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

[Archived]Oera Linda Book and the Great Flood

11,638 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Otharus

You may have thought the OLB was 'Aryan propaganda', but it never was. Sure, it was used for that purpose by the later Nazis, but it wasn't written for that purpose.

And no, the writers were not out to give us an 'Aryanist' view, that was the view of the Nazis, almost a century later, like Himmler, who loved the OLB, as the fat freakish pervert that he was.

OLB was translated in German in 1933 by H.Wirth and created a hype and yes, Himmler liked it. But this was only shortly, because...

On may 5, 1934 it was already publicly rejected and ridiculed at the university of Berlin by 4 germanists/ historians in front of an audience of thousands. (Source: Jensma "Gemaskerde God" and dutch OLB wiki page.)

Obviously, OLB would not have supported the plan of the nazis to start war and take away people´s freedom.

TEX FRYAS page 12/13 (free improvised translations by me)

7) Anyone who robs another of his/her freedom ... burn his body and that of his mother and burry the ashes 50 feet deep.

8) Don´t start wars with Lyda´s nor Finda´s folk, because the violence that comes out of you will come back onto your own head.

Edited by Otharus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Puzzler

I don't want to get off topic but what really needs investigating here is who the Latium people were and what we know from myth is they were a very prominent people, I can name 4-5 events in myth of the top of my head they are involved in. The next thing is their connection and then separation from the Etruscans. In Roma times amber was highly prized and the amber route from the North Sea made it into Italy. In 1300BC it Baltic amber can be found in Tutankhamen's tomb.

My own theory is the people of Latium were settled by people of Europe, the hub of the Celtic area, the Hallstat area, in Austria and is possibly why we find the word Wagrum in, Austria.

The people of the Hallstat area had contact with the Villanovans, the archaeologists can tell us that, it is probable then, the culture of Celtic Europe came into the Italian peninsula quite early. The Villanovans became the Etruscans. The Etruscans seperated into 2 distinct cultures, that of Veii and that of Latium. The people of Latium are distinctive by a type of urn they made, called today the House of Romulus. It is at this time that they became in competition with the Etruscans and the area of Latium, against the sea thrived into a self economy which left the Etruscan based cultures in the area vulnerable.

I mentioned about the mother of Romulus Rhea Silvia, being a Vestal Virgin, I did see your post to that Abe, imo this has to have been a culture settled by people of Frya and Vesta. The language of the Latium people imo would have come from Northern Europe. That is why the OLB looks like the Latin alphabet, the Latin people actually spoke the same/similar language of the Northern Europeans.

The Romans only became powerful once the Greeks arrived and allied with Latium against the Etruscans and the alphabet became tainted by Greek and this alphabet came around again, but underneath it, a language of Northern Europe exists imo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Abramelin

FYI: I mailed Jensma yesterday asking if he had a reason to believe that Ottema changed his mind about OLB being true before he died.

Having read the first chapter of "Survivors" (I love it Alewyn, but Sandbach´s english translation begs to be improved), I think I know one of the reasons why there is so much resistance to OLB in Holland, and what could be a political reason to ignore, ridicule and suppress it.

(Partly subconscious?) FEAR for FLOODS, as a substantial part of the Netherlands lies below sealevel.

post-106727-034137700 1286655419_thumb.j

Edit: people don´t want to be reminded of what is hidden deep down their cultural (and genetic?) memory. Imagine what would happen to the value of real estate if people became more consciously aware of the danger.

Well Otharus, I have talked quite a lot in this thread about those English translations being in error.

To some those errors may appear as minor, but the consequences can be large.

-

You are suggesting the reason the OLB is being 'ignored, ridiculed and suppressed' has to do with the Dutch fear of flooding.

Sorry, I don't buy that for one minute.

First, it is not being ignored, and second, it has never been suppressed. Ridiculed, yes.

Come on, a historian like Jensma, a university professor, spent 10 years of his life studying the OLB and published a book about it. Is he in jail now for stirring up things??

Were news reports about Bangladesh, New Orleans, Central Europe or now, Pakistan, being surpressed by the government because the Dutch people might loose some sleep over it thinking it could happen to them again??

Were your videos about the OLB banned from YouTube on command of Dutch authorities?

.

Edited by Abramelin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cormac mac airt

Was wondering out of curiousity what there was left to be discussed as the OP, as laid out in Alewyn's "Survivors of the Great Tsunami" has already been shown to be wrong. Alewyn himself admitting that it's "back to the drawing-board", since the energy required to change the earth's axis would have had to be many orders of magnitude greater than any impactor ever known.

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Abramelin

Was wondering out of curiousity what there was left to be discussed as the OP, as laid out in Alewyn's "Survivors of the Great Tsunami" has already been shown to be wrong. Alewyn himself admitting that it's "back to the drawing-board", since the energy required to change the earth's axis would have had to be many orders of magnitude greater than any impactor ever known.

cormac

There are actually two topics being discussed here: Alewyn's interpretations of the OLB as laid out in his book, and the OLB itself.

Btw, Alewyn's theory about the tilting of the earth's axis as a cause for some global flooding may be wrong, but if he is able to prove that some swarm of comets/bolids impacted on earth around 2200 BC, he still may have a point.

I must admit, though, that I don't have great hopes of him finding any proof of such a swarm of comets impacting on earth around that time.

One of the reasons Alewyn thought the earth's axis tilted around 2200 BC is because the OLB says something like that in the old times the 'sun rose higher in the skies'.

But I think it's nothing but a poetic (?) way to say that everything was better in the good ol'times.

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cormac mac airt

Okay, so it's down to picking apart the OLB itself, as the topic of this thread is effectively DOA. Alewyn's going to have a hell of a time with impactors around 2200 BC as the only 'possible' one previously discussed couldn't have been responsible for everything that happened between the 2nd and 3rd millenium BC.

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Otharus

Come on, a historian like Jensma, a university professor, spent 10 years of his life studying the OLB and published a book about it. Is he in jail now for stirring up things??

You obviously don´t get it.

His work was heavily subsidised to make the masses believe OLB is just a hoax, something they don´t need to think about.

People like you prefer to keep believing the propaganda (history of our fatherland) they learnt at school.

Read my post #1276 about 1933/1934 again.

Then try to think about it for a few minutes next time you are sobre (are you ever?).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Abramelin

You obviously don´t get it.

His work was heavily subsidised to make the masses believe OLB is just a hoax, something they don´t need to think about.

People like you prefer to keep believing the propaganda (history of our fatherland) they learnt at school.

Read my post #1276 about 1933/1934 again.

Then try to think about it for a few minutes next time you are sobre (are you ever?).

No need to be sarcastic when I don´t agree with you.

You are into conspiray theories, that much I understand.

...People like me... man, you don´t know the next thing about me.

EDIT:

You said:

I think I know one of the reasons why there is so much resistance to OLB in Holland, and what could be a political reason to ignore, ridicule and suppress it.

(Partly subconscious?) FEAR for FLOODS, as a substantial part of the Netherlands lies below sealevel.

Edit: people don´t want to be reminded of what is hidden deep down their cultural (and genetic?) memory. Imagine what would happen to the value of real estate if people became more consciously aware of the danger.

And I responded on that idea of yours with other things than just Jensma.

I don't care if they gave him a million euros to fund his research and publish his book.

Your idea that they did that to protect us sissies from any 'bad dreams' is even too ridiculous to consider.

*Snip*

And I'd like to know from you: what gave you the idea that the OLB is being surpressed in The Netherlands? Maybe our government doesn't give a flying fk about the OLB?

*Snip* You are Dutch, like I am. I see discussions about just anything on Dutch televison, people arguing for hours about some topic that bothers them.

There were lots of discussions going on about the participation of the Dutch in Bush's campaign against Iraq/Afghanistan. That Balkenende lied or was misinformed. Young men and women died overthere and the government did everything they could to tell us they made the right decision.

*Snip*

.

Edited by Karlis
Deleted personal bickering

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alewyn

Was wondering out of curiousity what there was left to be discussed as the OP, as laid out in Alewyn's "Survivors of the Great Tsunami" has already been shown to be wrong. Alewyn himself admitting that it's "back to the drawing-board", since the energy required to change the earth's axis would have had to be many orders of magnitude greater than any impactor ever known.

cormac

I think I should clarify a few points here:

To Cormac:

1. The 2193 BC / 2200 BC event did happen - whatever the cause. The evidence is just too overwhelming to ignore - from archaeology, the ancient scribes to modern science.

2. The fact that my explanation of the 2193 BC event may be somewhat lacking does not prove that the OLB is a hoax. As I said before: Don't throw out the baby with the (dirty) bath water.

3. Steven Dutch's explanation that an asteroid cannot change earth's orbit, angular velocity or axial tilt is quite correct. Any asteroid that can change any of these would have to be so large that it would totally destroy all life on earth and possibly even earth as well. His calculations are very basic mathematics.

4. I stand by my argument that the 2193 BC event was triggered by a cosmic impact or perhaps a few impacts. I still believe that earth's crust slipped on the mantle and hence the apparent pole shift. The earth's celestial axis or tilt did not change. In the prologue to my book I stated "Planet earth...tilted on her axis." To spell it out: The axis did not tilt - the crust slipped.

5. The answer to the problem most likely lies in the resonance forced into earth's crust and mantle by the impacts. The resultant increase in the amplitude of the shock waves or tremors caused by the reverberation and resonance would have forced the crust totally out of it's natural frequency and caused it to "slip" on the underlying magma. I am also looking at the possible "liquifaction" of the magma in the upper mantle which could have reduced the coefficient of friction between the crust and the mantle. This is what I meant when I stated that "it is back to the drawing board".

To Abramelin:

1. The OLB mentions the "Aster Sea" only once. It does, however, refer to the Baltic Sea as the "Balda Sea" on at least 5 occasions. I thus stand by my original interpretation and maps that the Baltic was the "Balda Sea". I again looked at the one reference to the "Aster Sea". If you consider the full description of their land before the disaster (eg the 12 large rivers, etc.) it seems not too far fetched that the Black Sea may have been the Aster Sea.

It may of course still be possible that the "Aster Sea" is synonymous to the "Balda Sea". I will check it out further.

2. The OLB described their eastern boundary as the extremity of the Aster Sea and they had 12 large rivers.

"The banks of these rivers were at one time entirely inhabited by our people..."

The River Don at the "extremity of the Black Sea" would have been the 12th river and also the boundary with "Twiskland". (4200 years ago)

3. The fact that the Fins refer to Germany as "Tyskland" could be explained by the process of migration as the "Twisklanders" migrated westwards from West of the Urals to present day Germany over a few thousand years. Remember that they described their land 4200 years ago.

4. I cannot agree with you that the OLB's "Middle Sea" is the North Sea or, in any case, not the Mediteranean. Even in Afrikaans (evolved, inter alia, from Old Frisian) the Mediteranean is still known today as the "Middellandse See" (The Middle (land) Sea)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Abramelin

I think I should clarify a few points here:

To Cormac:

1. The 2193 BC / 2200 BC event did happen - whatever the cause. The evidence is just too overwhelming to ignore - from archaeology, the ancient scribes to modern science.

2. The fact that my explanation of the 2193 BC event may be somewhat lacking does not prove that the OLB is a hoax. As I said before: Don't throw out the baby with the (dirty) bath water.

3. Steven Dutch's explanation that an asteroid cannot change earth's orbit, angular velocity or axial tilt is quite correct. Any asteroid that can change any of these would have to be so large that it would totally destroy all life on earth and possibly even earth as well. His calculations are very basic mathematics.

4. I stand by my argument that the 2193 BC event was triggered by a cosmic impact or perhaps a few impacts. I still believe that earth's crust slipped on the mantle and hence the apparent pole shift. The earth's celestial axis or tilt did not change. In the prologue to my book I stated "Planet earth...tilted on her axis." To spell it out: The axis did not tilt - the crust slipped.

5. The answer to the problem most likely lies in the resonance forced into earth's crust and mantle by the impacts. The resultant increase in the amplitude of the shock waves or tremors caused by the reverberation and resonance would have forced the crust totally out of it's natural frequency and caused it to "slip" on the underlying magma. I am also looking at the possible "liquifaction" of the magma in the upper mantle which could have reduced the coefficient of friction between the crust and the mantle. This is what I meant when I stated that "it is back to the drawing board".

To Abramelin:

1. The OLB mentions the "Aster Sea" only once. It does, however, refer to the Baltic Sea as the "Balda Sea" on at least 5 occasions. I thus stand by my original interpretation and maps that the Baltic was the "Balda Sea". I again looked at the one reference to the "Aster Sea". If you consider the full description of their land before the disaster (eg the 12 large rivers, etc.) it seems not too far fetched that the Black Sea may have been the Aster Sea.

It may of course still be possible that the "Aster Sea" is synonymous to the "Balda Sea". I will check it out further.

2. The OLB described their eastern boundary as the extremity of the Aster Sea and they had 12 large rivers.

"The banks of these rivers were at one time entirely inhabited by our people..."

The River Don at the "extremity of the Black Sea" would have been the 12th river and also the boundary with "Twiskland". (4200 years ago)

3. The fact that the Fins refer to Germany as "Tyskland" could be explained by the process of migration as the "Twisklanders" migrated westwards from West of the Urals to present day Germany over a few thousand years. Remember that they described their land 4200 years ago.

4. I cannot agree with you that the OLB's "Middle Sea" is the North Sea or, in any case, not the Mediteranean. Even in Afrikaans (evolved, inter alia, from Old Frisian) the Mediteranean is still known today as the "Middellandse See" (The Middle (land) Sea)

*Snip*

You admitted in private you had been wrong about the 'Aster Sea'.....

There is no "Balda Sea" in the OLB, only an 'Astar Sea", the "East Sea", or what's called the Baltic Sea at present.

--

It was Tacitus who mentioned "Tuisk" and "Tuisto" as the prime god of the Germans.

So, to me, Twiskland is noting but Germany in their good old days.

--

I have NEVER said that the "Middle Sea" is the North Sea. I said it was an old, and now reclaimed, part of the North Sea, a southern branch of the North Sea that split the present Frisian territory into two.

Please dont twist my words to prove you are right, ok?

I ****ing HATE that.

I respect the fact that you wrote a book about the OLB, I appreciate you sent me your book, but please, do not stretch my appreciation, ok?

Thank you.

.

Edited by Karlis
Deleted a personal accusation

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alewyn

*Snip*

You admitted in private you had been wrong about the 'Aster Sea'.....

There is no "Balda Sea" in the OLB, only an 'Astar Sea", the "East Sea", or the what's called the Baltic Sea at present.

And I also stated PUBLICALLY here that I admitted in private that I was wrong. *Snip*

I have checked the whole thing again and hence my latest stance.

The term Balda Sea appears at least 5 times in the OLB (eg "The Writings of Konered" - chapter 2 (9)) Check it out. Again I am using Sandbach's translation and my maps are therefore based thereon. *Snip*

You ignore numerous undeniable facts and then try to latch on the one or two facts that could be questionable.

Edited by Karlis
Deleted personal bickering and ad hominem remarks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Abramelin

And I also stated PUBLICALLY here that I admitted in private that I was wrong. *Snip*

I have checked the whole thing again and hence my latest stance.

The term Balda Sea appears at least 5 times in the OLB (eg "The Writings of Konered" - chapter 2 (9)) Check it out. Again I am using Sandbach's translation and my maps are therefore based thereon. *Snip*

You ignore numerous undeniable facts and then try to latch on the one or two facts that could be questionable.

You use Sandbach's translation, and even one of your supporters, Otharus, thinks you shouldn't. Sandbach was wrong many times, and I have no idea why.

I will check where they say 'Balda Sea'.

Edited by Karlis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alewyn

You use Sandbach's translation, and even one of your supporters, Otharus, thinks you shouldn't. Sandbach was wrong many times, and I have no idea why.

I will check where they say 'Balda Sea'.

You do that. You will also see the same in the original manuscript and in the Dutch translation used by Tresoar.

I have also compared Sandbach with the Dutch translation and the original manuscript. Whilst there are a few differences, there is nothing that materially changes the interpretation of the OLB. Anybody reading only Sandbach's translation can rest assure that the book is at least 98% correct. Your attempts to cast suspicion on Sandbach's translation and therefore any "non-Dutch" interpretation will therefore not work any more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Abramelin

You do that. You will also see the same in the original manuscript and in the Dutch translation used by Tresoar.

I have also compared Sandbach with the Dutch translation and the original manuscript. Whilst there are a few differences, there is nothing that materially changes the interpretation of the OLB. Anybody reading only Sandbach's translation can rest assure that the book is at least 98% correct. Your attempts to cast suspicion on Sandbach's translation and therefore any "non-Dutch" interpretation will therefore not work any more.

Agreed, I noticed "Balda Sea" in the OLB.

But Sandbach's translation from the Dutch translation by Ottema has some major errors, and I showed you where and how.

Sandbach is wrong many times.

Just re-read this thread, and you will remember.

You appear to prefer to ignore what I posted before.

OK. Be my guest. and I will ignore your attempts to prove me wrong from now on.

Thanks for sending your book.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cormac mac airt
1. The 2193 BC / 2200 BC event did happen - whatever the cause. The evidence is just too overwhelming to ignore - from archaeology, the ancient scribes to modern science.

A general series of events over time may have occurred, but nothing specifically dating to c.2193 BC - 2200 BC. From your own website:

The event was so severe that it caused the simultaneous collapse of the Old Kingdom in Egypt, the empire of Akkad in Mesopotamia, the Harappan civilization in India, the Hongsan culture in China…

This would, for the most part be wrong as while the Old Kingdom did end c.2195 BC, the Akkadian Empire ended with Shar-Kali-Sharri c.2100 BC; the (mature) Harappan (Indus Valley Civilization) ended c.1900 BC, well AFTER your 2200 BC date; and the Hongsan (presumably Hong(s)han culture had long ended c.2900 BC. The IVC as a whole lasted long after 1900 BC and DID NOT collapse, therefore, circa 2200 BC.

2. The fact that my explanation of the 2193 BC event may be somewhat lacking does not prove that the OLB is a hoax. As I said before: Don't throw out the baby with the (dirty) bath water.

Somewhat is a huge understatement if there ever was one. Youve even taken the Burckle Crater, tentatively dated to c.2800 BC and moved it forward in time 600 years to make it fit the 2200 BC date. This doesnt prove the OLB isnt a hoax, either. Not only is there no bath water to throw out, you havent even presented evidence of a baby, not to mention a tub for both.

3. Steven Dutch's explanation that an asteroid cannot change earth's orbit, angular velocity or axial tilt is quite correct. Any asteroid that can change any of these would have to be so large that it would totally destroy all life on earth and possibly even earth as well. His calculations are very basic mathematics.

And yet, in all your research, you missed this basic mathematics.

4. I stand by my argument that the 2193 BC event was triggered by a cosmic impact or perhaps a few impacts. I still believe that earth's crust slipped on the mantle and hence the apparent pole shift. The earth's celestial axis or tilt did not change. In the prologue to my book I stated "Planet earth...tilted on her axis." To spell it out: The axis did not tilt - the crust slipped.

You can stand by and believe whatever you wish, but that belief is wholly unevidenced in the archaeological or geological record.

5. The answer to the problem most likely lies in the resonance forced into earth's crust and mantle by the impacts. The resultant increase in the amplitude of the shock waves or tremors caused by the reverberation and resonance would have forced the crust totally out of it's natural frequency and caused it to "slip" on the underlying magma. I am also looking at the possible "liquifaction" of the magma in the upper mantle which could have reduced the coefficient of friction between the crust and the mantle. This is what I meant when I stated that "it is back to the drawing board".

It stands to reason, IMO, that if Steven Dutch's explanation is correct, then in order for an impactor or impactors to move the core separately from the mantle, it would take a comparable amount of energy to do it globally as it would have taken to change the earths axis. Again this would wipe out all life on the planet. There should also be widespread geological phenomena dating to only 4200 years ago. Why is there none?

cormac

Edited by cormac mac airt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alewyn

A general series of events over time may have occurred, but nothing specifically dating to c.2193 BC - 2200 BC. From your own website:

This would, for the most part be wrong as while the Old Kingdom did end c.2195 BC, the Akkadian Empire ended with Shar-Kali-Sharri c.2100 BC; the (mature) Harappan (Indus Valley Civilization) ended c.1900 BC, well AFTER your 2200 BC date; and the Hongsan (presumably Hong(s)han culture had long ended c.2900 BC. The IVC as a whole lasted long after 1900 BC and DID NOT collapse, therefore, circa 2200 BC.

Somewhat is a huge understatement if there ever was one. Youve even taken the Burckle Crater, tentatively dated to c.2800 BC and moved it forward in time 600 years to make it fit the 2200 BC date. This doesnt prove the OLB isnt a hoax, either. Not only is there no bath water to throw out, you havent even presented evidence of a baby, not to mention a tub for both.

And yet, in all your research, you missed this basic mathematics.

You can stand by and believe whatever you wish, but that belief is wholly unevidenced in the archaeological or geological record.

It stands to reason, IMO, that if Steven Dutch's explanation is correct, then in order for an impactor or impactors to move the core separately from the mantle, it would take a comparable amount of energy to do it globally as it would have taken to change the earths axis. Again this would wipe out all life on the planet. There should also be widespread geological phenomena dating to only 4200 years ago. Why is there none?

cormac

Man, I don't know where you get your facts from but they are wrong. Herewith accepted end dates:

1. Old Kingdom (Egypt) c 2200 BC (at least you agree on this one).

2. Akkadian Empire (Weiss, Courty and numerous others): c.2200 BC e.g.

Skeletal Evidence for health and disease at Bronze Age Tell Leilan, Syria by H.G. McKenzie

Lying within the Habur Plains of northem Syria, Tell Leilan was continuously occupied for

more than three millennia until its sudden abandonment around 2200 BC.

3. Harrapan Civilization: c.2200 BC

The Harappan Civilization and Myth of Aryan Invasion From The Hindustan Times By Dr. N.S. Rajaram

"Further, there is profuse archaeological evidence including the presence of sacrificial altars that go to show that the Harappans were part of the Vedic aryan fold. As a result, it can safely by said that the Vedic age also ended with the Harappan civilization."

"From all this it is clear that the loss of these sites must have been associated with some natural catastrophe."

"On the basis of extensive explorations carried out in Northern Mesopotamia, a joint French-American team led by H. Weiss of Yale University has determined that most of the old world civilization were severely affected by a prolonged drought that began about 2200 B.C. and persisted for about 300 years. The most drastically hit region seems to have been the Akkadian civilization neighbouring India. The drought may have been triggered by massive volcanic eruptions. According to the findings of this historic study concluded only recently:

"At approximately 2,200 B.C., occupations of Tell Leilan and Tell Brak (in Northern Mesopotamia) were suddenly abandoned...a marked increase in aridity and wind circulation, subsequent to a volcanic eruption, induced considerable degradation in land use conditions.... this abrupt climatic change caused abandonement of Tell Leilan, regional desertion, and collapse of the Akkadian empire based in southern Mesopotamia. Synchronous collapse in adjacent regions suggests the impact of abrupt climatic change was excessive."

"An end uncannily like that of the Harappans. The authors of this momentous study note that the collapse of the Akkdians more or less coincided with similar climate change, land degradation and collapse noted in the Aegean, Palestine, Egypt, and India. The date of 1900 BCE given by S.R. Rao for the collapse of the Harappans should be seen as approximate"

Now strangely we find the Oera Linda "Hoax" mentioning the same date - in the 19th century?

You keep on saying there is no archaelogical evidence. This is only because you are not aware of it. I could quote numerous sources but, I am afraid, nothing will get you out of your denial. If you are really interested, check it out yourself.

You do not have the foggiest idea about the Oera Linda Book yet you want to express an opinian about it. Not very professional, is it?

As for your last comment it clearly demonstrates that you do not have any idea about the physics of waves and wave energy. To help you a bit, herewith something from Wiki:

"In physics, resonance is the tendency of a system (usually a linear system) to oscillate with larger amplitude at some frequencies than at others. These are known as the system's resonant frequencies (or resonance frequencies). At these frequencies, even small periodic driving forces can produce large amplitude oscillations, because the system stores vibrational energy."

And no, you do not need anything near the size of impacts described by Steven Dutch.

Edited by Alewyn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Otharus

You use Sandbach's translation, and even one of your supporters, Otharus, thinks you shouldn't.

That is not true, I just said it begs for improvement.

So do the translations by Ottema and Jensma in my opinion (the others I don´t know).

edit:

Abram, you claim you can read OLB in one hour, you don´t take the effort to read Alewyn´s book (that you apparently recieved as a gift) and you systematically ignore relevant evidence that does not support your belief system.

I wonder why you spend so much time on this forum.

Edited by Otharus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cormac mac airt
2. Akkadian Empire (Weiss, Courty and numerous others): c.2200 BC e.g.

Skeletal Evidence for health and disease at Bronze Age Tell Leilan, Syria by H.G. McKenzie

Lying within the Habur Plains of northem Syria, Tell Leilan was continuously occupied for more than three millennia until its sudden abandonment around 2200 BC.

Sorry, but Tell Leilan does not comprise the entirety of the Akkadian Empire.

"At approximately 2,200 B.C., occupations of Tell Leilan and Tell Brak (in Northern Mesopotamia) were suddenly abandoned...a marked increase in aridity and wind circulation, subsequent to a volcanic eruption, induced considerable degradation in land use conditions..

Even two sites do not constitute the entirety of the Akkadian Empire. At best this would appear to show that a couple of Akkadian sites ended around that time IN NORTHERN MESOPOTAMIA with the remaining southern sites ending at some later point in time. Again, not a complete collapse c.2200 BC. "Subsequent to a volcanic eruption" does not mean impactor.

…most of the old world civilization were severely affected by a prolonged drought that began about 2200 B.C. and persisted for about 300 years

This is not evidence of a sudden collapse, which is what youve claimed.

The date of 1900 BCE given by S.R. Rao for the collapse of the Harappans should be seen as approximate"

This is another example of where your own quote belies your claim. This approximation is still 300 years after your claim.

I could quote numerous sources…

You havent quoted anything useful, yet.

You do not have the foggiest idea about the Oera Linda Book yet you want to express an opinian about it.

I told you before, I could care less about the OLB. What I do care about is how your re-interpreting the known facts to say what you want them to say. As already mentioned, even your own quotes DO NOT say that everything collapsed in 2200 BC.

Ill tell you what, you can talk to me about physics when youve shown you actually have an impactor TO TALK ABOUT. Just on size alone Chicxulub, at an estimated 6 MILES in diameter, shows no evidence of doing anything like what you are proposing. It would be rather hard to miss something even 1/10th that size, particularly c.2200 BC. Yet it assisted in speeding up the extinction of the dinosaurs and many other life forms. As is, just on the subject of volcanoes alone, there were the following within about 150 years of your date and they werent unusual in quantity or volume:

HACHIJO-JIMA Izu Islands (Japan) T 2050 BC (?) 5

ILIAMNA Southwestern Alaska C 2050 BC (?) P

COTOPAXI Ecuador T 2050 BC (?) 5

MASHU Hokkaido (Japan) G 2050 BC ± 40 years 4

IZU-TOBU Honshu (Japan) G 2100 BC ± 100 years 4

SHIVELUCH Kamchatka Peninsula (Russia) G 2100 BC (?) 5

CAMPI FLEGREI Italy C 2150 BC ± 500 years 5

CHANGBAISHAN Eastern China C 2160 BC ± 100 years P

SHIVELUCH Kamchatka Peninsula (Russia) T 2200 BC (?) 4+

KARYMSKY Kamchatka Peninsula (Russia) G 2250 BC (?) 4

GALUNGGUNG Java (Indonesia) C 2250 BC ± 150 years 5?

ARENAL Costa Rica T 2250 BC (?) 4

ORIZABA, PICO DE México C 2300 BC ± 75 years 4

HEKLA Southern Iceland G 2310 BC ± 20 years 5

BURNEY, MONTE Southern Chile G 2320 BC ± 100 years 5

ST. HELENS Washington (USA) G 2340 BC (?) 5

Large Holocene Eruptions

cormac

Edited by cormac mac airt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alewyn

Sorry, but Tell Leilan does not comprise the entirety of the Akkadian Empire.

Even two sites do not constitute the entirety of the Akkadian Empire. At best this would appear to show that a couple of Akkadian sites ended around that time IN NORTHERN MESOPOTAMIA with the remaining southern sites ending at some later point in time. Again, not a complete collapse c.2200 BC. "Subsequent to a volcanic eruption" does not mean impactor.

Perhaps I have confused you by giving too much information, so I'll keep it simple:

"An end uncannily like that of the Harappans. The authors of this momentous study note that the collapse of the Akkdians more or less coincided with similar climate change, land degradation and collapse noted in the Aegean, Palestine, Egypt, and India."

If you had the sense to read the OLB (and heaven forbid) my book, you would be able to understand the logic and evidence presented - including where the volcanic activity fits in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cormac mac airt

If you had the sense to know that "more or less" does not specifically mean 2200 BC, nor 2193 BC, we wouldn't be having this discussion. 87 pages and nobody has shown any evidence of a flood specifically happening c.2193 BC (which BTW is what this thread is about), nor of any cultures collapsing in that timeframe between 2193 BC and 2200 BC, contrary to any claim that you may have made. The OLB aside, none of this can be attributed to one specific date as your own quotes have already shown.

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alewyn

If you had the sense to know that "more or less" does not specifically mean 2200 BC, nor 2193 BC, we wouldn't be having this discussion. 87 pages and nobody has shown any evidence of a flood specifically happening c.2193 BC (which BTW is what this thread is about), nor of any cultures collapsing in that timeframe between 2193 BC and 2200 BC, contrary to any claim that you may have made. The OLB aside, none of this can be attributed to one specific date as your own quotes have already shown.

cormac

O.K. Einstein, now read carefully what others have to say. Herewith an extract from a scientific web site and then still tell us that my conclusions (and the Oera Linda Book's date of 2193 BC)are wrong.

Society for Interdisciplinary Studies

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

Comparative Stratigraphy of Bronze Age Destruction Layers around the World: Archaeological Evidence and Methodological Problems – Abstract of talk by Benny J Peiser.

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

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

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

Somebody else's views:

http://www.newparadigmjournal.com/Sept2006/sacred-geography.htm

Sacred Geography in Ancient Europe by Martin Gray

"In 3113 BC, the comet, known as Proto-Encke, collided with asteroids in the asteroid belt between Jupiter and Mars, resulting in the Taurid meteors widely associated with the Bronze Age. As this comet then passed near to the earth it caused massive geological and climatological influences, including destroying an estimated half of the infrastructure of Atlantis. In 2193 BC, the comet Proto-Encke, converging with the comets Oljato and Hale-Bopp, again passed the earth and caused global seismic disturbances, enormous tsunamis and massive socio-cultural changes."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cormac mac airt
O.K. Einstein, now read carefully what others have to say. Herewith an extract from a scientific web site and then still tell us that my conclusions (and the Oera Linda Book's date of 2193 BC)are wrong.

Alewyn,

Remember back when I told you that we both knew that science gives dates with an error of margin. Well, your latest post just proved me right. Again, the dates given are 2200±200 BC meaning 2000 - 2400 BC and 4250±250 cal BP which is 2500 - 2000 BC. Ranges of 400 and 500 years. The only singular dates are for Proto-Encke which it never mentions actually hitting the Earth, but mentions having an effect on Atlantis. Atlantis, seriously??? These dates do not say that these events happened exactly in 2193 BC, which is what I've been saying all along. The fact that you don't get this is staggering. Your quote even says:

The main problem in interconnecting this vast amount of data chronologically is the application of incoherent and imprecise dating methods in different areas of geological and climatological research.

"Imprecise" in this regard means it can not be nailed down to a specific date. I can only assume at this point that you either have a comprehension problem, or you're purposefully fabricating your conclusion to give a date of specifically 2193BC.

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alewyn

Alewyn,

Remember back when I told you that we both knew that science gives dates with an error of margin. Well, your latest post just proved me right. Again, the dates given are 2200±200 BC meaning 2000 - 2400 BC and 4250±250 cal BP which is 2500 - 2000 BC. Ranges of 400 and 500 years. The only singular dates are for Proto-Encke which it never mentions actually hitting the Earth, but mentions having an effect on Atlantis. Atlantis, seriously??? These dates do not say that these events happened exactly in 2193 BC, which is what I've been saying all along. The fact that you don't get this is staggering. Your quote even says:

"Imprecise" in this regard means it can not be nailed down to a specific date. I can only assume at this point that you either have a comprehension problem, or you're purposefully fabricating your conclusion to give a date of specifically 2193BC.

cormac

Sigh.

No Son, you don't understand.

1. "Imprecise" in this regard means that the different science disciplines are using different methods of dating. If they would all use the same parameters, they could well derive at more accurate dates.

2. The date of 2193 BC given by the OLB falls exactly within this range. This tells me that the date given by the OLB is in all probability correct. Ask yourself: "Where did the OLB get this date from if the book is not authentic?"

3. Testing the OLB's date against numerous other sources such as History (Battle of Salamis, etc), archaeology (sacking of Troy, etc), Biblical chronology, etc, etc, confirms the date of 2193 BC. But then, you would not know that because you are not interested in the subject and would therefore not read any of it. Non of my arguments are based on single sources.

Example: If I prove that a=b and b=c which then implies that a=c, you would keep on arguing that a cannot be equal to c because you missed the steps a=b and b=c. Untill you follow the whole argument, I would realy be wasting everybody's time by trying to convince you otherwise.

4. Why don't you Google "Proto-Encke" and see what numerous people have to say about the subject - from scientists to the adherents of Atlantis. BTW, the second site that I quoted (National Geographic's Martin Grey) I did so in terms of Proto Encke and not so much about Atlantis. Although I do not have an opinion about Atlantis, his explanation about Proto-Encke seems to follow the accepted theories. I have never been involved in any Atlatis theories or speculation.

5. I may just add that the list of impacts you posted earlier also falls exactly within this time span. You did post this in support of my theory, didn't you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cormac mac airt
1. "Imprecise" in this regard means that the different science disciplines are using different methods of dating. If they would all use the same parameters, they could well derive at more accurate dates.

Meaning that they haven't yet arrived at more accurate dates than the onces with a margin of error, which again doesn't validate your singular 2193 BC date.

3. Testing the OLB's date against numerous other sources such as History (Battle of Salamis, etc), archaeology (sacking of Troy, etc), Biblical chronology, etc, etc, confirms the date of 2193 BC.

The Battle of Salamis c.480 BC and Troy III which shows no evidence of being sacked, as you claim, are not evidence of an event in 2193 BC.

4. Why don't you Google "Proto-Encke" and see what numerous people have to say about the subject...

I have and none of them pin it down to a specific date of 2193 BC. What I see is that you will go any extent to 'prove' that the date of 2193 BC specifically, has any validity in ancient history. It doesn't. Your adherance to this one, singular date is what is working against you.

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alewyn

Meaning that they haven't yet arrived at more accurate dates than the onces with a margin of error, which again doesn't validate your singular 2193 BC date.

The Battle of Salamis c.480 BC and Troy III which shows no evidence of being sacked, as you claim, are not evidence of an event in 2193 BC.

I have and none of them pin it down to a specific date of 2193 BC. What I see is that you will go any extent to 'prove' that the date of 2193 BC specifically, has any validity in ancient history. It doesn't. Your adherance to this one, singular date is what is working against you.

cormac

No. All these dates prove the OLB's cedibility. Must I spell out everything to you?

I am afraid you have received much more attention than your lack of logic or deductive reasoning deserve. *Snip*

Edited by Karlis
Deleted condescending remark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.