[Archived]Oera Linda Book and the Great Flood

[Otharus]

Translation:

Fiftyfirst report of the proceedings of the

Frisian Society of History, Archaeology and Linguistics in Leeuwarden,

over the year 1878-1879, given in the meeting of 18 September 1879.

[...]

C. Executive committee

In the general meeting of 12 September 1878, mr. W. Eekhoff's resignation as treasurer was accepted. He was replaced by mr. J.G. van Blom, while both periodically resigning board members dr. J.G. Ottema and mr. F.J.J. van Eijsinga were re-elected in their function.

Unfortunately, mr. Ottema could not hold this renewed position for long. Since 1832 he had been member of the Society, member of the board since 1843, initially as secretary, later since 1858 as general member. He died last March 19. The longlasting membership offered him many opportunities to be useful to the Society and mr. Ottema did not fail to do so. He always was and remained a very diligent member of the board, who was hardly ever absent at the weekly meetings, while not only the various issues of "the free Frisian" but also seperate publications of the Society (especially the 5 books 'Chonyken van Worp Tyaerda van Rinsumageest') are incontestable witnesses of his high efficacy. May his memory stimulate us to continue the path chosen by him.

He will have to be replaced in this meeting.

Source: http://images.tresoar.nl/wumkes/periodieken/vfg/vfg_1878-79_51.pdf

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

From December 1870 till his death, that is more than 8 years, dr. Ottema has spent researching, translating, publishing and defending the OLB.

To him the book was sacred.

While the 1875 publication 'Friesche Oudheden' from the Frisian Society, was still very positive about the OLB (see translation in 11 parts that I posted in the last few days), it is emphatically not even mentioned in Ottema's obituary, only four years later.

Note that the full name of the Society is: Frisian Society of History, Archaeology and Linguistics.

By leaving the OLB out of his obituary, they not only proved their disrespect to Ottema who had been a member for 47 years, but to history in general.

This IMO is proof that the subject of the OLB has been taboo, in other words suppressed in the Netherlands.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Next question: Why WAS AND IS it taboo to seriously examine its possible authenticity?

Edited January 31, 2012 by Otharus

[Otharus]

Then it's even better: he heard about it and kept his mouth shut, just to see the story unfold.

I don't know what I would do if someone publishes one of my concoctions believing it to be a real authentic and ancient manuscript. Maybe I'd just sit back and have an eternal grin on my face, lol.

Nonsense.

If Halbertsma would have been involved and if he would have talked, Cornelis Over de Linden would have been accused of something very bad (remember that Verwijs already reported to the government about it).

And if he was involved but stayed silent, he would still have risked losing his own very good reputation, specially in the Friesch Genootschap (Frisian Society).

You demonstrate not to have the slightest idea of 19th century psychology.

This was not about an innocent joke.

Edited January 31, 2012 by Otharus

[Otharus]

If Halbertsma would have been involved and if he would have talked, Cornelis Over de Linden would have been accused of something very bad (remember that Verwijs already reported to the government about it).

The point is, that Over de Linden would not have risked being betrayed by Halbertsma, and Halbertsma would not have gambled with his excellent reputation by being part of a forgery.

[Abramelin]

Nonsense.

If Halbertsma would have been involved and if he would have talked, Cornelis Over de Linden would have been accused of something very bad (remember that Verwijs already reported to the government about it).

And if he was involved but stayed silent, he would still have risked losing his own very good reputation, specially in the Friesch Genootschap (Frisian Society).

You demonstrate not to have the slightest idea of 19th century psychology.

This was not about an innocent joke.

That is why Wim Zaal said that in the end the psychology of the one who created the OLB would be far more interesting than the OLB itself.

I agree with that.

[Abramelin]

He was an honorary member of the Genootschap and still alive in 1867, when it was first discussed there.

It is unthinkable that he has not heard about it.

I know his brother Eeltje was, and he left the Genootschap because he thought they were a bunch of fools.

http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provinciaal_Friesch_Genootschap_ter_Beoefening_van_Friesche_Geschied-,_Oudheid-_en_Taalkunde

[Otharus]

That is why Wim Zaal said that in the end the psychology of the one who created the OLB would be far more interesting than the OLB itself.

AFTER it is established that the manuscript was fabricated in the 19th century, a statement like that makes sense, unless the psychology of Liko, Hidde and their ancestors is ment.

You suggest that it is self-evident that OLB is a hoax.

That is by no means the case.

[Otharus]

I know his brother Eeltje was, and he left the Genootschap because he thought they were a bunch of fools.

Daar was de verzameling te zien die het Fries Genootschap sinds de oprichting in 1827 bijeen had gebracht. [...] Daarin waren de Hindelooper kledingstukken opgeborgen, die het erelid dr. Joost Hiddes Halbertsma (1789-1869), de beroemde Friese taal- en letterkundige, had verzameld en geschonken aan het Kabinet.

http://www.friesgenootschap.nl/artikelen/dejong.htm

[Abramelin]

Daar was de verzameling te zien die het Fries Genootschap sinds de oprichting in 1827 bijeen had gebracht. [...] Daarin waren de Hindelooper kledingstukken opgeborgen, die het erelid dr. Joost Hiddes Halbertsma (1789-1869), de beroemde Friese taal- en letterkundige, had verzameld en geschonken aan het Kabinet.

http://www.friesgenootschap.nl/artikelen/dejong.htm

I didn't deny Joost was a member, just that his brother Eeltje didn't have a very high opinion of these guys.

[Otharus]

For the dutch-language readers (sorry, no time to translate yet), here's a relevant chapter from:

Friesche Oudheden ~ Afbeeldingen van Merkwaardige Voorwerpen van Wetenschap en Kunst, gevonden in de Archieven, Kerken, Kasteelen, Terpen enz. van Friesland.

Published by the Friesch Genootschap (1875).

Page 48-50

http://images.tresoar.nl/wumkes/pdf/Friesche_Oudheden.pdf

Finally, here's the complete English translation, with a selection of fragments highlighted by me.

The OERA LINDA Manuscript

The Over de Linden family in Den Helder has an old manuscript, of which script, language and content are unknown. It was passed on from generation to generation, with the advice to keep it with care, as a family-treasure. The owner thought it was written in Old-Frisian, and that it might contain information about ancient ancestors.

When Dr. Eelco Verwijs, archivist-biblothecarian of Fryslân, heard about this, he informed the government. He was instructed to examine it. On 17 December 1867 he reported his first conclusions. The owner has given him permission to transcribe and translate the manuscript.

Thanks to the persevering zeal and care of Dr. Jan Ottema, the content was understood and translated. In detail he reported the results of his accurate examination in a meeting of the Frisian Society on 10 February 1871. This report was printed and distributed, and lead to a great common interest in this curious piece.

In his opinion, the doubts that had risen about the authenticity of the manuscript had no grounds. He saw it as a most important source of old-Frisian history, with completely new information. His conclusion: "We can assume that this manuscript, of which the oldest part was composed ca. 600 BC, contains the oldest product (besides Homer and Hesiod) of European literature. It describes an ancient culture, thus far unknown, with a development, civilization, industry, navigation, trade, literature and sublime religious values. In our imagination, our history did not reach beyond the arrival of Friso (ca. 300 BC), the supposed Frisian founding father. Here however we discover a history beyond 2000 BC, older than that of Greece and as old as that of Israel."

The manuscript is a copy from 1256, made by Hidde Oera Linda. In all debates about its authenticity and value, it was impossible to have a solid judgement, until it was published in 1872. [...]

Publication lead to heavy debates about authenticity of the manuscript. Dr. Ottema published an explanation in 1873, titled 'Historical Notes and Clarifications to the Oera Linda book', and defended it a year later in 'The Royal Academy and the Oera Linda book'. Dr. A.T. Reitsma from Groningen studied it and presented the result of his critical research in three meetings of the Frisian Society. He concluded that the manuscript is probably real, and of high historic value. In the last meeting the skeptics also gave their opinion. The manuscript itself was also displayed at that occasion, so anyone could judge if it could be a 13th century copy.

The most detailed research report so far was published in 1874, titled 'In response to the Oera Linda Book'. It is obvious that the author (prof. A.J. Vitringa) is very erudite and unprejudiced. His answer to the thought that the book would be a forgery, made after 1853, when the stilt-houses in lake Zürich were discoverd, is: "Who would be the forgerer? Not just anyone would be capable of such a thing. For that an accurate knowledge is needed of the oldest Frisian language, of which a very limited vocabulary from only a few sources is available. Besides, one should have known how that language would have changed through the ages. The fact is, there is a clear difference between the language of the oldest and the youngest texts of the manuscript. The forgerer would have needed a rare historic and geographic knowledge. Years of study would have been an inexorable condition and writing the odd letterscript would have been a tough job. What would all that effort have been good for? Honour? ... Forgerers have a good reason to keep their name a secret. - Money? ... Beforehand it was hardly expectable that any profit could be made with publication. - The pleasure of fooling some scholars? ... Would an utterly erudite and talented man, as the maker must have been, offer so much time and effort for such questionable delight? All that is inconceivable."

"What we have here is an odd dilemma: Either we are being fooled by a fabrication, made by a highly devoted, mad genius, or much of our ancient history will be seen from a different viewpoint, which will make a revolution in that field inevitable."

"You might think it was made by a bored friar? This cannot be the case either. The OLB describes ethics and a concept of God, that are unsurpassably true and pure, anti-monkish and anti-theologic. Someone who was raised under the influence of Katholic or even Protestant dogma's, could impossibly have expressed these true liberal and totally unbenefited feelings."

And yet this scholar concluded: "Although nothing excludes authenticity, and we discovered nothing that convinces of a forgery, still there is something suspicious about the parts that deal with Greek-Roman antiquity. We have no doubts about the honesty and frankness of the gentlemen Over de Linden and dr. Ottema. We are convinced that, if it would be a forgery, they have not participated in making it. We have doubts, but they are not strong enough to make us definitely reject the OLB."

We can anyway call this book remarkable. Some see the OLB as an idolization of the Frisian past. The book will remain subject of meticulous research, as long as it is hard to determine what part of old history is myth, saga, or embellished tradition. Yet anyone who has read the book will have to admit, that parts of the content are valuable. Therefore we fully agree with the following statement of the scholar from Deventer: "Although I have fallen in love with the book, I confidently look forward to the results of a scientific examination. Because, even if it would be convincingly refuted on historic grounds, it would still keep its great ethical value as an allegory, as fiction."

[Otharus]

I didn't deny Joost was a member, just that his brother Eeltje didn't have a very high opinion of these guys.

I suspect that part of the Genootschap's hidden agenda was to stress the uniqueness of Friesland (the Dutch provence), the (modern) Frisians, their language and culture, as opposed to Holland and the Dutch of their time. (And maybe even prepare for separation, if they would ever get the chance.)

The OLB did exactly the opposite: describe a shared history, language and culture.

The OLB (if true) is from a shared past. Some words survived in Dutch mainly, others only in Frisian.

Most members of this Genootschap will not have seen any use in Dutch-Frisian shared past & language; it did not match their agenda.

I observe something interesting and at the same time totally logical about the new-Frisian (Ny-Frysk) language:

If they can choose between two words that have the same meaning and are both correct (synonyms), Frisians (who love the uniqueness of their language) will prefer to use the more 'un-Dutch', the more typically Frisian variety. This is how neighboring languages deviate: People want to have their own language, preferrably not understood by the 'enemy' (or simply neighbor). The Dutch language has many synonyms, some more like German, others more like English. If Dutch people dislike Germans, they will avoid using Germanisms, but rather prefer Anglicisms. Theoretically, after a long time of peace and friendship with our neighboring countries, our vocabulary would be much more extended, as we would be happy to also use their languages and vocabulary, and play with mixing them.

Just thinking out loud here.

I have always been more interested in how languages match, rather than differ.

If the OLB language would have been created by some mad genius, it would be the perfect reconstruction of a shared origin of Dutch, Frisian, English, German and 'Scandinavian' (to name just the few most obvious ones).

It beautifully reflects what these languages have in common.

If a group of nowaday specialists would be asked to create a book in a reconstructed language of a few hundred years BC, I don't believe they could ever come up with something half as good as the OLB language.

Has something like that ever been tried?

I don't think so.

[The Puzzler]

Fine with me. I already said it came from Latin/the Romans.

The burghtfemmes/maidens may have been protectors of knowledge and laws, just like the Vestal Virgins 'coincidentally', but if you are right, they all should have been called "Tutia".

And how can you say "Tuntia" may be a correct translation into English? It's quite obvious Sandbach must've assumed "Tutia" should have been "Tuntia" because that name already showed up in the OLB.

He corrected/changed something of the originl text because of an assumption; I'd say that is a big no-no.

I said it because Finnish TUNTIA means: A lesson, class (Finnish tuntia)

I think that can easily go through to being tutor,(no n sound) so Tuntia and Tutia could be the same word. The problem is we rely on the current pardigm of language to get to these words, when if you take notice of what the OLB says, it could work like that - the Latin meaning would have come from a Baltic word.

The name in Roman is often spelled Tuccia as well, so you yourself are playing with the name. The Vestal Tuccia was accused of fornication, but she carried water in a sieve to prove her chastity.

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

This is the core of what 'vestal' means imo:

The Vestals were put in charge of keeping safe the wills and testaments of various people such as Caesar and Mark Antony.

vest (v.)

early 15c., "to put in possession of a person," from M.Fr. vestir, from M.L. vestire "to put into possession, to invest,"

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=vest

They certainly were tutors: These 30 years were, in turn, divided into three periods of a decade each: ten as students, ten in service, and ten as teachers.

[The Puzzler]

Same I showed you Egeria was a Lithuanian word that matched the same description given of her from Rome.

Lithuanian[edit] EtymologyFrom Proto-Indo-European *gʷerh₃- (“to devour”). Cognate to Latvian dzert and Samogtian gert.

[edit] PronunciationIPA: [ˈɡʲæːɾʲtʲɪ]

[edit] Verbgérti (third-person present tense gẽria, third-person past tense gė́rė)

1.to drink

Jis nori gerti alaus

He wants to drink a beer

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/gerti

But most of all, Egeria gave wisdom and prophecy in return for libations of water or milk at her sacred groves.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egeria_(mythology)

Here it is in the Frisian dictionary too:

gi-r-, afries., Sb.: Vw.: s. *ji-rgi-

r-ich* 1, ji-r-ich*, afries., Adj.: nhd. gierig, habsüchtig; ne. greedy; Hw.: s. jer-ia;

http://www.koeblergerhard.de/germanistischewoerterbuecher/altfriesischeswoerterbuch/afries-G.pdf

[Abramelin]

"Tuccia" is how it is spelled in modern Italian.

I told you to enter "Tutia" in the search tool top-right, I am not going to repeat all this again.

[The Puzzler]

"Tuccia" is how it is spelled in modern Italian.

I told you to enter "Tutia" in the search tool top-right, I am not going to repeat all this again.

You don't have to repeat yourself, I rememeber all about Tutia.

[Alewyn]

By leaving the OLB out of his obituary, they not only proved their disrespect to Ottema who had been a member for 47 years, but to history in general.

This IMO is proof that the subject of the OLB has been taboo, in other words suppressed in the Netherlands.

Otharus, I must say that I enjoyed all your recent posts tremendously. You have given me even more confidence that you and I are not the only ones who believe in the authenticity of the OLB, and that we are, in fact, in very good company. The only ones who still disagree are Abe and Cormac. (I won't express my thoughts on Knul's views)

As for the "suppresion" of the OLB, please read again my posts in early December which totally support your view:

My post 8256 dated 3 December 2011 (translation of an article on the Oera Linda Book on the Dutch website Semafoor.net of the academic study group, SEM.)

My post 8294 dated 5 December 2011 (Albert Delahaye censored by Dutch academics i.e. he was not allowed to quote the OLB)

My post 8295 dated 5 December 2011 (Prof. Jensma’s theory and Tresoar)

“Jensma alleges the following (P.188): “Neither Molenaar nor Vleer dared, and it typified the Netherland situation, declare the book outright authentic”.

As with your posts, mine were just glossed over and conveniently forgotten. Instead, our fellow debaters quickly reverted back to linguistics and etymology where they are not bound by facts.

Abramelin and Cormac insist that my book be vindicated by professionals; yet, they as "lay men", (I do not know Cormac's background) consider themselves qualified to pronounce my views as being absurd. Abe has already indicated on a few occassions that he would like to get the honour of proving the OLB to be authentic. In order to do so, of course, he first have to convince everybody else that my work is worthless.

I must say that it is quite frustrating to realise that we could have been so much further down the line in reconstructing Europe's pre-history here, than the endless bickering by non-professionals about the origin of words.

[cormac mac airt]

~SNIP~

Abramelin and Cormac insist that my book be vindicated by professionals; yet, they as "lay men", (I do not know Cormac's background) consider themselves qualified to pronounce my views as being absurd. Abe has already indicated on a few occassions that he would like to get the honour of proving the OLB to be authentic. In order to do so, of course, he first have to convince everybody else that my work is worthless.

No, I asked why no experts in any of the scientific fields has managed to express even an opinion (they CAN have an opinion without having to write a paper on it, after all) as to the validity, pro or con, of your book. Besides it's not your views in general that are absurd, it's what you're presenting as facts in many cases that aren't facts that are absurd.

I must say that it is quite frustrating to realise that we could have been so much further down the line in reconstructing Europe's pre-history here, than the endless bickering by non-professionals about the origin of words.

That's why I steer clear of the linguistics part of this thread, it turns into bullscheise pretty quick.

cormac

[Alewyn]

That's why I steer clear of the linguistics part of this thread, it turns into bullscheise pretty quick.

cormac

At long last something we agree on.

[Abramelin]

Abramelin and Cormac insist that my book be vindicated by professionals; yet, they as "lay men", (I do not know Cormac's background) consider themselves qualified to pronounce my views as being absurd. Abe has already indicated on a few occassions that he would like to get the honour of proving the OLB to be authentic. In order to do so, of course, he first have to convince everybody else that my work is worthless.

I must say that it is quite frustrating to realise that we could have been so much further down the line in reconstructing Europe's pre-history here, than the endless bickering by non-professionals about the origin of words.

And in what way are you a professional, Alewyn? Are you a professional historian, or a linguist, or a specialist in ancient manuscripts? As far as I read online you are neither of these. Can you read the classics (ie.: sources for the OLB) in their original language, like Latin or Greek?

I never said your work is worthless, but your theory about a comet impact causing the earth's axis to tilt is wrong according to what scientists say is needed to make the earth's axis tilt.

And then there is your idea Friesland Island (or the Faroer) might have been Aldland. You once said that was just a minor idea, but it covers a whole chapter in your book. If you consider the OLB to be a true account of ancient history, then even the OLB proves you wrong: just from what is suggested about the location of Aldland it could never have been the Faroer.

[Abramelin]

At long last something we agree on.

I think we all agree on that, but that's just because no one participating in this thread is a real linguist.

And because some here think that whatever they come up with is equal to what linguists do, this thread is for like 50% about playing with words to prove a point.

Linguistics may not be an 'exact science', but that doesn't mean it isn't science. And I think we need a linguist - a real one - to analyse the OLB. Someone like a Rolf Bremmer would be great, and I have quoted a couple of times from his work.

[Alewyn]

but your theory about a comet impact causing the earth's axis to tilt is wrong according to what scientists say is needed to make the earth's axis tilt.

Abe, do you agree that earth’s axis and orbit changed during the mid-Holocene as paleo-climatologists tell us? If so, what would you say caused the change?

The OLB describes such a change in detail and tells us that this happened suddenly. How could anyone in the 19th century have known this? Just this one point proves that the OLB is true.

The Book of Enoch which was discovered after the OLB describes exactly the same thing.

All the evidence and ancient historical accounts only make sense if one considers a bolide impact or several impacts. The only other possibility is a massive cosmic body that passed close enough to earth to influence earth’s orbit. In my book I suggest a possible combination of the two. Some ancient writers describe “falling stars” and “flaming Potsherds”. They all describe floods and tsunamis, earthquakes and volcanism. All this is borne out by scientific evidence. I have quoted many scientific studies from around the globe that give evidence of global tsunamis and floods in ca 2200 BC. Why did all those ancient civilizations collapse in ca 2200 BC?

Would you say all these calamities happened in 2200 BC if the changes in earth’s orbit happened gradually over millennia?

Whatever caused the changes in earths orbit and axial tilt, it happened suddenly and the OLB gives us an account thereof. This deduction has nothing to do with one’s ability to speak Latin or Greek.

And then there is your idea Friesland Island (or the Faroer) might have been Aldland. You once said that was just a minor idea, but it covers a whole chapter in your book. If you consider the OLB to be a true account of ancient history, then even the OLB proves you wrong: just from what is suggested about the location of Aldland it could never have been the Faroer.

A question that I have been asking here without getting an answer: How do you explain the underwater topography and contours that fit the old Zeno map? Statistically the number of similarities are impossible to be a coincidence. Some of the contours are virtually identical to the old map. Instead of examining the case further, it is labeled here as nonsense and relegated to the dustbin. Have you ever considered the enormity of the discovery if I am proven correct (which I sincerely believe I am)? Surely, that should be bigger than any personal egos?

Incidentally, this is how I concluded the specific chapter:

“Was Frisland the Atland of the Frisians? It appears that way. What this exercise does show is that there is a very credible explanation as to how Atland could have disappeared in the North Atlantic Ocean. The Faroe Islands are clearly the last remains of Frisland, if not Atland. The Oera Linda Book’s credibility is still intact.

Was Frisland and / or Atland the mythical Atlantis? Who knows? The names are just too close to one another to ignore. There is, of course, still the underwater Rockall plateau to the south-west of Frisland which most likely went the same way. Perhaps there is the slightest of possibilities that future deep ocean exploration and high resolution photography, ground penetrating radar or sonar images will give us the answers. The Zeno map and the coral reefs around the Faroe Islands give us some indication as to where we should start our search.”

Your statements that the OLB proves me wrong or that Adland could never be the Faroe Islands are both erroneous. I know, because I studied the OLB in detail.

[Abramelin]

Abe, do you agree that earth’s axis and orbit changed during the mid-Holocene as paleo-climatologists tell us? If so, what would you say caused the change?

The OLB describes such a change in detail and tells us that this happened suddenly. How could anyone in the 19th century have known this? Just this one point proves that the OLB is true.

The Book of Enoch which was discovered after the OLB describes exactly the same thing.

All the evidence and ancient historical accounts only make sense if one considers a bolide impact or several impacts. The only other possibility is a massive cosmic body that passed close enough to earth to influence earth’s orbit. In my book I suggest a possible combination of the two. Some ancient writers describe “falling stars” and “flaming Potsherds”. They all describe floods and tsunamis, earthquakes and volcanism. All this is borne out by scientific evidence. I have quoted many scientific studies from around the globe that give evidence of global tsunamis and floods in ca 2200 BC. Why did all those ancient civilizations collapse in ca 2200 BC?

Would you say all these calamities happened in 2200 BC if the changes in earth’s orbit happened gradually over millennia?

Whatever caused the changes in earths orbit and axial tilt, it happened suddenly and the OLB gives us an account thereof. This deduction has nothing to do with one’s ability to speak Latin or Greek.

A question that I have been asking here without getting an answer: How do you explain the underwater topography and contours that fit the old Zeno map? Statistically the number of similarities are impossible to be a coincidence. Some of the contours are virtually identical to the old map. Instead of examining the case further, it is labeled here as nonsense and relegated to the dustbin. Have you ever considered the enormity of the discovery if I am proven correct (which I sincerely believe I am)? Surely, that should be bigger than any personal egos?

Incidentally, this is how I concluded the specific chapter:

“Was Frisland the Atland of the Frisians? It appears that way. What this exercise does show is that there is a very credible explanation as to how Atland could have disappeared in the North Atlantic Ocean. The Faroe Islands are clearly the last remains of Frisland, if not Atland. The Oera Linda Book’s credibility is still intact.

Was Frisland and / or Atland the mythical Atlantis? Who knows? The names are just too close to one another to ignore. There is, of course, still the underwater Rockall plateau to the south-west of Frisland which most likely went the same way. Perhaps there is the slightest of possibilities that future deep ocean exploration and high resolution photography, ground penetrating radar or sonar images will give us the answers. The Zeno map and the coral reefs around the Faroe Islands give us some indication as to where we should start our search.”

Your statements that the OLB proves me wrong or that Adland could never be the Faroe Islands are both erroneous. I know, because I studied the OLB in detail.

About the earth's axis and climate change:

Summary

The Earth's climate has changed dramatically in the past, apparently in response to natural changes in orbital characteristics and topography (plate tectonics).

We are able to deduce past climates through multiple techniques but much of the progress in resolving Cenozoic climate change has resulted from oxygen and carbon isotope records.

A paleoclimate record has been developed using different techniques, stretching back over 2 billion years. The Earth was warmer than at present for most of this time, punctuated by infrequent Ice Ages.

The Great Ice Ages may have been caused by processes associated with continental drift and greenhouse warming.

The interglacial periods are related to orbital changes described by the Milankovitch cycles, among other factors.

http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange1/current/lectures/kling/paleoclimate/index.html

==

Maybe I missed it, but I cannot find a source that talks about a 'sudden change' in the tilt of the earth's axis. They all talk about a continuous cycle.

About Friesland Island / Faroer: I have posted about the southern part of the Faroer being inhabited by Frisian pirates around 1000-1100 AD. No doubt they will have called that area after themselves, "Friesland", like the Normans/Vikings called part of France after themselves, "Normandy".

It has also many times been suggested that the Faroer was indeed Friesland Island. I have posted similarities between the names of the places on Zeno's map with placenames on the Faroer.

Then, Aldland was inhabited by ONLY the Finda people, Mongolian looking people according to how the OLB describes them. Who do you think these Findas were if they lived on the Faroer? The Inuit??

The OLB also tells us that the Finda later on invaded Fryan territory from the EAST.

Also, read again about the travels of Nef Tunis and Inka. When both were about to enter the Middle Sea, Inka quitted and went into the other direction to find remnants of Aldland and settle there. You think it is likely that they first sailed all the way down from Friesland to the Med, and that then Inka decided to sail back again in the direction of the North Pole/the Faroer?

+++++

EDIT:

Here you can find all about Friesland Island, and please read my posts:

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=163536&st=30&p=3503968entry3503968

.

.

Edited February 1, 2012 by Abramelin

[cormac mac airt]

Maybe I missed it, but I cannot find a source that talks about a 'sudden change' in the tilt of the earth's axis. They all talk about a continuous cycle.

No Abramelin, you didn't miss it. You can't find one because there's not one. The earth's axial tilt is in a continuous 41,000 year cycle. As we both know, for the earth's axis to be affected to such a degree that it would be significantly altered, all life on earth would be extinguished. As to Alewyn's idea, the outer mantle would have to slide over the earth as a whole otherwise crustal/tectonic buckling would be in widespread evidence and would show evidence of dating to the timeframe of c.2200 BC. This is unevidenced anywhere on the globe. And as I've shown over in the current "Thera" thread, with the re-evaluation of the Egyptian timeline due to radiocarbon dating, the Old Kingdom (which Alewyn continues to claim ended in 2193/2194 BC) would have actually ended c.2225 BC. So no matter which way one looks at it, his specific date per the OLB is STILL wrong.

cormac

[Abramelin]

Cormac, I'll leave it for Alewyn to answer because I assume he has his book saved on HD and is therefore able to quote from it if he so desires.

[Abramelin]

A translation I once promised to post:

What was a "Minerva" doing in Walhallagara?

I'll tell you: it was based on an 18th century poem:

Het Germaanse deel van het pantheon werd aanvankelijk niet met behulp van christelijke speculaties in de eigen cultuur opgenomen (zoals Eelhart later deed), maar via de bekende klassiek-Romeinse clichés. Een illustratie daarvan is een gedicht uit 1740 waarin het Walhalla en de Elyzeese velden in één adem worden genoemd,

‘By de Walhalla, en het Elizeesche veld,

Is Neerlandsch Tempe met Minervaas bos gelegen

Een rust- en vreugdeplaats voor elken braaven held,

Die door zyn vlyt en deugd heeft waren lof verkregen:

Daar groend de schoonste beemd, bezaayd en overdekt

Met Palmboom, en Laurier, en Mirthen, en Olyven.’

In een noot werd op gezag van een Deense (in het Latijn geschreven) publicatie over Deense ‘oudheden’ uitgelegd dat dit Walhalla met zijn mediterrane flora het rijk van Odin was, de Vorst der Schimmen

http://www.dbnl.org/tekst/woud018bata01_01/woud018bata01_01_0005.php

tempe: http://www.etymologiebank.nl/trefwoord/tempe1

As soon as I am in the mood I will translate it.

First:

tempe: http://www.etymologiebank.nl/trefwoord/tempe1 = delightful place

The translation:

The Germanic part of the pantheon was initially not adopted in the local culture by means of Christian speculations (like Eelhart later did) but by means of classical Roman cliches. An example of this is a poem from 1740 in which the Valhalla and the Elysian Fields are mentioned in one breath:

"Near the Valhalla and the Elysian Fields,

There is the Dutch Tempe ("delightful place") with Minerva's forest

A place to relax and enjoy for any brave hero

Who by his diligence and virtue was granted true praise:

There flourishes the most beautiful meadow, seeded and covered

by Palmtree, Laurel, Myrtle, and Olives."

In a footnote it was explained that, on authority of a Danish (written in Latin) publication about Danish 'antiquities', this Valhalla with its mediterranean flora was the realm of Odin, the Prince of Shadows.

[Alewyn]

Maybe I missed it, but I cannot find a source that talks about a 'sudden change' in the tilt of the earth's axis. They all talk about a continuous cycle.

No. You did not miss anything. Apart from my interpretation, the OLB and the Book of Enoch, nobody else says that the change was sudden. I know it sounds arrogant, but I believe that they (scientists) have not yet made the connection.

Consider the evidence:

1. Numerous scientific research papers mentions tsunamis and floods in 2200 BC (Mesopotamia, Spain, Sri-Lanka, The Caribbean, Australia, China, etc.) What caused these tsunamis all around the globe and why all at the same time?

2. Archaeologists determined that many civilizations collapsed in 2200 BC (Egypt, Akkad, China, India, Palestine, etc.). Again, all at the same time.

3. The collapse of these ancient civilizations are ascribed to droughts, floods, earthquakes, etc. Why earthquakes if it was caused only by a gradual climate change?

4. North Africa suddenly started to turn into a desert at the same time and Africa’s great lakes subsequently started disappearing.

5. Lake Yoa and other lakes in North Africa suddenly turned salty around the same time.

6. Now the OLB and Enoch are found to explain a sudden change. How could either of them have observed a change in earth’s orientation if this occurred slowly over generations? We now know that the change did indeed happen but how could they have been able to observe and record it if it did not happen suddenly?

7. All these catastrophes happened at the same time – ca 2200 BC. Surely this was not part of a continuous drawn out process?

8. Paleo-climatologists admit that they are not certain whether the change in earth’s axial tilt and orbit happened gradually over millennia or suddenly over a few centuries. I say it happened very fast over a period of 0 to 3 years. That is why we find evidence of massive tsunamis, floods, earthquakes, as well as the very sudden collapse of civilizations and cities. I believe some of these cities (or towns) that collapsed in 2200 BC shows signs of fire damage which archaeologists incorrectly stated was caused by war.

Don’t you find it just a little bit strange that all this turmoil happened at exactly the same time, yet scientists still refer to the fairly obscure term “Bond Event”? What really cause all this?

I believe the OLB gives us the vital missing piece in the puzzle. Once scientists realize this, we shall see massive new discoveries and supporting evidence coming to the fore. New discoveries are not made by staying on the well trodden path, but by exploring the unexplored.