[Archived]Oera Linda Book and the Great Flood

[questionmark]

OK, so Britain is definitely Westland, the Middelse is definitely the Mediterranean (to me), the Baltic is the Aster Sea (seemingly), but where the hell is Atland?

Exactly there where Atlantis is.

[The Puzzler]

Exactly there where Atlantis is.

You'd think so but ask Abe, he has it in Asia.

The direction in the OLB makes it sound as if it's in the East but then again Alewyn pointed out about Teunis, which makes it sound like it is out of the Med. in the Atlantic...

The people of the Mediterranean were affected by it.

Maybe where Atlantis is, you say, as in the mouth of the Straits of Gibraltar?

[questionmark]

You'd think so but ask Abe, he has it in Asia.

The direction in the OLB makes it sound as if it's in the East but then again Alewyn pointed out about Teunis, which makes it sound like it is out of the Med. in the Atlantic...

The people of the Mediterranean were affected by it.

Maybe where Atlantis is, you say, as in the mouth of the Straits of Gibraltar?

I prefer to situate it in Plato's imagination.

[cormac mac airt]

Considering the previous link which shows a 'Middlezee' in the Netherlands, it would appear to me that the OLB suffers from the same problems as Plato's Atlantis. That being "information overload'. Too much conflicting information that someone is trying to jam into one area/time frame. In effect, trying to make the facts fit the theory instead of the theory fitting the facts.

cormac

[Otharus]

Weser is mentioned in OLB and also did not show on his list.

This inspired me to make an improvised list of Toponyms, mentioned in OLB,

based on a list by Dr. Jan Ottema, transcribed by Mr. N. Luitse.

(accents on A and O were ignored)

AKEN - Aken (Aachen)

ALDERGAMUNDE - mouth of Flymeer, near Ouddorp

ALDLAND, ATLAND - Old Land

ALKMARUM - Alkmaar

ALMANLAND - Ameland

ALPA - Alps

ASTFLYLAND - (East-) Friesland (from Vlie to Eems)

ATHENIA - Athens

ATTIKA - Attika

BALDA SEE - Baltic Sea

BRITTANJA - Brittain

BUDA - Budapest

DEENEMARKA - Denmark

DOKHEEM - Dokkum

EGIPTALAND - Egypt

EGMVDA - Egmond

EMUDE - mouth of Eems; Embden

EUPHRAT - the Euphraat

FINDASLAND - Azië, Indië

FLY, FLYMARE - Vliemeer, Flevomeer; Zuiderzee

FLYBURCH - Burg near Cadzand

FLYLAND - Vlieland

FLYMUDA - mouth of Flie

FORANA - Vroonen/ Vronen (near nowaday Koedijk), destroyed 1297 by Holland army

FRYASBURCH - Den Burg (Texel)

FRYASLAND - Land of the Fryas

GERTMANNJA - East Friesland

GODAHISBURCH - Göteborg

GONGA, GONGGO - Ganges

GREENEEGA - Groningen

HALS - Holstein

HIMELLAJA - Himalaja

HRODUS - Rhodos

IRTHA - Earth

JOHNISEELANDA - Ionian Islands

JUTTARLAND - Jutland

KADIK - Cadix, Gades, Gadura, Gadeir

KALTABURCH - burg of Kalta

KASAMYR - Kashmir

KATSBURCH - Kat's burg

KATSGAT - Kattegat

KATTABURCH - Kattenburcht, Kassel

KEEREENAK - chosen corner in Brittain

KEEREHORNE - chosen corner

KREEKALAND - land of creeks (bays, coves, inlets, gulfs)

KREEKALAND HEINDE - Italy

KREEKALAND FERE - Greece

KREETA - Crete

KRYLWALD, KRYLINGER WALD - Kreiler Woud

LYDAHISLAND - Africa's north coast

LYDASBURCH - Leiden

LYDIA - Africa

LINDAWALD - so-called 'seven forests' in Drenthe

LINDAWRDA - Lindaoorden, at Linde between Boorn and Vecht

LINDAHEEM - sunken burg, between Kuinre, Urk and Schokland

LINDASBURCH - burg on the southpoint of Norway

LINDASNOSE - Cape Lindenaes (Norway)

LJUDBURCH, LJUDGARDE - burg at present Leeuwarden

LJUDWARDIA, LJUDWERD, LJVWRD, Leeuwarden

LUMKAMAKJA - at the mouth of Eems (Delfzijl)

MANNAGARA FORDA - nowaday Munster (Westfalia)

MANNAGARDAWRDA - Munster

MEDEASBLIK - Medemblik

MIDDELSEE - Middellandse Zee (Mediterranean)

MISSELJA - Marseille

NY FRYASBURCH - Freiburg (Brisgau)

NY GEERTMANJA - harbor in Carmania

NORTHLAND - Norway

OVERA LINDA - over the lands at the river Linde

PALMLAND - Phenicië

PANGAB, PUNGAB - five waters, Indus, Punjab

PHONISIUSLAND - Phenicië

RADE SEE - Red Sea

RAWEREELANDA - robbers (Ionian) islands

REENE - river Rhine (pure, like rainwater)

ROME - Rome

SALAMIS - Salamis on Cyprus

SANDFAL - later Sinckfal

SAXAMARKA - land of the Saxons, between Rhine and Eems

SEEJENE - river Seine (blessing)

SYDON - Sidon

SJVGON EELANDA - seven islands; Zeeland, from Rhine to Scheldt

SKELDA - river Schelde (Scheldt)

STAVJA - burg at Stavoren

STAVRE, STAVORA - Stavoren

STAVERENS OMMELANDER - Gaasterland en Hemelumer oldephaart (?)

SUDAR FLYLANDA - South Vlieland

SVOBALAND - Swabenland (Schwabenland)

TEXLAND - Texel

THYRHISBURCH - Tyrus

TROJE - Troja (Troy)

TWISKLAND - 'in-between'-land; eastern Europe

UPSALANDA - nowaday Upland with city Uppsala

WALHALLAGARA - burg at Middelburg on Walcheren

WARABURCH - Burg near Hoorn (according to Jensma: Enkhuizen)

WEST FLYLAND - North- and South-holland down to Rhine

WYRINGGA - Wieringen Island

WRSARA - river Weser

Note:

Goffe Jensma did not include an index to the OLB, because this "would encourage a realistic reading attitude" (!).

("Een index op het boek zou deze realistische leeshouding slechts aanwakkeren en is om die reden niet opgenomen." (Het Oera Linda-boek 2006, page 59)

Edited October 26, 2010 by Otharus

[Abramelin]

You'd think so but ask Abe, he has it in Asia.

The direction in the OLB makes it sound as if it's in the East but then again Alewyn pointed out about Teunis, which makes it sound like it is out of the Med. in the Atlantic...

The people of the Mediterranean were affected by it.

Maybe where Atlantis is, you say, as in the mouth of the Straits of Gibraltar?

Wrong: ALDLAND or the OLD LAND is in Asia, the land where the Finda lived before it was destroyed, and the Finda had to flee to an area near the Pamir/Altai.

I even dare to call it - in OLB style - ALTAI LAND.

It's other people - and translators - who thought that the Aldland was the dry seabed of the North Sea. But it is said in the OLB that Aldland was FAR away from Frya's Empire. So it could never be Doggerland.

.

Edited October 26, 2010 by Abramelin

[Abramelin]

Heligoland is interesting too, it's West of Friesland.

Those Pillars of Heracles you mentioned Abe and I recall you told us about a Cadik/Cadiz in Frisia or Netherlands too. Where was that Cadiz again Abe?

No, Hel(i)goland is north of Friesland, in the socalled German Bight, and west of Denmark.

Kadik: I remember I told you a very common family name in The Netherlands is Kadijk.

Jeesh, you know what I said: I found things as I went along. But although I'm not sure I remember well, I think Kadijk was somewhere in the province of North-Holland. Or in the north of the Netherlands anyway.

I assume Otharus would know better.

[Abramelin]

In French and Spanish the word East sounds like it could be confused for West since the word for WEST is OESTE. Looks alot like the Oest or Ost that seems Dutch for East...

Fr. ouest, Sp. oeste are from English it says.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?l=w&p=6

Apart from that, does it even say the Med. (Middle sea) is Westwards in the OLB?

http://www.oeralindaboek.nl/boek/index.html

Page 49 of the actual real photocopied OLB book - you can easy find aster.se then it doesn't really look like 'by evind an thene middlese' says anything about being west....

Printed text OLB:

By morne

paldon wi ovir it utei* ende thes aster-sê , by êvind an thene middelsê , alsa wi buta tha littiga wel twelif grata swete

rinstrama hédon , vs thrvch Wr.alda jêven vmb vs land

elte to haldane and vmb vs wigandlik folk tha wêi to wisana

néi sina sê.

Dutch:

Ten oosten paalden wij tot

het uiteinde der Oostzee , en ten westen aan de Middellandsche zee , zoodat wij buiten de kleine rivieren wel twaalf groote

zoe****er stroomen hadden , ons door Wralda gegeven om

ons land vochtig te houden en om onze zeevaarders den weg

naar zijne zee te wijzen.

Add: Does middelse even translate to Middellandsche Zee......?

If it says middle sea in the OLB and it's the Dutch translation that has manipulated it into Mediterranean Sea, then it probably is not a fake imo, why would it be? So, someone could translate it incorrectly, I doubt it.

"Add: Does middelse even translate to Middellandsche Zee......? "

The OLB says, "middel.se" (the -s- has a 'hat' on, lol), and it's nothing but 'middle sea'. It's Ottema who translated it to Mediterranean. And then everyone who followed.

And yes, the middel.se is the western border, 'towards the evening'.

Btw, there is no need to introduce what latinized people, like the French and Spanish, call west or east. If the OLB is as old as is claimed to be, the Frya were there long before any Romans or latinezed people showed up.

[Abramelin]

I don't know what Alewyn's source is or on what basis he has chosen these 12 (marked * below), but even if they nowadays are considered to be the 12 largest or most important rivers of Europe, is does not mean that they were the ones ment in OLB.

From "the extremity of the Aster Sea" (St.Petersburg) to (the beginning or most western part of) "the Middel Sea" (Gibraltar), the list below shows a few of the larger rivers.

The list is not complete, but has a few rivers that are larger than Po and Rhone from Alewyn's list.

Weser is mentioned in OLB and also did not show on his list.

1. Daugava (Riga, Latvia), 1020 km

2. Neman (Curonian Lagoon, Latvia), 937 km

3. Vistula (Danzig, Poland), 1070 km *

4. Oder (Stettin, Poland), 854 km *

5. Elbe (Hamburg, Germany), 1164 km *

6. Weser (Bremen, Germany), 452 km

7. Rhine (Leiden, Holland), 1233 km *

8. Meuse (Rotterdam, Holland) 925 km

9. Scheldt (Antwerpen, Belgium) 350 km

("has always had considerable commercial and strategic importance", Wikipedia)

10. Somme (Abbeville, France) 245 km

(? this is not a very long one, but would have been of strategic importance too)

11. Seine (Le Havre, France) 776 km *

12. Loire (Nantes, France) 1012 km *

13. Garonne (Bordeaux, France) 647 km

14. Douro (Porto, Portugal) 897 km

15. Tagus (Lisboa, Portugal) 1038 km *

16. Guadiana (Gulf of Cadiz, Spain/ Portugal) 744 km

17. Guadalquivir (Sevilla, Spain) 657 km

Leaving the following out, because they do not "show our seafaring men the way to his (Wralda's) sea":

Rhone (Mediterranean) 812 km *

Po (Adriatic) 652 km *

Dnieper (Black Sea) 2290 km *

Don (Black Sea) 1950 km *

Danube (Black Sea) 2829 km *

The parts I have made bold suggest that the 12 rivers had to be between eastern East-Sea and Gibraltar.

Even today, the banks of any river are not "entirely inhabited" (thank God), so we must take this expression with a pinch of salt.

You just left out the largest river in Europe, the Danube.

And that would be one of the rivers in the TRUE area (according to Alewyn) between the Black Sea and the Mediterranean (see the map I posted, following what Alewyn says was the empire of the Frya).

[Abramelin]

What I find very annoying about this thread is that people here talk in circles.

Puzz, sometimes you find and post things I have posted already half-way in this thread.

Otharus is kind of a new member in this thread, and I don't think he really read it completely before he started posting.

And Alewyn just keeps repeating his same old stuff.

Some of you will know that I regularly posted a summary in the Doggerland thread because I know many people today don't appear to have the willpower to read an entire thread, long as it is. They want short and fast.

I think it would be great if someone here did the same, post a summary.

Not me, thank you.

___________

EDIT:

I have noticed that the ones posting here just skipped past my question:

Why don't we read what happened before 2193 BC? The OLB gives a very convenient excuse: everything was happy happy, joy joy, before 2193 BC, and no one felt the need to record what happened before that disaster.

The Egyptians and Sumerians must have ben an unhappy lot because they DID record what happened before 2193 BC.

.

Edited October 26, 2010 by Abramelin

[Otharus]

OK, so Britain is definitely Westland, ...

No.

Original text (OLB page 48, 6th line):

"TOJENST VR VS FORMEELICH WEST.LAND THEER HEEDON WI BRITTANJA MITH SINA TIN.LÁNA."

The translation of Sandbach ("Survivors" page 335) is wrong:

"Opposite to us we had Brittania, formerly Westland, with her tin mines."

This should be:

"Opposite to our former Westland, we had Brittania with its tinlands."

In a footnote Jensma (2006) says about Westland (my translation):

"Former Westland - apparently West-France or Bretagne, that was taken from the Frisians by the Kelts."

[Abramelin]

No.

Original text (OLB page 48, 6th line):

"TOJENST VR VS FORMEELICH WEST.LAND THEER HEEDON WI BRITTANJA MITH SINA TIN.LÁNA."

The translation of Sandbach ("Survivors" page 335) is wrong:

"Opposite to us we had Brittania, formerly Westland, with her tin mines."

This should be:

"Opposite to our former Westland, we had Brittania with its tinlands."

In a footnote Jensma (2006) says about Westland (my translation):

"Former Westland - apparently West-France or Bretagne, that was taken from the Frisians by the Kelts."

Westland is nothing but - maybe - South-Holland (Zuid-Holland), a province of The Netherlands, and once occupied by the Frisians, together with the province of North-Holland (Noord-Holland).

--

But yeah, Sandbach is wrong, like he often was.

.

Edited October 26, 2010 by Abramelin

[Otharus]

You just left out the largest river in Europe, the Danube.

I also said why I left it out

[The Puzzler]

What I find very annoying about this thread is that people here talk in circles.

Puzz, sometimes you find and post things I have posted already half-way in this thread.

Otharus is kind of a new member in this thread, and I don't think he really read it completely before he started posting.

And Alewyn just keeps repeating his same old stuff.

Some of you will know that I regularly posted a summary in the Doggerland thread because I know many people today don't appear to have the willpower to read an entire thread, long as it is. They want short and fast.

I think it would be great if someone here did the same, post a summary.

Not me, thank you.

___________

EDIT:

I have noticed that the ones posting here just skipped past my question:

Why don't we read what happened before 2193 BC? The OLB gives a very convenient excuse: everything was happy happy, joy joy, before 2193 BC, and no one felt the need to record what happened before that disaster.

The Egyptians and Sumerians must have ben an unhappy lot because they DID record what happened before 2193 BC.

.

I think it became recorded at that time because before then they had no wars, it was only after the bad time came that there was reason to tell this story and record the history so as they could learn from their mistakes.

It doesn't matter what's posted prior, sometimes I pull out references or things I read 6 months ago....it might be relevant now when it was not then.

I don't work in black and white, sorry, it's all grey to me, it might take me 100 posts to work out one minor thing.

You give an answer and expect everyone to take it at face value, end of story. Just because one part says about Finda's people being in Asia, it doesn't all say that, in fact, when Teunis is at the straits of Gib. he thinks he'll go and find Atland and does not enter the straits, so it appears that Atland is on that side.

I'd post a summary, if there was one to post.

"Opposite to our former Westland, we had Brittania with its tinlands."

OK Otharus, that sounds much better.

To jenst vr vs

formêlich Westland thêr hédon wi Brittanja mith sina tin-

lana.

Dutch:

Tegenover ons voormalig Westland hadden wij Brittannie met

zijne tinlanden.

Does the Dutch translate to the same? My translator thingy says - Across Britain, we had our former Westland with his tinlanden.

[The Puzzler]

You just left out the largest river in Europe, the Danube.

And that would be one of the rivers in the TRUE area (according to Alewyn) between the Black Sea and the Mediterranean (see the map I posted, following what Alewyn says was the empire of the Frya).

Otharus did answer this but he and I have noticed what others have failed to, that the rivers all led the sea faring men to Wralda's Sea. The Danube does not come out at Wralda's Sea. Nor do many of the other rivers mentioned by Alewyn.

I know your aim is to tackle what Alewyn has said and your answer here might reflect that but imo this thread is no longer just about Alewyn's book and his interpretations.

Unless we tackle the OLB first, how can we question Alewyn's book?

That was the problem I had reading Alewyn's book in the first place. Just because Joe Blow tells me something in one sentence, I am now conditioned to investigate every little thing I hear and make an informed decision based on all my findings, then I might be able to comment on the book.

[cormac mac airt]

Unless we tackle the OLB first, how can we question Alewyn's book?

Perhaps someone should have thought about that, BEFORE they wrote a questionably researched or evidenced book and presented it as "Proof". And then used Abramelin as a convenient excuse to continually remain off-topic.

cormac

[The Puzzler]

Perhaps someone should have thought about that, BEFORE they wrote a questionably researched or evidenced book and presented it as "Proof". And then used Abramelin as a convenient excuse to continually remain off-topic.

cormac

No one's really off topic, this is such a huge topic imo with so many points to be covered. As per your suggestion we could go and start a new thread just to discuss the OLB but that would be wasting a thread and time, we are here and we are willing to discuss all points of the whole thing. Why are guys so strict? Forget it, chill out, let's just cruise along and sort this book out, both of them, Alewyn's and the OLB.

As Alewyn said, this is not about the colour of someones underpants (well, he didnt say that, I am but he basically said:) it's about the history of a culture, of a people who may have been ridiculed of their history, had it stripped from them, based in what? misinterpretations and inabilities to understand how powerful a people they were? The Frisians imo, since researching this, are everywhere in history, they are sailors and seem to dominate all the area as sailors, their language is always in etymologies as closest to English, the story rings true, a people who once were strong but by their own unwillingness to listen to their own Mother fell from grace as well as their lands, were taken over by numerous people and eventually pushed into a corner of their own land, stripped of their history and hopefully forgotten about how they were part of the English landscape, which I'm sure were in competition with the Dutch around 1860AD. I know they were both powerful in colonisation at the time, probably the 2 biggest for the time. I don't think the Dutch really wanted anyone to acknowledge that these people were actually the initiators of English, that's quite a powerful gun to have in your pocket...

So, let's get back to showing if their history is true and let them take their place in the books of time or let's see if they were telling huge porky pies all this time and made up the best fantasy stories they could.

[The Puzzler]

One part of the OLB that has me thinking about time is the mention of their iron weapons.

So, I found it in the original text, and it says aser.

It doesn't say iron but aser in it's many forms turned into the word iron as it really means heavy metal, strong metal.

The OLB tells us where the Freyans got their iron/aser from, in Sweden, where they also got their copper from.

The Etruscan word for iron is auser. How can Etruscan NOT be related, Etruscan also has hints of Finno-Urgit in it - the Etruscans imo therefore could be settlers of a mixed Magyar and Freya people. This occurred in abundance according to the OLB, the Freyans girls were taken by the Magyar to infiltrate their own people with Freyans.

That the Etruscans were expert wind magicians, haruspices and did nothing without consulting the spirits first is also indicative of the Etruscans. The alphabet they carried, the Etruscans, it matches to me, a form that would be a mix of their original Finno-Urgit overlaid with their new Germanic language they took on when they lived in Freyan lands. They say it's not IE but if they used the word auser for iron and the Frisians used the word aser there has to be a link. It's not wholly IE I think might be the problem.

Anyway, iron ore is mined in Sweden. But iron doesn't seem to appear in Northern Europe at the Christian Reckoning time frame given in the OLB.

This is one of the most perplexing parts to me, standard dates are:

In other regions of Europe, the Iron Age began in the 8th century BC in Central Europe and the 6th century BC in Northern Europe.

Bog iron, most likely.

Early Scandinavian iron production typically involved the harvesting of bog iron. The Scandinavian peninsula, Finland and Estonia show sophisticated iron production from c. 500 BC.

So, the Freyans would imo have been harvesting bog iron.

1000BC is the earliest they can give for iron in Europe at all.

How do we have Freyans with aser weapons just after Atland sank?

(Or have I read it wrong and the iron didn't come until a later timeframe)

Iron - O.E. isærn (with M.E. rhotacism of -s-), from P.Gmc. *isarnan (cf. O.S. isarn, O.N. isarn, M.Du. iser, O.H.G. isarn, Ger. Eisen) "holy metal" or "strong metal" (in contrast to softer bronze) probably an early borrowing of Celt. *isarnon (cf. O.Ir. iarn, Welsh haiarn), from PIE *is-(e)ro- "powerful, holy," from PIE *eis "strong" (cf. Skt. isirah "vigorous, strong," Gk. ieros "strong").

[cormac mac airt]

No one's really off topic, this is such a huge topic imo with so many points to be covered. As per your suggestion we could go and start a new thread just to discuss the OLB but that would be wasting a thread and time, we are here and we are willing to discuss all points of the whole thing. Why are guys so strict? Forget it, chill out, let's just cruise along and sort this book out, both of them, Alewyn's and the OLB.

I'm not sure if you're not getting it, by default or by design, but that's not how you do proper research.

You don't take something with questionable provenance/origin and decide it must be true. Then write a book making alleged connections with many other things taken out of time, place and context and present it all as PROOF that the original item has been validated and EVERYTHING IS CONNECTED, contrary to known history. THEN, go back and try and determine whether or not the original item (in this case the Oera Linda Book) is or isn't authentic. To even be meaningful to the discussion, THAT should have been the first item to be verified to begin with. Overall, it rather throws into question the accuracy of the book and the level of research done prior to publishing it, as well as any alleged connections between the two.

cormac

[The Puzzler]

I'm not sure if you're not getting it, by default or by design, but that's not how you do proper research.

You don't take something with questionable provenance/origin and decide it must be true. Then write a book making alleged connections with many other things taken out of time, place and context and present it all as PROOF that the original item has been validated and EVERYTHING IS CONNECTED, contrary to known history. THEN, go back and try and determine whether or not the original item (in this case the Oera Linda Book) is or isn't authentic. To even be meaningful to the discussion, THAT should have been the first item to be verified to begin with. Overall, it rather throws into question the accuracy of the book and the level of research done prior to publishing it, as well as any alleged connections between the two.

cormac

I'm just trying to get along, no point being like bickering children, why don't you listen to the only one here who is a Mother and maybe you might learn something about how to stop fighting and become peaceful in the world... this is why Freya's people got in the mess they did, Mother knows best and don't forget it!

On the book, I agree, to a point. I think Alewyn did his research but didn't use enough good sources and made connections which really had no solid proof and as you say determined some more authenticity throughout. Maybe he just didn't know about UM when he wrote it, he should have passed it by us first hey....

It does throw into question the accuracy, but still, much of Alewyn's book is not about the flood or pole shift and many of his cultural points ARE very well researched.

Edit: nothing important.

Edited October 27, 2010 by The Puzzler

[cormac mac airt]

You may be someone's mother, but it ain't mine young lady. And no, "Mother" doesn't always know best.

He didn't need to pass it by anyone here. He just needed to do better research BEFORE publishing it. As it stands right now, he has a book he's trying to get out there, claiming it as PROOF of past events when it actually isn't proof of anything. Perhaps a better researched attempt and rewrite is in order.

cormac

[The Puzzler]

You may be someone's mother, but it ain't mine young lady. And no, "Mother" doesn't always know best.

He didn't need to pass it by anyone here. He just needed to do better research BEFORE publishing it. As it stands right now, he has a book he's trying to get out there, claiming it as PROOF of past events when it actually isn't proof of anything. Perhaps a better researched attempt and rewrite is in order.

cormac

lol

Yep.

[Otharus]

6. Weser (Bremen, Germany), 452 km

7. Rhine (Leiden, Holland), 1233 km *

I missed one between Weser and Rhine:

- Ems/ Eems (Emden, Germany; EMUDE in OLB) 371 km

Not one of the longest but will have been important in Fryan times.

Edited October 27, 2010 by Otharus

[Otharus]

The paper dated from 1865 but this does not outlaw the possibility of it being copied from an earlier text on my thinking.

This is not a fact as no research-results were ever published so far.

I have recently asked the expert of "Tresoar", the library that houses OLB; he tolded me something is 'on its way'.

My question who is leading the research was not answered yet.

I agree that even if paper and ink are proven to be from the 19th century, it's still possible that it's a copy of an older source, just like was proven to be the case with the Piri Reis maps, that contain information that is known now (the shores of Antactica under the ice), but was not known when the copy was made (16th century), other than from older sources.

In my perception it's more likely that the known OLB is a copy of an older source than the hoax (conspiracy) theory.

[Hanslune]

I agree that even if paper and ink are proven to be from the 19th century, it's still possible that it's a copy of an older source, just like was proven to be the case with the Piri Reis maps, that contain information that is known now (the shores of Antactica under the ice), but was not known when the copy was made (16th century), other than from older sources.

Wait a minute there, there is no 'proven' case dealing with the Piri Reis map. It contain no 'mysterious' data and doesn't show the Antarctic 'under the ice' this is all long debunked fringe myth. You can prove this yourself by simply LOOKING at the map.

The Piri Reis map was made from multiple copies to include a copy of one of Columbus maps - which were 'cutting edge' at the time.

There is nothing mysterious about the Reis map at all.