Oera Linda Book and the Great Flood [Part 2]

[Van Gorp]

To me also it is obvious that the first characters on Ottema’s run-line are the exact (smaller) copies of the stand script.

But when I try to follow your point, it seems for me to be a matter of interpretation.

When looking at the ‘running’ script in Sandbach/Ottema’s page I never thought the first characters to be a ‘running’ script, just because they are exactly the same and not running (standing).

The second (cursive) characters besides then, I looked as their modern equivalent (by our ‘running’ script) by which you could translate one-on-one the exact standing character used in the OLB (because all by all, the running is not used). That’s how I thought Ottema/Sandbach just wanted to give the possibility to link-reconstruct their interpretation (translation) to the original signs.

The same for the additional character: it is used in the manuscript (not to often I think) but added by Ottema/Sandbach how it is interpreted in their text.

It’s not that I want to criticize, but by this the Sandbach ‘translation’ (Frysian one at the right) is a sometimes more subtile one in reproducing the different characters then for instance Menno’s (rodinbook).

While I hadn’t suspect Menno to try to cover up something.

Fe. the word wârja contains the 2 different ‘a’ spellings, while rodinbook uses WARJA

Just my thought.

I won’t extend the discussion too far, you stated it very clearly, but concerning the ressemblance with other Latin/Geek running signs:

there seems to be some alternative history references that bring up the possibility that Latin/Greek running variants are a more arty farty version of an earlier Frysian script.

From an unknown source :-)

“In her time Finda also invented a mode of writing, but that was so high-flown and full of flourishes that her descendants have soon lost the meaning of it.

Afterwards they learned our writing—that is, the Finns, the Thyriers, and the Krekalanders—but they did not know that it was taken from the Juul, and must therefore always be written round like the sun. Furthermore, they wished that their writing should be illegible by other people, because they always had matters to conceal. In doing this they acted very unwisely, because their children could only with great difficulty read the writings of their predecessors, whereas our most ancient writings are as easy to read as those that were written yesterday."

[Abramelin]

When looking at the ‘running’ script in Sandbach/Ottema’s page - I never thought the first characters to be a ‘running’ script, just because they are exactly the same and not running (standing).

The second (cursive) characters besides then, -2- it looked as their modern equivalent

-1- But that is what their letter sheets suggest: that the smaller form of the wheels IS the run script.

-2- You'r kidding me, right? Those second cursive charactere ARE modern !! They are there to explain to us what the OLB characters are in our script, lol.

[Abramelin]

I have this strong feeling I must torture Paint and IrfanView some more for another couple of explanatory images.

[Abramelin]

[Abramelin]

There are 2 scripts in the OLB: the stand-script and the run-script.

Anyone who only read Ottema/Sandbach's version of the OLB - the plates I mean - will think that the MS was written using the run-script, for that is what you get from the letter sheets they published.

But then you should take a look at the original letter sheet, and you will see for yourself that the original run-script is totally different.

Think about this as a comparison: you discover an ancient Egyptian papyrus with hieroglyphs written on it, and below the hieroglyphs are the same characters/letters/pictograms, but in a sort of running script, aka hieratic or demotic script.

OK, so you copy those hieroglyphs, but when you publish the hieratic/demotic running script below the hieroglyphs in your book about the discovery, you don't use the original hieratic/demotic script, no, you use a smaller version of those hieroglyphs and make the readers believe that THAT is the running script.

Now why would you do that?

Maybe not a real good comparison, but it's clear as daylight - see for yourself - that the original run(ning)-script of the OLB is NOT the same as what Ottema/Sandbach wanted us to believe is the run(ning)-script.

It could well be that Sandbach just trusted Ottema, and copied that letter sheet of his and never saw the original one for himself.

But now you tell me: why would Ottema prevent the original letter sheet to be exhibitioned in 1877, 5 years after he had published his book? Maybe because then everybody could see he had not really copied the original MS, but that he had changed it... 'for some unknown reason'??

Yeah.

.

Edited June 20, 2012 by Abramelin

[The Puzzler]

OK Abe - I've looked at this all morning. I see your point, I'm not sure how you know Ottema prevented the original letter sheet to be exhibited in 1877 though, what source was that in again?

I still don't agree with your conspiracy though, unless a true attempt was made by Ottema to actually prevent the original to be exhibited, I would then question it some more.

The RUN script in the original is really very much like the STAND script - even though it's written fancy - it's really just capitalised letters of the STAND script in cursive style imo.

Ottema has rewritten them up minus the cursive style, he has written them in a more STAND style - why? 1. Maybe so we could read them easier because he could see they were just cursive capitals (STAND).

He has added the smaller Latin running styled letters - why? Maybe we are not meant to think they are the OLB RUN script at all - but just what the STAND script letter equates to.

After all - there is no lower case letters in the OLB - so why would there be lower case letters in the RUN script. The RUN script is cursive capitals and Ottema has made them more STANDy, that's all.

It appears to me that Ottema has done it UNintentionally, just to make reading it easier - after all, he was translating it for regular readers. But it does imo alter it alot, and you could gain an impression he has deliberately hidden the original RUN script - by using a non cursive version of it as the RUN script - with the explanatory cursive looking like its the RUN script.

Edited June 21, 2012 by The Puzzler

[Abramelin]

So according to you,

this:

doesn't differ much from this:

Imagine: you found an ancient document with ancient script. And when you COPY it you think, "Mwuahhh, let's leave out that other script.". That is like you found something written in ancient Greek, but think it's ok to leave out the Linear A/B that shows up only once. Why bother, eh? .

Ottema changed the run script for a smaller version of the stand script. But it was to the right of the word "run", so he wanted us to think that that smaller version was the run script. Either he was blind, or he made a huge error, or he did it intentionally.

=

And the source of what you call a conspiracy can be found on one of the former pages, and it's this site: http://www.skepsis.nl/oeralinda.html

But like I found those Frisian remarks added to Ottema's letter sheet, so I will find the original source about Ottema trying to prevent several sheets of the MS of being exhibited.

May take some time, though.

.

Edited June 21, 2012 by Abramelin

[The Puzzler]

Yes, I think they do not differ except in the style of writing they are written - each one is a capital letter, like the STAND script, just fancy cursive. There is a couple of exceptions but generally that's how I see them.

I agree though Ottema should not have changed the original RUN script.

Maybe since he was transliterating it into Latin letters, the only way to do that was to put the 'explanatory' letters next to his version of the RUN script, which in any case does not really denote imo he intentionally meant those letters to look like they were the RUN script.

The curious thing would be why he didn't copy the RUN script exactly the same as on the OLB, I don't think it had anything to do with the original looking too modern though.

[Abramelin]

Yes, I think they do not differ except in the style of writing they are written - each one is a capital letter, like the STAND script, just fancy cursive. There is a couple of exceptions but generally that's how I see them.

I agree though Ottema should not have changed the original RUN script.

Maybe since he was transliterating it into Latin letters, the only way to do that was to put the 'explanatory' letters next to his version of the RUN script, which in any case does not really denote imo he intentionally meant those letters to look like they were the RUN script.

The curious thing would be why he didn't copy the RUN script exactly the same as on the OLB, I don't think it had anything to do with the original looking too modern though.

Not just 'fancy cursive', but totally in the 19th century style of somewhat embellishing a capital (with those loops and extra curves).

This is what Ottema should have done but somehow didn't:

Piece of cake.

But not for Ottema...

.

Edited June 21, 2012 by Abramelin

[Abramelin]

For the record, I did find an account of the exhibition in Friesland of 1877, but nothing about Ottema preventing the letter sheet to be shown. No surprise, he was in the board of the Frisian Society and one of the organizers of the exhibition.

DE HISTORISCHE TENTOONSTELLING VAN FRIESLAND, EENE KROON WAARDIG. HET GOUDEN FEEST VAN HET FRIESCH GENOOTSCHAP VAN GESCHIED-, OUDHEIDEN TAALKUNDE,

GEVIERD TE LEEUWARDEN DEN 26 SEPTEMBER 1877.

http://images.tresoar.nl/wumkes/periodieken/vfg/vfg_1876-77_49.pdf

The historical exhibition of Friesland, worthy of a crown, the golden celebratiion of the Frisian Society of History, Antiquities, Linguistics celebrated in Leeuwarden on September 26, 1877.

[Knul]

Not just 'fancy cursive', but totally in the 19th century style of somewhat embellishing a capital (with those loops and extra curves).

This is what Ottema should have done but somehow didn't:

Piece of cake.

But not for Ottema...

.

Don't forget that the OLB uses only the majuscels (stand script). The minuscels (run script) don't play a role at all in the manuscript. Obviously only the stand script could be derived from the juul wheel, the run script not. As the run script looked very much like 19th century script, Ottema tried to hold that back, but eventually he had to show photographs of the script pages. He then got accused of withholding information, even for the twenty plus two missing pages (chapter).

[Abramelin]

Don't forget that the OLB uses only the majuscels (stand script). The minuscels (run script) don't play a role at all in the manuscript. Obviously only the stand script could be derived from the juul wheel, the run script not. As the run script looked very much like 19th century script, Ottema tried to hold that back, but eventually he had to show photographs of the script pages. He then got accused of withholding information, even for the twenty plus two missing pages (chapter).

Yes Knul, I have been posting about that for many pages.

Do you have a source that tells us Ottema wanted to prevent the letter-sheet to be exhibited?

All I could find was the 1877 exhibition itself, but no record of Ottema preventing anything.

Maybe it's in Jensma's book?

+++++

EDIT:

A former post of mine:

And it has been staring me in the face from the moment I started contributing to this thread, but "the quarter just refused to drop down the vending machine" :

Het OLB bevat een pagina waarop beide schriften zijn afgebeeld. Maar in Ottema's facsimile is het runschrift verdwenen; Ottema's runschrift is een op schrijfletters lijkende variant van het standschrift!

Hij zal hebben gemeend dat het originele runschrift er te modern uitzag en een argument tegen de echtheid kon worden. Dit zou ook verklaren waarom hij in 1877 verhinderd heeft dat enkele bladen van het manuscript werden geëxposeerd, iets waarvoor men beslist het interessante letterblad zou hebben uitgekozen.

http://www.skepsis.nl/oeralinda.html

The OLB contains a page which shows both scripts. But in Ottema's facsimile the run-script has disappeared; Ottema's run-script is a running script like variant of the stand-script!

He must have thought that the original run-script looked too modern in appearance and could be an argument against its authenticity. This would also explain why in 1877 he prevented some pages of the manuscript to be exhibited, something for which they would explicitly have chosen for the interesting letter sheet.

.

Edited June 21, 2012 by Abramelin

[The Puzzler]

The RUN (cursive style) script may be older than you think Abe.

Cursive writing was used in English before the Norman conquest. Anglo-Saxon Charters typically include a boundary clause written in Old English in a cursive script.

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

[The Puzzler]

IF the latest rewrite of the manuscript is c. 1200AD, those letters could be from then at the latest. IF the manuscript has been rewritten after that by someone else but not added to, (like Aunty or Grandfather for example) those letters could have been written at the time they rewrote it - and in the style of their own time.

That doesn't explain why Ottema has written small STAND script instead of the RUN script in the original - but it might explain why the original has such a 'modern' looking RUN script.

Who does anyone think put the numbers on the pages at the top?

[Abramelin]

The RUN (cursive style) script may be older than you think Abe.

Cursive writing was used in English before the Norman conquest. Anglo-Saxon Charters typically include a boundary clause written in Old English in a cursive script.

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

Yes, and what do you think of the ancient Egyptian hieratic and/or demotic script? That looks like a running form of the hieroglyphs to me.

I never suggested that running scipt in itself is a modern invention.

[Abramelin]

IF the latest rewrite of the manuscript is c. 1200AD, those letters could be from then at the latest. IF the manuscript has been rewritten after that by someone else but not added to, (like Aunty or Grandfather for example) those letters could have been written at the time they rewrote it - and in the style of their own time.

That doesn't explain why Ottema has written small STAND script instead of the RUN script in the original - but it might explain why the original has such a 'modern' looking RUN script.

Who does anyone think put the numbers on the pages at the top?

The suggestion throughout the OLB is that the Fryan script is the oldest script, at least older than Phoenician and Greek.

The stand script was created by Frya, and Fasta made a run script out of it, and so on.

The whole OLB oozes of a pride of what they - the Fryans - had accomplished, including their script.

All those Over de / Oera Lindas must have known they were copying an important manuscript and adding to it, the last time in 1256 AD. Well, that's the story.

So whoever copied it will have painstakingly copied letter for letter, including those 32 letters of the run script (actually there should have been 34 but they forgot a couple), 32 letters which only show up on that letter sheet..... and not let their style of handwriting interfere too much or at all, certainly not when they only had to copy those mere 32 letters of the run script.

=

Who put those numerals at the top of all the pages? In any case, someone unfamiliar with Godfreiath's numerals. or not bothering about Godfreiath's numerals.

[Abramelin]

About that style of handwriting, in the same article from 1993 I quoted from - Ottema having prevented a couple of sheets of the OLB to be exhibited - there's also this:

Er bestaat ook een rapport waarin de grafoloog C.J. Böttcher - die in de jaren '50 deze pseudo-wetenschap in Leiden doceerde, zie ook deze Skepter - Halbertsma als de auteur aanwijst.

There also exists a report in which graphologist C.J. Böttcher - who taught this pseudeo science in Leiden during the 50s - points to Halbertsma as the author.

http://www.skepsis.nl/oeralinda.html

I suppose this Böttcher based all that on the tildes used in the OLB - something Halbertsma used to add to his own writings - plus those letters of the run script.

[The Puzzler]

Some detective work:

The original shows the numbers on the next page after the letters, unlike the page Ottema has made up - see Knuls scan Page 47. http://www.rodinbook.nl/olbscans.html

Note the structure is the same set up as the letters. STAND and underneath a 'modern looking 19th century' type letter or number, with a dot next to them - the dot is at the end of the RUN letters, the RUN numbers and the numbers at the top of the page - which is written the same as the numbers on the original, the Numerical RUN script.

Now, compare this to Ottemas - http://oeralinda.angelfire.com/#be

Ottema has actually conformed to the structure - by adding in the RUN numbers in a small STAND script before the 'modern looking' numbers, as he has done the letters.

This imo, shows he has not set out to change the RUN letters - because he has made up a small STAND script for the numbers as well, that didn't exist on the original.

The 47 at the top of the page is the same as the numbers written on the Ottema copy - note the same 4 and 7 - the 4 is different on the original.

The numbers at the top of the page is therefore imo, written by Ottema, since the 4 is the same as his copy.

The 4 is different in the original RUN script for the numbers, so it may be that Ottema did not write those, therefore the writing in the OLB original seems to differ from the handwriting of Ottema, making me think he is not the writer if it's a hoax. The dot next to original RUN numbers and letters is also what Ottema has done so that causes me some doubt.

The 7's are exactly the same too. Maybe it was Ottema.

Edited June 22, 2012 by The Puzzler

[The Puzzler]

You could not replace the letter page of the original with Ottemas because the numbers are on the next page and the original has writing on it as well, so it obviously doesn't fit in replacing a page - I do not understand what is meant by Ottema did not display the original page - I know you are looking for it - because what does that even mean? That page could not replace an original page.

Did Ottema make up a whole OLB book in OLB text?

Did Ottema only make up this one page to show and explain the text better?

The page is by itself, simply a page with both numbers and letters on it - not a page that looks to be an original part of the book.

What is that page anyway Ottema has made up does anyone think?

Edited June 22, 2012 by The Puzzler

[Abramelin]

Lol, I don't understand your point.

I will reread your posts a couple of times.

Btw, here's Ottema's book (you used a site with Sandbach's translation) :

Plate -II- on page 95 of

http://images.tresoar.nl/wumkes/pdf/OttemaJC_ThetOeraLindaBok.pdf

[Abramelin]

I don't have Ottema's book (maybe Otharus and/or Knul do), but I can imagine he put the stand script and numerals together on a separate sheet so you can look back and forth between the text and the letter sheet.

[Abramelin]

You could not replace the letter page of the original with Ottemas because the numbers are on the next page and the original has writing on it as well, so it obviously doesn't fit in replacing a page - I do not understand what is meant by Ottema did not display the original page - I know you are looking for it - because what does that even mean? That page could not replace an original page.

Did Ottema make up a whole OLB book in OLB text?

Did Ottema only make up this one page to show and explain the text better?

The page is by itself, simply a page with both numbers and letters on it - not a page that looks to be an original part of the book.

What is that page anyway Ottema has made up does anyone think?

Yes, and it is said he prevented the exhibition of a couple of sheets of the original MS. That would have been the two sheets with on one the stand script and on the other the numerals.

And my whole point is not about him putting script and numerals on one handy explanatory sheet, but that he had simply left out the original run script and changed it for a smaller version of the stand script.

I don't think that is standard procedure with any ancient MS; you don't just leave out things and/or change it for something else.

Het OLB bevat een pagina waarop beide schriften zijn afgebeeld. Maar in Ottema's facsimile is het runschrift verdwenen; Ottema's runschrift is een op schrijfletters lijkende variant van het standschrift!

Hij zal hebben gemeend dat het originele runschrift er te modern uitzag en een argument tegen de echtheid kon worden. Dit zou ook verklaren waarom hij in 1877 verhinderd heeft dat enkele bladen van het manuscript werden geëxposeerd, iets waarvoor men beslist het interessante letterblad zou hebben uitgekozen.

http://www.skepsis.nl/oeralinda.html

The OLB contains a page which shows both scripts. But in Ottema's facsimile the run-script has disappeared; Ottema's run-script is a running script like variant of the stand-script!

He must have thought that the original run-script looked too modern in appearance and could be an argument against its authenticity. This would also explain why in 1877 he prevented some pages of the manuscript to be exhibited, something for which they would explicitly have chosen for the interesting letter sheet.

Edited June 22, 2012 by Abramelin

[Abramelin]

Here again the 2 pages of the original MS:

http://www.rodinbook...-web-xlarge.jpg

http://www.rodinbook...-web-xlarge.jpg

The reason Ottema didn't find it necessary to (see second link) add explanatory modern numerals beneath the Yule wheels and to the right of the run variant is of course because even a blind person can read the original numerals, lol.

.

Edited June 22, 2012 by Abramelin

[The Puzzler]

Lol, I don't understand your point.

I will reread your posts a couple of times.

Btw, here's Ottema's book (you used a site with Sandbach's translation) :

Plate -II- on page 95 of

http://images.tresoa...eraLindaBok.pdf

Thanks. It's the same as the Angelfire website anyway - that page I mean.

Look at the number 7 in the original OLB RUN script (Knuls facsimiles) including the dots next to the numbers and letters.

Then look at Ottema's plate - the 7's, most of the other numbers and the dots are the same.

It makes me think that Ottema could have written the OLB, he seems to have written STAND and RUN in near identical writing to the original as well.

(the 4 however is very different, one has a closed top 4 and one (Ottema's) is the open top four.)

[The Puzzler]

Here again the 2 pages of the original MS:

http://www.rodinbook...-web-xlarge.jpg

http://www.rodinbook...-web-xlarge.jpg

The reason Ottema didn't find it necessary to (see second link) add explanatory modern numerals beneath the Yule wheels and to the right of the run variant is of course because even a blind person can read the original numerals, lol.

.

He did though - Ottema has written a small STAND script of the numerals underneath, like the letters and also added the Latin cursive style number.

http://images.tresoar.nl/wumkes/pdf/OttemaJC_ThetOeraLindaBok.pdf