Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 12
Riaan

[Archived]Oera Linda Book and the Great Flood

11,638 posts in this topic

Another far-fetched translation by Goffe Jensma (2006):

[006/28]

RING AS HJA RIP WÉRON KRÉJON HJA

FRÜCHDA ÀND NOCHTA ANDA DRÁMA.

Jensma:

"Zo rap als ze rijp waren, kregen ze

vreugde en genoten in Wralda's extase."

In English:

"As soon as they were ripe, they got

joy and (had) pleasure in Wralda's extacy."

We already saw that adding "Wralda's" was a mistake, because the word belongs to the next sentence.

But why translate DRÁMA with "extacy"? In other fragments it also clearly means "dream(s)":

[012/24]

... TILTHJU HJA THÉROF DRÁME THES NACHTIS

=> verb "to dream"

[203/01]

... WÉRON FRYAS SJVGUN WÁKFÁMKES HJA ANDA DRÁME FORSKINNEN

=> expression "in the (their) dreams"

Edited by Otharus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another far-fetched translation by Goffe Jensma (2006):

[006/28]

RING AS HJA RIP WÉRON KRÉJON HJA

FRÜCHDA ÀND NOCHTA ANDA DRÁMA.

Jensma:

"Zo rap als ze rijp waren, kregen ze

vreugde en genoten in Wralda's extase."

In English:

"As soon as they were ripe, they got

joy and (had) pleasure in Wralda's extacy."

We already saw that adding "Wralda's" was a mistake, because the word belongs to the next sentence.

But why translate DRÁMA with extacy? In other fragments it also clearly means dream(s):

[012/24]

... TIL THJU HJA THÉROF DRÁME THES NACHTIS

=> verb "to dream"

[203/01]

... WÉRON FRYAS SJVGUN WÁKFÁMKES HJA ANDA DRÁME FORSKINNEN

=> expression "in the (their) dreams"

One find the rhyme words vruchten en genuchten or vrugten en genugten in many 18th century poems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dr. J.G. Ottema, Dr. A.T. Reitsma, Prof. Dr. A.J. Vitringa and a few other scholars openly agreed with him.

Many others will have stayed silent out of fear of being ridiculed or otherwise silenced.

Dr. Eelco Verwijs probably changed his mind for that reason as he initially recognised it as true Oldfrisian too.

Haha, you mean proof like (your most important one as you claim on your site):

Halbertsma must have done it, because some of the month names in OLB resemble Old-English month names,

and Halbertsma had a fascination with Old-English. (paraphrased)

You too easily accept anything that fits your theory as proof, while you ignore anything that is in conflict with it.

Didn't you recently claim that Cornelis Over de Linden never denied he had created the manuscript himself?

Didn't you recently suggest the OLB might have been created after 1935?

On your site, you refer to many sources about the OLB (compliments for that), but you have not studied them properly.

In fact, you don't seem to know what you are babbling about.

Therefore, your judgement is not of the slightest value to me.

It is generally agreed now, that the OLB is a hoax and that the language is no more than oldfrisianized mid 19th century Dutch. I can give you dozens of exemples. Navt-to-min (niettemin) you won't accept it. I have given many more indications, that J.H. Halbertsma wrote the OLB. Not just the names of months. Again, you won't accept it. Cornelis over de Linden did not deny that he wrote the forgery (together with Stadermann). He denied in 1867 that he could understand it, but Cornelis Sipkens (the only person who has claimed to have seen the OLB before it was communicated with Verwijs) says, that he read some lines from the OLB in 1860. Can you explain that ! Why don't you answer on my question about the illiterate aunt Aafje and the Worp of Thabor manuscript ? My website shows only part of the documents I have studied because of copyright problems. Do you know which author wrote about the baker chats (bakerpraatjes), which occur in the OLB ? J.H. Halbertsma. Do you know who wrote about the sax (weapon) ? J.H. Halbertsma. Do you know who wrote about fro and wive ? E. Verwijs and again J.H. Halbertsma. Do you know who wrote about Buddha ? J.H. Halbertsma. Do you know, who wrote a similar family history about Lindenooord ? J.H. Halbertsma. I can go on like that. I invited you just to mention me one proof, that the OLB existed in the middle ages, but you keep silent. Why didn't you react on my quote of Fon alra fresena fridome ? Why didn't you react on the quotes of Descartes (cogito ergo sum) in the OLB ? Too hot ?

Edited by Knul

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another far-fetched translation by Goffe Jensma (2006):

[006/28]

RING AS HJA RIP WÉRON KRÉJON HJA

FRÜCHDA ÀND NOCHTA ANDA DRÁMA.

Jensma:

"Zo rap als ze rijp waren, kregen ze

vreugde en genoten in Wralda's extase."

In English:

"As soon as they were ripe, they got

joy and (had) pleasure in Wralda's extacy."

We already saw that adding "Wralda's" was a mistake, because the word belongs to the next sentence.

But why translate DRÁMA with "extacy"? In other fragments it also clearly means "dream(s)":

[012/24]

... TILTHJU HJA THÉROF DRÁME THES NACHTIS

=> verb "to dream"

[203/01]

... WÉRON FRYAS SJVGUN WÁKFÁMKES HJA ANDA DRÁME FORSKINNEN

=> expression "in the (their) dreams"

Why is til thju only (freuently) used in the Book of Adela-folgsters and not at all in the other books ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is til thju only (freuently) used in the Book of Adela-folgsters and not at all in the other books ?

Huh?!

ADELBROST's book:

[089/29]

TIL THJU HJA ALGADUR WÉTA

[090/19]

TIL THJU VS NÉN LÉTH WITHERFÁRA NE SKOLDE

... to give just two examples.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are absolutely right. I was mistaken.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is generally agreed now, that the OLB is a hoax and that the language is no more than oldfrisianized mid 19th century Dutch.

When a majority agrees about something doesn't make it true; more things were once generally agreed to be refuted later.

It has become clear in this dread that the arguments for the generally agreed theory are too weak.

In this forum, which is about Alternative History (as opposed to generally-agreed history), Alewyn, Puzzler and I don't agree with your "irrefutable" proof.

You'll have to try harder.

I can give you dozens of exemples. Navt-to-min (niettemin) you won't accept it.

I also explained WHY I don't accept it.

You assume these expressions are modern, but we don't know how old they are.

You think they were invented by the first one who wrote them down?

I have given many more indications, that J.H. Halbertsma wrote the OLB. Not just the names of months. Again, you won't accept it.

Again, I don't just disaccept; I always explain why.

What about this one:

It is generally agreed that Halbertsma did not do it! LOL

Cornelis over de Linden did not deny that he wrote the forgery (together with Stadermann).

Even better: he wrote in his testament that his great-grandfather had left it to his grandfather.

Do you believe he was lying to his own children and grandchildren?

He denied in 1867 that he could understand it, but Cornelis Sipkens (the only person who has claimed to have seen the OLB before it was communicated with Verwijs) says, that he read some lines from the OLB in 1860. Can you explain that!

Being able to read a few lines is not the same as understanding it.

BTW, Jensma's explanation (2004, p.354) is that Sipkens was lying about having seen the manuscript in 1860.

Why don't you answer on my question about the illiterate aunt Aafje and the Worp of Thabor manuscript?

Aafje Over de Linden (1798-1849) lived in the house that had been her father's, Andries Over de Linden (1759-1820), who was a son of book-trader Jan Over de Linden (ca.1718-1794).

Do you know which author wrote about the baker chats (bakerpraatjes), which occur in the OLB? J.H. Halbertsma.

Do you know who wrote about the sax (weapon)? J.H. Halbertsma.

Do you know who wrote about fro and wive? E. Verwijs and again J.H. Halbertsma.

Do you know who wrote about Buddha? J.H. Halbertsma.

Do you know, who wrote a similar family history about Lindenooord? J.H. Halbertsma.

I can go on like that.

Have you ever seen the movie "The Number 23" (2007)?

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0481369/

Walter Sparrow becomes obsessed with a novel that he believes was written about him.

As his obsession increases, more and more similarities seem to arise.

With your method, if I want to, I can prove Santa Claus wrote the Oera Linda book.

I invited you just to mention me one proof, that the OLB existed in the middle ages, but you keep silent.

I can't (yet).

Neither can you that it did NOT exist.

Why didn't you react on my quote of Fon alra fresena fridome?

I'm still working on part two.

The reaction I wanted to give was:

I'll be dammed! The site you copied that from is from Bouwe Brouwer, who made the Wiki lemma about the OLB and did not allow a single change, nor wanted to discuss it.

He did a good job putting these texts with translations on his site.

Why didn't you react on the quotes of Descartes (cogito ergo sum) in the OLB? Too hot?

I don't remember that post. Can you link to it or repost?

Edited by Otharus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

See Ottema pag. 142-143 for the discussion on cogito (I think) ergo sum (I am). See post 6708.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When a majority agrees about something doesn't make it true; more things were once generally agreed to be refuted later.

It has become clear in this dread that the arguments for the generally agreed theory are too weak.

In this forum, which is about Alternative History (as opposed to generally-agreed history), Alewyn, Puzzler and I don't agree with your "irrefutable" proof.

You'll have to try harder.

I also explained WHY I don't accept it.

You assume these expressions are modern, but we don't know how old they are.

You think they were invented by the first one who wrote them down?

Again, I don't just disaccept; I always explain why.

What about this one:

It is generally agreed that Halbertsma did not do it! LOL

Even better: he wrote in his testament that his great-grandfather had left it to his grandfather.

Do you believe he was lying to his own children and grandchildren?

Being able to read a few lines is not the same as understanding it.

BTW, Jensma's explanation (2004, p.354) is that Sipkens was lying about having seen the manuscript in 1860.

Aafje Over de Linden (1798-1849) lived in the house that had been her father's, Andries Over de Linden (1759-1820), who was a son of book-trader Jan Over de Linden (ca.1718-1794).

Have you ever seen the movie "The Number 23" (2007)?

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0481369/

Walter Sparrow becomes obsessed with a novel that he believes was written about him.

As his obsession increases, more and more similarities seem to arise.

With your method, if I want to, I can prove Santa Claus wrote the Oera Linda book.

I can't (yet).

Neither can you that it did NOT exist.

I'm still working on part two.

The reaction I wanted to give was:

I'll be dammed! The site you copied that from is from Bouwe Brouwer, who made the Wiki lemma about the OLB and did not allow a single change, nor wanted to discuss it.

He did a good job putting these texts with translations on his site.

I don't remember that post. Can you link to it or repost?

I think Sipkens had no reason to lie, that he had seen the manuscript. He was teacher of children of Cornelis over de Linden and was asked by Cornelis to see, if he could translate the manuscript.

Cornelis ovcer de Linden tells in the testament, that Ottema teached him the letters, which is in contradiction with the words of Sipkens. So, if Sipkens did not lie, Over de Linden lied.

Similarly over de Linden said that he received a book and told so to Verwijs, but Ottema advised him to bind the loose papers. Stadermann was a bookbinder, but he did not bind the book. Probably because he hadn't yet finished his part of the forgery, when he died.

What is your source, that it is generally agreed, that Halbertsma did not write the OLB ? Until 1978 nobody had thought of Halbertsma. I don't know about a general agreement and as far as I know the book of van der Mey has not been discussed.

I can proof, that the OLB did not yet exist in the middle ages, not just with linguistics, but with may other items like the philosophy of Descartes, the discovery of the Inca's, the introduction in Europe of Buddhism and so on.

Edited by Knul

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

See Ottema pag. 142-143 for the discussion on cogito (I think) ergo sum (I am). See post 6708.

Did you by the way look at the comments of the author of the OLB on the philosophy of Rene Descartes (cogito ergo sum)?

Descartes studied in 1629 in Franeker and lived in the Sjaerdemahuis. s. p.142 (Ottema)?

Descartes was the forerunner of modern existentialism.

I can't find it in Ottema (1876), I only have the "Project Gutenberg EBook" web-edition.

I also don't know what fragment of OLB you are referring to.

Can you be more specific?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is your source, that it is generally agreed, that Halbertsma did not write the OLB?

Until 1978 nobody had thought of Halbertsma.

I don't know about a general agreement and as far as I know the book of van der Mey has not been discussed.

My source is Jensma (2004), but "generally agreed" was too strongly put.

There are in fact, more people who like to believe he did it.

Jensma obviously does not.

Joost Halbertsma was first suspected (together with Verwijs) in 1969 by P.F.J. Obbema.

His brother Eeltje was suspected earlier, ca. 1920.

(I'll reply to the rest later, as I have to go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please see: Thet othera dêl fonre formlêr.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My source is Jensma (2004), but "generally agreed" was too strongly put.

There are in fact, more people who like to believe he did it.

Jensma obviously does not.

Joost Halbertsma was first suspected (together with Verwijs) in 1969 by P.F.J. Obbema.

His brother Eeltje was suspected earlier, ca. 1920.

(I'll reply to the rest later, as I have to go.

Obbema suspected Eelco Verwijs alone or in cooperation with Halbertsma. Verwijs was the main suspect. The suspicion of Eeltje has not been investigated. He was usually the editor and publisher of books written by Joost. I think he had a minor role in the OLB as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please see: Thet othera dêl fonre formlêr.

Where you see "comments of the author of the OLB on the philosophy of Rene Descartes", Jensma saw an attack on the philosophy (about history) from Hegel (1770-1831); The Worldghost ("Weltgeist" or "Wralda's Ghost") would find its perfection in the German nation and German intellectuals.

Some things are universal.

You'll find them in all cultures, in all times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cornelis over de Linden tells in the testament, that Ottema teached him the letters, which is in contradiction with the words of Sipkens.

So, if Sipkens did not lie, Over de Linden lied.

I don't think it has to be that black and white.

CodL may have tried to read some lines and he may have succeeded more or less.

From Ottema he will have learned to read it better.

If Sipkens said CodL read some lines, we don't know how well he did that.

Similarly over de Linden said that he received a book and told so to Verwijs, but Ottema advised him to bind the loose papers. Stadermann was a bookbinder, but he did not bind the book. Probably because he hadn't yet finished his part of the forgery, when he died.

No, a bundle of loose papers can still be called a book, bound or not.

I can proof, that the OLB did not yet exist in the middle ages, not just with linguistics, but with may other items like the philosophy of Descartes, the discovery of the Inca's, the introduction in Europe of Buddhism, and so on.

Your 'clue' to Descartes I have already dealt with.

I don't see why "INKA" can not have been a pre-Medieval name.

There are more pre-Medieval texts in which BUDA is mentioned.

A Buddha statue was found in a Viking grave.

~ ~ ~

I'll try to have a break from 'discussing' with you, Knul.

I feel like I wasted too much time today.

No hard feelings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The trustee of the manuscript (Reuvers) teaches his son-in-law (R. Kofman), who moves into the family house, the secrets of the book. But then, shortly after Reuvers dies (1845), the cousin who desperately wants the manuscript, because he has heard something about it, starts to try and get hold of it. First (1845), he fails and goes back empty handed, maybe because he was mislead to believe his mother (Anna) had it. A few years later (1848) he comes back and now manages to take it by force or maybe even steal it.

Today, November 23, in the Westfrisian daily newspaper (Dagblad voor West-Friesland), an photo was published from the family of Trijntje Kofman and Andries Zwaan.

The brother of Trijntje, Hein (Hendrik Kofman) would have claimed that Cornelis Over de Linden had stolen the OLB from his parents, Cornelia Reuvers and Rijkent Kofman, who were living in the house of Cornelis' aunt, Aafje Over de Linden (1798-1849).

kofmanzwaan.jpg

Simplified genealogy fragment Over de Linden/Kofman

(source: http://fryskednis.blogspot.com/2011/04/over-de-linden-genealogy.html)

(I) Andries OVER DE LINDEN (1759-1820) carpenter, grandfather of Cornelis and keeper of the manuscript (according to Cornelis);

married 1782 to IJfje SCHOLS (1762-1820)

children:

1) Pieter (1782-1819)

2) Jan (1785-1835), father of Cornelis

3) Trijntje (1791-?)

4) Antjen (1795-1882)

5) Aafje (1798-1849) ==>> see (II)

(II) Aafje OVER DE LINDEN (1798-1849) dealer in used goods, aunt of Cornelis, living in the house of her parents, keeper of the manuscript together with her husband (according to Cornelis);

married (1st) 1821 to Hendrik REUVERS (1796-1845) son of Cornelia Brouwer and unknown father, assistant of cheese trader/labourer;

married (2nd) 1846 to Koop MEIJLOF

children, both accepted at marriage:

1) Cornelia (1818-1878) ==>> see (III)

2) Andries (1820-?)

(III) Cornelia REUVERS (1818-1878) cousin of Cornelis, living in the house of her parents;

married 1838 to Rijkent KOFMAN (1820-1861), carpenter

children:

1) Trijntje (1839-1912) ==>> see (IV)

2) Jacob (1843-) leader of "Apostolic Mission Community"

3) Hendrik (1853-) frontrunner of socialist movement

4) Wiggertje (1857-?)

(IV) Trijntje KOFMAN (1839-1912)

married 2-12-1858 Andijk to:

Andries ZWAAN (1830-1909) landfarmer

children:

1) Hendrik (1859-1919)

2) Rijkent (1860-1954)

3) Klaas (1862-1922)

4) Cornelia (1863-1924)

5) Teetje (1865-1919

6) Aafje (1867-1941)

7) Andries (1870-1945)

8) Jacob (1873-1937)

9) Roelof (1875-?)

10) Piet (1877-1935)

11) Willem (1882-?)

Edited by Otharus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you are saying it is lies, lies, all lies; the Oera Linda Book, the letters, the sworn statements, the essays, the investigations (like E. Molenaar's) etc., etc.

Many of these people were not even Over de Lindes, yet they actively supported the hoax to create this glorious past for the Oera Lindas, or for Friesland, or whatever and, they had no profit motive.

Oh, and before I forget, they were all, what we would call today, working class or blue collared workers and yet, they worked hand in glove with brilliant guys like Dr. Halbertsma. What makes their feat even more remarkable is that nobody could ever crack this extended band of cheats or, shall we say, this brotherhood. Not a single one ever leaked a word of this conspiracy. They even fooled the best linguist in the Netherlands of the time - Dr. Ottema. Truly remarkable!

Of course, we do not have any evidence of this but, who cares? It makes perfect sense.

From what I read about Halbertsma's travels through the Frisian country side, in east and west, the islands and Saterland, he - being brilliant and a professor and all that - he had no problems taking peasants and blue collar workers seriously when he questioned them about sagas, legends, fairy tales and their dialect.

But my idea about what happened is different from Knul's and Jensma's ideas.

Like I have said, I think Halbertsma created an alternative ancient Frisian history based on all he knew about legends and myths, and used a Old Frisian-ish language to put the story down. But he did it for his own amusement, not to publish it, not to fool anyone, just for his own fun.

Then some acquaintence or friend got hold of what Halbertsma had written, and either copied it or maybe even stole it, or simply asked Halbertsma if he could have it. In that last case Halbertsma would not have seen any harm in giving those texts away. Halbertsma died before the OLB was published, btw.

I don't think a Halbertsma created the OLB script, and I also think others added to his original text.

A Cornelis over de Linden may have been busy creating an 'ancient family chronicle' for decades, maybe initially as nothing but a 'hobby' (or maybe he did have some agenda), but got stuck at some point because of lack of inspiration and/or the necessary knowledge of the preferred language and ancient legends and history.

Those initial texts - that is: not the final manuscript as we know of now - were the texts witnessed by some others.

Then he somehow got hold of Halbertsma's creation, and used that to complete - or completely rearrange - his own work. His - or someone else's - additions were the source of confusion: how could this or that word show up in that ancient text? Well, that's because he - or someone else - lacked the necessary knowledge, and so anachronisms (and errors) showed up in the OLB.

.

Edited by Abramelin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Something nice to study in the context of this threat:

Carta_Marina.jpeg

Man, that's a beautifull map.

I saved it, and let's see what we can find on that map.

.

Edited by Abramelin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

< skip >

I can proof, that the OLB did not yet exist in the middle ages, not just with linguistics, but with may other items like the philosophy of Descartes, the discovery of the Inca's, the introduction in Europe of Buddhism and so on.

The only thing the OLB says is that when Nef Teunis entered the Middle Sea, Inka went into the other direction to find out if there was anything left of Aldland.

Of course half the world thought that would mean that this guy "Inka" settled in the Americas and was responsible for the Inca civilization, conveniently forgetting that if that was what really happened, he had to travel through the largest jungle on earth and finally settle down somewhere in the Andes.

And let's also forget that the Incas were late-comers on the stage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Twiskland is the middle part of the present Germany, north lived Saxons. south the Alemans (French: Allemagne). Twiskland is where is now the Teutenburger Wald. So the Twiskar were Teutons, etym. *tuisk-, which is not the same as twisk= between.

As I have shown you (read former pages) the word "Twisk" obviously served 2 purposes: either as name for the Teutons, and to mean "in between".

Tuisco was - according to Tacitus - the supreme god of the Germanic tribes.

Twisk means "between" or "in between" in Frisian. In old fashioned Dutch it would be "tusschen".

Combine the two and you get a land with a name - Twiskland - meaning something like 'Land of the Germans/Teutons located between the Fryans and Magyar/Finda"

A reminder:

Tuiscon.jpg

Edited by Abramelin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From what I read about Halbertsma's travels through the Frisian country side, in east and west, the islands and Saterland, he - being brilliant and a professor and all that - he had no problems taking peasants and blue collar workers seriously when he questioned them about sagas, legends, fairy tales and their dialect.

But my idea about what happened is different from Knul's and Jensma's ideas.

Like I have said, I think Halbertsma created an alternative ancient Frisian history based on all he knew about legends and myths, and used a Old Frisian-ish language to put the story down. But he did it for his own amusement, not to publish it, not to fool anyone, just for his own fun.

Then some acquaintence or friend got hold of what Halbertsma had written, and either copied it or maybe even stole it, or simply asked Halbertsma if he could have it. In that last case Halbertsma would not have seen any harm in giving those texts away. Halbertsma died before the OLB was published, btw.

I don't think a Halbertsma created the OLB script, and I also think others added to his original text.

A Cornelis over de Linden may have been busy creating an 'ancient family chronicle' for decades, maybe initially as nothing but a 'hobby' (or maybe he did have some agenda), but got stuck at some point because of lack of inspiration and/or the necessary knowledge of the preferred language and ancient legends and history.

Those initial texts - that is: not the final manuscript as we know of now - were the texts witnessed by some others.

Then he somehow got hold of Halbertsma's creation, and used that to complete - or completely rearrange - his own work. His - or someone else's - additions were the source of confusion: how could this or that word show up in that ancient text? Well, that's because he - or someone else - lacked the necessary knowledge, and so anachronisms (and errors) showed up in the OLB.

.

1. The jol-script forms an integral part of the text of the OLB and cannot be added later as you can see at the description, the reference of Godfried for having created the numerals and the contiuous page numbering.

2. The initial text has been prepared for the printer as you can see at the 'snakes', remarks in the left marge and dots within words.

3. You said earlier, that you did not believe, that Halbertsma wrote the OLB because of the poor Oldfrisian. Even if he did not want to publish it, he would not have done so. Did you change your mind ?

4. Witness reports speak about strange letters.

5. Anachronisms have been included by the author himself, like the birth of Minnos in Livdwert, where he died also, the meeting between Jessos and a Frisian slave, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I have shown you (read former pages) the word "Twisk" obviously served 2 purposes: either as name for the Teutons, and to mean "in between".

Tuisco was - according to Tacitus - the supreme god of the Germanic tribes.

Twisk means "between" or "in between" in Frisian. In old fashioned Dutch it would be "tusschen".

Combine the two and you get a land with a name - Twiskland - meaning something like 'Land of the Germans/Teutons located between the Fryans and Magyar/Finda"

A reminder:

Tuiscon.jpg

Just be accident or an explanation like alemanen - just men.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only thing the OLB says is that when Nef Teunis entered the Middle Sea, Inka went into the other direction to find out if there was anything left of Aldland.

Of course half the world thought that would mean that this guy "Inka" settled in the Americas and was responsible for the Inca civilization, conveniently forgetting that if that was what really happened, he had to travel through the largest jungle on earth and finally settle down somewhere in the Andes.

And let's also forget that the Incas were late-comers on the stage.

It's what Jensma brought in. There is a place called Inca on Mallorca as well s. http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inca_(Mallorca)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think it has to be that black and white.

CodL may have tried to read some lines and he may have succeeded more or less.

From Ottema he will have learned to read it better.

If Sipkens said CodL read some lines, we don't know how well he did that.

No, a bundle of loose papers can still be called a book, bound or not.

Your 'clue' to Descartes I have already dealt with.

I don't see why "INKA" can not have been a pre-Medieval name.

There are more pre-Medieval texts in which BUDA is mentioned.

A Buddha statue was found in a Viking grave.

~ ~ ~

I'll try to have a break from 'discussing' with you, Knul.

I feel like I wasted too much time today.

No hard feelings.

You are right, it's a waste of time. You simply do not accept any evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 12

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.