantisresearch]

The paper was published by the Royal Irish Academy.

They studied the Chronicles of Eri when it was published and easily came to the conclusion is was a forgery.

Also from the Compendium of Irish Biography:

In 1822 he published, in London, in two bulky volumes, Chronicles of Eri, being the History of the Gael, Sciot Iber, or Irish People; translated from the Original Manuscripts in the Phoenician Dialect of the Scythian Language.

The work is dedicated to his friend Sir Francis Burdett, and is illustrated with numerous maps and plates. A portrait of the author faces the title-page, with the words: "O'Connor Cier-rige, head of his race, and O'Connor, chief of the prostrated people of this nation. Soumis, pas vaincus." The book is an extraordinary production; as far as the annals are concerned, a piece of gross literary forgery.

http://www.libraryir...ogerOConnor.php

It is considered a forgery by all historians, including the entire Royal Academy Society. It was established as a fraud more than a century ago, I have no idea why you are trying to defend it.

Edited February 24, 2014 by OliverDSmith

[Atlantisresearch]

And what is your problem with Mr. Macalister?

Now if you look up Macalister from the link on the same wiki you will find " Macalister was an Irish Archaeologist who was responsible for excavations at Gezer , Palestine - his work is considered a failure , due to both poor quality of excavation technique , and also shoddy record keeping , he therefore left the field of Palestinian Archaeology , and accepted a position in Celtic Archaeology at Dublin ".........So clearly not the best authority to review O'Connors work.

It clarifies on the article why he failed:

From 1902 to 1909 he was responsible for the excavations at Gezer, Palestine – in the modern nation of Israel, just west ofJerusalem. This was one of the earliest large-scale scientific archaeological excavations in the region. The Gezer calendarfound there is a very early paleo-Hebrew calendrical inscription. However, in most respects Macalister's work in Palestinian archaeology is considered to have been a failure, due to the poor quality of his excavation techniques and his shoddy record-keeping. Because Macalister was the only professional archaeologist involved in the excavation, managing a project of such complexity was essentially an impossible task.

Anyway, Macalister is a respectable authority -

During his time at UCD the Irish Free State was born. As President of the Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland (1924-28) and then President of the Royal Irish Academy (1926-31), Macalister campaigned strongly for legislation to protect archaeological features. Many of the ideas canvassed by him found their way into the ensuing National Monuments Act (1930). He was appointed first Chairman of the National Monuments Advisory Council, established under the provisions of the Act, and he also served on the equivalent committee in Northern Ireland.

Macalister was an indefatigable writer and he was also a polymath. Apart from hundreds of scholarly papers and several books on Irish, European and Near Eastern Archaeology, he also wrote extensively on Irish Epigraphy and the history and languages of the Near East.

http://www.ucd.ie/archaeology/schoolhistorydetails/professorrasmacalister/

The guy knew his stuff. Have you even read his scholarly review of the Chronicle of Eri?

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/30005905

You can read the first page for free. If you want access to the whole review you can create a JSTOR account.

[The Puzzler]

Just reading New Dawn magazine about the Nebra Sky Disc, found in Saxony, Germany dating to 200 years before anything that represented the sky anywhere else and these words echoed in my ears, so I'll type it...

"The implications behind the disc’s existence were so enormous , that the initial reaction of some authoritative specialists was to deny the disc’s authenticity."

[NO-ID-EA]

And what is your problem with Mr. Macalister?

It clarifies on the article why he failed:

Well thank you Mr.Smith,i have been trying to find an unbiased critique of O'Connors work for some time , but all i could find were blogs which trotted out the same claims as wiki almost word for word , without giving any information as to why O'Connors work was claimed as a forgery.....and your post #5126 had even less information than most......however your link to Macalisters review on JSTOR looks as though it will give me much more detail on the reasons for the establishment rejections......and i thank you for that..........and apologise for my reply to #5126.

[quote name='OliverDSmith' timestamp='1393207537' post='5086551'

Anyway, Macalister is a respectable authority -

http://www.ucd.ie/ar...rrasmacalister/

The guy knew his stuff. Have you even read his scholarly review of the Chronicle of Eri?

http://www.jstor.org...0.2307/30005905

You can read the first page for free. If you want access to the whole review you can create a JSTOR account.

knowing some of O'Connors life history , and the politics at the time in which he lived around the United Irishmen Rebellion of 1798, and the fact that he was claiming royal descent from the high kings of Ireland through the O'Connor Kerry (Ciar-Raigh) clan of noble Gaelic families, and that both his brothers Robert and Arthur were staunch active Orange Protestant government supporters had made him a marked man.he was so much a Gaelic royalist even his brother Robert tried to have him hanged.

So it seems highly likely that O'Connors book was the last thing the Government wanted to be seen to have any credibility , for other clan heads to be able to claim descent from the Gaelic high kings. it is while being imprisoned in Dublin Castle that O'Connor had the time to write his Chronicle , from the ancient rolls that he says were passed down through his family ,and that Government officials entered his cell , and confiscated 10 of the 14 animal skin rolls written in the Phoenician characters in the Scythian language which he was using to write it.(Luckily he only had 10 in prison with him as 4 were still at his home )......now of course this is one of the proofs used against him.........that he cannot produce his source material.

I will again attempt to read the rest of the JSTOR review.....but when i have tried to enrol in the past , i have not been able to do so , as i needed to be a member of a college or university , or other affiliated organisation but i will have another try.......but again i thank you for your link.

Edited February 24, 2014 by NO-ID-EA

[Mario Dantas]

deleted

Edited February 25, 2014 by Mario Dantas

[Van Gorp]

Interesting Mario I wonder

[Atlantisresearch]

Well thank you Mr.Smith,i have been trying to find an unbiased critique of O'Connors work for some time , but all i could find were blogs which trotted out the same claims as wiki almost word for word , without giving any information as to why O'Connors work was claimed as a forgery.....and your post #5126 had even less information than most......however your link to Macalisters review on JSTOR looks as though it will give me much more detail on the reasons for the establishment rejections......and i thank you for that..........and apologise for my reply to #5126.

knowing some of O'Connors life history , and the politics at the time in which he lived around the United Irishmen Rebellion of 1798, and the fact that he was claiming royal descent from the high kings of Ireland through the O'Connor Kerry (Ciar-Raigh) clan of noble Gaelic families, and that both his brothers Robert and Arthur were staunch active Orange Protestant government supporters had made him a marked man.he was so much a Gaelic royalist even his brother Robert tried to have him hanged.

So it seems highly likely that O'Connors book was the last thing the Government wanted to be seen to have any credibility , for other clan heads to be able to claim descent from the Gaelic high kings. it is while being imprisoned in Dublin Castle that O'Connor had the time to write his Chronicle , from the ancient rolls that he says were passed down through his family ,and that Government officials entered his cell , and confiscated 10 of the 14 animal skin rolls written in the Phoenician characters in the Scythian language which he was using to write it.(Luckily he only had 10 in prison with him as 4 were still at his home )......now of course this is one of the proofs used against him.........that he cannot produce his source material.

I will again attempt to read the rest of the JSTOR review.....but when i have tried to enrol in the past , i have not been able to do so , as i needed to be a member of a college or university , or other affiliated organisation but i will have another try.......but again i thank you for your link.

I'll post the article here tomorrow. I have it on PDF.

Edited February 26, 2014 by OliverDSmith

[Atlantisresearch]

Just reading New Dawn magazine about the Nebra Sky Disc, found in Saxony, Germany dating to 200 years before anything that represented the sky anywhere else and these words echoed in my ears, so I'll type it...

"The implications behind the disc’s existence were so enormous , that the initial reaction of some authoritative specialists was to deny the disc’s authenticity."

There's also some sophisticated Neolithic/Bronze Age archaeo-astronomical sites in places like the Orkney's.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maeshowe

It is certainly not my intention to portray ancient northerner peoples as "primitive" (like naked savages as old books on the Celts portrayed) which is a discredited cultural anthropological concept. However there was no ancient civilization in Northern Europe. A fairly objective definition of civilization would basically be via population size or urbanization:

In 1962 a U.S. anthropologist, Elman Service, proposed a way to classify human societies that remains influential. He used the following categories and mentioned two other kinds of societies—bureaucratic states and industrial societies—without characterizing them:

Bands: small groups of 25-60 individuals who are related through family and marriage ties, typically mobile hunters/gatherers.

Tribes: settled farmers or pastoralist herders, from a few hundred to a few thousands individuals whose identity is based on a concept of descent from a common ancestor; they are loosely organized without central control or strongly developed social hierarchy.

Chiefdoms: may number over 10,000 individuals, in which institutionalized differences in rank and status are embedded in a hierarchy of lineages ruled over by a chief; a key feature is redistribution, in which subordinate sectors pay tribute to the chief who redistributes it to his followers.

To have an up-to-date taxonomy of different types of human communities, I would use Service's first three categories, replace "bureaucratic state" with "agrarian civilization," and then add "industrial society" and "modern global society," for a total of six, as follows:

Band, Tribes, Chiefdoms, then …

Agrarian civilizations: large (over 60-100,000), complex societies ruled by kings, with social stratification and coerced tribute, cities fed by surrounding farmers

Industrial nations: highly complex societies with large-scale governmental presence in lives of citizens

Modern global society: world-wide human society interconnected by rapid communications (airlines, Internet, e-mail)

http://worldhistoryc.../6.3/brown.html

http://www.eolss.net...E6-21-02-03.pdf

Ancient northeners were only tribes or chiefdoms they didn't have states.

Edited February 26, 2014 by OliverDSmith

[Ott]

The obvious answer why Oera Linda is a forgery is because this is what the historical method (i.e. source criticism) shows it to be.

What study were you referring to?

[Ott]

Smith used so many fallacies that are commonly used in this debate, that his contributions provide an interesting case study.

Let's analyse what happened.

Source for listed fallacies: http://en.wikipedia....st_of_fallacies

1. I asked why OLB has to be a forgery.

On your website you wrote (last january 26):

... the Oera Linda Book. Anyone trying to defend this sort of stuff lacks intellectual honesty.

What makes you say this?

How would you defend your conclusion that it must be a forgery?

2. His answer can be summarised as: because no scholar takes it seriously.

Oera Linda Book has no academic credibility. Can you find a peer-reviewed work or scholarly source defending it? Otherwise you would need to explain why no historian takes it serious.

Fallacies:

> Argumentum ad populum - where a proposition is claimed to be true or good solely because many people believe it to be so.

> argumentum ad antiquitam - a conclusion supported solely because it has long been held to be true.

> argumentum ex silentio - a conclusion based on silence or lack of contrary evidence.

3. To distract from the argument, he attacks his opponent:

See how gestur has to invoke those conspiracy theories...

How many of the following applies to people who think Oera Linda Book is not a forgery?

treats myths, legends, sagas and similar literature as literal truth

is neither critical nor skeptical [... etc.]

> Argumentum ad hominem - the evasion of the actual topic by directing the attack at your opponent.

> Appeal to ridicule - an argument is made by presenting the opponent's argument in a way that makes it appear ridiculous.

4. Smith goes even further and plays the nazi card:

The "OeraLindists" who consider it real are a few neo-Nazi cranks on places like Stormfront, or people who just want to claim it is not a forgery (when it clearly is) to feel special or get attention. I'll put you in the latter camp, however your website quotes Nazis like Herman Wirth etc as evidence, so you could overlap with the former.

> Reductio ad Hitlerum - comparing an opponent or their argument to Hitler or Nazism in an attempt to associate a position with one that is universally reviled.

5. I steered back to the original and most important question:

Can you find a peer-reviewed work or scholarly source defending it?

Can you find a dito work or source proving it is a forgery?

... which he ignored.

And instead more false reasoning:

The fact only Nazis took an interest in it and it became "Himmler's Bible" is more than a clue.

Edited February 26, 2014 by gestur

[Atlantisresearch]

What study were you referring to?

Read the following:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_method

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source_criticism#Source_criticism_in_archaeology_and_history

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_thinking

You are not familiar with the historical method (?) and there is no source criticism or critical textual analysis in your "research" (if you can call it that).

If I write an 80 page document in the next 3 days and in the text it says it was written 500 BC, describing the Romans having originated at the North Pole - you would go along with it. That's all you do with the Oera Linda Book. Like another guy on this forum who claims Atlantis was destroyed by a comet in Greenland, it is hard to distinguish whether you are "real" or actually a parody.

[Ott]

Read the following

I meant: what study of the OLB?

[Atlantisresearch]

You don't even understand most the fallacies you are accusing me of.... so let's go through them.

1. I asked why OLB has to be a forgery.

2. His answer can be summarised as: because no scholar takes it seriously.

This isn't even a fallacy. I did not quote individual authorities or appeal to the majority, but the scientific (academic) consensus.

The scientific consensus is not an argument from authority or majority. The only people who claim it is, are non-surprisingly pseudo-scientists.

It's important to note that this fallacy should not be used to dismiss the claims of experts, or scientific consensus. Appeals to authority are not valid arguments, but nor is it reasonable to disregard the claims of experts who have a demonstrated depth of knowledge unless one has a similar level of understanding and/or access to empirical evidence.

https://yourlogicalf...al-to-authority

An astronomer who set up a site against pseudo-astronomy goes on to explain precisely this in two posts:

In contrast, the scientific consensus is not an argument from authority. There are a couple of ways to think about this. The most basic and concise is that the scientific consensus is not based on an individual’s or small group’s credibility.

http://pseudoastro.w...ific-consensus/

http://pseudoastro.w...ific-consensus/

The reason it is not also an appeal to the majority:

Portraying scientific consensus as a form of majoritarian rule is hilarious for two reasons: a) the scientific community's inherent role is to keep a check on popularly-held (right or wrong) opinions; and if one study is proven correct over mainstream academic thought, it will become the new consensus.

The fact the consensus among historians is Oera Linda Book is a forgery - makes it the default position. It is up to you to demonstrate otherwise. However you provide no evidence. Your blog doesn't even qualify as research. All you do is try to shift the burden of proof and employ conspiracy theories.

3. To distract from the argument, he attacks his opponent

Actually if you look back you will see you started the personal attacks. At first I had no interest in "checking" you out, instead you first went to my site and then started quoting stuff about me here including my credentials. My wordpress was set up as part of my B.A. as a classical project for my thesis. It was a requirement. I've merely kept the site, added to it and continued it since last year as a hobby. This had no relevance to the thread, but you started posting stuff about me after I wrote Oera Linda Book is a forgery. You claim I "boast" to be something. No I do not, I specifically claimed to be dumb in most areas outside classical literature. All I said is I have an advanced, almost encyclopedic knowledge of classical sources - which I do. This can clearly be seen by my published papers on Greek mythology where I have compiled exhaustively many references to pigmentation, objects etc. I know all these classical references in my head. That is the only specialty area I claim. The fact I admit I am less knowledgeable or dumb about most other things is precisely why I quote the scientific consensus -- I am quoting the experts. In contrast you think the experts are wrong and you know better than them. Who is really ignorant here?

4. Smith goes even further and plays the nazi card:

> Reductio ad Hitlerum - comparing an opponent or their argument to Hitler or Nazism in an attempt to associate a position with one that is universally reviled.

Except that fallacy as far as my understanding - is when someone talks about Hitler or the Nazis when it is non-related. According to your logic, it would be reductio ad Hitlerum for a historical student to write a paper on Hitler? All I pointed out is that your sources are from Nazis or anti-semites. You don't have one credible source.

5. I steered back to the original and most important question:

... which he ignored.

I addressed this ages back and have already repeated above:

The fact the consensus among historians is Oera Linda Book is a forgery - makes it the default position. It is up to you to demonstrate otherwise.

However I should point out that I already showed the anachronistic inconsistencies in the Oera Linda Book which reveal it to be a forgery. For example, if the Oera Linda Book is an ancient document, why does it contain 19th century racial taxonomy?

Edited February 26, 2014 by OliverDSmith

[Ott]

I did not quote individual authorities or appeal to the majority, but the scientific (academic) consensus.

What good is that alleged consensus if there is not a single valid publication proving that OLB can't be authentic?

As long as you fail to refer to any academic source, your claims are empty.

The only people who claim it is, are non-surprisingly pseudo-scientists.

You became a bachelor of arts in 2013 (why are you not busy writing a masters thesis?), I am a master of science since 1996, so following your logic, I have more authority than you.

I know many examples of science being driven (because financed) by political or economic interests, rather than by the desire for truth.

What makes Dr. Ottema and Dr. Wirth (just two examples of OLB advocates from the past) 'pseudo-scientists'?

[Ott]

The fact the consensus among historians is Oera Linda Book is a forgery - makes it the default position.

Very few historians know of its existence, far less even have studied it themselves, judging the number of publications about it (zero).

So this 'consensus' is rather unfamiliarity.

Your blog doesn't even qualify as research. All you do is try to shift the burden of proof and employ conspiracy theories.

I don't claim that it is. It is merely a scrapbook for myself and whoever is interested.

It contains links, copies of discussions from this forum and others, word- and language-studies, creative experiments and translations into english of relevant dutch sources.

What you labelled a conspiracy theory before, was merely a speculation (that Dr. Verwijs changed his public opinion "probably to save his career").

[Ott]

The fact I admit I am less knowledgeable or dumb about most other things is precisely why I quote the scientific consensus -- I am quoting the experts. In contrast you think the experts are wrong and you know better than them.

Still waiting for you first expert quote.

I don't claim the experts are wrong.

I claim there are none.

You can save yourself the effort of referring to Dr. Jensma ("The Masked God", 2004). He did not argue why OLB has to be a forgery, but started from the assumption that it is, and speculated about who the creative conspirators might have been. As I show at the end of my one-hour video, at least three experts (professors), did not accept his conclusions. So no consensus there either.

[Ott]

All I pointed out is that your sources are from Nazis or anti-semites. You don't have one credible source.

You suggest that all my sources are discredited ones, while your only example was Dr. Wirth (1885-1981), who was a co-founder of SS Ahnenerbe (in 1935), but who was also forbidden to teach and publish by the Nazi regime.

Even if he was my only source, the assumption that he was or has been a national socialist or an anti-semite, does not on it self exclude the possibility that some of his claims may have been right or valid.

Also, I can quote someone without agreeing with everything he said. I may even quote him in order to oppose his views.

If you want to accuse me of having made any improper statement in the OLB-debate, then I challenge you to be specific.

Edited February 27, 2014 by gestur

[Ott]

However I should point out that I already showed the anachronistic inconsistencies in the Oera Linda Book which reveal it to be a forgery. For example, if the Oera Linda Book is an ancient document, why does it contain 19th century racial taxonomy?

1. Is this taxonomy from before or after publication of the OLB?

"... historian Goffe Jensma claims that the concept of root races was first articulated in the Dutch esotericist book Oera Linda, which was translated into English by William Sandbach in 1876." Source: wiki/Root_race

2. If this taxonomy existed before OLB's publication, this does not prove beyond doubt that OLB has to be fake. The idea of three root races may have existed long before it was written down (again) in the 19th century. It may even have been kept vivid (or revived) by people who had read or heard of some of OLB's content. The great grandfather of Cornelis Over de Linden, Jan OL (c.1718-1794) was a book printer and publisher in Enkhuizen. It is not known (yet) what sort of texts he published in this age that ended with the French Revolution.

As for the supposed historical inconsistencies:

If OLB is authentic, it does not mean that all information in it has to be true facts.

In theory, it could still be 13th century fiction (all or part of it).

Edited February 27, 2014 by gestur

[Ott]

Once more from your website:

... the Oera Linda Book. Anyone trying to defend this sort of stuff lacks intellectual honesty.

You claim that advocates of OLB's authenticity lack "intellectually honesty", in other words, they are lying.

The terms intellectually dishonest and intellectual dishonesty are often used as rhetorical devices in a debate;

the label invariably frames an opponent in a negative light. It is a round about way to say "you're lying".

Source: urbandictionary/Intellectual dishonesty

You will have to present better arguments to support this bold claim.

[Ott]

The Oera Linda Book isn't even good for toilet paper.

With his almost encyclopedic knowledge of classical literature, Smith may be familiar with the fable of the fox and the grapes by Aesop (c.620-564 BCE):

"The Fox and the Grapes" is one of the traditional Aesop's fables and can be held to illustrate the concept of cognitive dissonance. In this view, the premise of the fox that covets inaccessible grapes is taken to stand for a person who attempts to hold incompatible ideas simultaneously. In that case, the disdain the fox expresses for the grapes at the conclusion to the fable serves at least to diminish the dissonance even if the behaviour in fact remains irrational. Before "cognitive dissonance" was invented there was a moral to the story and the moral was "Any fool can despise what he can not get".

Source: wiki/The_Fox_and_the_Grapes

In this case: "... what he can not fathom."

Edited February 27, 2014 by gestur

[Atlantisresearch]

The idea of "root races" is traceable to theosophical teaching (again, 19th century). I don't see root races in the Oera Linda Book but instead 19th century tripartite race taxonomy. Either way both are anachronistic. If the Oera Linda Book is an ancient document why are its contents thoroughly debunked race concepts from the 19th century?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Root_race

And how are you even making a case for the Oera Linda Book being genuine here? You're opening it up to more craziness. Not only is the Oera Linda Book pseudo-history but now also occult mumbo-jumbo...

Edited February 27, 2014 by OliverDSmith

[Atlantisresearch]

Once more from your website:

You claim that advocates of OLB's authenticity lack "intellectually honesty", in other words, they are lying.

The terms intellectually dishonest and intellectual dishonesty are often used as rhetorical devices in a debate;

the label invariably frames an opponent in a negative light. It is a round about way to say "you're lying".

Source: urbandictionary/Intellectual dishonesty

You will have to present better arguments to support this bold claim.

Because its impossible to distinguish someone who claims to take the Oera Linda Book serious and someone parodying that extreme fringe viewpoint:

http://en.wikipedia....i/Poe's_law

I don't for a second believe you really take Oera Linda Book serious, you're like the "flat-earthers" at Flat Earth Society.

Edited February 27, 2014 by OliverDSmith