11638 replies to this topic

[Abramelin]

A bit of a problem here:

According to Otharus' sources, this Floris August was born in 1863.

According to what I just found out, he was born in 1866, in Samarang Indonesia:

http://www.krul.org/...1070935737.html

I don't know what the Over de Linden relations with Indonesia were,but yesterday I have been busy for a while finding out about that place in the OLB, "Lumka-makia".

Knul says it must be near the mouth of the Eems (Ee-mude), I said it could be Lemster, near the mouth of a (now no longer existing) river Ee in Friesland.

And yesterday I tried a "puzzler" tactic, lol, and searched for Lumakya/"Lumakia/Lumacia/Lumakhya, and almost everytime I ended up on some Indonesian site.

An example: http://www.sastra.or...on?le_pos=44370


(It could also be an Filipino word: http://mackoi.blogsp...hat-i-want.html . Now I could ask an ex of mine who is a Filipina, but I need to drink a lot more before I can stand her verbal abuse, LOL. She was always very creative).

****

EDIT:

With the help of a dictionary I found out that "Luma Ka" is "old you" in Tagalog.

"ma" = be.

"Luma Ka Ma Ka" would then result in something like "old you be you".

Or something like "You old fart that you are", lol.

OK, so far the "puzzler" tactic.



.

Edited by Abramelin, 30 November 2011 - 05:50 PM.

[Abramelin]

Oh, I forgot: Alewyn thinks that when I start with some kind of "etymology" I am only trying to distract people from the true importance of the OLB by having some fun with it.

Well, Alewyn, were you able to locate "Lumka-Makia" or what the name even means?

I guess you weren't, eh?

But Halbertsma's dog, "Apol" says 'hi' to you.

[Abramelin]

Woof!!

[Otharus]

Alewyn, on 30 November 2011 - 01:09 PM, said:

Halbertsma’s so-called involvement was first raised a hundred years after the Oera Linda Book surfaced. In the 19th century nobody even considered him to be a suspect. Yet, now, him being the mastermind behind the creation of the OLB, is being flaunted as fact. At the same time we are continuously being told that the guys in the 19th century “were not stupid/fools”.

Very good point.

[Abramelin]

Otharus, on 30 November 2011 - 07:46 PM, said:

Very good point.

Yes, indeed: these guys from the 19th century were no fools.

What Alewyn "forgot" to mention is that we nowadays have access to many media.

Many ancient documents have been photo-copied and put online for all to read.

In the old days you had to travel to some faraway library, and you would only do that if you expected to find something there.

If Alewyn had lived in the 19th century, he would not have been able to write his book.

.

Edited by Abramelin, 30 November 2011 - 08:12 PM.

[Alewyn]

Knul, on 30 November 2011 - 03:34 PM, said:

It has been decided in 1876-1877 that the OLB is a hoax and that has been accepted widely. Your 4. should read 'The Oera Linda Book is not a Hoax" to compare it with 1. never, 2. not, 3. never. Just a matter of logic.

Yep. Reverse logic.

It is the "hoax theorists" that are peddling the conspiracy theory; not the other way round.

Widely accepted by whom?

[Otharus]

Abramelin, on 30 November 2011 - 01:43 PM, said:

OK, so the Halbertsma's had a dog called Apol.

I promise you that if you keep looking for coincidences like this, you will find many more.

You guys (Abe and Knul) really should read and study Jensma's book before you go on with this.

His 'proof' that Haverschmidt, Verwijs and Over de Linden did it is much stronger than yours about Halbertsma, but still not good enough.

Lunatic asylums are filled with people that can prove they are being followed or that the number plates of passing cars contain hidden messages.

You will have to do much better than Jensma to be convincing.

As long as you and Knul haven't even studied his book, how can we take you seriously?

I know you read the summary but that's not enough.

It might help you see the shortcomings of your method.

[Abramelin]

Otharus, on 30 November 2011 - 08:31 PM, said:

I promise you that if you keep looking for coincidences like this, you will find many more.

You guys (Abe and Knul) really should read and study Jensma's book before you go on with this.

His 'proof' that Haverschmidt, Verwijs and Over de Linden did it is much stronger than yours about Halbertsma, but still not good enough.

Lunatic asylums are filled with people that can prove they are being followed or that the number plates of passing cars contain hidden messages.

You will have to do much better than Jensma to be convincing.

As long as you and Knul haven't even studied his book, how can we take you seriously?

I know you read the summary but that's not enough.

It might help you see the shortcomings of your method.

I don't need a Jensma, I will manage all on myself.

Knul asked "who is Apol?".

And I showed him and everyone Halbertsma had a dog called "Apol", and that was in 1821.

Jensma doesn't think much of people who get their info by Googling, I know.

But maybe that's just because he doesn't know how to Google.

And I DO know how.

My respect for a Jensma is thin as paper.

He made some errors, and I have posted about them. And so did you.

He may be a historian, but he only relies on books he can hold in his hands.

A Halbertsma would pee on him.

[Otharus]

Abramelin, on 30 November 2011 - 08:01 PM, said:

Yes, indeed: these guys from the 19th century were no fools.

When the OLB was intensely discussed in the first decade of its publication, there were still many people who had known Halbertsma, his work and his passions very well.

Your theory is that he wrote it for his own amusement, as an exercise.

If that were so, why would he have kept this activity, that must have cost him a lot of time and deep research, a total secret to all of his colleagues, friends and relatives?

And I ask again:
Why did he not include his most beloved Hindelopen in it?
Why did he use KERDEL, while not mentioning this version in his publication about churl/tjzerl?

Ah, I understand! That was the work of Stadermann and Over de Linden...  

[Otharus]

Abramelin, on 30 November 2011 - 08:51 PM, said:

He made some errors, and I have posted about them. And so did you.

But I studied his book and you did not.

You don't know what you're babbling about.

His work is still superior with great distance to that of you and Knul together.

Edited by Otharus, 30 November 2011 - 09:12 PM.

[Abramelin]

Otharus, on 30 November 2011 - 08:52 PM, said:

When the OLB was intensely discussed in the first decade of its publication, there were still many people who had known Halbertsma, his work and his passions very well.

Your theory is that he wrote it for his own amusement, as an exercise.

If that were so, why would he have kept this activity, that must have cost him a lot of time and deep research, a total secret to all of his colleagues, friends and relatives?

And I ask again:
Why did he not include his most beloved Hindelopen in it?
Why did he use KERDEL, while not mentioning this version in his publication about churl/tjzerl?

Ah, I understand! That was the work of Stadermann and Over de Linden...  

Otharus, I have neighbours who bother me no end.

I found a source, an old (Frisian) source that mentioned "kerdel", but I saved it on Notepad, and then closed it (without saving it) when my beloved neighbours started banging at my door.

I am not lying: "kerdel" is a real word.

And why did he not use Hindelopen??

Why did he not use Wangerooge or Rüstringen? Or Oldenburg? Or Saterland? He visited these places and did extensive research there, and recorded their myths and stories and dialect.

What are you asking? Maybe he should have added his full name into to OLB?

[Abramelin]

Otharus, on 30 November 2011 - 09:02 PM, said:

But I studied his book and you did not.

You don't know what you're babling about.

His work is still superior with great distance to that of you and Knul together.

Nah, I read in a newspaper article that he didn't think much of Knul's research because he ASSUMED Knul got all the info just by Googling.

And we now both know that Knul is not ca..  of finding info by nothing but Googling. Knul actually visited archives, using the books and manuscripts he found there.

Jensma is an arrogant prick, a professor who thinks he knows it all because he did research for 4 years. And he's not a linguist, as you and I both found out. He is a historian, and apparently not very knowledgable concerning the internet.

Well, damn, so did Alewyn, research for years. Despite the fact that Alewyn and I tend to rub eachother the wrong way every time, I do respect the fact that he did his research all on his own. And what did Jensma write to him? A very 'polite' respons to Alewyn's email. I didn't even tell Alewyn because he is convinced I have some kind of 'agenda', but that email sucked.

And still, I don't agree with the both of them.

Edited by Abramelin, 30 November 2011 - 09:25 PM.

[Otharus]

Abramelin, on 30 November 2011 - 09:02 PM, said:

I am not lying: "kerdel" is a real word.

I know, but Halbertsma apparently didn't, and yet it is used in the manuscript.

Quote

And why did he not use Hindelopen??
What are you asking? Maybe he should have added his full name into to OLB?

It IS relevant, because according to your and Knul's logic the OLB is a reflection of Halbertsma's passions and obsessions.

You keep finding new ones that fit, but the ones that are NOT included in the OLB, you simply ignore.

Hindelopen was demonstrably one of his favorites, and if he wrote it for his own pleasure, he would surely have included it.

Great fantastic etymologies can be made to it...

[Abramelin]

Otharus, I really would like it if a Jensma, or an Olivier van Renswoude ("Taaldacht" site) would dare to show up here.

My behaviour is not the real problem - Jensma is a professor teaching guys and girls of like 20 years old, what you think he has to deal with every day? - the problem is that they do not want to burn their hands.

Van Renswoude is reading this thread, you can bet on it.

[Abramelin]

Otharus, on 30 November 2011 - 09:22 PM, said:

I know, but Halbertsma apparently didn't, and yet it is used in the manuscript.


It IS relevant, because according to your and Knul's logic the OLB is a reflection of Halbertsma's passions and obsessions.

You keep finding new ones that fit, but the ones that are NOT included in the OLB, you simply ignore.

Hindelopen was demonstrably one of his favorites, and if he wrote it for his own pleasure, he would surely have included it.

Great fantastic etymologies can be made to it...

Man, so he left out "Hindelopen", so what?

He must have added lots of his other favorites.

Never mind his dog "Apol".

Have you ever found a reference to an "Apol" in connection with anything Frisian or OLB?

I did: it was Halbertsma's dog.

And he used his dog to tease his pompous collegues (vicars).

++++

EDIT:

No problem, here it is again:

Maar vooreerst genoeg over de prediker, die lak had aan de deftigheid
van zijn hervormde collega's in toga, en die volgens de verhalen zijn hond
Apol, met een bef voor, de straat opjoeg om daarvan blijk te geven. Dit
speelde zich af in de stad, waarheen hij in 1821 was beroepen en waar hij was
gearriveerd om er tot zijn dood toe te blijven

==

But for now enough about the preacher who didn't give a damn about the pompous behaviour of his reformed collegues in their gowns, and who according to stories chased his dog Apol out on the streets with a pair of starched bands around its neck to demonstrate his dislike. This occurred in 1821 in the city to which he was called and where he would stay until his death.

http://www.historisc...B4D78F/0/07.pdf

This is an example of how his 'collegues' were dressed back then:


http://collectie.mus...d/66444-A_1.jpg

.

Edited by Abramelin, 30 November 2011 - 10:31 PM.