Alewyn Posted February 3, 2012 #9876 Share Posted February 3, 2012 Alewyn based his book on an erroneous translation of the OLB. How professional is that? It is precisely this type of misinformation (and that is putting it mildly) that you use to prop up your arguments. You know full well that my second edition is based on a total rework of the OLB from the Frisian transcription and with references to the original manuscript. How truthful are you? Anyone reading my book can see that the OLB which I attached as an addendum differs from any previous translations. I am reluctant, however, to call it a translation in its own right because I have consulted both Ottema and Sandbach’s translations to compare my version with. Whilst there are some differences, I can assure you that very little in both Ottema and Sandbach’s translation have any material influence on the OLB’s interpretation. They are both pretty accurate. The one area where their interpretations were not correct, was the part of the sun setting over the Mediterranean which you initially pointed out. I changed that and realised that this was actually another vital clue to support my stance that earth’s orientation had suddenly changed in ca. 2200 BC. As for Steele, I have proven that he never translated the OLB but merely corrupted Sandbach’s version to serve his own occult agenda. I levelled my accusation straight at him and he admitted as much. Once again, you are aware of this. At the time I told this forum that that was the main reason I had to bring out a second edition, which I subsequently did. In my opinion, the first requirement for professionalism is truthfulness. You should try it some time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Otharus Posted February 3, 2012 #9877 Share Posted February 3, 2012 One of the probable reasons why it was made a taboo to take the OLB seriously. Cornelis Over de Linden in a letter to Dr. Ottema, dated 16-11-1871 (translated from Dutch): "I don't have the slightest doubts that one day the truth will come float to the surface, but now that I have studied your translation, I figure that the laws described in it are very radical, and that when the theology it teaches would become that of the people again, all sorts of clergymen would have to find a new job. That is why I think they will oppose it as much as is in their power." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Otharus Posted February 3, 2012 #9878 Share Posted February 3, 2012 THÀT LYDA.S FOLK SINA KRÀFTA ÀND WI VSA WISDOM. Linda's [Lyda's] folk their strength, and we our wisdom. I had not yet noticed the above error by Sandbach. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abramelin Posted February 3, 2012 #9879 Share Posted February 3, 2012 (edited) It is precisely this type of misinformation (and that is putting it mildly) that you use to prop up your arguments. You know full well that my second edition is based on a total rework of the OLB from the Frisian transcription and with references to the original manuscript. How truthful are you? Anyone reading my book can see that the OLB which I attached as an addendum differs from any previous translations. I am reluctant, however, to call it a translation in its own right because I have consulted both Ottema and Sandbach’s translations to compare my version with. Whilst there are some differences, I can assure you that very little in both Ottema and Sandbach’s translation have any material influence on the OLB’s interpretation. They are both pretty accurate. The one area where their interpretations were not correct, was the part of the sun setting over the Mediterranean which you initially pointed out. I changed that and realised that this was actually another vital clue to support my stance that earth’s orientation had suddenly changed in ca. 2200 BC. As for Steele, I have proven that he never translated the OLB but merely corrupted Sandbach’s version to serve his own occult agenda. I levelled my accusation straight at him and he admitted as much. Once again, you are aware of this. At the time I told this forum that that was the main reason I had to bring out a second edition, which I subsequently did. In my opinion, the first requirement for professionalism is truthfulness. You should try it some time. I am as truthful as I can be, based on what you posted here. The only book I can judge is the first edition of your book, not the second edition. Your first edition was based on an erroneous translation of the OLB, which you admitted here. You accuse us all of not being professionals when we discuss a topic you love to avoid: the language of the OLB. But then I realized that YOU are the one who wrote a book based on a manuscript you cannot even read and therefore use a translation in English of which you just assumed was ok. We, that is all the NON-professionals here, have convinced you about the fact that the translation you used and on which you based the first edition of your book sucked major. You said you checked it with Ottema's and Sandbach's version, but you should have started with the original untransliterated text, then transliterate it into latin script YOURSELF, then use whatever Old-Frisian/Dutch/German/Norse dictionary you could get to translate the text into English or Afrikaans. Or you could have tried another early translation of the OLB: the one published by Overwijn in 1941. If you seriously believe that a new translation will not make much difference for the story.. then I do not what to say. Even that new and better translation about the Aster Sea and Middle Sea makes you more convinced your theory is right. But Aster Se is Frisian for EAST SEA. Why would they call it East Sea? Because it was and is to the east of Friesland. And the Middle Sea was to their west; even the oldest name of that Middle Sea means 'border'. But these and other things I found are for you nothing but irrelevant coincidences. And you still haven't shown us a list of all the erupting European volcanoes around 2200 BC, tsunamis and floods in Northern Europe around 2200 BC (the one you thought happened then wasn't even a tsunami), huge forest fires all over Europe or at least all over Germany in 2200 BC, rivers that got redirected in 2200 BC, lands that submerged and rose from the waters in 2200 BC, and so on. If the Faroer or the Rockall Plateau was/were former Aldland, why don't we see any proof of its destruction in the geological record of Ireland or Scotland or Norway or Iceland? . Edited February 3, 2012 by Abramelin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abramelin Posted February 3, 2012 #9880 Share Posted February 3, 2012 I had not yet noticed the above error by Sandbach. That's funny because I remember you once showed me it was an error in the translation. I think it was in a discussion about the lime trees ("linden trees"). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Otharus Posted February 3, 2012 #9881 Share Posted February 3, 2012 (edited) In the most scientific publication about the paper-age study, "The Oera Linda Boek - A literary forgery and its paper", by A. Kardinaal, E. v.d. Grijn, H. Porck; published in: IPH Congress Book 16 (2006), p. 177-185; discussed here, it is merely suggested that the paper is from the 19th century, but not clearly stated. The following quote from dr. Ottema (translated from letter to L.F. Over de Linden, dated june or july 1876) about the OLB paper is interesting, but was not mentioned by Jensma nor in the report of the recent paper study: "Concerning the waterlines, the making of paper on wire frames was invented by the Goths in Spain between the years 1035 when Toledo was conquered, and 1238 when Valencia was conquered. They already used watermills and stamping techniques to process cotton tatters. See: Meyers Conversations Lexicon; art. Paper. [...] Remember this: no chlorine and no amylose, therefore no machine-made paper. I would be surprised if the ink is anything else than pure lamp-soot, that remains black and does not corrode the paper." Edited February 3, 2012 by Otharus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Otharus Posted February 3, 2012 #9882 Share Posted February 3, 2012 That's funny because I remember you once showed me it was an error in the translation. I think it was in a discussion about the lime trees ("linden trees"). Possible, but today, when I made that post, I hadn't noticed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abramelin Posted February 3, 2012 #9883 Share Posted February 3, 2012 One of the probable reasons why it was made a taboo to take the OLB seriously. Cornelis Over de Linden in a letter to Dr. Ottema, dated 16-11-1871 (translated from Dutch): "I don't have the slightest doubts that one day the truth will come float to the surface, but now that I have studied your translation, I figure that the laws described in it are very radical, and that when the theology it teaches would become that of the people again, all sorts of clergymen would have to find a new job. That is why I think they will oppose it as much as is in their power." I find this quote highly suspicious. It's almost like CodL gives us the true reason why he created or took part in the fabrication of the OLB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cormac mac airt Posted February 3, 2012 #9884 Share Posted February 3, 2012 I am amazed that you still do not get it after almost 2 years of discussion on this site. Let me try to explain this in simple terms: 1. My book is about the Oera Linda Book. 2. The Oera Linda Book quotes the date of 2193/2194 BC as the date of an enormous disaster that struck Europe and wiped out almost everybody. 3. Because I am examining the OLB, I have to see whether the date of 2193/2194 BC is credible. I cannot change that date – do you or don’t you agree? 4. Now I start looking what else happened around the globe at around the same time and I find an abundance of evidence of collapsed civilizations, massive floods and tsunamis around 2200 BC – that is only 6 or 7 years different from the OLB’s date of 2193/2194 BC. In archaeological terms this is spot on. So, you see, I have no grounds to change the date even if I could. Your radio carbon date of c. 2225 BC for the demise of the Old Egyptian Kingdom is only 31 to 32 years different from the OLB’s date over a period of 4200 years! Yet you want to put this forward as proof that the OLB is wrong? You must be joking. No radio carbon date is that accurate especially if earth’s climate and orientation relative to the sun were substantially different at the time from the data that are used in putting together calibration tables and graphs. Your statement, that the outer mantle would have to slide over the earth as a whole and that all life on earth would be extinguished, is pure conjecture. No one at this stage can even start to model the forces and mechanics involved in such an event. Even if they could, the specific set of conditions could only be one of a limitless number of scenarios. Yet, you put it down as a proven fact. I keep on asking the question which I have asked Abramelin many times. What caused the global turmoil in 2200 BC and the subsequent drying up of the great African lakes and the desertification of North Africa? All the old scribes described a very sudden event which included cosmic activity. The OLB is the only one which does not describe meteorites, possibly because these happened remote from Europe or were obscured by the cloud cover the book describes. The book nevertheless describes the results which are consistent with other accounts. 1) Your point is? 2) That doesn't make it right. 3) You're entitled to go with the date, but that doesn't make it or you right. 4) What you find is an abundance of erroneous conclusions. And in your usage, you obviously don't know what a "civilization" is any meaningful paleoanthropological usage of the term. The date of c.2225 BC is, as I said, the median date as the accepted date is c.2181 BC (not to include the 7th and 8th which would make it c.2160 BC) which again IS NOT 2193/2194 BC. I fully realize that radiocarbon dating gives a margin of error and not a specific date, something of which I've reminded you of in the past. But it's YOU that has attempted to use a general timeframe to validate the OLB's specific date. It doesn't work that way. It's also been shown that the Old Kingdom DID NOT end in 2193/2194 BC. Also the Hon(g)shan and Xia cultures/dynasties DID NOT end in 2193/2194 BC. Harvey Weiss IS NOT currently claiming that the Akkadian Empire ended in 2193/2194, only that the northern part of the Akkadian Empire suffered a climatic disaster some time around 2200 BC. There still remains no evidence that a single geological disaster whether a volcano, earthquake or even cometary/asteroidal impactor is responsible for the 4.2 kiloyear bond event. And you have NEVER shown evidence of such. These are the facts, whether you wish them to be or not. As to the axial tilt, I said that S. Dutch has shown that an actual axial tilt would destroy all life on earth. Your "resonance" explanation would have to either move the top layer as a whole, something you've NOT actually shown evidence for, or it would buckle in many places globally. Locations of which should be able to be dated to the period in question. You've also NOT shown this to be true either. You can present your speculations any way you wish, but they aren't any more factual than cladking's "geyser" theory. cormac Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Otharus Posted February 3, 2012 #9885 Share Posted February 3, 2012 (edited) I find this quote highly suspicious. It's almost like CodL gives us the true reason why he created or took part in the fabrication of the OLB. If you'd read all of Cornelis' letters and diaries, you'd probably come to a different conclusion, unless you are as paranoid as Jensma. Here's another fragment. Cornelis Over de Linden in a letter to Dr. Ottema, dated 26-10-1873 (translated from Dutch): "I gave a copy of The Oera Linda Bok [Ottema's translation] to a cousin of mine who works in the town hall of Enkhuizen. He borrowed it to the gentlemen of the town hall. One of those gentlemen made the remark, that the ALDEGAMUEDE must be the 'Oudergouw' near Enkhuizen, NOT 'Ouddorp' near Alkmaar. This 'Oudergouw' is a brook right behind the city that is being dried these days. It is three poles, that is half a tide or three hours from Medeasblik." OLB page/line 050/19: ALDE-GÁ-MVDE 053/15: ALDER-GÁ-MVDE 065/22: ALDER-GÁ 085/22: ALDERGA 110/17+23: ALDERGA 116/31: ALDERGÁ 118/26: ALDERGA 120/04: ALDERGA 148/15: ALDER-GÁ 157/22: ALDER-GÁ Ottema didn't change Ouddorp into Oudergouw in his second edition (1876) as suggested by Cornelis. This is about Enkhuizen, where Cornelis had his roots and from where he got the manuscript. Why, if he was involved in its creation, would he have waited till after the first edition, with pointing out to Ottema that Alderga should be Oudergouw (near Enkhuizen) and not Ouddorp (near Alkmaar)? For me this is another indication that Cornelis was innocent and honest, but for Jensma it will be more proof of his slyness. Edited February 3, 2012 by Otharus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abramelin Posted February 3, 2012 #9886 Share Posted February 3, 2012 (edited) If you'd read all of Cornelis' letters and diaries, you'd probably come to a different conclusion, unless you are as paranoid as Jensma. Here's another fragment. Cornelis Over de Linden in a letter to Dr. Ottema, dated 26-10-1873 (translated from Dutch): "I gave a copy of The Oera Linda Bok [Ottema's translation] to a cousin of mine who works in the town hall of Enkhuizen. He borrowed it to the gentlemen of the town hall. One of those gentlemen made the remark, that the ALDEGAMUEDE must be the 'Oudergouw' near Enkhuizen, NOT 'Ouddorp' near Alkmaar. This 'Oudergouw' is a brook right behind the city that is being dried these days. It is three poles, that is half a tide or three hours from Medeasblik." OLB page/line 050/19: ALDE-GÁ-MVDE 053/15: ALDER-GÁ-MVDE 065/22: ALDER-GÁ 085/22: ALDERGA 110/17+23: ALDERGA 116/31: ALDERGÁ 118/26: ALDERGA 120/04: ALDERGA 148/15: ALDER-GÁ 157/22: ALDER-GÁ Ottema didn't change Ouddorp into Oudergouw in his second edition (1876) as suggested by Cornelis. This is about Enkhuizen, where Cornelis had his roots and from where he got the manuscript. Why, if he was involved in its creation, would he have waited till after the first edition, with pointing out to Ottema that Alderga should be Oudergouw (near Enkhuizen) and not Ouddorp (near Alkmaar)? For me this is another indication that Cornelis was innocent and honest, but for Jensma it will be more proof of his slyness. OK, so I must be paranoid now because I said your quote from the letter looks higly suspicious and that it almost looks like .. , and so on. Well, after all the hints at some religious dispute this quote appears to fit nicely. And why would he have waited? If he has stressed his point to Ottema from the start, even Ottema would have found it fishy. . Edited February 3, 2012 by Abramelin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abramelin Posted February 3, 2012 #9887 Share Posted February 3, 2012 (edited) < skip > But Aster Se is Frisian for EAST SEA. Why would they call it East Sea? Because it was and is to the east of Friesland. And the Middle Sea was to their west; even the oldest name of that Middle Sea means 'border'. <skip> Now why would the Frisians change the name of the Boorne river into Middel Se ("Middle Sea") after it became an estuary? Because later on, during the time of "Magna Frisia" they dominated the coast from Flanders to Jutland, and that 'sea' was smack in the middle of their territory. I have read online (not sure if I posted it here) that it were the Frisians who named the North Sea, the East Sea, the Zuiderzee ("Southern Sea", the newly formed sea to their south, the later IJsselmeer). So, we have a North Sea, a Middle Sea, an East Sea, a Southern Sea, and all named as they are bythe Frisians. Would it not be nice if we also had a Western/West Sea? Lo and behold: we have !! Al iets meer detail krijgen we op deze wegenkaart van de Neurenbergse kaartenmaker Erhard Etzlaub (ca. 1455-1532). http://www.loegiesen.nl/landkaarten/kaarten-BBS-0000-1599.htm This a map from around the beginning of the 16th century made by the German cartographer Erhard Etzlaub. The "Wester See" (Western Sea) is located west of the Dutch provinces of Noord-and South Holland, former Frisian teritory. === But I'm not done yet; this "Westersee" was also a name used for... the Mediterranean: WESTERSEE Woordsoort: znw.v. Modern lemma: westerzee Middelnederlandsch Woordenboek: westersee Oudste attestatie: West-Vlaanderen, 1285 Frequentie: totaal: 1, lit..: 1 Aangetroffen spelling: wester zee Morfologie: Uit het bnw. wester 'westelijk (gelegen)' en het znw. see 'zee'. Zie ook: westsee Flexie: ns Korte betekenis: westelijk gelegen zee ↪1. Westelijk (van het Beloofde Land) gelegen zee, Middellandse Zee http://gtb.inl.nl/iWDB/search?actie=article_content&wdb=VMNW&id=ID5031 The underlined sentence says: "Sea located to the West (of the Promised Land), the Mediterranean". +++++++ EDIT: . Edited February 3, 2012 by Abramelin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Otharus Posted February 3, 2012 #9888 Share Posted February 3, 2012 OK, so I must be paranoid now because I said your quote from the letter looks higly suspicious and that it almost looks like .. , and so on. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paranoia Paranoia (adjective: paranoid) is a thought process believed to be heavily influenced by anxiety or fear, often to the point of irrationality and delusion. Paranoid thinking typically includes persecutory beliefs, or beliefs of conspiracy concerning a perceived threat towards oneself. Making false accusations and the general distrust of others also frequently accompany paranoia. Jensma's Haverschmidt theory Somewhere around 1860, François Haverschmidt (1835-1894) wrote the OLB in Dutch, Eelco Verwijs (1830-1880) translated it into a reconstruction of Oldfrisian, and Cornelis Over de Linden (1811-1874) wrote it in the specially designed Jol-script. - Haverschmidt would have lied in publications and personally to Ottema, who had been his teacher and whom Haverschmidt respected. As Jensma put it, "he broke reputations, in the first place that of poor Ottema, whose old days he poisoned and whose remembrance he stultified." - Verwijs would have lied in publications, to his fellow members of the Fries Genootschap and to Government officials. In Jensma's words, he would have "deceived his superiors and abused his professional authority". All letters between Verwijs and Over de Linden would have been part of the hoax. - Cornelis Over de Linden would have lied in all his letters to Ottema and to his very own family, even in his testament. He would have replaced a real old family-document (that according to several witnesses must have existed) by a fake manuscript. Jensma describes Cornelis as a "brutal liar". - Anyone defending one of the three 'convicts', or confirming Over de Linden's story, must be a liar too, and part of the conspiracy. The Halbertsma/ Over de Linden/ Stadermann theory ... is even less realistic. I won't waste any more time on that for now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abramelin Posted February 3, 2012 #9889 Share Posted February 3, 2012 (edited) I hope you realize it is you and Alewyn who repeatedly bring up the fantasy that the OLB is being suppressed. And I also hope you remember I have been repeatedly accused of having some sort of agenda. In case you never heard of the psychological term, google "projection". Another thing: paranoia and a fierce believe in conspiracies are on the same level. Can we go back on topic, or would you like to continue being personal? +++ FYI: Clinical psychology For some individuals, an obsessive compulsion to believe, prove, or re-tell a conspiracy theory may indicate one or a combination of well-understood psychological conditions, and other hypothetical ones: paranoia, denial, schizophrenia, mean world syndrome. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory#Clinical_psychology . . Edited February 3, 2012 by Abramelin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Otharus Posted February 3, 2012 #9890 Share Posted February 3, 2012 (edited) I hope you realize it is you and Alewyn who repeatedly bring up the fantasy that the OLB is being suppressed. The OLB is not forbidden reading. Tresoar, the Frisian archive that has it, even published the original manuscript online. Anyone can study it. But researchers who took it seriously and considered the possibility that it might be authentic have been ridiculed or ignored. The effect of this is that researchers who want to study the OLB and publish about the possibility that it is or might be authentic, will think twice as they would risk losing their reputation. In that sense it is suppressed, and enough examples and proof of this have been posted in this thread. And I also hope you remember I have been repeatedly accused of having some sort of agenda. You keep bringing this up. I remember that shortly after I joined, I made a joke once that you misunderstood. I even explained that it was a joke, but you keep repeating it. I don't think you have an agenda, but you don't understand much of the psychological part of the OLB-dossier. paranoia and a fierce believe in conspiracies are on the same level. Yes I know, and both hoax-theories discussed here ARE conspiracy-theories (and very poor ones). Consciousness is one of my academic specialisations. Can we go back on topic, or would you like to continue being personal? Explaining why the hoax-theories have a touch of paranoia (false accusations and systematic distrust) is totally on topic. Edited February 3, 2012 by Otharus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Otharus Posted February 3, 2012 #9891 Share Posted February 3, 2012 I hope you realize it is you and Alewyn who repeatedly bring up the fantasy that the OLB is being suppressed. Isn't it strange that libraries in the Netherlands - EVEN IN FRYSLÂN - don't have the OLB or anything about it? Only a few specialised academic libraries may have it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abramelin Posted February 3, 2012 #9892 Share Posted February 3, 2012 The OLB is not forbidden reading. Tresoar, the Frisian archive that has it, even published the original manuscript online. Anyone can study it. But researchers who took it seriously and considered the possibility that it might be authentic have been ridiculed or ignored. The effect of this is that researchers who want to study the OLB and publish about the possibility that it is or might be authentic, will think twice as they would risk losing their reputation. In that sense it is suppressed, and enough examples and proof of this have been posted in this thread. You keep bringing this up. I remember that shortly after I joined, I made a joke once that you misunderstood. I even explained that it was a joke, but you keep repeating it. I don't think you have an agenda, but you don't understand much of the psychological part of the OLB-dossier. Yes I know, and both hoax-theories discussed here ARE conspiracy-theories (and very poor ones). Consciousness is one of my academic specialisations. Explaining why the hoax-theories have a touch of paranoia (false accusations and systematic distrust) is totally on topic. I hope you read my edit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abramelin Posted February 3, 2012 #9893 Share Posted February 3, 2012 (edited) Isn't it strange that libraries in the Netherlands - EVEN IN FRYSLÂN - don't have the OLB or anything about it? Only a few specialised academic libraries may have it. The "Koninkijke Bibliotheek" (Royal Library) in The Hague has a LOT about the OLB. You should check their site: http://www.kb.nl/ I entered "oera linda" and got 38 hits. First page of hits: 1. Klein Oera Linda : gedichten 2002-2006 Gogh, Ruben van / Contact / 2006 2. Het Oera Linda-boek : facsimile, transcriptie, vertaling Jensma, Goffe / Verloren / 2006 3. De gemaskerde God : François HaverSchmidt en het Oera Linda-boek Jensma, Goffe / Walburg Pers / 2004 4. De gemaskerde God : François HaverSchmidt en het Oera Linda-boek Jensma, Goffe Theunis / Walburg Pers / 2004 5. Kanttekeningen bij het Oera Linda Boek : een afspiegeling van de taalgeleerdheid, denkbeelden en schrijfstijl van dr. J. H. Halbertsma, doopsgezind predikant in Deventer Meij, G.J. van der / s.n. / 1978 6. Het Oera Linda boek, een geschiedbron? : oud stadswapen van Staveren : een verweerschrift Los, Frans J. / Vidar-publiciteit / 1973 7. Die Ura Linda Handschriften als Geschichtsquelle Los, Frans J. / W.J. Pieters / 1972 8. Thet Oera Linda Bok : naar een handschrift uit de dertiende eeuw, eigendom der familie Over de Linden, aan Den Helder Ottema, J.G. / Minerva / 1972 9. Thet oera linda bôk : bibliografie van gedrukte stukken en overzicht van de verzameling brieven, handschriften, portretten enz., aanwezig op de Provinciale Bibliotheek van Friesland en bij het Fries Genootschap van geschied-, oudheid- en taalkunde te Leeuwarden Kalma, J.J. / Provinciale Bibliotheek van Friesland / 1956 10. Nieuw licht in het Oera-Linda mysterie Huijser, Jan Gerard / Bot / 1954 Second page: 11. Thät wra Linda bok Overwijn, J.F. / 2e dr., verb. en verm / Schefferdrukkerij / 1951 12. Het geheimzinnige handschrift van de familie Over de Linden : feiten en gegevens omtrent herkomst en voorgeschiedenis van "Het Oera Linda Boek" Molenaar, E. / van Dishoeck / 1949 13. Thàt Uura Linda Bok Overwijn, J.F. / Enkhuizer Courant / 1941 14. Het geheim van het Oera-Linda-Boek : een merkwaardig handschrift Heyting, August / Trifos / 1941 15. Het Oera-Linda-boek in Duitschland en hier Jong, M. de / Osinga / 1939 16. Die Ura Linda Chronik Wirth, Herman / Koehler & Amelang / 1933 17. De auteur van het Oera-Linda-boek Boeles, P.C.J.A. / Noord-Nederlandsche boekhandel / 1928 18. Het Oera-Linda-Boek en Eelco Verwijs Burger, C.P. / Nijhoff / 1928 19. Nieuws over het Oera Linda Bok? Brugmans, H. / Koninklijke Akademie van Wetenschappen / 1928 20. Verwijs en het Oera Linda boek Hof, J.J. / Van der Velde / 1927 Third page of hits: 21. Het geheim van het Oera-Linda-Boek Jong, M. de / Osinga / 1927 22. Frijmitselderij en Oera-Linda-boek Wumkes, G.A. / Brandenburgh, Boschma / 1923 23. Een en ander in verband met het Oera Linda Bok Meijer, S.J. / Vorkink / 1918 24. Aanvulling van de Brochure "Beweerd, maar niet bewezen" van L.F. over de Linden, betreffende het Handschrift van Thet Oera Linda-Bok Linden, L.F. over de / C. De Boer Jr / 1912 25. Oera Linda Bok S.l. / 19XX 26. De Pandschâb-kolonie van het Oera Linda-Bôk Berk, J.F. / Dröse / 1877 27. Wie heeft het Oera-Linda-Boek geschreven? Beckering Vinckers, Jan / Laurens van Hulst / 1877 28. Beweerd maar niet bewezen : bestrijding van de argumenten voorkomende in de brochure van den heer J. Beckering Vinckers over het Oera Linda Boek Linden, L.F. Over de / H. Kuipers / 1877 29. De schrijver van Thet Oera-Linda Bôk is niet Cornelis Over de Linden Jansen, Gerrit / Berkhout / 1877 30. De onechtheid van het Oera Linda-Bôk, aangetoond uit de wartaal, waarin het is geschreven Beckering Vinckers, J. / Erven F. Bohn / 1876 Fourth page of hits: 31. The Oera Linda book : from a manuscript of the thirteenth century, with the permission of the proprietor C. over de Linden, of The Helder Sandbach, William R. / Trübner / 1876 32. Historische Skizzen auf Grundlage von "Thet Oera Linda Bok" : mit etlichen Ein- und Ausfällen Vitringa, A.J. / Autorisirte und vom Verfasser revidirte Ausg / H. Braams / 1875 33. De Koninklijke Akademie en het Oera Linda boek Ottema, J.G. / Kuipers / 1874 34. Naar aanleiding van Thet Oera Linda Bok : historische schetsen met eenige in- en uitvallen Vitringa, A.J. / De Lange / 1874 35. Geschiedkundige aanteekeningen en ophelderingen bij Thet Oera Linda Bok Ottema, J.G. / Kuipers / 1873 36. Open brief aan den heer dr. J. G. Ottema, den bewerker en vertaaler van het "Oera Linda bok" te Leeuwarden Doornkaat Koolman, J. ten / Soltau / 1873 37. Thet Oera Linda Bok : naar een handschrift uit de dertiende eeuw, met vergunning van den eigenaar, den Heer C. over de Linden, aan Den Helder Ottema, J.G. / H. Kuipers / 1872 38. Verzameling uitknipsels en overdrukken over het Oera Linda Bok Now you tell me: are the Dutch suppressing the OLB? If you are still convinced of that, you must be living in the twilight zone. . Edited February 3, 2012 by Abramelin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abramelin Posted February 3, 2012 #9894 Share Posted February 3, 2012 (edited) I will say it here and now (and I have said it before): whatever turns out to be the truth about the OLB, I gained a lot more respect for the Frisians and their history by researching for this topic than I ever had before. Things you will never learn about in highschool. Even if the OLB turns out to be a true fake manuscript, this thread has not been a waste of my time. And I will not say, "Hah, I told you so". But that is - sorry to say - what I expect to happen. I only hope I am still alive when it happens. . Edited February 3, 2012 by Abramelin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abramelin Posted February 3, 2012 #9895 Share Posted February 3, 2012 I say it again: the Dutch are NOT suppressing the OLB. And yes, most Dutch think it is ridiculous there are people who believe in it, but that's about it. It is not anything like the former Soviet Regime suppressing confronting documents or something. The OLB is nothing but a fairy tale, and most Dutch are amazed many others still believe it is all true. Nothing is being suppressed here in the Netherlands, everything is being discussed in the open. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abramelin Posted February 4, 2012 #9896 Share Posted February 4, 2012 (edited) I just had another 'grand revelation', lol. One of the very few advantages of being unemployed or not having a regular job, is that you are able to watch programs or repeats on tv you would never have dreamt of watching when you still had a real 7-5 regular job. OK, so what did I watch? A couple of months ago I watched a repeat of a Dutch talk show from the 70's or 80's. It was about pedophilia. Now I tell you that is not my kind of thing - I would love to skin these guys alive for pleasure and then trample on their still twitching bodies- but there was this head of some pedophile organization who did his utter best to sound sane and intelligent and reasonable, and fk, he managed to make me think, "Hmmm, he has a point there". THAT is what is possible in the Netherlands. OK, this guy would be shot on sight after he showed up on tv these days, but it WAS possible in the very recent Dutch past to talk about topics no one really ever wanted to know more about. And now an Otharus and an Alewyn try to 'push' the image of us Dutch suppressing a book like the OLB? Come on, give me a break. In the Netherlands NOTHING is being suppressed, ok? +++ Another thing : religion. I don't know whether the Dutch people participating in this thead will agree with me on this, but this is want to say: More and more being religious is being considered as a thing of the past. Churches are emptying all over the Netherlands and people tend to flock around pagan beliefs, atheism, Zen, Buddhism, shamanism, New Age fantasies, and beliefs created around the burbs of some 'channeler'. All is possible here, and all of these beliefs and convictions are being discussed in the open, live on tv. But the Otharusses and Alewyns try to convince you all that a fairy tale like the OLB is being suppressed in the Netherlands because of its possible detrimental effect on accepted history. I tell you: that is bull. +++ Here in the Netherlands you can smoke a joint in the open, and that despite 'bible-thumping Christian politicians' doing their best to prohibit it I don't smoke that sht, but I don't mind if others do. I prefer booze and nicotine. Only if you cause problems because of what you ingested will you have a chance to be put in jail. But hooooo... let's not talk about the OLB, it should not be mentioned anytime, anyplace. Come on. . Edited February 4, 2012 by Abramelin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knul Posted February 4, 2012 #9897 Share Posted February 4, 2012 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paranoia Paranoia (adjective: paranoid) is a thought process believed to be heavily influenced by anxiety or fear, often to the point of irrationality and delusion. Paranoid thinking typically includes persecutory beliefs, or beliefs of conspiracy concerning a perceived threat towards oneself. Making false accusations and the general distrust of others also frequently accompany paranoia. Jensma's Haverschmidt theory Somewhere around 1860, François Haverschmidt (1835-1894) wrote the OLB in Dutch, Eelco Verwijs (1830-1880) translated it into a reconstruction of Oldfrisian, and Cornelis Over de Linden (1811-1874) wrote it in the specially designed Jol-script. - Haverschmidt would have lied in publications and personally to Ottema, who had been his teacher and whom Haverschmidt respected. As Jensma put it, "he broke reputations, in the first place that of poor Ottema, whose old days he poisoned and whose remembrance he stultified." - Verwijs would have lied in publications, to his fellow members of the Fries Genootschap and to Government officials. In Jensma's words, he would have "deceived his superiors and abused his professional authority". All letters between Verwijs and Over de Linden would have been part of the hoax. - Cornelis Over de Linden would have lied in all his letters to Ottema and to his very own family, even in his testament. He would have replaced a real old family-document (that according to several witnesses must have existed) by a fake manuscript. Jensma describes Cornelis as a "brutal liar". - Anyone defending one of the three 'convicts', or confirming Over de Linden's story, must be a liar too, and part of the conspiracy. The Halbertsma/ Over de Linden/ Stadermann theory ... is even less realistic. I won't waste any more time on that for now. You forget the Verwijs/ Over de Linden/ Stadermann theory. ... you rather believe in the authenticity of the OLB and in the honesty of Over de Linden and his criminal friend. That's what I call a waste of time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knul Posted February 4, 2012 #9898 Share Posted February 4, 2012 (edited) The "Koninkijke Bibliotheek" (Royal Library) in The Hague has a LOT about the OLB. Now you tell me: are the Dutch suppressing the OLB? If you are still convinced of that, you must be living in the twilight zone. . The Otharussen and Alewyns are free to publish in the Netherlands, but it will be difficult to find a publisher which has different views from Jensma's. Edited February 4, 2012 by Knul Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abramelin Posted February 4, 2012 #9899 Share Posted February 4, 2012 The Otharussen and Alewyns are free to publish in the Netherlands, but it will be difficult to find a publisher which has different views from Jensma's. Nonsense. There are many Dutch publishers of New Age literature who would feel very happy to publish their books. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Otharus Posted February 4, 2012 #9900 Share Posted February 4, 2012 In the Netherlands NOTHING is being suppressed, ok? You must be incredibly naive. I can't blame you. Ignorance is bliss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts