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

Did Ottema leave a note or told somebody that he was disillutioned because he wasted years on a hoax or is this just another groundless theory?

Indeed this theory is based on quicksand and it illustrates the way in which Jensma produces pseudohistory out of gossip, as can be concluded from the two fragments below.

Logically, if it was known at that time that Ottema had changed his mind about OLB before he died (in 1879!), this would have been big news, but there are no sources to confirm this. Therefore it remains a speculation, based on gossip.

The first source in which it is mentioned, 125 years later, is "De Gemaskerde God" (2004), Jensma's thesis that earned him the doctor's title:

"According to some, Ottema eventually had to admit that he had been wrong and that he had lost his honour as a classical scholar. He could no longer live with that truth and hanged himself.

FOOTNOTE: Information from both A. Lysen, Santpoort, and from retired professor P. Gerbenzon, who were both -in different ways- well informed in the circles of notables in Leeuwarden."

In the second source "Het Oera Linda-boek" (2006), Jensma presents this gossip as if it were a fact:

"When Ottema, abandoned by all, in 1879 finally accepted that he was wrong and that he had considered something to be ancient that was actually modern, he decided that it made no sense to live on, and hung himself."

Original sources, Dutch:

"De Gemaskerde God":

Blz. 214 "Volgens sommigen heeft Ottema uiteindelijk toch ingezien, dat hij had gedwaald en dat hij zijn eer als classicus had verspeeld. Met die waarheid heeft hij niet verder willen leven. Hij hing zich op."

VOETNOOT (blz. 411) "Mededeling zowel van de kant van A. Lysen te Santpoort, als van P. Gerbenzon, die beiden op verschillende wijze goed ingevoerd waren in de kringen van Leeuwarder notabelen."

"Het Oera Linda-boek"

Blz. 50 "Toen Ottema, door iedereen in de steek gelaten, in 1879 uiteindelijk inzag dat hij ongelijk had gehad en dat hij voor oud had versleten wat eigentijds was, besloot hij dat het geen zin had om nog verder te leven en verhing hij zich."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why don't they do a forensic analysis on the paper and ink? That would settle the matter for once and for all; or is somebody afraid of the truth?

Yesterday I asked Dr Jacob van Sluis, specialist at Tresoar, the library that houses OLB:

"Is there a survey of the scientific research that was done to establish the age of the paper and are reports of this research available?"

His answer:

"Recently a thorough examination was done of paper, ink etc. of OLB. The results have been collected, but are not published yet. That is ment to happen, but Tresoar is only sideways involved. So I cannot promise anything. I only know that the publication is 'in the pipeline'."

Original in dutch:

vraag 14-10-2010: "Is er een overzicht beschikbaar van het wetenschappelijk onderzoek dat is verricht naar de ouderdom van het papier en zijn hiervan verslagen beschikbaar?"

antwoord 14-10-2010: "Er is recentelijk grondig onderzoek gedaan naar het papier, inkt e.d. van het OLB. De resultaten daarvan zijn verzameld, maar nog niet gepubliceerd. Dat is wel de bedoeling, maar Tresoar is daar slechts zijdelings bij betrokken. Ik kan u dus niets beloven. Ik weet alleen dat de beoogde bundel "in de pijplijn" zit."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oops. My mistake :innocent: I'd forgotten about that (bit too recent for me to be honest :D ) However this was a short term event only affecting only some parts of the world. Not a global shift in climate zones as would have occurred had there been a geographical polar shift or change in axial tilt.

As for the book of Enoch - maybe he felt an earthquake? Only when no other possible interpretation exists should we use ancient texts as primary evidence (though it my provide supportive evidence if other more direct evidence exists - like a big impact crater or volcanic eruption that is indisputably dated to the same time period, for example)

Thanks for that.

Yes, I realise I am taking a long shot at the "axial tilt" or "crustal movement" but, as I said, I am giving the old scribes the benefit of the doubt and am looking for a possible explanation for their apparent description of an impact and what I interpret as a change in latitudes.

We are really looking at three aspects of the "2200 BC event":

1. Do we have evidence of global disaster in c.2200 BC? (at least in the Northern Hemisphere),

2. Was there a cosmic impact? and

3. If so, did such an impact cause crustal movement?

Most of the following have been debated on this forum before, but let me repeat my arguments again:

1. The 2200 BC Disaster:

I think it is fairly safe to say from geological, archaeological and historical (old scribes) evidence, something catastrophic happened in ca. 2200 BC. The accepted facts are:

(a) The event happened suddenly, b. The old Egyptian Kingdom came to an end in 2200 BC, c) Tell Leilan was destroyed suddenly in 2193 BC (Harvey Weiss et al), (d) The salt content at Tell Leilan points to possible sea floods at the time, (e) There is no evidence of earthworm activities (topsoil washed away?) (f) the area was covered by a thin layer of volcanic ash and (g) evidence of widespread earthquakes (Claude FA Schaeffer -1948). Points (d), (e), (f) and (g) tell us that the event could not have been confined to a single city i.e. with no effect on the surrounding area.

(h) Now we find that the Harappan Civilization (and others) also suffered some catastrophe in ca. 2200 BC (±200). The evidence appears to be the same (eg it happened suddenly) but the time window is bigger (400 to 500 years).

Is it realistic to accept that the same fate had befallen all the civilizations in the Middle East but each one independently from the others and at different times? I think not. To me this points to a single event.

(i) The current popular theory is that the whole of the Northern Hemisphere suffered a (up to) 300 year drought. However, as I stated before, the onset was very sudden and the evidence shows that mass migrations happened very suddenly. To me this points to a singular event that triggered the mass migrations and the subsequent drought and famine.

(j) We have evidence of such an event from Scandinavia, Iberia, the Aegean right up to China – all around 2200 BC, give or take 250 years. Again, a catastrophic event in the Middle East with the same evidence further afield and within the same time window points to a single event.

2. Do we have evidence of a cosmic impact?

In my book I identified the Burckle impact as a likely cause. Now I realise that scientists have not dated the impact yet and are guessing that it could have happened between 2800 BC (Bruce Massey) and 2500 BC (Dallas Abbott). The chevron dunes on Madagascar and on the West Coast of Australia, which was used to identify the impact site, indicate that the impact created massive tsunamis that would have destroyed anything in their way.

Is it realistic to assume that the impact happened 300 to 600 years before the 2200 BC event, destroyed everything in it’s path, civilizations then recovered, attained high levels of development in this relatively short period of time and was destroyed again in 2200 BC? Again, I think not.

We apparently have evidence of only one global (or rather Northern Hemisphere) disaster that destroyed all these ancient civilizations simultaneously. It is for this reason that I proposed that the Burckle impact was one of the causes of the 2200 BC event.

Some scientists are trying to make out a case that the chevron dunes are of aeolian (wind) origins. How do they then explain the cosmic impact debris in the dunes, the deep ocean sediments, the high temperature fused particles and the fact that these dunes were used to triangulate the position of the Burckle asteroid 1500 km from Madagascar at a depth of 3.5 km? Also, an Aeolian cause would indicate a process that is still ongoing; the dunes must still be growing to this day.

We also have evidence of other cosmic impacts in South America (Rio Cuarto and Campo del Cielo) during the same period.

Lastly we come to the theories around the converging trajectories of the remains of the comet Proto-Encke and the Hale-Bopp and the Oljato comets that intersected earth’s orbit around the same time. (This is not in my book and was pointed out to me by Abramelin).

Although we cannot point to these as “smoking guns” it nevertheless gives some possible explanations of cosmic impacts being the cause of the 2200 BC disaster.

3. “Apparent Axial Tilt” or Crustal Movement.

In my book I incorrectly stated that the asteroid impact could have caused earth’s axis to tilt. Cormac convincingly pointed out that this was not possible and I accepted that. To put it quite bluntly, I was shooting off the hip and did not do my homework.

I based my theory on the following two quotes:

A. Oera Linda Book: The book of Adela’s followers, ch. XXI:

“This stands inscribed upon all burghs –

1. Before the bad time came our land was the most beautiful in the World. The sun rose higher, and there was seldom frost. The trees and shrubs produced various fruits, which are now lost. In the fields we had not only barley, oats, and rye, but wheat which shone like gold, and which could be baked in the sun's rays.”

B. Book of Enoch(Translated from the Ge'ez language (Ethiopic) by Richard Laurence, London, 1883):

Chapter 55

“(4) And when that agitation took place; the saints out of heaven perceived it; the pillar of the earth shook from its foundation; and the sound was heard from the extremities of the earth unto the extremities of heaven at the same time”

Chapter 64

“(1) In those days Noah saw that the earth became inclined, and that destruction approached.(2) Then he lifted up his feet, and went to the ends of the earth, to the dwelling of his great-grandfather Enoch. (3) And Noah cried with a bitter voice, Hear me; hear me; hear me: three times. And he said, Tell me what is transacting upon the earth; for the earth labours, and is violently shaken. Surely I shall perish with it. (4) After this there was a great perturbation on earth, and a voice was heard from heaven. I fell down on my face, when my great-grandfather Enoch came and stood by me.”

To my reasoning, both these old chronicle describe cosmic impacts and the above quotes describe very precisely a change in latitude (at least). How would this have been possible if they had not experienced it first hand?

If there had been a substantial pole shift, one would expect to find it in the Greenland ice. In other words, the ice should have been only 4000 years old. Yet, we find that the ice layers is at least 120 000 years old. This tells me that, if a polar shift did occur, Greenland must have been within the “old” arctic circle as well. I therefore placed the old North Pole more or less within the Northern Canada / the Hudson Bay area. In this case the whole of Greenland would have been above the old 60th Parallel as is still the case today and at least two-thirds of Greenland would have fallen within the old arctic circle, which could then explain why the ice is as old as it is. (This would, however, not be in sinc with the Great Pyramid of Giza’s N-S orientation)

I must also point out that this would still have been in the area of the current magnetic pole wander. Could this then explain why we do not note obvious changes in the earth’s magnetic field from the time? (A lot of questions and speculation!)

The effect on Western Europe (The Netherlands), however, would have been a 12 to 15 degree shift in latitude. In other words, the climate would have been more like that of the Mediterranean today. Towards the Middle East and Asia, the change could have been as much as 20 degrees.

Would this have created a major shift in global climate zones as you stated? I don’t know. I think you are much better qualified to answer the question. Obviously one would also have to consider the influence of, inter alia, ocean currents.

If the effect would only have been moderate and localised temperature and climatic changes, it would then support my theory.

As to the “resonance cause” of such crustal movement, I would hope that it merits further investigation

Edited by Alewyn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not know too much about either. In fact, I know nothing about Milanovitch Cycles.

As I recall, Bond events have been proven and accepted. However, the cause of these events are still unclear. You have remarked earlier on the cyclical nature of Bond events and, to my mind, cosmic movements are very cyclical.

Is it not possible that Bond events are caused by cosmic impacts or earth's orbit crossing meteorite/asteroid clouds or swarms? The actual impacts may be of less importance than multiple "Tunguska-type" explosions in earth's atmosphere that could blot out the sun for extended periods. The drop in temperatures and larger snow cover would further deflect the sun's rays and thus trigger ice ages.

Your views?

The possibility exists, that's undeniable, but I'm unaware of such a swarm of meteorites or asteroids, especially since these things are quite closely monitored these days. I'll have to look into it.

This said, Bond events are North Atlantic climate fluctuations only, that might influence a greater area, but are still quite localized. What are the odds that a cyclic 1500 years swarm of meteorites or asteroids always hits in the same geographic area? I would say quite small to none existent, hence I tend to rule the meteorite or asteroid impact out as a cause anyway.

Now there is a theory that might actually fit the bill, but it is only in the theory stage only, so also open to debate. It's the 1,800-year oceanic tidal cycle. The theory behind it can be found here. I find it a quite fitting theory as to a mechanism that triggers the Bond events.

Of course I might be completely wrong, but I find that most meteorological events can be explained through other mechanisms, than the impact of a celestial body into the earth atmosphere or crust.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A. Oera Linda Book: The book of Adela’s followers, ch. XXI:

“This stands inscribed upon all burghs –

1. Before the bad time came our land was the most beautiful in the World. The sun rose higher, and there was seldom frost. The trees and shrubs produced various fruits, which are now lost. In the fields we had not only barley, oats, and rye, but wheat which shone like gold, and which could be baked in the sun's rays.”

This right here should be taken as a sign something is horribly wrong here. You can air dry grain anywhere the sun shines but to be able to literally bake it in the sun at that latitude, the place would be a hellish inferno and anything much south of that would be completely uninhabitable.

Furthermore, while we can only speculate on what strange fruits once dwelt in freisland, the Netherlands today are directly west and south of some of the largest modern areas of production for all the grains listed.

B. Book of Enoch(Translated from the Ge'ez language (Ethiopic) by Richard Laurence, London, 1883):

Chapter 55

“(4) And when that agitation took place; the saints out of heaven perceived it; the pillar of the earth shook from its foundation; and the sound was heard from the extremities of the earth unto the extremities of heaven at the same time”

The loudest sound ever recorded on earth was the explosion of Krakatoa in 1883, noted almost 3000 miles away. The Eruption of Thera

was estimated at least four times that and over 2000 miles closer.

Chapter 64

“(1) In those days Noah saw that the earth became inclined, and that destruction approached.(2) Then he lifted up his feet, and went to the ends of the earth, to the dwelling of his great-grandfather Enoch. (3) And Noah cried with a bitter voice, Hear me; hear me; hear me: three times. And he said, Tell me what is transacting upon the earth; for the earth labours, and is violently shaken. Surely I shall perish with it. (4) After this there was a great perturbation on earth, and a voice was heard from heaven. I fell down on my face, when my great-grandfather Enoch came and stood by me.”

Another problematic statement. By the time he saw the earth incline, given the fact that tsunamis travel at nearly the speed of sound, wouldn't it have been a little too late to bother building an ark and gathering up critters? Unless what he actually saw was the ground tilting.

Edited by Oniomancer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thing about a tilt of the earth's axis could have been settled months ago.

If Northern Europe or the area around the North Sea would have been nearer the equator before 2193 BC, paleo-botanists would have found traces of plants like olive trees, orange trees, grapes, shrubs and herbs that live in a much warmer climate.

They never did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To my reasoning, both these old chronicle describe cosmic impacts and the above quotes describe very precisely a change in latitude (at least). How would this have been possible if they had not experienced it first hand?

I see you've since removed your estimation of an impactor size, but being interested in finding out what size one would have to have been to equal the Chilean Earthquakes 2.7 millisecond change in length in time, I came across the Earth Impact Effects Program. While this cannot be seen as 100% accurate, it should still give a general idea of what it would take to duplicate the Chilean time change results. Here are my results. Key points, to my mind, are in bold.

Your Inputs:

Distance from Impact: 1000.00 meters ( = 3280.00 feet )

Projectile diameter: 592.00 km ( = 368.00 miles )

Projectile Density: 8000 kg/m3

Impact Velocity: 30.00 km per second ( = 18.60 miles per second )

Impact Angle: 90 degrees

Target Density: 2500 kg/m3

Target Type: Sedimentary Rock

Energy:

Energy before atmospheric entry: 3.92 x 1029 Joules = 9.35 x 1013 MegaTons TNT

The average interval between impacts of this size is longer than the Earth's age.

Such impacts could only occur during the accumulation of the Earth, between 4.5 and 4 billion years ago.

Major Global Changes:

The Earth is not strongly disturbed by the impact and loses negligible mass.

The impact does not make a noticeable change in the tilt of Earth's axis (< 5 hundreths of a degree).

Depending on the direction and location of impact, the collision may cause a change in the length of the day of up to 2.71 milliseconds.

The impact does not shift the Earth's orbit noticeably.

Crater Dimensions:

What does this mean?

Transient Crater Diameter: 3070 km ( = 1910 miles )

Transient Crater Depth: 1090 km ( = 675 miles )

Final Crater Diameter: 8780 km ( = 5450 miles )

Final Crater Depth: 4.55 km ( = 2.83 miles )

The crater formed is a complex crater.

The volume of the target melted or vaporized is 3.48e+09 km3 = 8.36e+08 miles3

Roughly half the melt remains in the crater, where its average thickness is 469 km ( = 292 miles ).

Ejecta:

What does this mean?

Your position was inside the transient crater and ejected upon impact

cormac

Edited by cormac mac airt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see you've since removed your estimation of an impactor size, but being interested in finding out what size one would have to have been to equal the Chilean Earthquakes 2.7 millisecond change in length in time, I came across the Earth Impact Effects Program. While this cannot be seen as 100% accurate, it should still give a general idea of what it would take to duplicate the Chilean time change results. Here are my results. Key points, to my mind, are in bold.

cormac

Too late to edit, but if anyone wants to check this for themselves the program can be found at the following:

Earth Impact Effects Program

It should be noted that this only matches the time effects of the Chilean earthquake which only moved the axis 8 cm/3 inches, yet notice the devastation.

Anyone care to show where there is a 5450 Mile wide crater anywhere on the Earth?

cormac

Edited by cormac mac airt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thing about a tilt of the earth's axis could have been settled months ago.

If Northern Europe or the area around the North Sea would have been nearer the equator before 2193 BC, paleo-botanists would have found traces of plants like olive trees, orange trees, grapes, shrubs and herbs that live in a much warmer climate.

They never did.

You, Oniomancer and Cormac have all very valid arguments and all adressing my third point viz. "Could there have been an axial tilt or crustal movement". As I said before, my interpretation and speculation on this point (and your responses) revolve around the utterances of these old scribes.

Can I take it then that you all agree that there are reasonable grounds to believe that there was a single global (or at least Northern Hemisphere) disaster in ca 2200 BC? (my first point). This is also something "that could have been settled months ago".

Remember the date of 2193 BC is the only specific fact stated by the OLB in this regard. Both my points two and three are my own interpretation and ideas in searching for possible explanations. These are not that of the OLB.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Can I take it then that you all agree that there are reasonable grounds to believe that there was a single global (or at least Northern Hemisphere) disaster in ca 2200 BC?

No, as there is no evidence for a single global event. The possibility of a Bond Event aside for a moment the only available evidence suggests the likelihood of one or more volcanic eruptions. Although it hasn't been determined which one/ones of several may have been responsible for such an event and none of them can be tied to either 2193 BC or 2200 BC. Anything of any note spans the possibility of 300 to 500 years. The 2193 BC date is meaningless. I've even said, back a few pages, that it was likely something significant happened in the 3rd millenium BC to greatly affect human history. This should, in no way, be misconstrued as validating a specific date as put forth by the OP and yourself.

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's like a clever 12 years old kid concocted the story.

Why is the 'Oera Linda Book' so dispised, hated, feared and/or misunderstood in Holland?

For a better understanding of the controversy I will translate and post a few more fragments of publications.

The following is taken from:

The Oera-Linda-Book in Germany and here

published by Dr. M. de Jong in 1939.

When we don't limit our view to the controversies that kept us busy here in Holland, we must admit, that the OLB begot a significance because of the war in Germany, that no one ever could have dreamt of. In the spiritual revolution, that occurred there in the last decennia and is still unfolding, it played an important role. The OLB has been the highlight of passionate discussions about national-socialist principles and philosophy. A model for living and history, womens place in society, democracy and authority, pacifism, the Slavic East front, racial theory and the Nordic race, even the Jewish question, were discussed. Its a remarkable fact, that the OLB seems to appeal to profound feelings, that the German people have developped in their fight against alien influences and in favour of their own Germanic culture. Science had already succesfully resisted against the Christian-Latin historiographic image of old-Germanic civilisations inferiority and of the blessings brought to the supposed barbarians by the Romans and the Roman Catholic church. The aureole of great-christener Charles the Great faded away. People hoped to find traces of their own old civilisation, their own spiritual heritage, even an original Nordic monotheism.

This now, many believed to find, in the footsteps of Herman Wirth, together with lots of other ancestrial heritage, in the OLB, specifically in the so-called Wralda-mysticism.

original dutch text:

Het Oera-Linda-Boek in Duitschland en hier

Wanneer wij onzen gezichtskring niet beperken tot de strijdvragen, die ons hier in Nederland bezig gehouden hebben, dan zullen we moeten erkennen, dat het oera-Linda-Boek door den strijd in Duitschland een beteekenis heeft gekregen, waarvan niemand ooit had kunnen droomen. In de geestesrevolutie, die daar in de laatste tientallen jaren heeft plaats gehad en nog steeds bezig is zich te voltrekken, heeft het een niet onbelangrijke rol gespeeld. In bewogen discussies over nationaal-socialistische beginselen en nationaal-socialistische levenshouding is het O.L.B. pièce de résistance geweest. Levens- en geschiedbeschouwing, de plaats van de vrouw in de samenleving, democratie en leiders-principe, pacifisme, het Slavische oostfront, rassenleer en het Noordsche ras, ja ook het Jodenvraagstuk, zijn daarbij aan de orde geweest. Het is een merkwaardig feit, dat het O.L.B. schijnt te appeleeren aan zeer krachtige gevoelens, die zich bij het Duitsche volk ontwikkeld hebben in zijn strijd tegen vreemde invloeden en voor een eigen Germaansche cultuur. Niet zonder succes had de wetenschap zich reeds eerder verzet tegen de door een Christelijk-Latijnsche geschiedschrijving opgedrongen voorstellingen van de minderwaardigheid der oud-Germaansche beschaving en de zegeningen, door de Romeinen en de Roomsche kerk aan vermeende barbaren gebracht. Het aureool van den groot-kerstenaar Karel den Grooten verbleekte. Men zocht naar kernen van eigen oude beschaving, naar een eigen geestelijk erfdeel, zelfs naar een oorspronkelijk Noordsch monotheïsme.

Dit nu meenden velen, op het voetspoor van Herman Wirth, met zooveel ander voorvaderlijk erfgoed, in het Oera-Linda-Boek te vinden, en wel in de zoogenaamde Wralda-mystiek.

Edited by Otharus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Otharus,

On page 2 of this thread Swede asked, "In what manner was this quite precise date (2193 BC) determined?".

And I answered him with a quote from the Wiki page about the OLB,

"The book articulates the first known example of the concept of root races (though it does not call them that), and probably influenced H.P. Blavatsky to develop her own, much more elaborate ideas on the subject, as outlined in The Secret Doctrine (1888). It also mentions Atland (the name given to Atlantis by the 17th century scholar Olof Rudbeck), which was supposedly submerged in 2193 BC, the same year as 19th century Dutch and Frisian almanacs, following traditional Biblical chronology, gave for Noah's flood."

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

Today I thought, let's try to find this 19th century Dutch/Frisian almanac, but failed.

Can you tell us more about this date that was supposed to be copied from those almanacs?

==

Why is the 'Oera Linda Book' so dispised, hated, feared and/or misunderstood in Holland?

I think you are exaggerating somewhat here... the OLB is not 'hated' or 'dispised' or even 'feared', come on.

The worst people in The Netherlands feel about the OLB is ridicule.

Why are you out to make it much more and much worse than it really is??

And you know as well as I do that the OLB already received heavy criticism soon after it was published. It didn't just start during/after WWII.

.

Edited by Abramelin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you tell us more about this date that was supposed to be copied from those almanacs?

This must have been the "Enkhuizer Almanak".

Good idea, I'll look it up one of these days in the Enkhuizer Almanak Museum.

The worst people in The Netherlands feel about the OLB is ridicule.

And you know as well as I do that the OLB already received heavy criticism soon after it was published.

It didn't just start during/after WWII.

Yes, see my post 1325;

Beckering Vinckers' (1876): "I have reached my goal; I aimed at ridiculing the language of the OLB."

The sad thing is that he not only aggressively 'ridiculed' OLB but also translator/ publisher Ottema, who was practically excommunicated, got isolated, became paranoid and suicidal as a result.

Initially some proud influential Frisians seem to have felt insulted because their paradigm of Frisian history, culture, religion and language was challenged.

OLB language was too 'modern' for them; it had words that resembled Dutch and English.

It was not enough 'pure Frisian'. (possible explanation?)

WWII added a new dimension to the controversy for obvious reasons.

Two more fragments to illustrate how 'believers' were not only ridiculed (1972), but even discredited (2004).

S.J. van der Molen (1972)

"From time to time, the ever unknown author of this manuscript succeeds in troubling minds and making victims. The youngest victim (apparently not in years: the man already published in 1940) is dr. phil. Frans J. Los, who recently published: The Ura Linda Manuscripts as Source of History"

Original text, taken from "Doctor schiet Ura Linda-'bok'", published 11-11-1972 in Leeuwarder Courant

"Van tijd tot tijd slaagt de nog steeds onbekend gebleven maker van dit geschrift er in geesten te verwarren en slachtoffers te maken. Het jongste slachtoffer (kennelijk niet in jaren: de man publiceerde al in 1940) is dr. phil. Frans J. Los, die ... zojuist liet verschijnen: Die Ura Linda Handschriften als Geschichtsquelle"

Jensma (2004; page 17)

"This Ottema was followed by a long row of believers of suspicious character. Of them SS-Führer Heinrich Himmler is most notorious, but he was certainly not the only one. Theosophists, nazi's, New Agers and right extremists of various sorts explained and still explain this OLB as an authentic and important source for our knowledge of western civilisation."

Original text:

"Deze Ottema kreeg een lange stoet van gelovigen van bedenkelijk allooi achter zich aan. De SS-Führer Heinrich Himmler is van hen de beruchtste, maar hij was zeker niet de enige. Theosofen, nazi's, New Agers en Nieuwe Rechtsen van allerlei pluimage verklaarden en verklaren dit Oera Linda-boek nog steeds voor een authentieke en belangrijke bron voor onze kennis van de westerse beschaving."

Edited by Otharus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yesterday I asked Dr Jacob van Sluis, specialist at Tresoar, the library that houses OLB:

"Is there a survey of the scientific research that was done to establish the age of the paper and are reports of this research available?"

His answer:

"Recently a thorough examination was done of paper, ink etc. of OLB. The results have been collected, but are not published yet. That is ment to happen, but Tresoar is only sideways involved. So I cannot promise anything. I only know that the publication is 'in the pipeline'."

Original in dutch:

vraag 14-10-2010: "Is er een overzicht beschikbaar van het wetenschappelijk onderzoek dat is verricht naar de ouderdom van het papier en zijn hiervan verslagen beschikbaar?"

antwoord 14-10-2010: "Er is recentelijk grondig onderzoek gedaan naar het papier, inkt e.d. van het OLB. De resultaten daarvan zijn verzameld, maar nog niet gepubliceerd. Dat is wel de bedoeling, maar Tresoar is daar slechts zijdelings bij betrokken. Ik kan u dus niets beloven. Ik weet alleen dat de beoogde bundel "in de pijplijn" zit."

It would realy be interesting to know what examination was done, by whom and exactly when. Was this examination done in secret or was it widely made known and unbiased?

If it was found that the manuscript dates from the 19th century, then one would not expect a delay in publishing the results. The manuscript would in all probability then be a fraud - end of story.

On the other hand, if the findings point to an old manuscript, quite a few reputations will be scarred. This could then be a reason for any delay such as there may be. (At this stage we have no evidence or reason to believe that this may be the case). To be credible, therefore, one would expect a very open process.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would realy be interesting to know what examination was done, by whom and exactly when. Was this examination done in secret or was it widely made known and unbiased?

If it was found that the manuscript dates from the 19th century, then one would not expect a delay in publishing the results. The manuscript would in all probability then be a fraud - end of story.

On the other hand, if the findings point to an old manuscript, quite a few reputations will be scarred. This could then be a reason for any delay such as there may be. (At this stage we have no evidence or reason to believe that this may be the case). To be credible, therefore, one would expect a very open process.

I will make further inquiries. (Or has one of you already done so?)

Even if paper and ink turn out to be new I will still consider it more credible to be a copy of (an) older source(s), than the result of a 19th century conspiracy.

Inspired by Alewyn's book - that I finished last week - I made a new video yesterday, presenting a theory that is dawning in me.

I know it may be a bit cryptic to some, but that is my style;

I like to leave some space for the imagination of the viewer.

And I will make improved versions later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will make further inquiries. (Or has one of you already done so?)

Even if paper and ink turn out to be new I will still consider it more credible to be a copy of (an) older source(s), than the result of a 19th century conspiracy.

Inspired by Alewyn's book - that I finished last week - I made a new video yesterday, presenting a theory that is dawning in me.

I know it may be a bit cryptic to some, but that is my style;

I like to leave some space for the imagination of the viewer.

And I will make improved versions later.

Just an observation on your video (3min.19sec.)

“Floris V (1256-1296) Lost battles against the West Frisians in 1272 and 1282, but occupied the land after it was struck by a flood in 1287”.

This would have been the “St Lucias Flood” of 14 December 1287 when, according to my sources, between 50 000 and 80 000 people were killed. (Survivors of the Great Tsunami – page 203)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Otharus,

LOL. What happened to the “Hoax Theorists”? Since you started showing their high priest to have feet of clay, their silence is deafening.

We should try to understand their position, though. After attacking and ridiculing “The Oera Linda Book”, “Survivors of the Great Tsunami” and myself with such enthusiasm (nay, hysteria) one cannot reasonably expect them now to recant or admit their folly, can we? After all, very few people in this world have the stature to see the other man’s point of view let alone admitting that they themselves may be wrong.

Even reading “Survivors of the Great Tsunami” beyond my speculation in Chapter 1 may just cast doubt in their minds or destroy their fantasies regarding fables and mythology; such as Romulus and Remus who had a wolf as a nanny. Perhaps the OLB’s account of history is just too realistic?

I think if they had to buy the book like you, they would have made the effort to read it. On the other hand, though, I must admit that reading and understanding “Survivors of the Great Tsunami” require some concentration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Otharus,

LOL. What happened to the “Hoax Theorists”? Since you started showing their high priest to have feet of clay, their silence is deafening.

We should try to understand their position, though. After attacking and ridiculing “The Oera Linda Book”, “Survivors of the Great Tsunami” and myself with such enthusiasm (nay, hysteria) one cannot reasonably expect them now to recant or admit their folly, can we? After all, very few people in this world have the stature to see the other man’s point of view let alone admitting that they themselves may be wrong.

Even reading “Survivors of the Great Tsunami” beyond my speculation in Chapter 1 may just cast doubt in their minds or destroy their fantasies regarding fables and mythology; such as Romulus and Remus who had a wolf as a nanny. Perhaps the OLB’s account of history is just too realistic?

I think if they had to buy the book like you, they would have made the effort to read it. On the other hand, though, I must admit that reading and understanding “Survivors of the Great Tsunami” require some concentration.

Just call me by my name, Alewyn.

And the reason I do not reply to what Otharus posted is because he is still busy creating what must be a great revelation.

I can wait.

--

EDIT:

I am more the guy of the direct approach.

I think if they had to buy the book like you,

Yes, yes, you sent it to me for free. And that was because I had been whining about my finances here. I didn't say it in the open - I said my brother was willing to give it to me as present - because I didn't want to give the other members here the impression that whining about money would make you send your book for free.

But if you are going to hint at what we talked about in private, then I will say here that you were more or less convinced *I* would become convinced about the OLB being a true historical account, and even that I would be willing to publish a translation into Dutch.

Well, although I haven't read the whole book yet, I did read like 80%.

And I am disappointed, because most of your great claims have already been dealt with in this thread.

I know you don't believe me when I say it, but I wish it was different.

And doesn't it bother you that Otharus only talks about the OLB and his ideas about it, and NOT about YOUR book??

.

Edited by Abramelin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And doesn't it bother you that Otharus only talks about the OLB and his ideas about it, and NOT about YOUR book??

That I have not commented on "Survivors" yet, is that I am still overwhelmed and processing everything.

Did I not say the book inspired me to make a video, which was like a big creative egg I had wanted to lay for a long time?

Congratulations Alewyn with the treasure you put together!

Ofcourse I have thoughts about it that I will share later, maybe in private first.

Let's wait till the others have read it 100 procent and taken some time to digest it.

I'm curious what you think about the theory in my video.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...one cannot reasonably expect them now to recant or admit their folly, can we?

What folly? Your theory of an axial tilt of the Earth has already been shown to be wrong and the idea of a significant event having happened specifically in 2193 BC has more holes than Swiss Cheese, as it's currently unevidenced. Yet you've bounced from the specific date (2193 BC) to a general time frame of a few hundred years or so, to implying that the general time frame validates the specific date (somehow). It doesn't.

Considering that this thread is supposed to be about the OLB and its alleged connection to a specific event, with a specific date, and that that self-same event is unevidenced in the archaeological or geological record, it rather lays to rest the purpose of this thread IMO.

It would appear to me that a discussion of the integrity, or lack thereof, of the OLB would better be served by a thread of its own.

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would appear to me that a discussion of the integrity, or lack thereof, of the OLB would better be served by a thread of its own.

cormac

Otharus never talks about Alewyn's book, Puzzler never does, some other guy who once posted in this thread and bought Alewyn's book never does........

Yeah, the OLB should get a thread of it's own. Well, it already has, sort off... THIS thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That I have not commented on "Survivors" yet, is that I am still overwhelmed and processing everything.

Did I not say the book inspired me to make a video, which was like a big creative egg I had wanted to lay for a long time?

Congratulations Alewyn with the treasure you put together!

Ofcourse I have thoughts about it that I will share later, maybe in private first.

Let's wait till the others have read it 100 procent and taken some time to digest it.

I'm curious what you think about the theory in my video.

Thank you so much for your kind words Otharus. I think I understand how much it takes to go against entrenched populist ideas; especially on such an emotional subject as this is in the Netherlands.

Have you noticed how this posting of yours is totally ignored by Abe in his subsequent posting? I think you and the other readers will draw their own conclusions from that.

From your video I see that Westfriesland was conquered in 1297 AD.

In 1902 the mighty British Empire conquered the two tiny Boer Republics of the Transvaal and the Orange Free State in South Africa after a 3 year war. Some 22 000 British soldiers, 4 000 Boer combatants and 26 000 Boer women and children died in the conflict (the women and children died in British concentration camps).

After the war, Dutch and Afrikaans were banned from all schools and public services such as courts, state departments, etc. For the next almost 40 years, Afrikaners could not rise beyond the position of foreman in any industry or state department. There was a deliberate attempt to eradicate Afrikaans. My late father recounted how he was told not to speak “that language” when he would apply for work on the mines.

From what little I know of Frisian history, it seems like the same policy was followed in the Netherlands after 1297 AD. Yet, after more than 700 years they still exist - absolutely marvellous.

Liko Oera Linda’s letter of 803 AD comes to mind:

(For material gain) “they conspire with foreign kings, who know that we are their greatest enemies, because we dare to speak to their people of liberty, rights, and the duties of princes. Therefore they seek to destroy all that we derive from our forefathers, and all that is left of our old customs.”

I can certainly understand that.

I hope somebody will respond to your conclusion in your video that “the language of (the) Oera Linda Book is Overold Dutch – Old (West Frisian) Dutch”. I am afraid I am not qualified to do so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you noticed how this posting of yours is totally ignored by Abe in his subsequent posting? I think you and the other readers will draw their own conclusions from that.

I didn't respond, because I expect something more, like Otharus promised to do.

He is busy with something - I know - so I refrain from responding untill he posted what he had planned to post.

You don't know what is going on, so please stop trying to pretend that you do.

And where is Puzzler or that guy? Both must have read your book two times now....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He is busy with something

Yes, I bought 3 books yesterday to study:

post-106727-081122500 1287692068_thumb.jpost-106727-000366100 1287692085_thumb.jpost-106727-089706600 1287692100_thumb.j

Already found something interesting:

"The Frisii Minores lived west of Mare Flevum in what is now North-Holland and the Frisii Maiores lived in nowaday Friesland. These two are archeologically distinguishable by their own type of pottery that has been found between Low-Rhine and Oostergo."

From: "De Rand van het Rijk ~ De Romeinen en de Lage Landen" (The Romans and the Low Lands), page 109 (my translation).

Could it be that one of them (Maiores?) were from the group that had come back under guidance of Friso, while the other (Minores?) were original Fryas that had never left. (See "Survivors" chapter 7.)

This would explain why in the east they were already more used to having (male) kings, than in the west. And it would explain the difference between Old-Frisian and Old-'Dutch' (Westfrisian), as suggested in my video.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I bought 3 books yesterday to study:

post-106727-081122500 1287692068_thumb.jpost-106727-000366100 1287692085_thumb.jpost-106727-089706600 1287692100_thumb.j

Already found something interesting:

"The Frisii Minores lived west of Mare Flevum in what is now North-Holland and the Frisii Maiores lived in nowaday Friesland. These two are archeologically distinguishable by their own type of pottery that has been found between Low-Rhine and Oostergo."

From: "De Rand van het Rijk ~ De Romeinen en de Lage Landen" (The Romans and the Low Lands), page 109 (my translation).

Could it be that one of them (Maiores?) were from the group that had come back under guidance of Friso, while the other (Minores?) were original Fryas that had never left. (See "Survivors" chapter 7.)

This would explain why in the east they were already more used to having (male) kings, than in the west. And it would explain the difference between Old-Frisian and Old-'Dutch' (Westfrisian), as suggested in my video.

Man, I posted about the Frisian Maiores and the Minores, many pages ago.

Read the thread, please.

I dont care how many books you bought today, I want to know what you think about Alewyn's book.

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.