Oera Linda Book and the Great Flood [Part 2]

[Ott]

Cornelis over de Linden tried to get a lot of money for the manuscript, even advised by Ottema. At the end no one wanted to buy it, not even the Worp MS. Stadermann and Son made money out of everything.

I don't have those letters at hand, and can't find our earlier discussion about it.

As far as I remember, some Englishman had approached OdL and offered money after OLB was published.

OdL wrote Ottema about it (who answered), but decided NOT to sell it after all.

OdL initially believed the manuscript contained information about a family treasure, but when he got older and gave up deciphering it himself, he sent it to (what he thought would be) the specialists (in Leeuwarden).

If it was a fraud and he wanted to make money with it, it would make no sense to send it to specialists, because that would risk it being reveiled as fake.

What is your source for him trying to sell the Worp? I remember that the Frisian Society very eagerly wanted to have it.

"Stadermann and Son made money out of everything"

If you mean they were book traders, what do you expect?

What are your sources for this anyway?

[Ott]

Standskrift is the jol script (in circles). The OLB letters differ from this jol script.

Then what would you call the normal OLB letters (that are modeled after the Jol)?

They don't differ from the standard, they are sometimes just less precise, which is only normal in handwriting.

Edited November 9, 2013 by gestur

[Ott]

There has been a recent investigation of the paper. It has been discussed here before. Abramelin will remember.

I remember very well, as I translated the reports. The results were too vague to be serious.

A more detailed report was planned to be published this year, but I have heard nothing of it yet.

Anyway, if some clear answer would have come out, the official OLB-site (from Tresoar) should mention it.

[Ott]

Standskrift is the jol script (in circles).

OLB, page 45:

THAT JOL [...] THANA HETH FRYA THAT STAND SKRIFT MAKAD THAT HJA BRUKTE TO HJRA TEX.

The Yol (...) from that Frya made the Standskrift, that she used for her Tex.

Why would she make a wheel for every letter writing her whole Tex?

Can you imagine that?

It makes no sense to me.

The wheel is how the letters were designed, it was the standard.

But writing a text, why make a wheel every time?

[Ott]

A reconstruction, to avoid further misunderstanding.

[Ott]

And here are some samples of how children learn to write at school.

Nobody knows who first designed these letters. It is an old tradition and it may as well be much older than most of us can imagine.

Notice how the OLB-runskrift F looks more like a greek F, but nothing like the western F's above.

I know some will say that we got them from the Romans, but where did they get them from?

Edited November 9, 2013 by gestur

[NO-ID-EA]

I Just think Ottema could have left it out because he realized Hidde must have added it , and he did not think it was part of the original that he was copying .

surely even if we get a scientific appraisal of both the ink , and the paper it will not change anything ........ i for one would be still thinking we have heard that they were making copies left , right and centre , so that he could have it translated .....how are we ever going to be sure that the copy at tresour is the original , that he gave out for this purpose ...........if the original was mine i would only ever give out copies ,and may just show the original to a few select people.

[Ott]

surely even if we get a scientific appraisal of both the ink , and the paper it will not change anything

If the outcome is, that it's from the 13th centrury, it will change everything. Then it is an authentic 13th century manuscript.

(Hardcore skeptics may still argue that it may have been 13th century fiction.)

But if paper and ink would turn out to be from the 19th century, it could indeed still be a copy of an older original. Like Multatuli I can imagine no-one (or no group) who could have created something like it then, not even nowadays.

Let's try some logic.

It has been examined for a long time. Modern techniques could easily determine age of paper and ink.

IF the outcome would be that it's 19th century, it would confirm Jensma's theory (he is head of the research group), and it would be published in Frisian and Dutch newspapers and on the official OLB site.

But instead there is silence.

That can only mean that the results they got are not the results they want.

Edited November 9, 2013 by gestur

[Knul]

And here are some samples of how children learn to write at school.

Nobody knows who first designed these letters. It is an old tradition and it may as well be much older than most of us can imagine.

I know some will say that we got them from the Romans, but where did they get them from?

The Romans derived their script from the Etruscans.

[Ott]

The Romans derived their script from the Etruscans.

If so, where did the Etruscans get it from?

[Knul]

I Just think Ottema could have left it out because he realized Hidde must have added it , and he did not think it was part of the original that he was copying .

surely even if we get a scientific appraisal of both the ink , and the paper it will not change anything ........ i for one would be still thinking we have heard that they were making copies left , right and centre , so that he could have it translated .....how are we ever going to be sure that the copy at tresour is the original , that he gave out for this purpose ...........if the original was mine i would only ever give out copies ,and may just show the original to a few select people.

That's what Over de Linden initially did.

[Knul]

If the outcome is, that it's from the 13th centrury, it will change everything. Then it is an authentic 13th century manuscript.

(Hardcore skeptics may still argue that it may have been 13th century fiction.)

But if paper and ink would turn out to be from the 19th century, it could indeed still be a copy of an older original. Like Multatuli I can imagine no-one (or no group) who could have created something like it then, not even nowadays.

Let's try some logic.

It has been examined for a long time. Modern techniques could easily determine age of paper and ink.

IF the outcome would be that it's 19th century, it would confirm Jensma's theory (he is head of the research group), and it would be published in Frisian and Dutch newspapers and on the official OLB site.

But instead there is silence.

That can only mean that the results they got are not the results they want.

It means, that no one is interested any more. Who would be interested in a 19th century hoax ? It's time to say goodbye to your dreams.

[Knul]

If so, where did the Etruscans get it from?

From the Greeks.

[NO-ID-EA]

Yes i know what you mean , but i was meaning it wont prove what OLB says is ancient history , i know it would be a step on , but i cant see that finding out for sure it is 13th C will change much , it will just move the official fake argument back a few centuries .

what we need is confirmation of the history from other sources , thats why i was hopeful of getting some of our Indian members looking for them from the indian/Persian end , but that was a non-starter unfortunately.but that is still where i am looking hoping to find something.........finding little things like the Punjab Youngest inherits keeps me looking, it will all add up eventually i think .

[Ott]

It means, that no one is interested any more. Who would be interested in a 19th century hoax ?

OLB is part (#23) of the 'Canon' of Frisian history.

That means it is considered to be one of the most significant subjects (whether hoax or not).

Say Knul, why would you be interested in a 19th century hoax?

From the Greeks.

Where did the Greeks get it from?

Edited November 9, 2013 by gestur

[Ott]

i cant see that finding out for sure it is 13th C will change much

I don't get the impression that you have actually even read the OLB.

If you did, maybe you should read it a second or a third time.

[NO-ID-EA]

If so, where did the Etruscans get it from?

The True-Scans( Etruscans ) got it from either the Free-sions(Fresians ), or the Cannanfates (Cain-ones) or the Eburones ( Heber- ones ), or maybe while they were in Punjab from the L-inda-i-am's (Indians with the God I-am ) or theKanats (Differently aspirated , the Kainites ). or from the Row-men( Romans) that escaped from the Phoenicians where they were a nation of Galley slaves .

Ah ! if it was all that easy

[NO-ID-EA]

I don't get the impression that you have actually even read the OLB.

If you did, maybe you should read it a second or a third time.

Then you would be wrong .......... explain your impression , from the comment if its 13th C it wont change much ......it will still in my estimation be said to be a fake......not that that is what i believe ......i still like to think its real history at this point in time

[Ott]

if its 13th C it wont change much

You have no imagination. It would be utterly unique in its kind and a treasure for linguists.

[Ott]

Interesting footnote (43) from Jensma (2004), chaper 6, page 395.

There seems to be significant agreement between Rudbecks Atlantica and the OLB. In one paragraph of Atlantica for example, four corresponding elements are found: Rudbeck's Yol is connected to Kronos, the 'Julfather', who is the same as OLB's 'allfather'. (...) Moreover, this 'Julfather' holds a wheel (of time) in his left hand, which is connected to the rune-script, just like in the OLB; Rudbeck, Atlantica I, 698-699: 'Idcirco Cronum Julfader sive Atinum cum rota in sinistra manu, teste Vossio, pinxerunt veteres, & initium anni, quo cum solis conversione conjunctum erat, in fastis suis Runicis nonnunquam rota apposita signaverunt.'; compare Eriksson, Atlantic Vision, 72. Also, central concepts are mentioned like the 'folksmother' (e.g. Rudbeck, Atlantica II, 438, 'folkesmoder') and Atlantis, named 'Atlant' here, just like in the OLB (e.g. Rudbeck, Atlantica I, 212 and further).

Original text:

Er lijkt een aanzienlijke overeenkomst tussen Rudbecks Atlantica en het Oera Linda-boek te bestaan. Zo komt men hier in één enkele alinea tenminste vier overeenkomstige elementen tegen: het 'jol' wordt door Rudbeck in verband gebracht met Kronos de 'Julfader', die ook bij Rudbeck dezelfde is als de in het Oera Linda-boek opduikende 'alvader'. (...) Bovendien houdt deze 'Julvader' in zijn linkerhand een wiel (van de tijd), waarmee precies als in het Oera Linda-boek het runenschrift in verband wordt gebracht; Rudbeck, Atlantica I, 698-699: 'Idcirco Cronum Julfader sive Atinum cum rota in sinistra manu, teste Vossio, pinxerunt veteres, & initium anni, quo cum solis conversione conjunctum erat, in fastis suis Runicis nonnunquam rota apposita signaverunt.'; vgl. Eriksson, Atlantic Vision, 72. Ook centrale begrippen als de 'volksmoeder' (b.v. Rudbeck, Atlantica II, 438, 'folkesmoder') en Atlantis, dat hier net als in het Oera Linda-boek 'Atlant' wordt genoemd (b.v. Rudbeck, Atlantica I, 212 e.v.) komen voor.

Does anyone have acces to Rudbeck's Atlantica?

Ofcourse, Jensma assumes that Atlantica will have been a source of inspiration for OLB, but what was Rudbeck's source? His information may have had roots in real history, as may OLB. In other words, both may be seperate traces of real ancient traditions.

[Ott]

I think we have similar goals, to find the truth.

The difference between us, as that I answer all your questions, while you ignore anything that is in conflict with your theory.

[Ott]

Rudbeck, Atlantica I, 698-699: 'Idcirco Cronum Julfader sive Atinum cum rota in sinistra manu, teste Vossio, pinxerunt veteres, & initium anni, quo cum solis conversione conjunctum erat, in fastis suis Runicis nonnunquam rota apposita signaverunt.'

I found part I, but it is hard to read.

[Knul]

OLB is part (#23) of the 'Canon' of Frisian history.

That means it is considered to be one of the most significant subjects (whether hoax or not).

Say Knul, why would you be interested in a 19th century hoax?

I am interested in all sort of historical hoaxes and believed hoaxes e.g. who was the real Mona Lisa. s. http://www.rodinbook.nl/monalisa.html .

[Ott]

Improved version (english language) of new OLB video.

This will be a series in which some common misconceptionsd are rectified.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CYkSeFqZihU

[Ott]

I am interested in all sort of historical hoaxes...

In that case I recommend the Anne Frank Diary.