[Archived]Oera Linda Book and the Great Flood

[The Puzzler]

See, when Atlas fell, when Atlantis sank, it was the same as the axle of the Earth falling, as above compared to Atlas not being able to bear the weight.

That is why Plato opens the Atlantis narratives with it, it's the same thing, he says even the Greeks know a story similar (same) about Phaethon.

In Noah's time this happens. a great flood follows. All the same.

(See, it says above Noah saw the EARTH inclined and Plato says the Heavens DECLINED)

That is why this interests me. Atlas could not hold the Heavens and they fell, which is described basically in the chaos myth (of later?) as he held the Heavens apart so they didn't resume their primordial embrace basically.

The axle broke and the Heavens were in disarray, Noah knew it was coming when he noticed a tilt of the Earth, that is, he must have noticed it in the sky, been an astrologer type who knew the cycle of ths event imo.

So, what could it have been that triggered the Earth's tilt?

If it was a comet's debris it could possibly be a repeat event...Comets were certainly known to bring impending doom as I showed previously a few posts back, I thought before maybe the natural change in degrees of the Earth's tilt might account for it..but maybe you would have to know precession..a comet or asteroid/meteor impact, possibly, again, would it be something you could predict, I say so, since a comet can be predicted and it may have been very close to the earth, could it be Planet X (OK not going there but you know, interpretations, translations etc) Did Noah know that the arrival of this comet meant that it would come perilously close to the earth - which may account for the mention in the Phaethon myth about a 'second time'...and debris would hit it and upset it again?

It seems Noah notices the tilt before the tumult begins. That the tilt signified a destruction. If the Earth was tilted by a foreign object it doesn't seem to add up that the tilt (that is a change in the places of the stars) would be seen before the tumult.

On axial tilt too, the OLB says the Sun rose higher in the sky before the catasrophe. That could also indicate a change of tilt.

The planet does change its tilt naturally...

This means a range of the obliquity from 22° 38’ to 24° 21’, the last maximum was reached in 8700 BC, the mean value occurred around 1550 and the next minimum will be in 11800. This formula should give a reasonable approximation for the previous and next million years or so. Yet it remains an approximation in which the amplitude of the wave remains the same, while in reality, as seen from the results of the Milankovitch cycles, irregular variations occur

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

Edited July 14, 2010 by The Puzzler

[The Puzzler]

I know you did, but then you asked me what I really meant with 'local'...

You will have to read what I said about that 'local', 2 posts of mine before this one.

EDIT:

I will save you the trouble, here's what I said:

"Yes, I know now you understoood me wrong, and no doubt that is because of the way I try to explain things in english, lol. Cormac once said something like that.

With local I meant that they used local topography, local names, local place names, local events, and so on to create the story. And all that they mixed with their extended knowledge of ancient Greek and Latin language and stories.

I did not mean that it was a local story, a real local story, like some legend or myth."

--

You say: "if Homer read it he would place it in the Mediterranean Sea since thats the sea he knew as the Middle Sea."

Agreed, but this is not about Homer, or the Romans or the Greeks.

And what would Homer think about the directions? If the East Sea is in the east, then he would have a bit of a problem with what was in the west, right? The Middel Sea is said to be located in the west, not the south.

--

Here's how Overwijn (1941) interpreted the area that was once the empire of the Frisians:

Verdonken land = Drowned land

Niet Grootfriezen = non Great Frisians (lol)

Zeegebied van max.200 meter diepte = sea area of max. 200 meters depth

Grootfriezen =Great Frisians (? Magna Frisians? Talking about ego, jeesh)

Kelten - Celts

Monding = mouth of river

-tak = branch (here of a river)

.

Homer would have maybe glossed over like others have. He just knew middle.se as the Middle Sea and he would have put it as Mediterranean Sea.

Sorry, I might have missed it, I have been so busy blabbing on and researching all thing I slacked off on reading some posts.

I'm seeing 2 things here. I barely understand my own view, sorry.

PS: Think about this: where did Homer get these myths from? What if they resemble myths because this is actually the real info, not a copy of them trying to emulate them. No Greek myth pretty much has any substantiated archaeological background. Who is Minos? Does anyone really know.

Where did Athena come from? Why can't she be Nyhellenia, a North Sea goddess? Bought into Greece way back when and then Homer gets this OLB version of things and creates the Greek myths. Thats why they resemble the myths, this is the original...? Again, it doesn't take many people to spread laws of Gods.

Edited July 14, 2010 by The Puzzler

[Abramelin]

Homer would have maybe glossed over like others have. He just knew middle.se as the Middle Sea and he would have put it as Mediterranean Sea.

Sorry, I might have missed it, I have been so busy blabbing on and researching all thing I slacked off on reading some posts.

Yes, and no disrespect meant, but it appears to me some here (the critics) are chopping down some branches of Alewyn's tree, while you are trying to add leaves to the branches and connect the big branches with trees further away so as to make it more stable and firm in the winds that blow around it.

And I am busy sawing down the whole tree at the bottom.

-

EDIT:

If Homer would have thought the Middel Sea was nothing but the Mediterranean, then what would he have thought about that East Sea? Was it the the Black Sea? The Caspian Sea?

.

Edited July 14, 2010 by Abramelin

[The Puzzler]

Yes, and no disrespect meant, but it appears to me some here (the critics) are chopping down some branches of Alewyn's tree, while you are trying to add leaves to the branches and connect the big branches with trees further away so as to make it more stable and firm in the winds that blow around it.

And I am busy sawing down the whole tree at the bottom.

-

EDIT:

If Homer would have thought the Middel Sea was nothing but the Mediterranean, then what would he have thought about that East Sea? Was it the the Black Sea? The Caspian Sea?

.

lol that's a good analogy.

I have no idea but I will look into it more, maybe it was just the Sea on his east, the Indian side, an Eastern ocean or it depends on his own view of the world and possibly a Sea like the Black or Caspian.

[The Puzzler]

One more before bed.

Recalling the description before of Phaethon passing by the Scorpions claws and right next to Orphiuchus, if you do have CyberSky downloaded or want to, a free trial, check out that day of 29th June 2193BC.

It shows a huge cometary flow through it, exactly where it says in the mythic story I showed you. Jupiter is right there too. (Zeus)

They also pass through the Sun and Venus. Saturn is in between Sagitarrius and capricorn, quite far away, maybe that is when he dimmed..

I also see 4 planets and the Sun all in a row, very close - Mercury, Mars, Neptune, Venus and the Sun, even if they didnt know about Neptune, we could have a potential planetary alignment of importance with a line of comets going through the scorpion claws, with Jupiter right there, all on 29th June 2193BC.

I'm not really sure though, maybe someone with more astronomy knowhow could make something of it all.

Bed for me, night all.

Edited July 14, 2010 by The Puzzler

[Leonardo]

I hear ya.

OK, I'll forget that for now, how about the Kofels impact of 3123BC?

It sounds like it could be related to it all...

Since it is in the area that is mentioned in the OLB and could have been remembered, but of course the date is before 2193BC. That is, if the Kofels date is correct. Again it's based on stars, from a 700BC inscribed Assyrian tablet.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/03/31/kofels_asteroid/

As for it being the reference of Phaethon it could be..

Smyth (L.C.L.) comments on Aeschylus' Heliades : Phaëthon was hurled into the Eridanus, which Aeschylus, according to Pliny, Nat. Hist. 37. 31, placed in Iberia and identified with the Rhone, a river confused with the Po, on the banks of which was the city of Adria.

Either way, the Po would be feasible if it looked like it landed east of where they were.

On CyberSky, a time in 2193 seems to have a large alignment of planets and also the timeframe we find the double eclipse of Shulgi.

So again, I would suspect the date of 3123BC could be compromised...

The Kofels 'impact' (in Austria?) appears to have been misreported as having happened during the 4th Millenium BCE. There is no impact structure, only a large rock slide. A popular book "A Sumerian Observation of the Kofels Impact Event" marries a cunieform tablet, dating from around the 7th-8th century BCE (which should have started alarm bells ringing straight away - a tablet from 700BCE describing an event that happened 2500 years earlier?!?!?), with this rock slide by introducing a low trajectory impact - hence it didn't leave any sign of impact. Unfortunately, this was picked up by Bristol University and, from there, gained some degree of academic recognition - even though the science behind the association of event and tablet was vague at best.

Wood (and other organic material) buried in the slide has been dated to around 9,000 YBP which, while not entirely conclusive that is when the rockslide occurs, is strong circumstantial evidence the slide did not occur around 3100BCE, but around 7000 - 8000BCE.

Here is a link to a forum discussion which contains references for the dating, and the older date of the slide.

Here is a link to another forum, where you can see the 'evidence for an impact' the melted rock was assumed to be, has been debunked. The friction energy of the landslide itself was enough to cause the formation of 'frictionite'.

There is no evidence this is an impact feature.

Edited July 14, 2010 by Leonardo

[Leonardo]

To whom it may concern.

In Chapter 1 of my book I argued that the date of 2193 BC in the Oera Linda Book has substance and that the event or disaster was most likely caused by an asteroid impact. Apart from all the civilizations that came to an end around 2200BC, I gave quotes from both the Oera Linda Book and the Book of Enoch viz:

1. OLB: The book of Adela’s followers, ch. XXI

Before the bad time came our land was the most beautiful in the World. The sun rose higher, and there was seldom frost.

2. The Book of Enoch

Chapter 55

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

Chapter 64

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

Surely, the above describe a cosmic impact that disturbed Earth’s axis? If not, how do we explain them? If it can only be interpreted as a an impact, why do we ignore these utterances? Surely these must be key to our debate?

In Chapter 3 of my book the date of 2193 BC is used in conjunction with Biblical chronology and, to my mind, Noah’s flood checks out exactly with this date.

There we have two (three, if the Oera Linda Book is true) references to support both the date and the cosmic impact theory.

I speculated whether the Burckle “impact” may have been the cause and I based my argument on the fact that this was the closest identifiable event to 2193 BC. From evidence from all over, it may well be that the Earth moved through an asteroid belt or cloud. Whether the Burckle impact or some other impact was the cause is perhaps of secondary importance but if we reject the impact theory outright , I am afraid we are not going anywhere.

Herewith a schematic of what the impact could have done. The "Old" North Pole was not necesarily where I placed it. It could have been more to the south of Alaska which would then still have aligned with the N-S axes of the pyramids in Egypt. (Figure 3 in my Book which I previously ommitted.)

Alewyn,

Ancient writings of "the Earth shaking on it's foundations" etc, are far more likely to be earthquake references than impact ones. The Middle East is riddled with large fault lines, and is very active to this day.

The Burckle feature may indeed be an impact crater, and this impact may have resulted in some of the Flood mythology we read of today. If this was an impact, I cannot see it as having any marked effect outside the region in which it occured - the Arabian peninsula and the Indian subcontinent may certainly have been affected, but not North Africa/the Mediterranean/Europe, imo. Also, it appears to precede the dating you wish it to have (~2200BCE) by several centuries at least.

The demise, dating ~2200BCE, of several ancient cultures/civilisations is almost certainly of climactic cause, rather than a catastrophe such as an impactor. There is some indication that the cultures in both ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia were seriously stressed leading up to their demise (for different reasons) and the drought brought on by the 4.2kye was the final straw.

Edited July 14, 2010 by Leonardo

[Oniomancer]

To whom it may concern.

In Chapter 1 of my book I argued that the date of 2193 BC in the Oera Linda Book has substance and that the event or disaster was most likely caused by an asteroid impact. Apart from all the civilizations that came to an end around 2200BC, I gave quotes from both the Oera Linda Book and the Book of Enoch viz:

1. OLB: The book of Adela’s followers, ch. XXI

Before the bad time came our land was the most beautiful in the World. The sun rose higher, and there was seldom frost.

2. The Book of Enoch

Chapter 55

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

Chapter 64

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

Surely, the above describe a cosmic impact that disturbed Earth’s axis? If not, how do we explain them? If it can only be interpreted as a an impact, why do we ignore these utterances? Surely these must be key to our debate?

In Chapter 3 of my book the date of 2193 BC is used in conjunction with Biblical chronology and, to my mind, Noah’s flood checks out exactly with this date.

There we have two (three, if the Oera Linda Book is true) references to support both the date and the cosmic impact theory.

I speculated whether the Burckle “impact” may have been the cause and I based my argument on the fact that this was the closest identifiable event to 2193 BC. From evidence from all over, it may well be that the Earth moved through an asteroid belt or cloud. Whether the Burckle impact or some other impact was the cause is perhaps of secondary importance but if we reject the impact theory outright , I am afraid we are not going anywhere.

Herewith a schematic of what the impact could have done. The "Old" North Pole was not necesarily where I placed it. It could have been more to the south of Alaska which would then still have aligned with the N-S axes of the pyramids in Egypt. (Figure 3 in my Book which I previously ommitted.)

Again, I don't think you're appreciating the amount of kinetic energy involved here. Most extinction level impacters are estimated at 1-30 miles wide IIRC. Big to us, but even factoring in velocity that's like shooting a BB at a bowling ball. The level of impact force required to move the entire mass of the earth by contrast is in all likelihood at least an order of magnitude higher. One would think the effects would be a bit more pronounced than a little coastal flooding, a bit of drought and people wailing to the heavens about roving bands of illegal immigrants.

Also, Per your second quote,

It was 6am on August 26 in 1883, when the volcano on Krakatoa, a small island in Indonesia, catastrophically erupted. This earth-shattering event became the greatest natural disaster of the 19th century: the sky was bathed in an unearthly red glow and the fallout was felt around the world

The force of the eruption created the loudest noise ever recorded: it was heard 4,653km away on Rodriguez Island in the Indian Ocean and some 4,800km away in Alice Springs; shock waves travelled around the world seven times; and the force of the blast was some 10,000 times greater than that of the hydrogen bomb dropped on Hiroshima.

See? No need to drag in extraterrestrial sources when terrestrial ones will do just fine.

Edited July 14, 2010 by Oniomancer

[Alewyn]

Again, I don't think you're appreciating the amount of kinetic energy involved here. Most extinction level impacters are estimated at 1-30 miles wide IIRC. Big to us, but even factoring in velocity that's like shooting a BB at a bowling ball. The level of impact force required to move the entire mass of the earth by contrast is in all likelihood at least an order of magnitude higher. One would think the effects would be a bit more pronounced than a little coastal flooding, a bit of drought and people wailing to the heavens about roving bands of illegal immigrants.

Also, Per your second quote,

See? No need to drag in extraterrestrial sources when terrestrial ones will do just fine.

You and Leonardo seem to overlook a crucial point: Both the Oera Linda Book and the Book of Enoch state that the Earth moved visibly viz. "the sun rose higher" and "the earth became inclined". Just try to imagine by how much the earth must tilt on its axis before you would notice it visually. (i.e. without sophisticated instruments). My interpretation is that it must have moved sufficiently for them to have thought it important enough to write it down. I am certain it was not just one or two degrees - most likely not less than 15 to 20 degrees but I am guessing. Now I cannot imagine any earthquake that would throw the Earth off her axis to that extent - not even a major tectonic plate movement that would shift earth's mass balance.

I have stated that the Burckle crater is a likely candidate to have had sufficient kinetic energy to have caused the tilt and also mega tsunamis. Imagine an object 30 kilometers in diameter (i.e 30 000 metres) striking the ocean. The resultung tsunami would definitely not be only one to two thousand meters high. We are talking several million Hiroshima size explosions concentrated in a very small area.

Prof. Stephen A Nelson of Tulane University of Louisiana New Orleans, Louisiana, United States has the following to say:

http://www.tulane.edu/~sanelson/geol204/impacts.htm

[b]Meteorite Impacts and Mass Extinctions[/b]

The impact of a space object with a size greater than about 1 km would be expected to be felt over the entire surface of the Earth. Smaller objects would certainly destroy the ecosystem in the vicinity of the impact, similar to the effects of a volcanic eruption, but larger impacts could have a worldwide effect on life on the Earth. We will here first consider the possible effects of an impact, and then discuss how impacts may have resulted in mass extinction of species on the Earth in the past.

Regional and Global Effects

Again, we as humans have no firsthand knowledge of what the effects of an impact of a large meteorite or comet would be. Still, calculations can be made and scaled experiments can be conducted to estimate the effects. The general consensus is summarized here.

1. Massive earthquake - up to Richter Magnitude 13, and numerous large magnitude aftershocks would result from the impact of a large object with the Earth. (See the Oera Linda Book's description)

2. The large quantities of dust put into the atmosphere would block incoming solar radiation. The dust could take months to settle back to the surface. Meanwhile, the Earth would be in a state of continual darkness, and temperatures would drop throughout the world, generating global winter like conditions. A similar effect has been postulated for the aftermath of a nuclear war (termed a nuclear winter). Blockage of solar radiation would also diminish the ability of photosynthetic organisms, like plants, to photosynthesize. Since photosynthetic organisms are the base of the food chain, this would seriously disrupt all ecosystems.

3. Widespread wildfires ignited by radiation from the fireball as the object passed through the atmosphere would be generated. (This is exactly what the Oera Linda Book describes) Smoke from these fires would further block solar radiation to enhance the cooling effect and further disrupt photosynthesis.

4. If the impact occurred in the oceans, a large steam cloud would be produced by the sudden evaporation of the seawater. This water vapor and CO2 would remain in the atmosphere long after the dust settles. Both of these gases are greenhouse gases which scatter solar radiation and create a warming effect. Thus, after the initial global cooling, the atmosphere would undergo global warming for many years after the impact.(See the 2.2ka Bond event)

5. If the impact occurred in the oceans, giant tsunami would be generated. For a 10 km-diameter object the leading edge would hit the seafloor of the deep ocean basins before the top of the object had reached sea level. The tsunami from such an impact is estimated to produce waves from 1 to 3 km high. These could easily flood the interior of continents.

6. Large amounts of nitrogen oxides would result from combining Nitrogen and Oxygen in the atmosphere due to the shock produced by the impact. These nitrogen oxides would combine with water in the atmosphere to produce nitric acid which would fall back to the surface as acid rain, resulting in the acidification of surface waters.

Edited July 14, 2010 by Alewyn

[Leonardo]

You and Leonardo seem to overlook a crucial point: Both the Oera Linda Book and the Book of Enoch state that the Earth moved visibly viz. "the sun rose higher" and "the earth became inclined". Just try to imagine by how much the earth must tilt on its axis before you would notice it visually. (i.e. without sophisticated instruments). My interpretation is that it must have moved sufficiently for them to have thought it important enough to write it down. I am certain it was not just one or two degrees - most likely not less than 15 to 20 degrees but I am guessing. Now I cannot imagine any earthquake that would throw the Earth off her axis to that extent - not even a major tectonic plate movement that would shift earth's mass balance.

I have stated that the Burckle crater is a likely candidate to have had sufficient kinetic energy to have caused the tilt and also mega tsunamis. Imagine an object 30 kilometers in diameter (i.e 30 000 metres) striking the ocean. The resultung tsunami would definitely not be only one to two thousand meters high. We are talking several million Hiroshima size explosions concentrated in a very small area.

The Burckle crater was not made by "an object 30km in diameter". The Burckle crater is 30km in diameter - indicating an impactor considerably smaller - maybe 1-2 km (?) in diameter. The impact would have caused mega-tsunamis of maybe a couple hundred metres in height - not thousands of metres.

Now, an earthquake can cause ground to "become inclined" - I think you are taking the phrase "the earth" a little too literally if you are reading that as meaning the entire planet. As for the OLB - I have mentioned before, but using it as 'evidence' for it's own authenticity is circular reasoning.

Edited July 14, 2010 by Leonardo

[Alewyn]

The Burckle crater was not made by "an object 30km in diameter". The Burckle crater is 30km in diameter - indicating an impactor considerably smaller - maybe 1-2 km (?) in diameter. The impact would have caused mega-tsunamis of maybe a couple hundred metres in height - not thousands of metres.

Now, an earthquake can cause ground to "become inclined" - I think you are taking the phrase "the earth" a little too literally if you are reading that as meaning the entire planet. As for the OLB - I have mentioned before, but using it as 'evidence' for it's own authenticity is circular reasoning.

1. Can you imagine only a portion of the earth becoming inclined, especially if Noah said that he "travelled to the ends of the earth" i.e a long distance. Or, can you imagine the sun rising higher on only a portion of the earth. Come on.

2. It would be circular reasoning if I only used the OLB to prove the OLB. Here I am bringing in other evidence to support the OLB. Please use the term in the right context.

3. You say "maybe 1-2km" Read again prof Nelson's view: "The impact of a space object with a size greater than about 1 km would be expected to be felt over the entire surface of the Earth."

[Oniomancer]

You and Leonardo seem to overlook a crucial point: Both the Oera Linda Book and the Book of Enoch state that the Earth moved visibly viz. "the sun rose higher" and "the earth became inclined". Just try to imagine by how much the earth must tilt on its axis before you would notice it visually. (i.e. without sophisticated instruments). My interpretation is that it must have moved sufficiently for them to have thought it important enough to write it down. I am certain it was not just one or two degrees - most likely not less than 15 to 20 degrees but I am guessing. Now I cannot imagine any earthquake that would throw the Earth off her axis to that extent - not even a major tectonic plate movement that would shift earth's mass balance.

I have stated that the Burckle crater is a likely candidate to have had sufficient kinetic energy to have caused the tilt and also mega tsunamis. Imagine an object 30 kilometers in diameter (i.e 30 000 metres) striking the ocean. The resultung tsunami would definitely not be only one to two thousand meters high. We are talking several million Hiroshima size explosions concentrated in a very small area.

Prof. Stephen A Nelson of Tulane University of Louisiana New Orleans, Louisiana, United States has the following to say:

http://www.tulane.edu/~sanelson/geol204/impacts.htm

[b]Meteorite Impacts and Mass Extinctions[/b]

The impact of a space object with a size greater than about 1 km would be expected to be felt over the entire surface of the Earth. Smaller objects would certainly destroy the ecosystem in the vicinity of the impact, similar to the effects of a volcanic eruption, but larger impacts could have a worldwide effect on life on the Earth. We will here first consider the possible effects of an impact, and then discuss how impacts may have resulted in mass extinction of species on the Earth in the past.

Regional and Global Effects

Again, we as humans have no firsthand knowledge of what the effects of an impact of a large meteorite or comet would be. Still, calculations can be made and scaled experiments can be conducted to estimate the effects. The general consensus is summarized here.

1. Massive earthquake - up to Richter Magnitude 13, and numerous large magnitude aftershocks would result from the impact of a large object with the Earth. (See the Oera Linda Book's description)

2. The large quantities of dust put into the atmosphere would block incoming solar radiation. The dust could take months to settle back to the surface. Meanwhile, the Earth would be in a state of continual darkness, and temperatures would drop throughout the world, generating global winter like conditions. A similar effect has been postulated for the aftermath of a nuclear war (termed a nuclear winter). Blockage of solar radiation would also diminish the ability of photosynthetic organisms, like plants, to photosynthesize. Since photosynthetic organisms are the base of the food chain, this would seriously disrupt all ecosystems.

3. Widespread wildfires ignited by radiation from the fireball as the object passed through the atmosphere would be generated. (This is exactly what the Oera Linda Book describes) Smoke from these fires would further block solar radiation to enhance the cooling effect and further disrupt photosynthesis.

4. If the impact occurred in the oceans, a large steam cloud would be produced by the sudden evaporation of the seawater. This water vapor and CO2 would remain in the atmosphere long after the dust settles. Both of these gases are greenhouse gases which scatter solar radiation and create a warming effect. Thus, after the initial global cooling, the atmosphere would undergo global warming for many years after the impact.(See the 2.2ka Bond event)

5. If the impact occurred in the oceans, giant tsunami would be generated. For a 10 km-diameter object the leading edge would hit the seafloor of the deep ocean basins before the top of the object had reached sea level. The tsunami from such an impact is estimated to produce waves from 1 to 3 km high. These could easily flood the interior of continents.

6. Large amounts of nitrogen oxides would result from combining Nitrogen and Oxygen in the atmosphere due to the shock produced by the impact. These nitrogen oxides would combine with water in the atmosphere to produce nitric acid which would fall back to the surface as acid rain, resulting in the acidification of surface waters.

Yes, exactly. We're talking a global catastrophe large enough to damage the entire ecosystem, to the point where as much as 90% of all life on earth curl up their toes and die. Do we see any evidence of anything like this occurring?

Leo beat me too it but here's a few examples of earth that's become inclined, and related phenomena:

http://www.shakenet.org/resources/gallery/P1010054.jpg/view

http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/states/events/1959_08_18_pics_1.php

http://libraryphoto.cr.usgs.gov/cgi-bin/search.cgi?search_mode=exact&selection=Alaska+Earthquake+1964|Alaska+Earthquake|1964

http://www.geerassociation.org/GEER_Post%20EQ%20Reports/Nisqually_2001/liquefaction/lateralspread/index.html

[Oniomancer]

Now, an earthquake can cause ground to "become inclined" - I think you are taking the phrase "the earth" a little too literally if you are reading that as meaning the entire planet. As for the OLB - I have mentioned before, but using it as 'evidence' for it's own authenticity is circular reasoning.

Careful Leo, I got in trouble elsewhere for trying to use that-there fancy logic type stuff.

[Abramelin]

1. Can you imagine only a portion of the earth becoming inclined, especially if Noah said that he "travelled to the ends of the earth" i.e a long distance. Or, can you imagine the sun rising higher on only a portion of the earth. Come on.

2. It would be circular reasoning if I only used the OLB to prove the OLB. Here I am bringing in other evidence to support the OLB. Please use the term in the right context.

3. You say "maybe 1-2km" Read again prof Nelson's view: "The impact of a space object with a size greater than about 1 km would be expected to be felt over the entire surface of the Earth."

Alewyn, if an object of 30 kilometers large would have hit the earth back then, we would not be here discussing the Oera Linda Book.

There would not be a any 'we' left.

-

You try to prove the OLB is a true ancient account by providing geological and historical facts to back up the dates given in the OLB.

You base your whole book on an English translation of a Dutch translation (AND interpretation) of the OLB.

I for one would love it if this OLB was indeed authentic, but as much as I would love to use it for my Doggerland thread, I don't trust it for one second.

There are too many errors and inconsistencies in the book, as though the ones who created it were a bit inaccurate to say the least. Jensma would say they did it on purpose: to give the ones reading it clues that something is fishy here...

One of the main problems here is that many people underestimate the knowledge these 19th century people had of ancient Greek and Latin writers, and they also have no idea about why these people should want to create a fabulation like the OLB in the first place.

====

Btw, Alewyn, I don't think it's a good idea to post your whole book online.

Maybe you think it's easier to just copy and post every page of your book to prove your points, but it won't do much good for selling the book.

People are interested, and so nowadays they will start Googling, and you bet your fuzzy rear end that they will end up here, at "Unexplained Mysteries", and see all the pages of your book.

If I was them, I would just sit and wait, ... and read... and not buy the book.

Maybe you will say you don't care, but I assume you put a lot of time and energy into writing your book, and no doubt you want to earn a buck ot two by selling your book.

Personally I have no problems with you getting something back for the energy you spent in writing and researching.

Just a thought.

[cormac mac airt]

I am giving you the book chapter by chapter so that you can follow the logic.

Im not interested in the book, chapter by chapter, but primarily the claims concerning genetics that you have made, which up to this point are unevidenced as they have been stated.

I may just add that this book is not about genetics but about determining the authenticity of the Oera Linda Book. Genetics is just one piece of the puzzle.

But it is your claims that are part of this puzzle. Claims that Im not seeing any current evidence for, particularly since the haplogroup list you gave earlier showed two sub-clades that were redesignated or discarded back around 2007/2008.

I am not so stupid as to try and match your obvious superior knowledge on genetics. The little there is in my book about the subject is only that which I regard as relevant.

From my point of view if its not accurate, its not relevant.

In terms of DNA mapping, we find that the Y-chromosome haplogroup R1a seems to have its highest concentration (+50%) in the Altai mountain region. From there it reduces towards Russia (±45%) and further still to central Europe (±40%) and Scandinavia (±20%). In Poland we find R1a to be more than 50% of the DNA profile of the general population, and in Hungary about 40%. In Greece the number drops to about 10%. Another major branch of R1a is found through Kyrgyzstan to India.

South Asia India Kharti-Punjab/Haryana 15 NA 0.00% 67.00% Underhill et al. (2009)

South Asia India Ahir-Pradesh Punjab/Haryana 24 NA 0.00% 63.00% Underhill et al. (2009)

South Asia India Lohana Gujarat 20 NA 0.00% 60.00% Underhill et al. (2009)

South Asia Pakistan Mohanna 70 NA 0.00% 71.00% Underhill et al. (2009)

Europe Belorussia 50 NA 0.00% 42.00% Underhill et al. (2009)

Central Asia Russia Altaians 58 NA 0.00% 41.38% Underhill et al. (2009)

South Asia India Uttar-Pradesh Jharkhand 171 NA 0.00% 49.71% Underhill et al. (2009)

South Asia India Uttranchal Jharkhand 21 NA 0.00% 47.62% Underhill et al. (2009)

South Asia India West-Bengal Chattishgarh 49 NA 0.00% 48.98% Underhill et al. (2009)

South Asia Pakistan Sindhi 134 NA 0.00% 49.00% Underhill et al. (2009)

Europe Estonia 100 NA 0.00% 35.00% Underhill et al. (2009)

Europe Croatia Krk (island) 74 NA 0.00% 36.49% Underhill et al. (2009)

Europe Czech Republic 53 NA 0.00% 37.74% Underhill et al. (2009)

Europe Russia Russians 39 NA 0.00% 38.46% Underhill et al. (2009)

South Asia India Jammu Jharkhand 61 NA 0.00% 37.70% Underhill et al. (2009)

South Asia India Madhya-Pradesh Madhya-Pradesh 54 NA 0.00% 35.19% Underhill et al. (2009)

List of R1a frequency by population

This information originates from the article Separating the post-Glacial coancestry of European and Asian Y chromosomes within haplogroup R1a published online 4 November 2009.

The following individuals, universities, etc., are associated with this article:

Peter A Underhill1, Natalie M Myres2, Siiri Rootsi3,4, Mait Metspalu3,4, Lev A Zhivotovsky5, Roy J King1, Alice A Lin1, Cheryl-Emiliane T Chow6, Ornella Semino7, Vincenza Battaglia7, Ildus Kutuev3,8, Mari Järve3, Gyaneshwer Chaubey3, Qasim Ayub9, Aisha Mohyuddin10, S Qasim Mehdi11, Sanghamitra Sengupta12, Evgeny I Rogaev13, Elza K Khusnutdinova8, Andrey Pshenichnov3,14, Oleg Balanovsky3,14, Elena Balanovska14, Nina Jeran3,15, Dubravka Havas Augustin3,15, Marian Baldovic3,16, Rene J Herrera17, Kumarasamy Thangaraj18, Vijay Singh18, Lalji Singh18, Partha Majumder19, Pavao Rudan15, Dragan Primorac20, Richard Villems3 and Toomas Kivisild21

1Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA

2Sorenson Molecular Genealogy Foundation, Salt Lake City, UT, USA

3Department of Evolutionary Biology, University of Tartu, Tartu, Estonia

4Estonian Biocentre, Tartu, Estonia

5N.I. Vavilov Institute of General Genetics, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia

6Department of Genetics, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA

7Dipartimento di Genetica e Microbiologia, Università di Pavia, Pavia, Italy

8Institute of Biochemistry and Genetics, Ufa Research Center, Russian Academy of Sciences, Ufa, Russia

9The Sulston Laboratories, The Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute, Hinxton, UK

10Shifa College of Medicine, Islamabad, Pakistan

11Centre for Human Genetics and Molecular Medicine, Sindh Institute of Urology and Transplantation, Karachi, Pakistan

12Department of Biochemistry, University of Calcutta, Kolkata, India

13Department of Psychiatry, Brudnick Neuropsychiatric Research Institute, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, MA, USA

14Research Centre for Medical Genetics, Russian Academy of Medical Sciences, Moscow, Russia

15Institute for Anthropological Research, Zagreb, Croatia

16Department of Molecular Biology, Faculty of Natural Sciences, Comenius University, Bratislava, Slovakia

17Department of Human and Molecular Genetics, College of Medicine, Florida International University, Miami, FL, USA

18Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology, Hyderabad, India

19Human Genetics Unit, Indian Statistical Institute, Calcutta, India

20MZOS, Zagreb, Croatia

21Leverhulme Centre for Human Evolutionary Studies, Department of Biological Anthropology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK

None of which corroborates the original genetic claims made here, nor shows relevance (again, specifically) to a timeframe of c.2193 BC.

cormac

Edited July 14, 2010 by cormac mac airt

[Swede]

Your last sentence should read "...but just believe me on this FOR NOW."

As you read my book further you will see the collaborating evidence to my "speculation".

With all due respect;

You have publicly stated on these pages that you have utilized archaeological, geologic, climatic, linguistic, and genetic evidence that supports your research. And based upon this research you have published a text that, given the material previously presented, you (apparently) feel should re-write current historical understanding.

As can be observed from the data provided by a number of contributors, it would appear that the depth of your research or the interpretation of such may be questioned. Linguistics? Archaeology? Climate? Geology/Exo-planet factors? Genetics?

To not address these factors in a detailed and well researched manner may be a liability.

To publish a purportedly "earth-shaking" book and then (recently) add a "for now" coda is, again, telling.

And this may be a point worthy of consideration. Qualified scientific/historic presentations are generally structured in such a manner as to allow for the inclusion of new data. When one attempts to re-write history, it may be a worthwhile exercise to insure that the incorporated research will be capable of supporting ones position. Such an approach is a requisite in even undergraduate presentations.

Given the more recent critiques, it would seem that you are now basing the foundation of your work on the Book of Enoch and the OLB. Problematic?

.

[The Puzzler]

The Burckle crater was not made by "an object 30km in diameter". The Burckle crater is 30km in diameter - indicating an impactor considerably smaller - maybe 1-2 km (?) in diameter. The impact would have caused mega-tsunamis of maybe a couple hundred metres in height - not thousands of metres.

Now, an earthquake can cause ground to "become inclined" - I think you are taking the phrase "the earth" a little too literally if you are reading that as meaning the entire planet. As for the OLB - I have mentioned before, but using it as 'evidence' for it's own authenticity is circular reasoning.

I do think earthquakes would have been part of it yes. A large part and Plato does use the term earthquakes in his narratives so earthquakes it is for me, he doesn't mention anything except flood from earthquake.

Also, Poseidon stood for earthquakes, his trident was what caused them, when he smashed it into the ground. He got mad like that after Athena won Athens instead of himself and created a flood that flooded the area.

If we read the words again concerning Noah it says he saw the Earth become inclined and so knew cataclysm was coming - then he feels the Earths tumult and knows its only a matter of time before the flood will hit.....very foretelling stuff.

I havent ruled out an impact just yet though.

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

*** Alewyn, here is some of an article by Sherry Shriner, deeply religious but she offers up some other parts of the Bible for comparison with the line by Noah, she seems convinced of a Pole Shift herself...

According to the Book of Jasher, an ancient document which gives us some insight into the teachings of men back then, THE WHOLE EARTH SHOOK AND WAS VIOLENTLY MOVED. We also have a DARKENED SKY, which came suddenly, as though violent volcanic activity suddenly occurred, and then HUGE LIGHTING BOLTS WENT THROUGH THE SKY. This description can be found in other ancient manuscripts. But what caused this VIOLENCE? God Himself! What natural vehicle did He use, or did He directly intervene? Apart from Divine intervention, the only other cause is a POLAR SHIFT.

The Book of Enoch also gives us some clues to this:

"In those days, Noah SAW THAT EARTH BECAME INCLINED, and that DESTRUCTION APPROACHED.

Then he lifted up his feet, and went to the ends of the earth, to the dwelling place of his great grandfather, Enoch.

And Noah cried with a bitter voice" HEAR ME; HEAR ME; HEAR ME: three times. And he said: TELL ME WHAT IS TRANSACTING UPON EARTH, FOR THE EARTH LABORS, AND IS VIOLENTLY SHAKEN. SURELY I SHALL PERISH WITH IT.

AFTER THIS THERE WAS A GREAT PERTURBATION UPON EARTH..."

The interesting comment here is that NOAH SAW THE EARTH BECAME INCLINED. There was an observable tilt in its axis, and it caused great great earthquakes, which upset Noah to the point that he ran to see his great-grandfather about it. Obviously, the men of old in those days were watching and understood the basics of earth's position in space and how it operated in the heavens. Enoch did, for God showed him everything about it.

The FLOOD AND POLAR SHIFT SETS THE STAGE FOR THE NEXT MAJOR EVENT:

Was there a polar shift in the days of Peleg (Genesis 10:25)? It says that in the days of Peleg THE EARTH WAS DIVIDED!

1 Chron. 1:19

And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of the one was Peleg; because in his days

the earth was divided:

and his brother's name was Joktan.

The word divided means to SPLIT APART, TO BREAK UP, TO BE BROKEN. It comes from the word PALAG, which means TO SPLIT, TO DIVIDE. It is interesting to note that the name PELEG MEANS "EARTHQUAKE".

http://www.sherryshriner.net/stewart/polar-shift-one.htm

If Peleg means earthquake and in his day the Earth was divided, that seems sorta odd. Maybe not quite as out there as a complete continent shift as she supposes in her God context but it could have caused things like the split along the Jordan Valley, which is actually part of the Great Rift Valley in Africa to change or maybe the Bosphorus or something...she is accompanying a Pole Shift with a huge earthquake.

Edited July 15, 2010 by The Puzzler

[The Puzzler]

Has anyone read Aristotle's Meteorology?

I did a while back after seeing this reference in Wiki - In Aristotle's Meteorology, Aristotle says, "...the stars...fell from heaven at the time of Phaethon's downfall."[5] Aristotle is saying Phaethon caused a meteor shower. This has led many scientists including Immanuel Velikovsky to speculate that Phaethon was a comet.

Is Aristotle saying Phaethon caused a meteor shower?

Lets see what he actually says...

Let us now explain the origin, cause, and nature of the milky way. And here too let us begin by discussing the statements of others on the subject.

(1) Of the so-called Pythagoreans some say that this is the path of one of the stars that fell from heaven at the time of Phaethon's downfall. Others say that the sun used once to move in this circle and that this region was scorched or met with some other affection of this kind, because of the sun and its motion.

But it is absurd not to see that if this were the reason the circle of the Zodiac ought to be affected in the same way, and indeed more so than that of the milky way, since not the sun only but all the planets move in it. We can see the whole of this circle (half of it being visible at any time of the night), but it shows no signs of any such affection except where a part of it touches the circle of the milky way.

Not exactly Aristotle saying it was a meteor shower. In fact, it's interesting to read what Aristotle has to say on comets and how they were perceived by the ancients, a conjunction of planets could be what was known as a comet, to which Aristotle scoffs at the suggestion.

I bolded a part below as I think it could be a reference to what Sitchin has misinterpreted as Planet X...anyways, off that, read about comets.

Let us go on to explain the nature of comets and the 'milky way', after a preliminary discussion of the views of others.

Anaxagoras and Democritus declare that comets are a conjunction of the planets approaching one another and so appearing to touch one another.

Some of the Italians called Pythagoreans say that the comet is one of the planets, but that it appears at great intervals of time and only rises a little above the horizon. This is the case with Mercury too; because it only rises a little above the horizon it often fails to be seen and consequently appears at great intervals of time.

This is the case, first, with those who say that the comet is one of the planets. For all the planets appear in the circle of the zodiac, whereas many comets have been seen outside that circle. Again more comets than one have often appeared simultaneously. Besides, if their tail is due to reflection, as Aeschylus and Hippocrates say, this planet ought sometimes to be visible without a tail since, as they it does not possess a tail in every place in which it appears. But, as a matter of fact, no planet has been observed besides the five. And all of them are often visible above the horizon together at the same time. Further, comets are often found to appear, as well when all the planets are visible as when some are not, but are obscured by the neighbourhood of the sun. Moreover the statement that a comet only appears in the north, with the sun at the summer solstice, is not true either. The great comet which appeared at the time of the earthquake in Achaea and the tidal wave rose due west; and many have been known to appear in the south. Again in the archonship of Euclees, son of Molon, at Athens there appeared a comet in the north in the month Gamelion, the sun being about the winter solstice. Yet they themselves admit that reflection over so great a space is an impossibility.

An objection that tells equally against those who hold this theory and those who say that comets are a coalescence of the planets is, first, the fact that some of the fixed stars too get a tail. For this we must not only accept the authority of the Egyptians who assert it, but we have ourselves observed the fact. For a star in the thigh of the Dog had a tail, though a faint one. If you fixed your sight on it its light was dim, but if you just glanced at it, it appeared brighter. Besides, all the comets that have been seen in our day have vanished without setting, gradually fading away above the horizon; and they have not left behind them either one or more stars. For instance the great comet we mentioned before appeared to the west in winter in frosty weather when the sky was clear, in the archonship of Asteius. On the first day it set before the sun and was then not seen. On the next day it was seen, being ever so little behind the sun and immediately setting. But its light extended over a third part of the sky like a leap, so that people called it a 'path'. This comet receded as far as Orion's belt and there dissolved. Democritus however, insists upon the truth of his view and affirms that certain stars have been seen when comets dissolve. But on his theory this ought not to occur occasionally but always. Besides, the Egyptians affirm that conjunctions of the planets with one another, and with the fixed stars, take place, and we have ourselves observed Jupiter coinciding with one of the stars in the Twins and hiding it, and yet no comet was formed. Further, we can also give a rational proof of our point. It is true that some stars seem to be bigger than others, yet each one by itself looks indivisible. Consequently, just as, if they really had been indivisible, their conjunction could not have created any greater magnitude, so now that they are not in fact indivisible but look as if they were, their conjunction will not make them look any bigger.

http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/meteorology.1.i.html

A conjunction of planets could be construed as a comet, that's interesting now.

Edited July 15, 2010 by The Puzzler

[drakonwick]

But there is a lot of geological evidence that shows a great flood of massive proportions did happen. I'm not saying an angry GOD caused a massive flood. But, what evidence is shown, shows that a major cataclysm more than likely a comet or meteor caused this major upheaval of flooding around the planet, and this is why we have many variations of a great flood.

[Alewyn]

OK, I believe it is a good time to take stock. After a few weeks of debate (which I enjoyed) and three chapters of my book (although most of the debate is still around chapter 1) I have decided to score the participants’ views on the Oera Linda Book (and therefore also on my work).

A score of 0 means the OLB is a total fraud with no substance whereas 10 would mean it is true without any doubt. So, herewith my (subjective) scores ( In alphabetical order):

Abramelin 0

Alewyn 8

Cormac 0

Diechecker 0

Esson 0

Leonardo 0

Oniomancer 0

Qoais 1

Slim Jim 2

Swede 0

The Puzzler 3

The Searcher 0

This gives us a score of 14 out of a possible 120 or a probability of just under 12% that the Oera Linda Book is true. Any further debate, therefore, is really meaningless and I am sure you can now spend your energies on more deserving issues.

Thank you all for your input. I appreciate it.

[The Puzzler]

But there is a lot of geological evidence that shows a great flood of massive proportions did happen. I'm not saying an angry GOD caused a massive flood. But, what evidence is shown, shows that a major cataclysm more than likely a comet or meteor caused this major upheaval of flooding around the planet, and this is why we have many variations of a great flood.

Could be...

The great comet which appeared at the time of the earthquake in Achaea and the tidal wave rose due west;

In one sentence without giving it any great age, we have a great comet, earthquake and tidal wave all at once.

Alewyn, I would probably be a 5, too bad you are going, I was just getting started.

[TheSearcher]

My main problem with the OLB is, that almost all the facts and events, that are mentioned in it, are consistent with the knowledge you could expect from an 19th century scholar.

I'm surprised that this is not more apparent to some. The OLB was allegedly given to Eelco Verwijs in 1867, then given to J.G. Ottema, who translated it and published it in 1872. Most dutch scholars on the subject, seem to agree that the authors are Cornelis Over de Linden, J.H. Halbertsma, Eelco Verwijs and François HaverSchmidt.

All of these men were quite educated :

- Cornelis Over de Linden was a master shipwright at the Royal Netherlands Dockyards at Helder.

- J.H. Halbertsma was a Frisian lexicographer, preacher and linguist. He wrote the Lexicon Frisicum.

- Eelco Verwijs was the provincial librarian of Friesland, he was also a linguist and wrote "De ontstaansgeschiedenis van de Middelnederlandsche Spraakkunst" (in 1867). His father was a preacher and himself had a fleeting brush with theology.

- François HaverSchmidt was a poet and theology student. He studied theology in Leiden under J.H. Scholten and A. Kuenen, who were both "modernists", they taught their students to have a critical look on the bible. They wanted to bring the bible in line with natural sciences.

Even J.G. Ottema, who translated the OLB was a classical language teacher and conrector at the "Stedelijk Gymnasium" in Leeuwarden.

The trend we see developing here, should be quite obvious by now. They were all very well educated men, having full access to all the knowledge and science of the time. They all had some connection with theology and were for most parts convinced Frisians, some were even part of the "Fries Genootschap" (Provincial Frisian Society for the Cultivation of Frisian History, Archaeology, and Linguistics).

The OLB, is an allegory of the 19th century struggle between the emerging liberal thinking school and fundamentalist orthodoxy, written from a modernist point of view, with a pinch of Frisian independance. Sounds complicated, but when you look at the OLB and get to grips with the social, cultural and literary implications, it makes sense. Of course one needs to be familiar with the cultural and social Dutch and Frisian heritage.

[Leonardo]

OK, I believe it is a good time to take stock. After a few weeks of debate (which I enjoyed) and three chapters of my book (although most of the debate is still around chapter 1) I have decided to score the participants’ views on the Oera Linda Book (and therefore also on my work).

A score of 0 means the OLB is a total fraud with no substance whereas 10 would mean it is true without any doubt. So, herewith my (subjective) scores ( In alphabetical order):

Abramelin 0

Alewyn 8

Cormac 0

Diechecker 0

Esson 0

Leonardo 0

Oniomancer 0

Qoais 1

Slim Jim 2

Swede 0

The Puzzler 3

The Searcher 0

This gives us a score of 14 out of a possible 120 or a probability of just under 12% that the Oera Linda Book is true. Any further debate, therefore, is really meaningless and I am sure you can now spend your energies on more deserving issues.

Thank you all for your input. I appreciate it.

I understand your frustration, Alewyn, but I have to say I am a little disappointed.

While I cannot argue that the events the OLB all happened as described, I am (like Abe) of the mind the book takes from actual mythology to weave an allegorical story to make a point about the Frisian predisposition (and, by extension, the predisposition of other cultures) towards 'creating' a sumptuous history for themselves. It is, essentially, a satire - not necessarily a hoax.

That does not mean there is nothing historically worthwhile in the book, just that it is not what it seems to be. Some of the mythology it uses is certainly worth investigating, just perhaps not in a Frisian (or global) context.

Edited July 15, 2010 by Leonardo

[The Puzzler]

I understand your frustration, Alewyn, but I have to say I am a little disappointed.

While I cannot argue that the events the OLB all happened as described, I am (like Abe) of the mind the book takes from actual mythology to weave an allegorical story to make a point about the Frisian predisposition (and, by extension, the predisposition of other cultures) towards 'creating' a sumptuous history for themselves. It is, essentially, a satire - not necessarily a hoax.

That does not mean there is nothing historically worthwhile in the book, just that it is not what it seems to be. Some of the mythology it uses is certainly worth investigating, just perhaps not in a Frisian (or global) context.

...and this is where I come in. Keep your eye out for my book mate! lol

What context would you look for a Greek mythical character called Minos, Leo, for interest sakes? How do you suppose his story came about by Homer or which ever early writer you choose. Which idea do you subscribe? I'm not being smart or anything, I am simply interested to know how you think he might have appeared in Greek myth?

Was he a native, did he come from Asia Minor, he doesn't exist at all, he made no laws, he had good laws, from where, why?

Is it not at all possible in your eyes that Minos may be Minno, a sea king from the North who made it to Crete? If not, why not and what better more logical idea do you have who the story of Minos is based on?

[The Puzzler]

Here's what gets me and why I think it could be true.

The translator William Sandbach examined the book and found the cotton paper to be of an old age c. 1500BC and the style of imprinted writing fitted with the time as well. Anyway, after I scrutinised what was written about the age of the the book itself, I thought his opinions sounded very valid.

The style of writing, seen to be modern Frisian, written in an UNKNOWN language, not Frisian, nor Old Frisian, but an Anglo-Saxon based language, used prior to the establishment of the land in Friesland of the people in the book. This imo gives an opportunity for the writing to be in any style it likes, including modern as we actually don't know the language in the book and it is comparable to works by Homer in its poetic saga style.

The oldest form known of Anglo-Saxon also has a runic companion and the language and religion seems to have developed more in Scandinavia as the Norse language, runes and Gods became their own. The same people who settled in an area of Holland, now known as Friesland also carried the earliest history and language of these people, these people became who we know as Frisians but originally they were not as we know them today.

The year 2193BC is known for a change in climate and conditions in the North Sea change as the North Atlantic warms up. The end of the Old Kingdom and Akkad due to famine and political strife. 4.2 kiloyear event plus Bond effect. Studies of changes and breakup of Helgoland in the German Bight, which means Holy Land indicates this happened around the same time.

The laws of Freya were very important and steeped in liberty values. I see these same laws all around the world and believe Freyas laws did travel and form the basis of many cultures including Greece. I think it quite possible that Athena is Nyhellenia. I don't think the people had to move in large numbers for the laws to travel independently. Zeus looks just like Thor, they all do, the Greek Gods look like big Norse men, I don't think that is co-incidence.

I think it quite probable that from an early time, the knowledge in the books and on the walls of the old citadels may have been known by learned men, who passed this knowledge down to the other learned men, such as Homer, who in translating it wrong, turned this story into a telling of the Greek history in his myths. That the myths are actually created from this information rather than the book being a copy of the myths.

I don't think it's impossible men of the education you speak were involved in the book without writing it, who would you get to look at it and translate it, Bob the Garbage Man?

Some of my reasons on why I think it could be a true history of the Frisians and I havent even started on links to everyone they mention yet.