11638 replies to this topic

[Abramelin]

 Otharus, on 02 March 2012 - 08:22 PM, said:

That distant cousin seems to have a similar taste as I.

Creative genes, I guess...

I kind of like Jensma's translation of our name: "gelukzaligheid" (bliss).

(Not ALL of his work is worthless!)

Must be a VERY distant cousin: his true family name is not anything like yours, and he never claimed Dutch ancestry.

==

You should check the Hindu "ot"...

Now don't ask me what that was: it was one of those days my ex came around, banged on my door, and me closing everything in a hurry, including what I had saved on Notepad.

I was about to post it, just for fun, and then lost it.

It was not anything 'bad', I guess you would have liked it.

But I have no idea what it was, sorry.

.

Edited by Abramelin, 02 March 2012 - 08:39 PM.

[Alewyn]

 Swede, on 02 March 2012 - 04:00 PM, said:

As has been previously presented, there would not appear to be any  support for a major axial shift during the time period of your  speculation.

Edit: Emphasis.

You seem to state it as fact that science has already all the answers as to when the climate change happened and what caused it. See Abe's post above:

Quote

Today, however, we know that these terms are obsolete and that the truth of the Holocene is more complicated than originally believed.

Secondly, how do you explain the Book of Enoch's description? (as well as the OLB and all the other ancient scribes I quoted here before)

Thirdly, how do you explain the global floods and tsunamis and the demise of all those civilizations that collapsed suddenly and all at the same time in ca 2200 BC if the changes occured "gradually" over thousands of years?

Fourthly how do you explain the sudden change in the salinity of the North African fresh water lakes and the sudden increase in the salt content of the ground at Tell Leilan - all around 2200 BC (and how come North Africa turned into desert after ca 2000 BC.)

Why don't you "speculate" a bit and give us a single scenario that explain all these happenings around 2200 BC? (Please don't try to tell us all these events were not connected because that would be very naïve)

My so-called "speculation" is based on my interpretation of scientific facts and I stand by what I said here and in my book.

Edited by Alewyn, 02 March 2012 - 09:17 PM.

[Abramelin]

Quote

Secondly, how do you explain the Book of Enoch's description? (as well as the OLB and all the other ancient scribes I quoted here before)

I will, in Swede's place, if you (and he) don't mind.

That book was known in the 19th century. A Halbertsma would surely have known about it.

Alewyn, we do not need ancient books people were bound to have read, we need archeological proof, be it about citadels or ancient manuscripts, or a letter by Halbertsma in which he confesses to have fabricated the OLB.

If not anything like that shows up, this thread will grow to a 1000 pages.

But I won't mind. This thread taught me a lot.

[Swede]

 Alewyn, on 02 March 2012 - 09:16 PM, said:

You seem to state it as fact that science has already all the answers as to when the climate change happened and what caused it. See Abe's post above:



Secondly, how do you explain the Book of Enoch's description? (as well as the OLB and all the other ancient scribes I quoted here before)

Thirdly, how do you explain the global floods and tsunamis and the demise of all those civilizations that collapsed suddenly and all at the same time in ca 2200 BC if the changes occured "gradually" over thousands of years?

Fourthly how do you explain the sudden change in the salinity of the North African fresh water lakes and the sudden increase in the salt content of the ground at Tell Leilan - all around 2200 BC (and how come North Africa turned into desert after ca 2000 BC.)

Why don't you "speculate" a bit and give us a single scenario that explain all these happenings around 2200 BC? (Please don't try to tell us all these events were not connected because that would be very naïve)

My so-called "speculation" is based on my interpretation of scientific facts and I stand by what I said here and in my book.

1) Your selective quote from the reference provided by Abe is deliberately misleading. As the papers recently presented illustrate, the climatic changes that have occurred during the Holocene are indeed the result of complex interactions. This does not imply a major shift in the planetary axial rotation. For more on the complexities of the period:

http://rivernet.ncsu...cene Change.pdf

2) The Book of Enoch is a source material that one should not consider to be of a high degree of historical accuracy or precision, nor should any such related works.

3) You would appear to be  working under the presumption that the authenticity and veracity of the OLB has been firmly established. This would not appear to be the case.

4) Once again, you would appear to be misinterpreting and conflating information. Global flooding? Source? As to "civilization collapse" - Such of these as occurred were in a comparatively limited geographical area and are generally understood to be due to a number of interrelated factors. For example, in Egypt we have the combination of excess expenditures by the prior ruling classes combined with the culmination of a drying period that had been in progress for quite some time. If you question the socio-economic impact of even a relatively brief drying period, you may wish to investigate the recent model of the Dust Bowl years in North America.

5) You have also repeatedly misrepresented the salinity matter in North Africa. There is a difference in the use of such terms as "sudden" as used in the geological context and the manner in which that term may be utilized in a more human timeframe.

Prior to  about 4200 years ago, Lake Yoa was a freshwater lake. Over the next  several hundred years, the lake became rapidly more saline until  becoming a salt lake about 3900 years ago.  This dramatic change is  thought to be the result of a site-specific shift from surface or  subsurface outflow from the lake to water loss only through evaporation  in response to gradual regional drying. According to the researchers,  "the exact timing of this transition depended on a site-specific  threshold in the evolving balance between summed inputs (rain, local  runoff, groundwater, and river inflow) and outputs (evaporation and  subsurface outflow), rather than the timing and rate of regional climate  change."  This is in agreement with the indicators of vegetation type  in the cores which show a progressive change over several millennia from  a humid climate suite of plants including populations of tropical  trees, ferns, shrubs and herbs, to an arid plant assemblage.   The  association of tropical trees with ferns prior to 4300 years B.P.  indicates that they probably grew in river valleys that flooded  periodically.  Based on the data from Lake Yoa, the transition from a  humid to an arid climate occurred over a period of about 2500 years  (Kröpelin et al., 2008a). (Emphasis added).

http://academic.empo...er2/sahara.html

6) Back to your primary contention. As has been well established via the presentation of numerous research papers and other relevant references, there is no indication of a major axial shift at any point in time even remotely related to the period circa 4200 BP. Nor is there any geological, climatological, biological, atmospheric, or archaeological evidence to support an impactor of the size required to initiate such a shift.

Until such time as you can present credible data that would support your axial shift you are accomplishing little more than attempting to manipulate and force-fit certain elements in order to support a text of questionable provenance.

.

[Henry Morgan]

 Otharus, on 02 March 2012 - 08:22 PM, said:

That distant cousin seems to have a similar taste as I.

Creative genes, I guess...

I kind of like Jensma's translation of our name: "gelukzaligheid" (bliss).

(Not ALL of his work is worthless!)

[The Puzzler]

The Chronicle of Fredegar in turn reveals that the Franks believed the Sicambri to be a tribe of Scythian or Cimmerian descent, who had changed their name to Franks in honour of their chieftain Franco in 11 BC.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scythians

The OLB also says the Franks called themselves Franks after their leader Frank (Franco above). Dated at 11BC here.

If you read the Scythian article, one could amost picture the Fryans as being of a Scythian type, short or medium length tunics, tall, blonde or red hair, Euro types, the pointy hats are a sure sign they were everywhere, so they seem to be Tocharians as well as developed into Celtic types and it's mentioned they had blue eyes as well.

Based on such accounts of Scythian founders of certain Germanic as well as Celtic tribes, British historiography in the British Empire period such as Sharon Turner in his History of the Anglo-Saxons, made them the ancestors of the Anglo-Saxons.

Edited by The Puzzler, 03 March 2012 - 08:54 AM.

[Van Gorp]

 Alewyn, on 02 March 2012 - 09:16 PM, said:

You seem to state it as fact that science has already all the answers as to when the climate change happened and what caused it. See Abe's post above:



Secondly, how do you explain the Book of Enoch's description? (as well as the OLB and all the other ancient scribes I quoted here before)

Thirdly, how do you explain the global floods and tsunamis and the demise of all those civilizations that collapsed suddenly and all at the same time in ca 2200 BC if the changes occured "gradually" over thousands of years?

Fourthly how do you explain the sudden change in the salinity of the North African fresh water lakes and the sudden increase in the salt content of the ground at Tell Leilan - all around 2200 BC (and how come North Africa turned into desert after ca 2000 BC.)

Why don't you "speculate" a bit and give us a single scenario that explain all these happenings around 2200 BC? (Please don't try to tell us all these events were not connected because that would be very naïve)

My so-called "speculation" is based on my interpretation of scientific facts and I stand by what I said here and in my book.

If it comes to speculation: glad to join the bus.

My idea:

1) First of all: Duinkerke and Calais transgressions are not proven to be wrong, only claimed to be wrong.  

You can't ignore this subject when talking about the lowlands and OLB.
It's obvious: no solid ground is found for claiming that this theory "doesn't stand anymore".  
Too ridiculous to come with C14, blocking WIKI editors who tell otherwise ...
The guy that pretends that this theory is outdated even admits it's other theories give less certainty about what transpired!
As usual, the denying comes from people who didn't bother to investigate open minded.  
Not conveniant for Dutch history so we tell it's outdated.

2) Reconsider all what Delahaye/Ijpelaan and others have investigated, and you'll make it yourself way easier. It fits perfectly with OLB, if you just open the 'Frisian' box!
Sorry for the Dutch, but I think they are close to face their own fabricated history and replace it with the truth -> that land is younger than pretended.

4) Many names in OLB point to Nord-Pas-De-Calais-Bethuwe-Artois (Artesië)-...: another thing difficult to ignore.
Well, you can choose to do but that's your choice leaving out the obvious.

5) Mining activities in neighbourhood and Britain via Channel connect the dots

I think Halouin (sorry Alewyn, phonetical writing takes over sometimes ;-) needs to go further with his work: i like him.  
Schrieck thought that the 'Romain' scribes where Romanizing events when talking about 'big fires and burning rivers'.
I think Schrieck hadn't the occasion yet to see 'The Matrix' to be pointed to fact 'How deep the rabbit's hole goes' :-)

Europa depending M�nster 1489(Zuid up, North below) Notice Nederland: half flooded!




Delahaye's text about transgressions and dates

Een landwaartse verschuiving van de kustlijn.  
Er wordt gesproken over de Calais Transgressie van 4000 - 2000 VC. Daarnaast over de Duinkerkse Transgressie

De Duinkerkse transgressie I, II en III. Een meer bepaalde indeling is deze

De II = van 400 - 800 NC

De IIIa = van 800 -1050

Uit de Website van Antwerpen: Ten tijde van de Romeinen vloeide de Schelde nog in de Maas ter hoogte van Vlaardingen. De Duinkerkse transgressies in de vroege Middeleeuwen veroorzaakten erosie in Zeeland. De Schelde kon dan rechtstreeks naar de Noordzee vloeien (naar Vandamme, 1986). In de 11e en 12e eeuw, met de laatste Duinkerkse transgressie, is de Honte als zeearm doorgestoken en verlegde de Schelde langs die weg zijn verbinding naar zee.

[Otharus]

 Otharus, on 06 February 2012 - 09:51 AM, said:

"Over den loop der Rivieren door het land der Friezen en Batavieren in het Romeinsche Tijdperk" by Dr. J.G. Ottema in De Vrije Fries 4 (1846) p.125.

Not published online before (as far as I know):

Jan Ottema´s pre-OLB Land der Friezen (1851)
(reconstruction of ca. year zero)



p. 49 of "Het Fries Genootschap 1827-2002" (2002)

Edited by Otharus, 03 March 2012 - 10:07 AM.

[Otharus]

Even professional liars leave traces that make it possible - for people who read between the lines - to reconstruct some truth.

Here is another reveiling fragment of
"Om de erfenis van Friso ~ 175 jaar Fries Genootschap" by Goffe Jensma,  published in "Het Fries Genootschap 1827-2002" (2002), from chapter 3: "Voorgeschiedenis, 1750-1827"

(translation, for original see attached scan; p.26)

The Frisian Society (Fries Genootschap) might not have been founded, if king Willem I [(1772–1843)] would not have convoked all 'patriotic historians and linguists' by Royal Order of 23 December 1826, to submit proposals for the concoction of a 'General Netherlandic History'.

Until then an enterprise like that had not been undertaken, despite of 'the great importance of such a history, that aims at cultivating love for the fatherland, stimulating civic virtue and maintaining the national character'.

At this occasion he had also promised money for plausible proposals, even if they would not be awarded.

Binkes [(founding secretary)] in his report referred to this Royal Order, which proves that the orientation of the Frisian Society at its own Frisian history, primarily has to be seen as a contribution to Netherlandic nation building.

The members of the Frisian Society considered the scientific Frisian historiography as part of a more comprehensive Netherlandic historiography, just like they saw Friesland as an integral part of the 'Kingdom of the Netherlands'.

Edited by Otharus, 03 March 2012 - 11:35 AM.

[Abramelin]

 Otharus, on 03 March 2012 - 10:02 AM, said:

Not published online before (as far as I know):

Jan Ottema´s pre-OLB Land der Friezen (1851)
(reconstruction of ca. year zero)



p. 49 of "Het Fries Genootschap 1827-2002" (2002)

Yes, it was, but it's a map originally made by Bilderdijk, or better: Ottema's map was based on Bilderdijk's with a few adaptations. I'm not sure, but I think I read somewhere Ottema even saying he had used that other map to construct his own.

Here's the map again:
http://www.gutenberg...htm#Schetskaart

And click on the link on that site, and the size of the map will explode to something huge.

.

Edited by Abramelin, 03 March 2012 - 12:03 PM.

[Abramelin]

 Van Gorp, on 03 March 2012 - 08:52 AM, said:

If it comes to speculation: glad to join the bus.

My idea:

1) First of all: Duinkerke and Calais transgressions are not proven to be wrong, only claimed to be wrong.  

You can't ignore this subject when talking about the lowlands and OLB.
It's obvious: no solid ground is found for claiming that this theory "doesn't stand anymore".  
Too ridiculous to come with C14, blocking WIKI editors who tell otherwise ...
The guy that pretends that this theory is outdated even admits it's other theories give less certainty about what transpired!
As usual, the denying comes from people who didn't bother to investigate open minded.  
Not conveniant for Dutch history so we tell it's outdated.

2) Reconsider all what Delahaye/Ijpelaan and others have investigated, and you'll make it yourself way easier. It fits perfectly with OLB, if you just open the 'Frisian' box!
Sorry for the Dutch, but I think they are close to face their own fabricated history and replace it with the truth -> that land is younger than pretended.

4) Many names in OLB point to Nord-Pas-De-Calais-Bethuwe-Artois (Artesië)-...: another thing difficult to ignore.
Well, you can choose to do but that's your choice leaving out the obvious.

5) Mining activities in neighbourhood and Britain via Channel connect the dots

I think Halouin (sorry Alewyn, phonetical writing takes over sometimes ;-) needs to go further with his work: i like him.  
Schrieck thought that the 'Romain' scribes where Romanizing events when talking about 'big fires and burning rivers'.
I think Schrieck hadn't the occasion yet to see 'The Matrix' to be pointed to fact 'How deep the rabbit's hole goes' :-)

Europa depending M�nster 1489(Zuid up, North below) Notice Nederland: half flooded!




Delahaye's text about transgressions and dates

Een landwaartse verschuiving van de kustlijn.  
Er wordt gesproken over de Calais Transgressie van 4000 - 2000 VC. Daarnaast over de Duinkerkse Transgressie

De Duinkerkse transgressie I, II en III. Een meer bepaalde indeling is deze

De II = van 400 - 800 NC

De IIIa = van 800 -1050

Uit de Website van Antwerpen: Ten tijde van de Romeinen vloeide de Schelde nog in de Maas ter hoogte van Vlaardingen. De Duinkerkse transgressies in de vroege Middeleeuwen veroorzaakten erosie in Zeeland. De Schelde kon dan rechtstreeks naar de Noordzee vloeien (naar Vandamme, 1986). In de 11e en 12e eeuw, met de laatste Duinkerkse transgressie, is de Honte als zeearm doorgestoken en verlegde de Schelde langs die weg zijn verbinding naar zee.

I posted this long ago, but have a look at this Dutch Wiki about the Dunkirk Transgressions:

http://nl.wikipedia....e-transgressies

And a Delahaye also used a map based on Ptolemy. What he conveniently left out is that both Scotland and Denmark are rotated clockwise on that map. If the Netherlands were flooded as he thought to have proven by that map, then Denmark and Scotland should now also look different.

And Ptolemy depicted Scandinavia as an island. Is it, you think?

.

Edited by Abramelin, 03 March 2012 - 11:48 AM.

[Otharus]

 Abramelin, on 03 March 2012 - 11:36 AM, said:

Yes, it was, but it's a map originally made by Bilderdijk, or better: Ottema's map was based on Bilderdijk's with a few adaptations.
I'm not sure, but I think I read somewhere Ottema even saying he had used that other map to construct his own.

OK thanks, it had not been posted in this thread yet, had it?

[Abramelin]

 Otharus, on 03 March 2012 - 01:45 PM, said:

OK thanks, it had not been posted in this thread yet, had it?

Great, I got a "Whoops!!" notification.

....sigh... I will try again.


===========


Not Ottema's map itself as far as I remember, But I did save that map on PhotoBucket years ago, and I am sure I have posted that link in my former post also long ago.

Another thing: I have been staring at some 16th and 17th century map of the Netherlands.

Here's on from North-Holland:

http://dpc.uba.uva.n...=241;resnum=257

I have tried to find Knul's ringdijk in Andijk ("Waraburcht"?) but I can't evenfind Andijk, lol.

Or is it "Oudendijk" (between Medemblik and Enkhuizen, at the coast) ?

.

Edited by Abramelin, 03 March 2012 - 02:41 PM.

[Otharus]

 Abramelin, on 03 March 2012 - 02:36 PM, said:

Another thing: I have been staring at some 16th and 17th century map of the Netherlands.

Here's on from North-Holland:

http://...

On my screen I get "Missing Plug-in", can't see the map.

Can you prt-sc and post it?

[Abramelin]

 Otharus, on 03 March 2012 - 03:14 PM, said:

On my screen I get "Missing Plug-in", can't see the map.

Can you prt-sc and post it?

Here it is:

 Medemblik_Oudendijk.jpg   77.91K   14 downloads

(north is to the right)

++++++

I checked a modern map, and Andijk must be further to the east, so it's not Oudendijk. But on that old map there is no Andijk to be found. And no ringdike either, but maybe that's because of the scale used for the map.

 Medemblik_Andijk.jpg   46.68K   12 downloads

(north is up)


.

Edited by Abramelin, 03 March 2012 - 03:40 PM.