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

Yes, that would be great.

I will invite the paper-research group too, including dr. Jensma.

Let's work on summarizing our theory, whoever has one.

Are they all invited to play a role in that movie you are going to produce??

==

Summarize our theory... Now that won't be easy as things are still developing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Before I continue with other things, I will post some translated fragments from "Het Geheim van het Oera-Linda-Boek" (the secret of the OLB) by Murk de Jong (1927).

Page 34, a quote from F. Binkes in "De Vrije Fries" (the free Frisian) #1 (1839):

"There are two kinds of people, that are most harmful for the practice of history: those who believe everything and those who believe nothing. The first present us anything they find, without sifting, ripe and green, plausible and improbable; but the second reject anything that at their own first sight seems to have no historical certainty. They cut all this out with a so-called skeptical trimming knife, that is often very blunt, or used very awkwardly by them."

To this M. de Jong adds the following comment:

The author [binkes] does not hesitate to declare, that the unbelievers have harmed old Frisian history infinitely more than the naive believers.

On the same page dr. de Jong gives a similar quote from J.H. Halbertsma in "De Vrije Fries" #11 (1868):

"Frisian history to her great misfortune has mostly fallen in the hands of ultras, who either rigorously rejected the old sagas as worthless fiction, or accepted them as historical truth".

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Edit to add:

Before having read any of the above quotes, I had put the following on my blog (Fryskednis):

Beware of two common mistakes:

- some is true, so all is true

- some is false, so all is false

Edited by Otharus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are they all invited to play a role in that movie you are going to produce??

Maybe.

For now I'm thinking about a selection of short films, from docu-style items to staged scenes from the book.

Summarize our theory... Now that won't be easy as things are still developing.

For me it's good to have a deadline to at least report my current views.

A theory should never be final. May various searchers and thinkers inspire eachother.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Around the beginning of this year we have been discussing about a possible connection between the 2194 BC date in the OLB and astronomical/astrological constellations and alignments:

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=184645&st=9225

My idea had been that someone in the 19th century with knowledge of Biblical chronology and of nautical/astronomical and/or astrological calculations had tried to fabricate a date in the past that was based on some special planetary alignment with certain stars (and maybe a comet like Halley's Comet).

A couple of times the constellation of Taurus showed up in connection with this idea.

OK, apparently someone else has the same idea, although he really thinks that a certain planetary alignment CAN cause disasters:

French:

LA SUBMERSION DE L'ALDLAND EN -2193

Je dois à Monsieur Pascal Flament la très intéressante remarque suivante : "Dans l'Oera Linda Boek, la date de -2193 pour la submersion de l'Aldland me paraît tout à fait correcte scientifiquement parlant. Avec un simple logiciel de calcul d'éphémérides, on peut visualiser l'emplacement des astres en -2193. On remarque un alignement des planètes du système solaire (sauf Neptune), ainsi que de la Lune, des étoiles Aldébaran et Antarès. Il est scientifiquement démontré qu'un tel alignement de planètes peut provoquer des catastrophes naturelles (par exemple, le simple alignement de Jupiter et Saturne avec le Soleil en 2003 a provoqué une nette augmentation de l'intensité des activités du Soleil, une éruption solaire record a même été constatée, qui, par chance, s'est produite du côté opposé à la Terre). Il y eut également un alignement de planètes en -1193, mais moins important que celui de -2193 et la Terre n'y figurait pas. Je reste donc de l'avis de l'OLB.

Ce qui me surprend est que l'alignement des planètes en -2193 s'est déroulé dans la période du Jol. Cette période était peut-être célébrée par nos ancêtres en souvenir des cataclysmes de cette époque (ou plutôt du fait d'y avoir survécu)."

http://home.nordnet.fr/~jacfermaut/pointdevueheemstra02.html

English:

THE FLOODING OF ALDLAND IN -2193

I owe to Mr. Pascal Flament the very interesting remark: "In the Oera Linda Boek, the date -2193 for the flooding of Aldland seems quite correct scientifically speaking. Using simple software for ephemeric calculations , one can visualize the location of the stars in -2193. One will note an alignment of the planets of the solar system (except Neptune), and the moon, with the stars Aldebaran and Antares**. It is scientifically proven that such an alignment of planets can cause natural disasters (eg, the simple alignment of Jupiter and Saturn with the Sun in 2003 caused a marked increase in the intensity of activity of the Sun, a solar eruption record was even noticed, which, luckily, was produced on the side of the sun away from the Earth). There was also an alignment of planets in -1193, but less important than -2193 and Earth was not among them. I agree with the date in the OLB.

What surprises me is that the alignment of planets occurred in -2193 during Jol time. This period was perhaps celebrated by our ancestors in remembrance of the disasters of that time (or rather the fact of having survived)."

[** Aldebaran and Antares are 2 of the brightests stars near the ecliptic and opposite eachother on that eclipitic, with Aldebaran in Taurus and Antares in Scorpio]

(I found out about this person through this site: http://eden-saga.com/en/3200-dutch-mythology-true-or-fake-book-over-de-linden-family-oera-linda-boek.html )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another fragment from "Het Geheim van het Oera-Linda-Boek" (the secret of the OLB) by Murk de Jong (1927).

Page 74:

The only megalithic tomb ['hunebed'] of Friesland, that - as a memory of the Stone Age - would be much older than Adela, on the Van Swinderen estate in Rijs (Gaasterland), was destroyed immediately after its discovery in 1849, even before the archaeologist Dr. Jansen had heard about it.

And (paraphrased):

Dr. J.H. Halbertsma explained the phenomenon, that in Friesland so little antiquities are found:

The glory-addiction, that results in erecting monuments for oneself and others, was unknown to the sober and solid nature of the Frisians, as they chose to BE great, rather than APPEAR great.

Edited by Otharus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another fragment from "Het Geheim van het Oera-Linda-Boek" (the secret of the OLB) by Murk de Jong (1927).

Page 74:

The only megalithic tomb ['hunebed'] of Friesland, that - as a memory of the Stone Age - would be much older than Adela, on the Van Swinderen estate in Rijs (Gaasterland), was destroyed immediately after its discovery in 1849, even before the archaeologist Dr. Jansen had heard about it.

And (paraphrased):

Dr. J.H. Halbertsma explained the phenomenon, that in Friesland so little antiquities are found:

The glory-addiction, that results in erecting monuments for oneself and others, was unknown to the sober and solid nature of the Frisians, as they chose to BE great, rather than APPEAR great.

The Dutch province of Friesland was only a tiny part of the area covered by the socalled "Fryan empire" of the OLB, or a small part of the historical "Magna Frisia/Frisionum" of the early middle ages.

post-18246-0-75149300-1331575232_thumb.p

Dutch:

De hunebedden in Nederland zijn gebouwd in de nieuwe steentijd, het Neolithicum, van 3450 tot circa 3250 v.Chr., maar ze zijn gebruikt tot circa 2850 v.Chr.

Van de 54 hunebedden die men nu nog kan zien in Nederland staan er 52 in de provincie Drenthe. De andere twee staan in de provincie Groningen: één bij Noordlaren, enkele meters over de grens met Drenthe, de andere in een museum in Delfzijl. Deze laatste werd in de jaren '80 van de twintigste eeuw gevonden bij een opgraving in Heveskesklooster.

http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunebed

English:

The dolmens in the Netherlands ("hunebed") were built during the New Stone Age or the Neolithic, from 3450 to around 3250 BC., But they're still being used to around 2850 BC.

Of the 54 dolmens that can still be seen in the Netherlands there are 52 in the province of Drenthe. The other two are in the province of Groningen: one at Noordlaren, a few meters across the border from Drenthe, the other in a museum in Delfzijl. The latter was found in the 80s of the twentieth century at an excavation in Heveskesklooster.

+++++++

EDIT:

post-18246-0-16360100-1331575167_thumb.j

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b3/Denghoog_01.jpg

There is evidence of human habitation going back to 3000 BC at Denghoog

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

Denghoog is an ancient monument dating from 3000 BC near Wenningstedt-Braderup on the German Island of Sylt.

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

In the Nordfriesland (North Frisia) region of the German province of Schleswig-Holstein, there are 10,000[2] North Frisian speakers. While many of these Frisians live on the mainland, most are found on the islands, notably Sylt, Föhr, Amrum, and Heligoland. The local corresponding North Frisian dialects are still in use.

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

And mind you: many of these dates may antedate the 2194 BC date in the OLB with many ages, but in the OLB we can read an extensive description of the Fryan area of BEFORE 2194 BC. So a date like 3000 BC or 2850 BC should fall within the era they were supposed to rule Europe.

Do we read anything about these 'Fryans' constructing dolmens? No, not one word.

And other megalithic structures were still being built all over Europe long after 2194 BC. Do we read anything about that in the OLB? Again, not one word.

Only an extensive description of how a 'citadel' looked like, a structure no one ever found a single brick or stone of.

.

Edited by Abramelin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The glory-addiction, that results in erecting monuments for oneself and others, was unknown to the sober and solid nature of the Frisians, as they chose to BE great, rather than APPEAR great.[/i]

In 1833 the Frisians erected a 'pyramid' at the "Opstalboom", a ceremonial artificial mound (a place for Frisian jurisdiction).

But that was just a rather tiny thing.

Halbertsma wanted something 'greater' (he wasn't called "Mister Fryslan" for nothing, right?) and he and his 'compatriots' concocted a history people have been discussing for more than 150 years now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The language of the OLB is either an ancestor of English, Dutch, German and Swedish,

or an inconceivably good reconstruction of it.

The following is just a reading (ex)sample to demonstrate this.

Letter of copyist Hidde Oera Linda to his son Okke (first unnumbered page of OLB):

OKKE MIN1 SVN2.

THISSA3 BOKA4 MOT5 I MITH6 LIF7 ÀND8 SÉLE9 WÁRJA10.

SE VMBIFATTATH THJU SKÉDNISSE FON VS ÉLE FOLK11

ÁK FON VSA ÉTHLUM.

VRLÉDEN JÉR12 HÀB IK13 THAM UT14.ER FLOD15 HRED

TOLIK MITH THI ÀND THINRA MODER16.

THA HJA WÉRON WET WRDEN.

THÉRTHRVCH GVNGON HJA ÀFTERNEI VRDARVA.

VMBE HJA NAVT TO VRLYSA

HÀB IK RA VP WRLANDISK PAMPÍER17 VVRSKRÉVEN.

SAHWERSA THV SE ERVE.

MOT THU SE ÁK WRSKRÍVA.

THIN BÀRN ALSA TILTHJU HJA NIMMERTHE WÉI NAVT NE KVMA.

SKRÉVVEN TO LJUWERT.

NÉI ÁTLAND SVNKEN IS.

THÀT THRJA18 THÚSOND19.FJVWER20 HVNDRED21 ÀND NJUGON22 ÀND FJVWERTIGOSTE JÉR.

THÀT IS NEI KERSTEN RÉKNONG

THAT TVELF23.HVNDRED.SEX24 ÀND FIFTIGOSTE JÉR. ~

HIDDE TOBINOMATH25 OERA LINDA. ~

WÁK26. ~

e = english

d = dutch

g = german

s = swedish

1MIN - e My/ Mine, d Mijn, g Mein, s Min

2SVN - e Son, d Zoon, g Sohn, s Son

3THISSA - e These, d Deze, g Diese, s Detta

4 plural of BOK - e Book, d Boek, f , g Buch, s Bok

5MOT - e Must, d Moet, g Muss, s Måst

6MITH - e With, d Met, g Mit, s Med

7LIF - e Life, d Lijf/ Leven, g Leib/ Leben, s Liv

8ÀND - e And, d En, g Und, s Och

9SÉLE - e Soul, d Ziel, g Seele, s Själ

10WÁRJA - e Beware, d Bewaren, g Bewahren, s Bevara

11FOLK - e Folk, d Volk, g Volk, s Folk

12JÉR - e Year, d Jaar, g Jahr, s År

13IK - e I, d Ik, g Ich, s Jag

14UT - e Out, d Uit, g Aus, s Ut

15FLOD - e Flood, d Vloed, g Flut, s Flod

16MODER - e Mother, d Moeder, g Mutter, s Mor

17PAMPÍER - e Paper, d Papier, g Papier, s Papper

18THRJA - e Three, d Drie, g Drei, s Tre

19THÚSOND - e Thousand, d Duizend, g Tausend, s Tusen

20FJVWER - e Four, d Vier, g Vier, s Fyra

21HVNDRED - e Hundred, d Honderd, g Hundert, s Hundra

22NJUGON - e Nine, d Negen, g Neun, s Nio

23TVELF - e Twelve, d Twaalf, g Zwölf, s Tolv

24SEX - e Six, d Zes, g Sechs, s Sex

25NOMA - e Name, d Naam, g Nahme, s Namn

26WÁK - e Wake/ Watch, d Waak/ Wacht, g Wache, s Vak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some agreements and differences between OLB and known Frisian myths, sagas or legends.

(based on p.145-150 of "Het Geheim van het Oera-Linda-Boek" by M. de Jong, 1927)

1.

Myth: Friso arrived in 313 BC (Scarlensis: 299 BC), marking the start of Frisian history.

OLB: [p.119] He arrived in 303 BC, ca. 1900 years after oldest described historical event (big flood).

2.

Myth: Friso arrived in a desolate, uninhabited land.

OLB: He returned in a land that had suffered much of a flood, but still had inhabitants and cities, as well as a high culture.

3.

Myth: Friso was a prince from India.

OLB: [p.74] Friso was a descendant from a Fryan colony in Athens that had resettled in India ca. 1550 BC.

4.

Myth: Friso had two brothers, Saxo and Bruno.

OLB: Friso had two brothers-in-law, Hetto and Bruno. The 'Saxmen' were much older than Friso.

5.

Myth: Bruno is founder of Brunswijk.

OLB: [p.151] Bruno goes to 'Mannagarda-wrda', Munster according to Ottema (Medieval name: 'Minnegarte-wrta').

6.

Myth: Hetto is a son of Friso.

OLB: [p.150] Hetto (meaning: the hot one) is a brother-in-law and goes to 'Kattaburch' (Kassel) in the Saxmarks, which suggests an etymology for 'Hessen'.

7.

Myth: Friso had served in the army of Alexander the Great.

OLB: [p.125] He also served under Demetrius (son of Antigonus), who kidnapped his son and daughter. Friso remarried in Stavia.

8.

Myth: Friso was a great king and primal father of the Frisians.

OLB: [p.145] He was kind of an usurper, hostile towards the ancient polity of matriarchs and burgladies. He tried to win followers with gold and did not allow that a new Mother was chosen [p.151-153]. He tried to connect with one of the oldest and noblest clans, the Oera-Lindas or Adelinga, by having his youngest daughter Konrnhélja marry Háchgána, son of Wiljo and Fréthorik, brother of Koneréd Oera Linda [p.146]. To please the Oera Lindas he also named his son (from his new wife Swéthirte) 'Adel'. Friso did NOT become king [p.154].

9.

Myth: Friso's father was named 'Adel', king of 'Phresia' or 'Pharrosia' (at Ganges river), and some of the later kings after Friso (his descendants) were named 'Adel'. One of his granddaughters was named 'Adela'.

OLB: Inspired by the 'book of Adelinga', Friso named his son 'Adel' (see 8.).

10.

Myth: Adel (son of Friso) married Swob, daughter of the Sueban king.

OLB: [p.155] Adel (son of Friso) married Jfkja (nicknamed Svôbene) from Svôbaland.

11.

Myth: Another son of Friso was named 'Vitho' or 'Jotho'. He married the daughter of the Cimbrian king and became principal of Jutland (suggesting that Jutland was named after him). In Frisian myth, the Cimbrian king and his daughter had different names than in OLB.

OLB: [p.150] In OLB he is named just 'Witto' (the white). He saved 'Sjuchtherte', daughter of 'Wilhim' (principal of the Juttar) from the Sélanders, became her husband and the successor of her father.

12.

Myth: Friso had one wife only, named Hilla, from Asian descent. They had seven sons and one daughter, being the youngest. The daughter was named 'Vimoda' ('weemoed' means melancholy), because her mother had died at giving birth.

OLB: Friso remarried with the Fryan 'Swéthirte', daughter of 'Wilfréthe' (gréva of Staveren). They had two sons and two daughters. The oldest daughter was named 'Wémod'; she married 'Kavch', son of 'Wichhirte', king of the Gértmànna [p.146]. Her name suggests the origin of the area Wimodia or Vigmodia in lower-Elbe. The name Kauch suggests an origin for the name of the Kauchen or Chauken tribe in East-Friesland.

13.

Myth: The successors of Friso's son Adel were 'Ubbo' (namegiver of the Ubii), and 'Asinga Ascon', who was in his 71st reigning year in the year zero.

OLB: The four successors of Friso were all named 'Adel'; the fourth was nicknamed 'Black Adel' or 'Asega Askar' (which in the OLB language means something like claimant of the law) [p.195].

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems that Dr. Peiser also read the OLB:

http://www.sis-group.org.uk/abstract/peiser.htm

Layers around the World: Archaeological Evidence and Methodological Problems

Abstract of talk by Benny J Peiser. Liverpool John Moores University, School of Human Sciences, Byrom Street, Liverpool L3 3AF, UK. e-mail: B.J.Peiser[at]livjm.ac.uk

Presented at the SIS Conference: Natural Catastrophes during Bronze Age Civilisations (11th-13th July 1997)

During the last two decades, researchers have found evidence for abrupt climate change and civilisation collapse as well as sudden sea level changes, catastrophic inundations, widespread seismic activity and abrupt changes in glacial features at around 2200±200 BC. Climatological proxy data together with sudden changes in lacustrine, fluvial and aeolian deposits are clearly detectable at the Atlantic-Subboreal boundary in the archaeological, geological and dendrochronological records from around the world. A survey of ~500 excavation reports, research papers and scientific abstracts on late 3rd Millennium BC civilisation collapse and climate change was carried out in order to assess i) the nature, ii) the extent and iii) the chronology of sudden climatic and social downturns at this particular chronozone. This comparative study shows a significant pattern of abrupt glacial, eustatic, lacustrine, fluvial, pedological and geomorphic changes at around 4250±250 cal BP in many areas around the world. In addition, the majority of sites and cities (>1000) of the first urban civilisations in Asia, Africa and Europe appear to have collapsed at around the same time. Most sites in Greece (~260), Anatolia (~350), the Levant (~200), Mesopotamia (~30), the Indian subcontinent (~230), China (~20), Persia/Afghanistan (~50), Iberia (~70) which collapsed at around 2200±200 BC, exhibit unambiguous signs of natural calamities and/or rapid abandonment. The proxy data detected in the marine, terrestrial, biological and archaeological records point to sudden ecological, climatic and social upheavals which appears to coincide with simultaneous sea- and lake level changes, increased levels of seismic activity and widespread flood/tsunami disasters. The main problem in interconnecting this vast amount of data chronologically is the application of incoherent and imprecise dating methods in different areas of geological and climatological research. It is hypothesised that the globally detected evidence for sudden downturns at the Atlantic-Subboreal boundary is chronologically interconnected and that chronological diviations are mainly due to imprecise dating methods. Neither a seismic nor a climatic explanation for these significant natural and social disasters appear capable to account for the diversity of ecological alterations and great variety of damage features as well as the global extent of these events. Extra-terrestrial bodies, on the other hand, depending on their cometary constitution and their cohesive strength, can have catastrophic effects on the ecological system in a variety of patterns which match the glaciological, geological and archaeological features documented in this study.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems that Dr. Peiser also read the OLB:

http://www.sis-group.org.uk/abstract/peiser.htm

I bet he did (read what one of the other members of that same society, Phillip Clapham, wrote):

◦Letters: Saturn and the Primordial Light, by Paul Standring; Comalcalco and Olmec Heads, by David Eccott; Hatshepsut, the Queen of Sheba and Solomon, by Bert Fiddelaers; Mars, by John Ackerman; Millennial Madness, by Derel Briarley; Oera Linda again, by Phillip Clapham; Year counts in the Divided Monarchy, by Michael G. Reade; A Twist of Time, by G.K. Barnard; Earth Catastrophism and 1054 AD Event, by William P. Bourne.

http://www.sis-group.org.uk/review.htm

•Letters: Sequel to 'Noah and the Raven'; Please Explain; 'The Boojums Allowed'; Earth-flipping Catastrophe?; Theological IOmplications of Catastrophism - Some Replies; Various Skeletons in the Cupboard?; Hidden Meaning of the Oera Linda Book; Dragons ....

http://www.sis-group.org.uk/workshop.htm

Now this:

Benny Peiser ("Comparative Analysis of Late Holocene Upheaval") says that "Floodplain deposits of up to 3 metres thick and stretching up to 15 kilometres inland have been detected between Tirys and Mycenae" dated to ca. 2200-2300 BC.

http://personal.eunet.fi/pp/tilmari/tilmari2.htm

I remember this local flood, and I think I mentioned it.

And this: the OLB describes the world as some kind of paradise before the events of 2194 BC, but maybe they 'forgot' something:

Aftermath of this may be the 2807 BC ocean impact described by Bruce Masse in Peiser et al.: Natural Catastrophes (Oxford, 1998). If this is the great Flood Comet, as Masse seems to indicate, this explains why the Sumerian story of Flood, on which basis the Genesis Noachian Flood story is built, is combined with the story of Gilgamesh. Gilgamesh reigned in the 27th century, 300-450 years before the two great cataclysms in late third millennium BC. Or was the comet or comets swarming and breaking up the whole period of 3114 BC to 2807 BC with diminishing frequency and damage ending temporarily in a great splash in the Atlantic?

The second Dark Age lasted from 2200 BC to 1900 BC. A third Dark Age seems to have followed the "tree ring event" (where the tree rings were very narrow) of 1159 BC (Baillie, A Slice through time). The Mycenean culture may be one of its victims.

http://personal.eunet.fi/pp/tilmari/tilmari2.htm

And this is what that society is all about:

Society for Interdisciplinary Studies

The oldest and most up to date society for catastrophist information and research.

The SIS was formed in 1974 in response to the growing interest in global cosmic catastrophes, initiated earlier by the publication of Immanuel Velikovsky's book, Worlds in Collision and its attempted suppression by the academic establishment. His insistence on past planetary instability, particularly with regard to the planets Venus and Mars, the role of electricity in the cosmos and the use of myth to provide evidence in respect of his theories is well-known. A scholar in his own right and a colleague of Albert Einstein, Velikovsky has been rightly called 'the father of modern catastrophism'.

Many great discoveries and insights are made by intuitive non-scientists but, unfortunately, academia rarely welcomes challengers to established thinking. Despite this, in 1974 the SIS took up Velikovsky's challenge to the orthodox view of the cosmos - as being one of planetary stability - to investigate:

The role that cosmic catastrophes may have played globally in ancient times

How myths, recorded by cultures the world over, can help us discover what happened

A new generation of catastrophists arose who have continued to encourage investigation and exchange of ideas in all fields opened up by Velikovsky's theories of global cosmic catastrophism, which demand that there should be corroboration between various other disciplines, making cosmic catastrophism truly interdisciplinary and inclusive. Such disciplines and subjects include: archaeology, stratigraphy, psychology, archaeoastronomy, linguistics, biology, astrophysics, geomagnetism, religion, mythology, astronomy, evolution, palaeontology, various scientific dating methods and biblical studies to name a few.

Art-history, ice-core dating, Earth reversals (or axis shifts) and the effect of catastrophes of any kind on Earth's climate, are also addressed. So, too, the effect of past climate-change on chronology. Of overarching importance is the role of electricity in the universe, which, although becoming accepted by more open-minded researchers and scientists, is still ignored by the UK 'establishment'.

In conjunction with plasma physics and rock-art, the mythology of the axis mundi has also recently been given far more clarity. It seems clear than any reconstruction of how the solar system operated once and operates now will remain unacknowledged by orthodox scientists unless those who have found such new theories to be reasonable, continue to demand objective hearing and consideration of them. However, attempts at censorship and suppression of new and unorthodox ideas, by one means or another, are still commonplace.

.

Edited by Abramelin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I posted this in Trojans were Basques? topic but felt it could be a connection in this topic too. If the people of Southern Belgium, who may have been Fryans were the Veneti, it could be the sailors of this area were in Italy and had 'factories'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I bet he did (read what one of the other members of that same society, Phillip Clapham, wrote):

I knew this is precisely what you would say. That is why I made the facetious remark.

Have you asked yourself why he quotes from over 500 science articles to prove his point and need not quote from the OLB?

And this: the OLB describes the world as some kind of paradise before the events of 2194 BC, but maybe they 'forgot' something:

Aftermath of this may be the 2807 BC ocean impact described by Bruce Masse in Peiser et al

IT just so happens that Bruce Masse is wrong about this date. He is guessing. The date is 2200 BC.

Dr. Abbot confirmed to me that the Fenambosy Chevrons in Madagascar have not been dated as yet and that they may well date to 2200 BC. All proxy data points to 2200 BC.

Do you fully grasp the following from your post? If so, then you seem to agree with me.

Many great discoveries and insights are made by intuitive non-scientists but, unfortunately, academia rarely welcomes challengers to established thinking.
However, attempts at censorship and suppression of new and unorthodox ideas, by one means or another, are still commonplace.

Yep, and nowhere more than here at UM.

Btw. You have said many times that the OLB derived at the date of 2200 BC from Biblical chronology. I challenge you to get this date from the Bible (or rather, from Biblical chronology). If you manage to do so, you will be the first person in history to manage this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I knew this is precisely what you would say. That is why I made the facetious remark.

Have you asked yourself why he quotes from over 500 science articles to prove his point and need not quote from the OLB?

IT just so happens that Bruce Masse is wrong about this date. He is guessing. The date is 2200 BC.

Dr. Abbot confirmed to me that the Fenambosy Chevrons in Madagascar have not been dated as yet and that they may well date to 2200 BC. All proxy data points to 2200 BC.

Do you fully grasp the following from your post? If so, then you seem to agree with me.

Yep, and nowhere more than here at UM.

Btw. You have said many times that the OLB derived at the date of 2200 BC from Biblical chronology. I challenge you to get this date from the Bible (or rather, from Biblical chronology). If you manage to do so, you will be the first person in history to manage this.

To start with your last remark: I actually posted about how it was done, but not by me.

It was a little before I started posting about astronomy/astrology/comets.

There was someone on the web who calculated TWO dates, based on Biblical chronology alone: and lo-and-behold: the avarage of those two dates was 2194 BC. He used socalled 'solar years' and 'real years' to come to his two dates. I will bet Puzzler still remembers that post of mine because she and I have discussed it.

You were conveniently absent during that discussion.

==

Now about this Peiser:

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

I have googled what you quoted from him, but nowhere did I find anything else but the same quote. People have simply copied from the site you quited from, and spread the 'news'.

Oh yeah, and it's all a conspiracy, yes I 'fully grab' what I quoted. I hope you also read that Wiki about Peiser.

Now a bit about those 'flood-plain deposits' of Tyrins and Mycene:

Locations: #1 Mycenae, 2 Argos, 3 Tiryn, 4 Nauplion, 5 Epidaurus, 6 Lerna

map_argos_mycenae.JPG

http://www.specialtyinterests.net/map_argos_mycenae.html

"Tiryns. The prehistoric palace of the kings of Tiryns, the results of the latest excavations" / 1885

CHAPTER II.

Topography and History op Tiryns.

The plain of Argos was apparently in early prehistoric

times a bay running far inland ; this was gradually filled

up by the deposit of the numerous streams descending

from the surrounding hills, which, though now bare and

barren, were then covered with forests.

http://www.archive.org/stream/tirynsprehistor00drgoog/tirynsprehistor00drgoog_djvu.txt

What I'd like to see is some paper that dates these flood-plain deposits to around 2200 BC. Maybe I must look a little bit further.

This paper from 2005 doesn't mention 3 mtrs thick layers of that age (2200 BC):

An Assessment of Protogeometric Apsidal Buildings

Senior Honors Thesis: Sarah Moore

Departments of Anthropology and Classics

Faculty Mentor: Dr. Aleydis Van de Moortel

Department of Classics

5 August 2005

http://diglib.lib.utk.edu/oailinks/honors/uht00013.pdf

But one thing I am pretty sure of: Peiser knew of the OLB.

+++++++

EDIT:

"However, attempts at censorship and suppression of new and unorthodox ideas, by one means or another, are still commonplace."

Yep, and nowhere more than here at UM.

That is not just wrong, it is plain dumb. Tell us please: WHAT is being censored and suppressed at UM? You should at least have the decency to prove that accusation because not one of the UM admins has hindered you in any way from posting whatever you wanted to post.

.

Edited by Abramelin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For Alewyn:

The date of 2194 BCE in the Oera Linda Book, what was it based on?

-1- Astrology (some special and rare conjunction)?

-2- Astronomy (an actual/probable impact of a comet - Edmund Halley/William Whiston/Alewyn)

-3- Biblical chronology (Friesche Volksalmanak)?

-4- A combination of 1&2 or 1&3 or 2&3 ?

I think we have covered every possibility by now, but for option -3- I did find something new:

Noah's Flood: Bible Stories: Bible accuracy: bible calendars: Bible Patriarchs.

According to Antiquities 1:6:5 Abraham was born 292 ARTIFICIAL years after the flood. By this standard the flood occurred in 2184 BCE (unless the data was recorded in true solar years, in which case it will have occurred in 2205 BCE). Josephus reiterates the stipulated Biblical data of 292 years separating the Flood Event and the Birth of Abraham.

http://www.kingscalendar.com/cgi-bin/index.cgi?action=viewnews&id=29

http://www.kingscalendar.com/kc_free_files/APPENDIX_17.html

The mean of 2184 and 2205 would 2194.5 BCE. That's what someone would do to be on the 'safe side'.

If anyone wants to check this guys calculations: be my guest, lol.

.

And you quoted this post of mine in a subsequent post... and left out what I had found out:

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=184645&st=8940&p=4153266entry4153266

You even managed to distort/misread my post by saying I left out a possibility... while in reality I actually mentioned YOUR theory and YOUR name.

.

Edited by Abramelin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I posted this in Trojans were Basques? topic but felt it could be a connection in this topic too. If the people of Southern Belgium, who may have been Fryans were the Veneti, it could be the sailors of this area were in Italy and had 'factories'.

Well, if you can prove these Veneti were around 4000 years ago, it may be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For Alewyn:

And you quoted this post of mine in a subsequent post... and left out what I had found out:

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=184645&st=8940&p=4153266entry4153266

You even managed to distort/misread my post by saying I left out a possibility... while in reality I actually mentioned YOUR theory and YOUR name.

.

And this one is from Puzz:

Looking for dates outside of the OLB, this was an interesting find. I'm not concerned about the ideas in the website, just the mention of the date. NOT when the Flood occurred but when 'the breaking up of the continents took place' - the year Peleg was born. 2194BC.

According to the genealogy of Genesis, the flood took place 1,752 (2294 B.C.) years after Adam’s creation. The breaking up of the continents took place 1,853 (2194 B.C.) years after Adam’s creation in the year that Peleg was born. Peleg’s name means to divide.

http://www.layevangelism.com/advtxbk/sections/sect-10/sec10-1.htm

The breaking up of the continents, which could be a description of what the OLB sounds like - really more so than a Flood imo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, if you can prove these Veneti were around 4000 years ago, it may be.

For starters:

I showed you that area was called the "Frisische Haff" in Germa, or Frisian Bay.

Then we have those Prussians or Pruteni speaking a Brittanic language according to Tacitus...

Frisians to the west of Denmark related to Brittons, Prussians/ Pruteni to the east of Denmark speaking a Britton language.... Preteni/Pruteni.

It appears to me that at some time, a people with the hypothetical name of "Phruisians" migrated form Denmark/South Sweden. One part of that tribe went west and became known as the Frisians, others went east and became known as the Prusians. The North Sea was known as the Mare Frisia (Frisian Sea), part of the Baltic was known as the Frisian Bay.

.

According to Julius Pokorný, the ethnonym Venetī (singular *Venetos) is derived from Proto Indo-European root *u̯en- 'to strive; to wish for, to love'. As shown by the comparative material, Germanic languages had two terms of different origin: Old High German Winida 'Wende' points to Pre-Germanic *Venétos, while Lat.-Germ. Venedi (as attested in Tacitus) and Old English Winedas 'Wends' call for Pre-Germanic *Venetós. Etymologically related words include Latin venus, -eris 'love, passion, grace'; Sanskrit vanas- 'lust, zest', vani- 'wish, desire'; Old Irish fine (< Proto-Celtic *venjā) 'kinship, kinfolk, alliance, tribe, family'; Old Norse vinr, Old Saxon, Old High German wini, Old Frisian, Old English wine 'Friend'.

-

It has been argued that the Veneti were a centum Indo-European people, rather than Baltic-speakers. Zbigniew Gołąb considers that the hydronyms of the Vistula and Odra river basins had a North-West Indo-European character with close affinities to the Italo-Celtic branch, but different from the Germanic branch, and show resemblances to those attested in the area of the Adriatic Veneti (in Northeastern Italy) as well as those attested in the Western Balkans that are attributed to Illyrians, which suggests points to a possible connection between these ancient Indo-European peoples.[9] However, according to Steinacher, the Adriatic Veneti, the Veneti of Gaul and the North Balkan/Paphlagonian Enetoi mentioned by Herodotus and Appian were not related to each other, nor to the Veneti/Venedi mentioned by Tacitus, Pliny and Ptolemy.

-

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

The Vistula Lagoon (Polish: Zalew Wiślany; Russian: Калининградский залив or Kaliningradskiy Zaliv; German: Frisches Haff; Lithuanian: Aistmarės) is a fresh water lagoon on the Baltic Sea separated from Gdańsk Bay by the Vistula Spit. It is sometimes known as the Vistula Bay or Vistula Gulf. The modern German name, Frisches Haff, is derived from an earlier form, Friesisches Haff.[1] Both this term and the earlier Polish name Zatoka Fryska[2] translate "Frisian Bay". In historical contexts, Frisches Haff can also refer to the Oder Lagoon.

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

(...) Frisische Haff, and my wordplay with "Prussian" (Phruisi > Frisii > Parisii > and so on. You also might want to search this thread for "Pruteni"). Well, Puzz certainly posted a lot too about the Baltic area.

The thing with the Prussians is this:

-1- they had developed their own script (like the Frya people);

-2- they were known under many names (like the Frya people);

-3- they traded with Greece, Rome, Scandinavia and England (like the Frya people);

-4- they were 'most humane people' (like the Frya people);

-5- they originally had a female pantheon (3 goddesses) (close to what the Frya people believed in);

-6- they were a pre-Baltic tribe, and later one of those Baltic tribes: "The Balts entered history in the early 2nd millennium BC" (like the Frya people)

-7- before their language shifted to a Finno-Ugric language, they spoke a Pretonic (PrUtonic) language (according to Tacitus) or a language similar to what the Old Frisians, and of course, the Old English spoke.

Makes one think, eh?

.................Pharsii?? Pharismanes??

......................^

......................^

Frisians << Phruisians >> Prussians

......................V

......................V

.................Parisii

.

A nice droodle:

post-18246-0-08984500-1331743658_thumb.g

Yellow arrow: Veneti

Red arrow: "Phruissi"

Now 'all' we have to do is prove these Veneti were related to ancient Frisians and/or came from Southern-Sweden/Denmark... preferable 3500+ years ago...

.

Edited by Abramelin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some other interesting titbits concerning these "Veneti":

Sunday, July 25, 2010

Venetian DNA: a first look

Readers of this blog may recall several posts over the years concerning our quest to trace the origins of the Venetians using DNA analyses (type "dna" in the search box on the right of the blog to see them all). There are competing theories and references to the legendary origins of the Veneti (or Enetoi?).

We're either originally from Paphlagonia, or from Lusatia (Poland) and we may or may not be related to the Veneti of Gaul (Britanny) mentioned by none other than Julius Caesar (see detailed map online). Since we learned that a study of DNA haplogroups may shed light on these hypotheses, we launched our Venice DNA Project in 2008.

-

While I was in Barcelona in June to visit Prof. David Comas, I perchance met a young Polish researcher, Krzyszof Rebala, who - by pure luck - happens to be focusing his attention on the Venedi of Poland, which he has thoroughly studied without finding any distinguishing trait to clearly separate them from other European populations. So far then, the Venetians we sampled do not seem to have any really striking DNA patterns nor do they seem to be related to the Wends of Lusatia, which paradoxically might give fuel to the controversial Venetic theory of a pre-celtic settlement of Veneti across the heart of Europe.

http://venice2point0.blogspot.com/2010/07/venetian-dna.html

The Unelli are the Veneli as per the link. Story is that they arrived in Caux around 4000BC as the Uenne(e) a finnish people who spoke a cyro-britonic language and later changed to a brito-Belgic language.

U can become V , as in ancient times many languages replaced vowels or placed an extra letter in front of tribes names.

The Baltic Venedi as per tacticus notes, also spoke a britonic language similar to Welsh

These Venedi where letts ( finland originally) and noted as below....read some pages before and after http://books.google.com.au/books?id=-NEtAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA450&dq=venedi+letts&hl=en&ei=MN_JTpaUGoiJmQWxp-UM&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CDQQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=venedi%20letts&f=false

These Venedi became the Prussians.

edit on post #113

Although Tacticus says the venedi spoke a britonic language like welsh, I found other modern writers saying they spoke Proto-Baltic which is different to proto-slavic and balto-slavic ( I do not know which order in time these languages appeared. Anyway below is the dialects and as previous post, the Venedi must have become the Prussians as Proto-baltic is nearly exactly the same as old-prussian.

=

My theory is that the Romans first saw the Adriatic Veneti a tribe from Illyrian Istria, who came from the sea and took over the plains of the Veneto.

The Roman word for the Sea as its colour of blue-green is VENETUS

Latin verb 'venire' (to come).A connection with the Latin word

venetus, meaning 'sea-blue'.

They then named tribes who where near the sea that did not fit the local people in customs or languages Veneti/venedi, Like the balts of Venedi in old prussia, the armorica veneti of breton, who seem to be a welsh people.

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?26066-Veneti/page5

post-18246-0-61821100-1331752192_thumb.j

venetus

venetus, venetum, veneta

adjective

1.blue

2.sea blue

3.blue-green (Cal)

Age: In use throughout the ages or unknown

Subject: All or none

Region: All or none

Frequency: Uncommon (2 or 3 citations)

Source: Oxford Latin Dictionary, 1982 (OLD)

http://latinlookup.com/word/38500/venetus

Lol, now we can only 'hope' these Romans called all those people "Veneti" because of their blue eyes and/or because they practically lived on the seas.

.

Edited by Abramelin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some other interesting titbits concerning these "Veneti":

Sunday, July 25, 2010

Venetian DNA: a first look

Readers of this blog may recall several posts over the years concerning our quest to trace the origins of the Venetians using DNA analyses (type "dna" in the search box on the right of the blog to see them all). There are competing theories and references to the legendary origins of the Veneti (or Enetoi?).

We're either originally from Paphlagonia, or from Lusatia (Poland) and we may or may not be related to the Veneti of Gaul (Britanny) mentioned by none other than Julius Caesar (see detailed map online). Since we learned that a study of DNA haplogroups may shed light on these hypotheses, we launched our Venice DNA Project in 2008.

-

While I was in Barcelona in June to visit Prof. David Comas, I perchance met a young Polish researcher, Krzyszof Rebala, who - by pure luck - happens to be focusing his attention on the Venedi of Poland, which he has thoroughly studied without finding any distinguishing trait to clearly separate them from other European populations. So far then, the Venetians we sampled do not seem to have any really striking DNA patterns nor do they seem to be related to the Wends of Lusatia, which paradoxically might give fuel to the controversial Venetic theory of a pre-celtic settlement of Veneti across the heart of Europe.

http://venice2point0.blogspot.com/2010/07/venetian-dna.html

The Unelli are the Veneli as per the link. Story is that they arrived in Caux around 4000BC as the Uenne(e) a finnish people who spoke a cyro-britonic language and later changed to a brito-Belgic language.

U can become V , as in ancient times many languages replaced vowels or placed an extra letter in front of tribes names.

The Baltic Venedi as per tacticus notes, also spoke a britonic language similar to Welsh

These Venedi where letts ( finland originally) and noted as below....read some pages before and after http://books.google.com.au/books?id=-NEtAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA450&dq=venedi+letts&hl=en&ei=MN_JTpaUGoiJmQWxp-UM&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CDQQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=venedi%20letts&f=false

These Venedi became the Prussians.

edit on post #113

Although Tacticus says the venedi spoke a britonic language like welsh, I found other modern writers saying they spoke Proto-Baltic which is different to proto-slavic and balto-slavic ( I do not know which order in time these languages appeared. Anyway below is the dialects and as previous post, the Venedi must have become the Prussians as Proto-baltic is nearly exactly the same as old-prussian.

=

My theory is that the Romans first saw the Adriatic Veneti a tribe from Illyrian Istria, who came from the sea and took over the plains of the Veneto.

The Roman word for the Sea as its colour of blue-green is VENETUS

Latin verb 'venire' (to come).A connection with the Latin word

venetus, meaning 'sea-blue'.

They then named tribes who where near the sea that did not fit the local people in customs or languages Veneti/venedi, Like the balts of Venedi in old prussia, the armorica veneti of breton, who seem to be a welsh people.

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?26066-Veneti/page5

post-18246-0-61821100-1331752192_thumb.j

venetus

venetus, venetum, veneta

adjective

1.blue

2.sea blue

3.blue-green (Cal)

Age: In use throughout the ages or unknown

Subject: All or none

Region: All or none

Frequency: Uncommon (2 or 3 citations)

Source: Oxford Latin Dictionary, 1982 (OLD)

http://latinlookup.com/word/38500/venetus

Lol, now we can only 'hope' these Romans called all those people "Veneti" because of their blue eyes and/or because they practically lived on the seas.

.

Vistula Veneti as well (how could I forget them??!) - that seems to give a direct link for the amber then.

Etymologically related words include Latin venus, -eris 'love, passion, grace'; Sanskrit vanas- 'lust, zest', vani- 'wish, desire'; Old Irish fine (< Proto-Celtic *venjā) 'kinship, kinfolk, alliance, tribe, family'; Old Norse vinr, Old Saxon, Old High German wini, Old Frisian, Old English wine 'Friend'.

Latin Venetis as blue-green seems to just be a colour word in reference to the area of Venice itself - Venetian Blue is a blue-green colour. Venetis is more than likely a word that corresponds to that.

venetian blue

venetian blue - Definition of venetian blue , meaning of venetian blue

n A strong blue to greenish blue

http://www.definition-of.net/veneti

Venice:The name is derived from the ancient Veneti people who inhabited the region by the 10th century B.C.

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

So, it's not like the Romans named the area Venice because it was blue-green sea - that word for green/blue imo comes later.

Edited by The Puzzler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The ancient Veneti spoke Venetic, an extinct Indo-European language which is attested in approximately 300 short inscriptions dating from the 6th to 1st centuries BC. Venetic appears to share several similarities with Latin and the Italic languages, but also has some affinities with other IE languages, especially Germanic and Celtic. Venetic should not be confused with Venetian, a Romance language presently spoken in the region.

In Italy, these ancient people are also referred to as Paleoveneti to distinguish them from the modern-day inhabitants of the Veneto region, called Veneti in Italian.[2] They are unrelated to the Gaulish Veneti, a Celtic tribe formerly living on the coast of Brittany, despite confusion by classical scholar Strabo (see the History section below).

How do they know they are unrelated to the Gaulish Veneti? They have Germanic and Celtic affinities in their language but are not related to these Gaulish Veneti, I'd like to know how they know this.

^ Strabo, Geography, Book IV, Chapter 4: "It is these Veneti [the Gallic tribe of the Belgae], I think, who settled the colony that is on the Adriatic (for about all the Celti that are in Italy migrated from the transalpine land, just as did the Boii and Senones), although, on account of the likeness of name, people call them Paphlagonians. I do not speak positively, however, for with reference to such matters probability suffices." Book V, Chapter 1: "Concerning the Heneti there are two different accounts: Some say that the Heneti too are colonists of those Celti of like name who live on the ocean-coast; while others say that certain of the Heneti of Paphlagonia escaped hither with Antenor from the Trojan war, and, as testimony in this, adduce their devotion to the breeding of horses — a devotion which now, indeed, has wholly disappeared, although formerly it was prized among them, from the fact of their ancient rivalry in the matter of producing mares for mule-breeding." Book 13, Chapter 1: "At any rate, Sophocles says that [...] Antenor and his children safely escaped to Thrace with the survivors of the Heneti, and from there got across to the Adriatic Henetice, as it is called."

As for the 2nd one this could be the original story as to how Trojans got into the area of Rome...horses were bred on the Venetian plains in ancient times. Around 4000BC there was a marine transgression showing where flooding occurred over the plain. For all we know it could be the Trojans had come from this area in the first place and actually settled in Asia Minor - since one myth has Dardanus as being a Tyrhennian prince. It's hard to know how old some of these stories are.

The last line of the Iliad is...

"Thus, then, did they celebrate the funeral of Hector tamer of horses"

adduce their devotion to the breeding of horses — a devotion which now, indeed, has wholly disappeared, although formerly it was prized among them, from the fact of their ancient rivalry in the matter of producing mares for mule-breeding."

Livius kinda ties some strings together as best he can but maybe has an answer in there...

^ Titus Livius, Ab Urbe Condita, Book 1, Chapter 1: "Antenor sailed into the furthest part of the Adriatic, accompanied by a number of Enetians who had been driven from Paphlagonia by a revolution and after losing their king Pylaemenes before Troy were looking for a settlement and a leader. The combined force of Enetians and Trojans defeated the Euganei, who dwelt between the sea and the Alps and occupied their land. The place where they disembarked was called Troy, and the name was extended to the surrounding district; the whole nation were called Veneti."

The area they disembarked in the plains of Venice they called Troy.

Strabo gives a good reason for his thoughts though - the Celts in the area had all migrated down from the transalpine lands.

-------------

Edit: The Euganei (fr. Lat. Euganei, Euganeorum; cf. Gr. εὐγενής (eugenēs) 'well-born') is a semi-mythical proto-Italic ethnic group that dwelt an area among Adriatic Sea and Rhaetian Alps. Subsequently, they were driven by the Adriatic Veneti to an area between the river Adige and Lake Como, where they remained until the early Roman Empire.[1].

They were very probably a Pre-Indo-European people, ethnically related with the Ingauni Ligurians, as proved by the similarity of the names. According to Pliny the Elder the Stoni people from Trentino were of the same stock as the Euganei.

Cato the Elder, in the lost book of Origines, counted among the major tribes Euganeans the Triumplini of Valtrompia and the Camunni of Val Camonica.[2]

According to Livy they were defeated by the Adriatic Veneti and the Trojans. Their descendants settled west of the Athesis (Adige) river, around the lakes Sebinus, Edrus, and Benacus, where they occupied 34 towns, which were admitted by Augustus to the rights of Latin cities.

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

Edited by The Puzzler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I knew this is precisely what you would say. That is why I made the facetious remark.

Have you asked yourself why he quotes from over 500 science articles to prove his point and need not quote from the OLB?

IT just so happens that Bruce Masse is wrong about this date. He is guessing. The date is 2200 BC.

Dr. Abbot confirmed to me that the Fenambosy Chevrons in Madagascar have not been dated as yet and that they may well date to 2200 BC. All proxy data points to 2200 BC.

Do you fully grasp the following from your post? If so, then you seem to agree with me.

Yep, and nowhere more than here at UM.

Btw. You have said many times that the OLB derived at the date of 2200 BC from Biblical chronology. I challenge you to get this date from the Bible (or rather, from Biblical chronology). If you manage to do so, you will be the first person in history to manage this.

Bold #1 - It is not personally believed that you have qualified data to support this bold proclamation. In addition, as has been previously presented, Masse utilized a methodology not unlike your own in regards to his utilization of oral histories. While this methodology is subject to scrutiny and not one that would be of my own personal preference, Masse's data base and expertise are notably more extensive than your own.

In contacting Abbott, did she bring to your attention some of the relatively recent research conducted by the Holocene Impact Working Group (HIWG)?

Fig. 2. Time series of probable tsunami events affecting the New South Wales coast of eastern Australia - Note Dates.

Fig. 3. Time series of probable tsunami events affecting the West Australian coast of Australia - This does show evidence of a tsunami event circa 2200 BC. However, in regards to such:

The event around 2870 BC corresponds to a global catastrophe caused by a

comet impact in 2807 BC documented by [21] and linked to the Burckle Impact crater shown in Fig.

1. Finally, an event centred on 2150 BC may also have a cosmic origin although the evidence is less

conclusive. Its timing corresponds with the fall of the Akkadian empire in the Middle East at around

2200 BC, which has been linked to an impact [21]. (Emphasis added).

Fig. 4. Summary of tsunami events and corresponding impacts

Also, as per Figures 2 and 3, note the increase in activity post ~ 500 AD.

The studies of the HIWG are still in their early stages. However, to date, they do not support your speculations in regards to axial tilt, nor is there, to my knowledge, any reference to such made in any of their reports. Did you pursue this aspect directly with Abbott? If not, why?

http://elib.sfu-kras.ru/bitstream/2311/1636/1/03_.pdf

As to volcanic activity:

Based upon the following documentation, the 150 yr. period from 2200 BC > 2050 shows six major eruptions, with the 2200 BC event being on the Kamchatka Peninsula.

As comparatives, the 140 yr period from 1450 BC > 1310 BC indicates eight major eruptions.

The 150 yr period from 340 AD > 490 AD indicates 14 major eruptions.

http://www.volcano.si.edu/world/largeeruptions.cfm

One can go on.

As previously stated, none of the climatological, geological, biological, archaeological, volcanic, or impact-related data would appear to reflect an abnormal shift in axial rotation at any time even remotely relative to your speculation. Nor do the numerous authors of these reports and data bases make such a suggestion.

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In contacting Abbott, did she bring to your attention some of the relatively recent research conducted by the Holocene Impact Working Group (HIWG)?

Fig. 2. Time series of probable tsunami events affecting the New South Wales coast of eastern Australia - Note Dates.

Fig. 3. Time series of probable tsunami events affecting the West Australian coast of Australia - This does show evidence of a tsunami event circa 2200 BC. However, in regards to such:

The event around 2870 BC corresponds to a global catastrophe caused by a

comet impact in 2807 BC documented by [21] and linked to the Burckle Impact crater shown in Fig.

1. Finally, an event centred on 2150 BC may also have a cosmic origin although the evidence is less

conclusive. Its timing corresponds with the fall of the Akkadian empire in the Middle East at around

2200 BC, which has been linked to an impact [21]. (Emphasis added).

.

No way in the world would a tsunami affecting Western Australia have any bearing on the New South Wales coast imo, so whatever reference that is meant to pertain too, would be irrelevant. The Western Australian studies do indicate a date of 2200BC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No way in the world would a tsunami affecting Western Australia have any bearing on the New South Wales coast imo, so whatever reference that is meant to pertain too, would be irrelevant. The Western Australian studies do indicate a date of 2200BC.

Firstly, note the cautionary statement in association with this date. Secondly, as has been previously mentioned, tsunami's, particularly in the Pacific basin, are not at all uncommon. Note the following data.

http://historyofgeology.fieldofscience.com/2011/03/historic-tsunamis-in-japan.html

Thirdly, particularly given the frequency of tsunami's in this region, such occurrences do not support speculations in regards to an abnormal shift in the planets axial tilt.

.

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.