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 11
Abramelin

Oera Linda Book and the Great Flood [Part 2]

6,100 posts in this topic

the above review is very disappointing ..and i was really looking forward to reading it.........So that is what a scholarly review looks like ?, should it not break down the history the writer claims , and show how it is wrong by proofs to the contrary ?......... this is nothing but a rant in flowery language , just full of one mans opinion , so we get told the work was evaluated and found to be a fake by the scholar Macalister........but as per usual the scholar does not have to show his proof , but just make accusations , and allude to the other mans insanity.....and that is supposed to be good enough reason to write him and his book off for ever ....same old story......

Have you ever read the Chronicles of Eri? It says Irish are the lost tribes of Israel. It's obvious pseudo-history and it is categorized as being part of "British Israelite" literature. British Israelism has been discredited for decades, it only has about five thousand supporters left world-wide and these are just religious cultists.

Encyclopedia Britannica summarises that: "The theory [of British-Israelism] rests on premises which are deemed by scholars - both theological and anthropological - to be utterly unsound". In 1998, David MacDonald, from the Illinois State University History Department, wrote: "The concept that the ten tribes […] moved to Europe is a complete myth […] Nothing — not archaeology, cultural history, or linguistics--gives the slightest credibility."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Re-read what I posted a page or so back. [...] Here's another post that explains:
[...] However, when the majority of the evidence available supports a position, it is reasonable to hold it as a tentative conclusion regardless.

What evidence?!

Re-read my earlier reply:

What good is that alleged consensus if there is not a single valid publication proving that OLB can't be authentic?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[/size]

What evidence?!

Re-read my earlier reply:

Well obviously there is evidence, otherwise the academic consensus would not be Oera Linda Book is a forgery. If you look at a small sample of peer-reviewed papers I cited, there are converging lines of evidence from different approaches to source criticism. And as I already told you - the consensus establishes the default position. The default position here is the Oera Linda Book is a forgery. Instead, like pseudo-scientists or pseudo-historians you are trying to shift the burden of proof since you have no evidence whatsoever the Oera Linda Book is an ancient document. What you're doing is the equivalent of me asking you to disprove there is a pink unicorn somewhere in space. It is faulty logic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would seem that there was a site of early Christian activity in the UK during the 3rd quarter of the first century.Wouldn't the first Christians converted Jews?

http://www.pasthorizonspr.com/index.php/archives/09/2011/identifying-an-early-monastic-school-house

jmccr8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well obviously there is evidence, otherwise the academic consensus would not be Oera Linda Book is a forgery.

Then why has none of the self-declared skeptics been able to reproduce this obvious evidence in this (two part) thread?

And why do you (as well as Abramelin) need demagoguery to make your point?

The Oera Linda Book isn't even good for toilet paper.
... its only supporters were the Nazi "lunatic fringe".
You're only left with crazy conspiracy theories.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What you're doing is the equivalent of me asking you to disprove there is a pink unicorn somewhere in space. It is faulty logic.

No, this simile is invalid.

Our discussion started with you claiming (last Jan. 6th on your website) that anyone who defends the OLB "lacks intellectual honesty", in other words: ... is lying.

I asked you to explain why and your answer seems to be: because they challenge the academic consensus.

I hope you will agree that it has happened more often that what was once consensus, changed later, after it was at some point challenged. I recommend you read "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" (Kuhn, 1962). Those who challenge an existing paradigm are not by definition liars.

Unless you are paranoid, you can not simply accuse a fellow man of lying and demand of him to prove that he is not.

You will have to provide better arguments.

Edited by gestur

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then why has none of the self-declared skeptics been able to reproduce this obvious evidence in this (two part) thread?

And why do you (as well as Abramelin) need demagoguery to make your point?

We don't need to produce evidence. That is the whole point. Most people posting on forums do not represent the scientific consensus and don't even have access to the available data. It is in peer-reviewed or specialist publications written by experts. This is like a topic such as age of the Earth. Few people know about the dating methods which establish the Earth to be 4.54 ± 0.05 billion years. The consensus on any topic is the default position because it is supported by converging lines of evidence. Citing the consensus as evidence is not an appeal to majority or authority. If you want to challenge it - you are required to provide the evidence instead of trying to shift the burden of proof.

What evidence do you have the Oera Linda Book is an ancient document? And secondly why (according to you) is the consensus wrong? Note: you can change the consensus by providing evidence. However you don't provide anything. A few silly produced YT videos which have less than 10 hits on most of them don't count, neither does ranting on a Stormfront thread. You yourself know this, which is why you're left with conspiracy theories and character assassinations. The way you attack or try to dismiss people via the latter (by even rejecting them if they have a Jewish surname or if they are politically liberal) is amusing when you're a Holocaust denier and neo-nazi. You have no credibility yourself whatsoever as exposed from the Stormfront thread:

the gas chamber hoax already maintains so long, not to mention the Anne Frank hoax
I agree with you that exposure of the Holocaust myth has highest priority. But to each his specialty, and this is mine.

And apparently Gestur thinks Iman Wilkins' crazy theory Troy sat in England and the Trojans were Celts is "credible":

Very remarkable is that the extremely serious and credible study of IJ Wilkens of Troy , is ignored by the official 'experts'.

You will also note it seems to be Gestur's psychological projection about appeal to authority. In every thread he says he holds and MSc:

Firstly, I OLB researcher (MSc), since 2009.
I have a university degree and have been for some years head of a scientific agency. I know how my former colleagues to proceed and that money almost every "scientific" conclusion for sale (or obscure) is.

A few days back in the very thread he also quoted his degree (again). The only appeal to authority logical fallacy comes from him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You make a big effort to distract from the main question, because you have no good answer to it.

I asked:

Then why has none of the self-declared skeptics been able to reproduce this obvious evidence in this (two part) thread?

Your answer:

We don't need to produce evidence.

Indeed, but that's not what I asked.

I asked why you can't RE-produce or refer to any evidence.

Edited by gestur

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gesturs so called "appeal to authority "or telling us of his experience , was made first of all in response to your claim to be speaking as an authority , which although you accuse him of it , you are still using yourself , as in the above we don't need to produce evidence , it is because scholars, scientists , archaeologists do not provide access to all the available data (if in fact they have it in the first place ?) that causes interested parties to wonder and investigate the holes left in history by the non publication of the available data............

.I am still left wondering if O'Connors work was demonized because he was seen as a political enemy of both the Irish , and British Government around the time of it's publication , rather than what he wrote of the history of Eri.because the 1941 review is either just a rant by Macalister , or if he has the proof , in his arrogance he feels he does not need to inform us , which is it ??

If there is evidence that his book is wrong ,then why do the authorities not publish a critique of his chronicles , showing clearly the contrary proofs of origin of the Irish , then i can throw my copy away , and never bring it up again , can they not see , that in not producing the contrary evidence they actually encourage , what they then call conspiracy theories, because they have conspired to withhold proof of the available data. most of the same goes for the OBL

Why don't the authorities do the appropriate modern tests on the paper on which the OBL is written ?, i find it hard to believe they have not done that already , so why do they not publish their findings , why keep that piece of invaluable information to themselves ? knowing if the paper is 13th Century paper , or 19th Century paper would answer a lot of questions , and again may let me consign my copy to the bin, why do those who hold the consensus not have to provide proof ? .....it really does not make sense to me ???

Edited by NO-ID-EA
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A general note to Smith:

Google-Translate (or whatever program you use) does not translate Dutch to English adequately.

If it's relevant at all to quote, provide the source, so the context can be checked.

Edited by gestur

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why don't the authorities do the appropriate modern tests on the paper on which the OBL is written ?, i find it hard to believe they have not done that already , so why do they not publish their findings , why keep that piece of invaluable information to themselves ? knowing if the paper is 13th Century paper , or 19th Century paper would answer a lot of questions [...]

Exactly.

Thanks for your support, NO-ID-EA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am still left wondering if O'Connors work was demonized because he was seen as a political enemy of both the Irish, and British Government around the time of it's publication, rather than what he wrote of the history of Eri, because the 1941 review is either just a rant by Macalister, or if he has the proof, in his arrogance he feels he does not need to inform us, which is it ??

I think these verses from the Old Testament (Deuteronomy 12, 2-3 - King James Bible) speak volumes:

Ye shall utterly destroy all the places, wherein the nations which ye shall possess served their gods, upon the high mountains, and upon the hills, and under every green tree: And ye shall overthrow their altars, and break their pillars, and burn their groves with fire; and ye shall hew down the graven images of their gods, and destroy the names of them out of that place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And apparently Gestur thinks Iman Wilkins' crazy theory Troy sat in England and the Trojans were Celts is "credible":

.

Personally I don't find it that INcredible.

I'd go with a proto-Celtic type though.

Since classical antiquity, readers of Homer have been puzzled by the inconsistencies of the Greek geography as described in both the Iliad and the Odyssey. Already Strabo and Eratosthenes had abandoned their efforts to make sense of Homer's geography in the Mediterranean.

The next question then arises, of course, where that could have been. At first sight, the problem is not a simple one, but Homer gives an initial indication through the description of the late Bronze Age culture of his time, which has so little in common with Mycenaean culture that a disappointed John Chadwick, who assisted Michael Ventris in deciphering the Linear B script, wrote an article entitled 'Homer, the Liar', thus adding insult to injury for the poet who was not only considered 'utterly ignorant of Greek geography' by Professor Murray, but also incapable of correctly describing the culture of his society. As it seems unlikely that a poet would be ignorant in both fields simultaneously, we have a strong argument to search elsewhere for the Trojan War. The most important clue given by Homer is the cremation of Achilles, Patroclus and Hector, whose ashes were collected in golden urns. By contrast, in Bronze Age Mycenae, important people were buried with a golden mask, many of which have been found by Schliemann, such as the golden mask he attributed to Agamemnon, but which has turned out to be a century too old to have belonged to this king. But cremation was a typical Celtic custom that was not shared by other peoples in Europe at the time. Another interesting clue given by Homer is the frequent indication of oceanic tides, as tides are insignificant in the Mediterranean. Already Strabo wrote that 'Homer was not unfamiliar with tides and that for this reason several of the places described by the poet should be sought in the Atlantic Ocean'. These combined indications given by Homer therefore suggest that his epics related to Celts living on the shores of the Atlantic Ocean.

(etc etc)

For all these reasons and many others, the late Sir Moses Finley, Professor at the University of Cambridge, concluded that 'we are confronted with this paradox that the more we know, the worse off we are' and he therefore suggested that 'Homer's Trojan War…...must be evicted from the history of the Greek Bronze Age'

http://phdamste.tripod.com/trojan.html

At these words, Dionysos rejoiced in hope of victory; then he questioned Hermes and wished to hear more of the Olympian tale which the Celts of the west know well:

http://www.theoi.com...n/Phaethon.html

Here's one of the interesting points bought up by Iman Wilkins, in relation to this thread:

He also writes that "It also appears that Homer's Greek contains a large number of loan words from western European languages, more often from Dutch rather than English, French or German."[6] These languages are considered by linguists to have not existed until around 1000 years after Homer

Dutch, how interesting.

Edited by The Puzzler
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is evidence of a relatively large scale disruption of cultural patterns which some scholars think may indicate an invasion (or at least a migration) into Southern Great Britain around the 12th century BC. This disruption was felt far beyond Britain, even beyond Europe, as most of the great Near Eastern empires collapsed (or experienced severe difficulties) and the Sea Peoples harried the entire Mediterranean basin around this time. Cremation was adopted as a burial practice, with cemeteries of urns containing cremated individuals appearing in the archaeological record. According to John T. Koch and others, the Celtic languages developed during this Late Bronze Age period in an intensely trading-networked culture called the Atlantic Bronze Age that included Britain, Ireland, France, Spain and Portugal,[8][9][10][11][12][13] but this stands in contrast to the more generally accepted view that Celtic origins lie with the Hallstatt culture.

http://en.wikipedia....nze_Age_Britain

That article also goes a long way in explaining the social strata of the day in Britain and how such a large trade industry must have been run by more than tribal chiefs, maybe not states but certainly a sophisticated, maritime trade culture who were able to conduct large scale commerce.

What we may not be seeing in the collapse of the Mediterranean Bronze Age era was caused by the collapse in Britain of the tin industry and with it came the end of the Bronze Age itself.

My Y-DNA haplogroup is in the Atlantic Bronze Age R1b group (Atlantic Modal group) my ancestors came from Cornwall and worked in mines, I find these movements of great interest. My mtDNA is actually K1b, a 'non-Jewish' European variant of haplogroup K.

Approximately 32% of people with Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry are in haplogroup K. This high percentage points to a genetic bottleneck occurring some 100 generations ago.[7] Ashkenazi mtDNA K clusters into three subclades seldom found in non-Jews: K1a1b1a, K1a9, and K2a2a. Thus it is possible to detect three individual female ancestors, who were thought to be from a Hebrew/Levantine mtDNA pool, whose descendants lived in Europe.[9] However recent studies suggest these clades originate from Western Europe.

The average of European K frequency is 5.6%. K appears to be highest in the Morbihan (17.5%) and Périgord-Limousin (15.3%) regions of France, and in Norway and Bulgaria (13.3%).[11] The level is 12.5% in Belgium, 11% in Georgia and 10% in Austria and Great Britain.

http://en.wikipedia....ogroup_K_(mtDNA)

I believe today's perceptions of history are already becoming illusions, created by masters of story-telling as political incentives to lineages of importance. Genetics will help decipher many of these hidden histories, if we allow ourselves to acknowledge them.

Edited by The Puzzler
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The most important clue given by Homer is the cremation of Achilles, Patroclus and Hector, whose ashes were collected in golden urns. [...] But cremation was a typical Celtic custom that was not shared by other peoples in Europe at the time.

Interesting.

It's quite obvious that Smith didn't even read Wilkins' "crazy" theory (reminds me of my "silly" videos).

Why should he, since his knowledge of the classics is already "encyclopedic"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My Y-DNA haplogroup is ...

How did you find out?

I believe today's perceptions of history are already becoming illusions, created by masters of story-telling as political incentives to lineages of importance.

Indeed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How did you find out?

Indeed.

I got the tests done, my father had to do the Y-DNA one for me, I swabbed for the mtDNA and sent them away, I received my tests back from lab in USA about 6 weeks later.

I got 2 nice charts, one for each Y and mt - the same as the Lineage Chart here, which is the option I paid for. http://www.ancestrybydna.com/

The charts are sent from that company but I ordered it from an online Australian genetic testing company who had a good price on the 2 tests done at once. They must send them to Ancestry by DNA.

I had to use the information given to me in the STR sequences to identify the precise haplogroup of R1b (which was R1b1a2a-RM269) which isn't that hard when you find the values that match in online charts, otherwise it's a lot more expensive. The maternal K group surprised me at first but now it's so obvious.

Edited by The Puzzler
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting.

It's quite obvious that Smith didn't even read Wilkins' "crazy" theory (reminds me of my "silly" videos).

Why should he, since his knowledge of the classics is already "encyclopedic"?

This is Bronze Age Britain...

270px-British_Museum_gold_thing_501594_fh000035.jpg

The Mold Cape is a solid sheet-gold object dating from about 1900-1600 BC in the European Bronze Age.

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

Many people are just ignorant of how developed Britain was in the Bronze Age imo.

Britain had large reserves of tin in the areas of Cornwall and Devon in what is now Southwest England, and thus tin mining began. By around 1600 BC, the Southwest of Britain was experiencing a trade boom as British tin was exported across Europe.

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

Time will tell gestur. :yes:

Edited by The Puzzler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://en.wikipedia....Troy_Once_Stood

Scroll down to classical reviews where they are sourced. The work isn't taken serious by any classicist and has been dismissed as crackpot. Mr Wilkins of course has no background or education in classics, and lacks basic knowledge in this area - which shows in the text. Crazy or eccentric theories however sell well as they stimulate human curiosity by appearing as spectacular, and also invoke a conspiracy theory which makes people feel special (in the case of Wilkins: all classicists are wrong and there is a conspiracy theory to conceal the Celtic origin of the Iliad and Odyssey).

Edited by OliverDSmith

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is Bronze Age Britain...

270px-British_Museum_gold_thing_501594_fh000035.jpg

The Mold Cape is a solid sheet-gold object dating from about 1900-1600 BC in the European Bronze Age.

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

Many people are just ignorant of how developed Britain was in the Bronze Age imo.

Time will tell gestur. :yes:

The Celtic speakers in ancient Britain had no recorded history or written inscriptions. Ogham is a late exception, however most scholars argue it had a Latin template.

The theory insular Celtic speakers or Britons were Trojans makes no sense even. Why would the Iliad and Odyssey be written in Greek, thousands of miles away and not British Celtic in Britain? Wilkins has some bizarre theory the British Celts are the Sea Peoples, but that doesn't explain anything. He just tries to bury the reader in a load of more nonsense, so they don't focus on specific flaws in his outlandish theory.

Edited by OliverDSmith

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://en.wikipedia....Troy_Once_Stood

Scroll down to classical reviews where they are sourced. The work isn't taken serious by any classicist and has been dismissed as crackpot. Mr Wilkins of course has no background or education in classics, and lacks basic knowledge in this area - which shows in the text. Crazy or eccentric theories however sell well as they stimulate human curiosity by appearing as spectacular, and also invoke a conspiracy theory which makes people feel special (in the case of Wilkins: all classicists are wrong and there is a conspiracy theory to conceal the Celtic origin of the Iliad and Odyssey).

Personally, I don't buy it completely, however I do think it has many good points going for it and am still very open to the idea. The impact Bronze Age Britain and Northern Europe had on Continental Europe and the Med. during this time frame is what imo is more important here and what I concentrate on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Personally, I don't buy it completely...

Same here.

But it is at least more plausible than the prevailing theories.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Same here.

But it is at least more plausible than the prevailing theories.

It seems you only believe in obscure or extreme viewpoints to be different (the Oera Linda Book being real, the Holocaust being a hoax, Anne Frank's diary being a forgery, civilization starting in northern Europe and so on). Does this make you feel special or something? Maybe. But why believe in stuff that is completely false?

Edited by OliverDSmith

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can it be a less personal please? Or is it just me having some problems with this kind of discussions ...

I can only say that I appreciate the input/analysis of Gestur as really to the point, no attention seeking of any kind.

1 person likes this

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 11

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.