Oera Linda Book and the Great Flood [Part 2]

[Abramelin]

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.tresoa...eraLindaBok.pdf

Yes you are right, my mistake.

So, he copied the Yule wheel, he copied the original run form of the numeral, and to the right the explanatory modern cursive numeral.

But, he did NOT copy the original run script letters and just added a smaller form of the stand letters in the Yule wheels.

I still don't understand why he would or should have done that.

And no, I don't think he is the one who wrote the OLB.

.

Edited June 22, 2012 by Abramelin

[The Puzzler]

Yes you are right, my mistake.

So, he copied the Yule wheel, he copied the original run form of the numeral, and to the right the explanatory modern cursive numeral.

But, he did NOT copy the original run script letters and just added a smaller form of the stand letters in the Yule wheels.

I still don't understand why he would or should have done that.

And no, I don't think he is the one who wrote the OLB.

.

I know he did not copy the original OLB RUN script letters the same.

He has not written the numbers exactly the same either.

[Abramelin]

Damn, I see what you mean: he didnt copy the run form of the numerals, he again changed it for a smaller form of the stand numerals.

(sorry, there's an evil kobold with iron shoes running around inside my skull)

.

Edited June 22, 2012 by Abramelin

[Abramelin]

Anyway, he freely changed the original MS according to his preference, and (because of that) didn't want the original sheets to be exhibited.

.

Edited June 22, 2012 by Abramelin

[The Puzzler]

Anyway, he freely changed the original MS according to his preference, and (because of that) didn't want the original sheets to be exhibited.

.

If he did, what does that prove? It shows he didn't copy them correctly but I don't think it proves he was hiding anything 'modern looking' in the original.

Ottema wasn't really copying it anyway, he was transliterating it, which required him to write it all up in a readable form for us, the text is not an exact copy, it is his version really, of what he makes of the letters in the closest match to current (readable for us) text. (the Angelfire transliteration and his book)

[Abramelin]

If he did, what does that prove? It shows he didn't copy them correctly but I don't think it proves he was hiding anything 'modern looking' in the original.

Ottema wasn't really copying it anyway, he was transliterating it, which required him to write it all up in a readable form for us, the text is not an exact copy, it is his version really, of what he makes of the letters in the closest match to current (readable for us) text. (the Angelfire transliteration and his book)

You tell me then: why would he prevent certain sheets of the OLB of being exhibited?

Puzz, he maybe not really copied it, but he DID really change it.

And that has nothing to do with making things readable. He could very easily have added the original run script (letters and numerals) without causing readability problems, lol.

[Abramelin]

Oh, I almost forgot: Cheers, Puzz!

Heh, this thread started on June 22, 2010.

[Abramelin]

Getting back to how Molewijk, the one who wrote the article I quoted from, knew about Ottema preventing sheets of the OLB of being exhibited, here the list of literature he consulted for his article:

Huussen Jr, A.H., Het Oera Linda Boek: mystificatie of falsificatie? In: Z.R. Dittrich, B. Naarden, H. Renner, (red.) Knoeien met het verleden. Utrecht/Antwerpen, 1984.

Jensma, Goffe, Lees, leer en Waak. Het Oera Linda Bok: een rondleiding. De Vrije Fries, LXXII (1992) p.8-52.

Jong Hzn, M. de, Het geheim van het Oera-Linda-Boek. Bolsward, 1927. [Over Verwijs' auteurschap]

Meij, G.J. van der, Kanttekeningen bij het Oera Linda Boek. Een afspiegeling van de taalgeleerdheid, denkbeelden en schrijfstijl van dr. J.H. Halbertsma, enz. Leeuwarden, 1978. Met een grafologisch rapport van C.J. Böttcher.

Rieth, Adolf, Vorzeit gefälscht. Tübingen, 1967.

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

[The Puzzler]

Oh, I almost forgot: Cheers, Puzz!

Heh, this thread started on June 22, 2010.

Cool.

2 years and I think we have achieved NOTHING.

I still have no idea if this thing is a hoax or not.

[The Puzzler]

Weird how Ottema seems to know the book inside out yet makes the statement that Aldland was stretching far out the west of Jutland.

http://earth-history...-appendices.htm

To fix a date we must start from the year 1256 of our era, when Hiddo oera Linda made a copy, in which he says that it was 3449 years after Atland was sunk. This disappearance of the old land (aldland, atland) was known by the Greeks, for Plato mentions in his `Timaeus’, 24, the disappearance of Atlantis, the position of which was only known as somewhere far beyond the Pillars of Hercules. From this writing it appears that the land stretching far out to the west of Jutland, of which Helgoland and the islands of North Friesland are the last barren remnants.

(I know he calls this the Cimbrian Flood and we know the later c.300BC one as that but curious he says this area above is Atland.)

Edited June 22, 2012 by The Puzzler

[Abramelin]

Cool.

2 years and I think we have achieved NOTHING.

I still have no idea if this thing is a hoax or not.

We all did achieve something very important: you, me, Alewyn, Otharus, Cormac, Swede, Van Gorp, and all those I forgot to mention, we all provided information that was not truelly available before, or info no one had ever thought of before.

But I assume that with "achieved" you meant a 'final verdict' or something.

For me it is clear what the verdict should be: it's a hoax, a forgery, a fabulation, whatever.

Even an Ottema must have suspected the OLB could be fake, but he was already lost, and he did his best to prevent it being found out.

Don't forget: reputation was important in the 19th century, like it still is now.

The guy hanged himself at the end. Why? Because he got slandered, or because he finally realized he had fiercely believed in what proved to be nothing but a fairy tale?

After reading many of his works, I really feel sorry for the guy, whether he will eventually be proven right or wrong.

He was no idiot, but I think that in the end he assumed he had been fooled all the time..

.

Edited June 22, 2012 by Abramelin

[The Puzzler]

Yes, those things were certainly acheived and I did/have learnt ALOT, and yes, you assumed right.

Why do you think Ottema did not write it?

[Abramelin]

Yes, those things were certainly acheived and I did/have learnt ALOT, and yes, you assumed right.

Why do you think Ottema did not write it?

Because the OLB was around (Verwijs) before he finally got it in his hands?

[The Puzzler]

Because the OLB was around (Verwijs) before he finally got it in his hands?

OK, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt for that and other various reasons I've read about.

[Otharus]

And to Otharus: I am not going to respond to every of your latest posts for this thread will explode again.

I would never expect you to respond to every of my posts, but you responded to none of them.

Good reasons would be that you:

- did not understand them (in that case you could ask me to explain myself better)

- thought they were irrelevant (I would not mind if you were honest about that)

- have nothing to add to them

Not replying "for the thread will explode" is nonsense.

[Abramelin]

I would never expect you to respond to every of my posts, but you responded to none of them.

Good reasons would be that you:

- did not understand them (in that case you could ask me to explain myself better)

- thought they were irrelevant (I would not mind if you were honest about that)

- have nothing to add to them

Not replying "for the thread will explode" is nonsense.

Then you must have a reading problem or something.

The only reason I said that is because I had been away for a week, so I posted a more general answer instead (the one you quoted only part of):

And to Otharus: I am not going to respond to every of your latest posts for this thread will explode again, lol.

But my main point was that we should look at the syntax used in the OLB, wordorder if you like, like in Subject/Object/Verb.

Yes, I quoted Jensma, but I should have quoted either Rolf Bremmer or one of the other and older linguists who had read the OLB.

When they said that the OLB is 'too modern' or something similar, they were talking about syntax.

Like I have shown in part -1- of this thread (see my signature) the OLB uses a wordorder like we still use in Modern Dutch.

And I find it highly unlikely that that has not changed in 2600 years.

[Otharus]

The only reason I said that is because I had been away for a week, so I posted a more general answer instead (the one you quoted only part of):

If you call that a reply, alright. One can only do as much as one is capable of, I guess.

Anyway, the excuse you gave (that the thread would explode if you would answer to my posts in more detail) is sodden BS.

[Otharus]

For me it is clear what the verdict should be: it's a hoax, a forgery, a fabulation, whatever.

Not so long ago, you admitted, that it is not an impossibility, that the OLB is authentic.

Do you have new reasons to stop doubting?

Do you think a judge should make a verdict when still in doubt?

Please list your arguments for this 'verdict'.

I look forward to having the chance to refute all of them.

[Abramelin]

Glad to have you back: personal as always.

If you are capable of that, you are most certainly able to read the pages that were created after you left.

.

Edited June 25, 2012 by Abramelin

[Otharus]

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.

I suppose you missed or forgot this post:

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=184645&st=10140#entry4202212

Posted 12 February 2012 - 06:25 PM

Letter from Cornelis Over de Linden to Dr. Ottema, dated Den Helder 11-6-1872 (translation, original at Tresoar, Ljouwert).

"Honorable and very learned Sir!

A request for revision, says W. de L. in Spectator magazine of 21 October 1871 # 42, the same I ask you, and all who reject the so-called 'RUN-SKRIFT' as of younger date.

In your translation I read: "Oh dear, never let the eyes of a monk gaze upon this script, they speak sweet words, but... etc."

From this fear of monks I dare conclude, that they had already captured many of our old manuscripts. I also dare believe dat the Over de Lindens have not been the only ones, who possessed the book of Adela Follistar. When I follow the history of the manuscript, I dare assume that the Romans, the Phoenicians, the Greeks and all Mediterranean peoples learned the letterscript from us. Not copied from the geometric lines of the Jol, but from less neatly produced Frisian manuscripts.

In the times when I tortured myself trying to read the handwriting, someone said to me that they might be Phoenician letters. So I looked for a book about the Phoenician language and found one with the title: "Paläographische Studien über phönizische und punische Schrift - Herausgegeben von D. Wilhelm Gesenius. Mit 6 lithographirten tafelen. Leipzig 1835."

The letters in that book are very different, but many of them are similar to the STAND and the RUN-SKRIFT as presented in the manuscript. Many or most of the prints of tokens with letters, depict women's heads, that reminded me of the Frisian honorary Mothers. The author says that every Phoenician colony had its own letterscript. But I could not follow him, because he compared the letters with Hebrew ones, which I don't know.

If my notion is right, we have been the lettergivers of all Mediterranean peoples. As the Nordic peoples always have been - and still are - the real sea dogs, the French with all their elevated theories not excluded, they were also most in need of letters and ciphars.

That the monks, who have invented their own letterscript, stifled ours to make it unreadable, lies in their nature. But who knows how many Copies of the book of Adela's Folstar remain here and elsewhere with kings or in Rome. Now that more than a thousand years have passed, they may have introduced the walking script as capitals, because they are similar to our capitals.

If you are so weak as to reject the walking script, out of fear for some barkers, than it is as if you want to duel with the sheath, while passing the sword to them.

For in the manuscript it says: "When Fàsta was Mother of honor, she made the running or walking script out of it. The Witking, that is seaking Godfried... etc." So, if the runscript was added more recently, then the above fragment was also added, and then anything can have been added. So I keep protesting against the mutilation.

[...]

After affable greetings, also to your Niece,

Yours,

C. Over de Linden"

[Otharus]

If you are capable of that, you are most certainly able to read the pages that were created after you left.

Yes, I will take my time for that.

[Abramelin]

If you are so weak as to reject the walking script, out of fear for some barkers, than it is as if you want to duel with the sheath, while passing the sword to them.

For in the manuscript it says: "When Fàsta was Mother of honor, she made the running or walking script out of it. The Witking, that is seaking Godfried... etc." So, if the runscript was added more recently, then the above fragment was also added, and then anything can have been added. So I keep protesting against the mutilation.

OK, so Ottema knew what he was omitting from his book.

But not only that, he even tried to prevent the exhibition of some sheets of the OLB. Considering he changed the orginal run script and the run numerals, that is no surprise.

===

Btw, haven't I said repeatedly that - theoretically speaking - it could even have been Godfried the Viking, king of the Danes, who added the numerals to the OLB? That's because the OLB never mentions the date of when he invented what.

[Abramelin]

Yes, I will take my time for that.

Please do, and adress me on what I posted, not on who you think I am or why I post what.

[Otharus]

Please do, and adress me on what I posted, not on who you think I am or why I post what.

Man, stop weeping and give me some meat to chew on.

As I already asked:

Please list your arguments for this 'verdict'.

[Abramelin]

Man, stop weeping and give me some meat to chew on.

As I already asked:

I know you asked, but when I say I posted a general answer to your tomes in my week of absense, you say it is a bs reason.

OK, so read what I posted, and stop this personal crap.

Why are you and your SA hero always getting personal?

For me the OLB is an interesting topic by which I learned a lot.

But for the two of you..... I don't know.