16 November 2012

Forum # 26 (jul. 16 - aug. 8, 2012)

Posted 16 July 2012 - 02:40 PM
View PostKnul, on 14 July 2012 - 01:00 AM, said:
However,
1) Ernest Stadermann [was a] revolutionary intellectual polyglot,
2) who himself was member of the Masonry and
3) who introduced Over de Linden,
4) who bought books for him,
5) who exploited Over de Lindens supposed Frisian origin and
6) who came with a plan to make money of a manuscript,
7) who knew about printing, binding and paper quality.
8) When Stadermann died Cornelis over de Linden went on with it, but he dit not manage to publish the manuscript, which he did not understand, etc.
9) Stadermann has been the genius after the OBL, not Cornelis over de Linden.
10) His influence on Cornelis over de Linden has generally been acknowledged.
11) It has been Gerrit Jansen, head master of a school in Den Helder, who was the first to mention Stadermann as the author of the OLB.

That were many claims, therefore I have numbered them.
Claims 1), 7) and 11) may be true.
The rest is speculation, unless new sources were discovered.
If that is so, please name your sources, Menno.


=== July 17th, 2012, 04:42 PM 
Quote:
But anyway: you asked for a 'list of arguments' for the OLB being a hoax. I am not that well in creating 'lists', sorry, and that's because I am a walking chaos, lol.
The difference between you, Vrank, and us 'believers' (Transvaler and me), is that you are a 'walking chaos' (as you call it) while we take the OLB seriously. Those hoax theories are no joke.
They portray Cornelis Over de Linden as an evil liar (in Jensma's theory also Verwijs and Haverschmidt), and dr. Ottema as someone who had lost his mind. To be labelled a liar when you are not, or to be labelled mentally insane when you're not, is great injustice. (It can drive people mad.)
Quote:
I never called CodL an 'evil liar'...
But you assume that he lied about having received the manuscript in 1848 from his family.
In that case he lied to Ottema who trusted him as a friend, and to his grandchildren in his testament.
I would call that rather evil if it would be true.

My conclusion is that he lied a little understandable bit:
His aunt did not give it to him as a surprise (he not knowing before that it existed), but he took it without permission or made his family give it to him under pressure. (I have posted in detail about this.) 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vrank_Bouleen View Post
I never suggested Cornelis Over de Linden was 'evil' by what I call his fabrication.
Hoax theories in which Cornelis Over de Linden DID NOT receive the manuscript from his family in 1848, imply that he lied to Ottema (deliberately ruining O's career and life) and to his children & grandchildren till his death-bed.

Would you judge that forgivable (if it were true)?

I know of only one (after '48) hoax theory that agrees about his innocence;
Dr. M. de Jong (1926) believed that OL was so delusional, that he had created his own reality in which he had received the manuscript in 1848.

Since you did not even read some of the most serious hoax-theories (de Jong, Boeles, Jensma), you really don't know what you're talking about. 

=== Posted 17 July 2012 - 06:53 AM
View PostKnul, on 16 July 2012 - 11:51 PM, said:
2) who himself was member of the Masonry and s. Wumkes Frijtmitselderij en Oera-Linda-Boek p.9
3) who introduced Over de Linden, id.

I read page 8 to 11 (in Frisian) but your claim is not confirmed. (Perhaps you misinterpreted "freon"; it means friend.)


Quote
4) who bought books for him, s. http://www.dbnl.org/...01187801_01.pdf
5) who exploited Over de Lindens supposed Frisian origin and  s. http://www.dtekst/_g..._01.pdfbnl.org/
10) His influence on Cornelis over de Linden has generally been acknowledged. s. http://www.dtekst/_g..._01.pdfbnl.org/

This is what your source says about Stadermann: "... Ernst Stadermann, een vriend van C.O. d. L., die zeer veel wist van de oude schrijvers, den man, die bij Bom te Amsterdam veel boeken kocht en aan wien dus C.O. d. L. menige inlichting en mededeeling kan te danken gehad hebben."

and "... eene andere vraag is het echter, of hij misschien helpers gehad heeft en wellicht, behalve E. Staderman, die ter ziele is en zich dus niet meer verantwoorden kan, de schrijver der bovengenoemde artikelen..."

Source does not confirm your claims.


Quote
6) who came with a plan to make money of a manuscript, Layout of OLB shows medieval block-book. Over de LInden did not know about it.

Huh?! Please explain.


Quote
8) When Stadermann died Cornelis over de Linden went on with it, but he dit not manage to publish the manuscript, which he did not understand, etc.  Stadermann died 13 april 1867, Cornelis over de Linden contacted Siderius in May/June for publication/translation.

Your conclusion is just a guess. The fact that OL went looking for help with the translation shortly after Stadermann died can be a coincidence, or maybe he had hoped that Stadermann could help him with the translation, or maybe he was reminded of his own mortality and wanted a translation before he died.


Quote
9) Stadermann has been the genius after the OBL, not Cornelis over de Linden. Obvious conclusion.

Conclusion based on what facts?


Quote
I have asked you several times, why Over de Linden did not mention Stadermann in his letters to Ottema nor in his testament.

My answer was and is: because it was irrelevant. They were neighbors for one year only in the 1840s, and according to OL's son they were not that close at all. In 1845 Stadermann and Munnik joined OL on his trip to Enkhuizen, when he tried to obtain the manuscript from his family. That is the only relation between S. and the OLB that we know.


Quote
A next question is, why Over de Linden tried to sell the manuscript, which he regarded as a family treasure.

In one of his last letters to Ottema, he wrote that he had received an offer, but he did not sell it. This was probably an excuse because he wanted Ottema to return the part that he still had in his possession.


Quote
A following question is, why Over de Linden did not mention the lost chapter and pages to Ottema.

I don't know. 

=== Posted 20 July 2012 - 04:35 PM
"Klankleer en Vormleer in het OLB" (phonology and morphology in the OLB) masters thesis (2000) by V. vd Bossche (Univ. Leuven)

Fragment p.5, with translation:

"... in het midden van de twintigste eeuw [werd] het papier, de inkt en de binding onderzocht. Het resultaat van dit onderzoek was eensluidend: Thet Oera Linda Boek kon geen vervalsing zijn. Toch vallen de voorstanders van de echtheid na dit onderzoek stil. In de tweede helft van de twintigste eeuw zijn enkel nog stemmen te horen die de onechtheid van het boek onderstrepen."

"... in the mid-20th century, paper, ink and binding were investigated. The result of this research was unambiguous: The OLB could not be a forgery. Yet the proponents of its authenticity stay silent after this. In the 2nd half of the 20th century only voices are heard that claim it's a hoax."

Unfortunately, vd Bossche does not give sources for this mid-20th C. investigation.
I don't know what he was referring to. 

===  July 19th, 2012, 11:39 PM 
Today I copied some articles at the stunning University library of Leuven:

1) 'Männerbund' and 'Mutterrecht': Herman Wirth, Sophie Rogge-Börner and the Ura-Linda-Chronik (2007)
by Peter Davies (in German Life and Letters)
('Männerbund', 'Mutterrecht' = men-union, mother-law)
Abstract
This paper explores the ideological complexity of issues connected with matriarchal myth within National Socialism's view of women and motherhood by examining the controversy over the Ura-Linda-Chronik, which purported to demonstrate that the Germanic 'Urvolk' was organised along matriarchal lines. [...]

2) Die Urmonotheismustheorie im Dienst der nationalsozialistischen Rassenkunde ~ Herman Wirth im Kontext der religionswissenschaftlichen und ethnologischen Diskussion seiner Zeit (2010)
by Franz Winter (in Zeitschrift für Religions- und Geistesgeschichte)
title translated:
The primal-monotheism-theory in service of Nazi racial ideology ~ Herman Wirth in the context of the theological and ethnological discussion of his time

Abstract
Herman Wirth Roeper Bosch (1885-1981) was an important theoretician of the racist theory of Nazi-Germany. This article deals with his major publication, "Der Aufgang der menschheit" (published 1928), wherein he provides a theory on the origins of the so-called "atlantidian" race. One of the foundations is the so-called "primordial monotheism", which was quite popular in the first half of the 20th century. [...]

3) Bedenkliche Worte beim "Upstalboom" im august 1933 (1933)
by A.S. de Blécourt (in Tijdschrift Rechtsgeschiedenis, 1934)
title translated:
Questionable words at the "Upstaltree" in August 1933
=> About Wirth and his German 'Ura Linda Chronik'

4) Quote from review of "Internationales Germanistenlexikon 1800-1950":
Particular attention is given to cases where scholarship lent support to Party programs, as with Otto Mauser's work on the Ura-Linda-Chronik in the service of the SS Ahnenerbe, a pet project of Himmler's.

=== July 20th, 2012, 08:48 AM  
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vrank_Bouleen View Post
Well, then where do you think the word came from?
I think it is related to "ring" (soon or as soon as), as used in:

(p.6)
RING AS HJA RIP WÉRON KRÉJON HJA FRÜCHDA ÀND NOCHTA ANDA DRÁMA
as soon as they were ripe, they got fruits and nuts (joy and pleasure) in their dreams (p.23)
ALLE BISLUTA THÉRA MOTON RING NÉI THÉRE MODER SENDEN WERTHA
all their decisions must soon be sent to their Mother (p.45)
THÀT THA AFTERKVMANDA THÉROF THJU BITJUDNESE RING VRLÉREN HÁVE
that the after-coming soon have lost the meaning of that (p.77)
MEN AS ER FALLEN WAS, GVNGON SINA NÉIMANNINGA ALRING AN VSA ÉWA TORENA
when he was fallen, his successors soon started to change our laws (p.95)
THA RÁWERA SKOLDON HJAM RING FENSEN HA
the robbers would have caught them soon (p.123)
THA HI KÉM HRING WITHER
but he soon came back (p.129)
LÉT THA BÀRNPILA RING INNA KRÁNBOGA LIDSA
quickly let the burn-arrows lay in the cranebows (p.140)
SÁ WÀRTH HJA THAT RING FORJÁN
so that was soon forgiven (p.155)
ALSA RING SIN TÁT FALLEN WAS
as soon as his dad was fallen (p.159)
ALSA RINGEN FRISO FALLEN WAS
as soon as Friso was fallen (p.159)
ALSA RING THÉR MONG VSA HALFSUSTERUM ÀND HALFBROTHARUM BIDROGAR VPKÉMON [...] ALSO RING IS THÀT OWERS WRDEN
as soon as betrayers came up there among our half-sisters and half-brothers [...] that swiftly became different (p.202)
... HÉDON SÁ RINGE NAVT FON ASKAR SINA GLORRIKA DÉDUM NAVT NE HÉRED
... no sooner had heard of Askar-his glory-rich deads (p.205)
ALSA RINGEN ASKAR FON RÉINTJA HJRA BODON FORNOM
as soon as Askar was informed by Reintja-her messengers (p.210)
HJA MOSTON ALSA RING FLJUCHTA AS HJA KVMEN WÉRON
they had to flee as quickly as they had come

~ ~ ~
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vrank_Bouleen View Post
what does the 'ame-' in 'amering' mean?
I don't know yet.
Quote:
My (and the 'official' explanation) is only ridiculous when you assume the OLB was put on paper before Christian times
No, I would not believe that "Ave Maria" explanation anyway. A certain Fr. Halma came with that explanation. No idea who he is.
Quote:
MEYER's Woordenschat was an Old Frisian vocabulary owned by Cornelis Over de Linden.
If your supposed hoaxers used that dictionary for that word they were pretty stupid. Does not make sense at all.
Quote:
Sandbach said, "Amering, still in use in North Holland to signify a breath or a twinkling of an eye."
Another reason why it can't have come from "Ave Maria". The North-Hollanders (Westfrisians) hated Catholics, so they would not use that expression. And if they did, it would have changed into "...-merie", not "...-mering".  
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vrank_Bouleen View Post
... the mangled word may have been adopted by the Noordhollanders...
To make a long story short, it is not sure if AMERING comes from "ave Maria". You believe it does, I don't.

It does not qualify as evidence against OLB's authenticity.

=== July 20th, 2012, 09:02 AM  
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vrank_Bouleen View Post
For those who don't know: the quotes are not anything good concerning African people ("Lyda's people"). Or Asians ("Finda's people").
Just translate this fragment.

[page 141, line 3]

BLOD SKIL STRAMA.
MEN THÉRUT SKILET FOLK NYE KRAFTA GARA.
FINDA.S FOLK SKIL SINA FINDINGRIKHÉD TO MÉMA NITHA WENDA.
THAT LYDA.S FOLK SINA KRAFTA
AND WI VSA WISDOM.

THA SKILUN THA FALXA PRESTERA WÉI FAGATH WERTHA FON JRTHA.

There have been some tensions between the races, but the ideal was that they would eventually live together in peace again, not to wipe them from the planet.

What they hated more than anything else were 'FORSTA AND PRESTERA', in other words, people who use others as their slaves. (The nowaday extremely rich.)

=== July 20th, 2012, 07:57 PM  
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vrank_Bouleen View Post
The fact that the OLB language (ie the grammar, not even so much the words) is too modern, and much based on modern (= 19th century) Dutch
That the OLB grammar would be too modern, is not a "fact", as you claim. It is just not what the scholars had expected. It is more like oral language than the old sources we knew.

Our written language used to be much more formal. Recently is has become more similar to spoken language.

I have read documents from 18th century notaries. When they quote witness reports you read oral languge (which is virtually the same as ours), but when you read official texts, it is very different from how people talk.

The rural dialects give a good impression of old language. People learn it in the first few years of their lives (hence 'mother tongue'), not from school or books. Those dialects can be hundreds or thousands years old, if people did not move around much, and there were not many wars and mixing of cultures.

My god. I have explained this a dozen times. Did you ever take the effort to read it and think about it?

I know that the 'language is too modern' argument is one of the favorites of the hoax-believers. But they can never give a good example.

Do you really think that people here spoke as in the Old-Frisian law-texts?

=== July 20th, 2012, 08:35 PM  
Quote:
Originally Posted by Otharus View Post
What do you think makes more sense;
that the author dates:
A) the event that is to be described,
or
B) when the story was written down?
I'll try to explain better. You think that author means: "X years ago Y happened"

=> to know when Y happened, the reader needs to know when it was written: X years before point of reference. But point of reference (when it was written) is unknown!

The regular point of reference in OLB is the sinking of AL.

(when it was) "X years ago (that) AL sank" = 1600 AA.
At that time (1600 AA), Y happened.

Only this makes sense, and it agrees with the time Buda/Fo etc. was supposed to have lived. Whether OLB is authentic or not.

=== July 20th, 2012, 08:53 PM  
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vrank_Bouleen View Post
If that's true, the used language is from 1256 AD.
It can still have been oldfashioned at that time (and full of errors), but at least more or less understandable for Okke Hiddes-son Oera Linda.
Quote:
And it would have been written in Latin script, not the OLB script.
Why?

This may have been the original script of this particular (indigenous) culture. Friso may already have started to burn and destroy things from before his time (300 BC), later the Romans, then Charlemagne's followers etc.

There will be more scripts of which there is only one example left.

In 1914 the University library of Leuven (founded 1425) burnt down.
Many, very many libraries were destroyed in various ways.
What we have now is only a tiny fraction of what once existed. 

=== July 20th, 2012, 09:18 PM  
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vrank_Bouleen View Post
Would be interesting to hear his say on this.
I made some copies of his essay. (Wrote the FB guy some time ago, but got no answer.) If I had been his professor, he would not have gotten away with it. He made two fundamental mistakes:

1) page 5 "De bedoeling van deze verhandeling is om verder te gaan op de weg die Beckering Vinckers zo kort - een pagina - bewandeld heeft"

(The purpose of this essay is to continue the short path that Beckering Vinckers walked - only one page.)

My criticism:
He does not discuss BV's work. He does not say what was good about it, or what was not. He should at least have summarized it, as this was the starting point.

2) page 6 "Een van de uitgangspunten van het onderzoek is dat het OLB een vervalsing is. In de taal zitten een heel aantal elementen die onmogelijk Oudfries kunnen zijn. De opeenstapeling van deze elementen doorheen de verhandeling is hier voldoende bewijs voor."

(One of the assumptions of the research is, that the OLB is a forgery. The language contains quite a few elements that can impossibly be Oldfrisian. The accumulation of these elements throughout the work is sufficient evidence for this.)

my criticism:
If the assumption is, that it's a forgery, there is no longer space for a different conclusion. Why start with this assumption beforehand? He does not even give examples of these "elements".

~ Next week I will post some of his finds (some of which are in conflict IMO with his forgery-assumption.)

=== July 20th, 2012, 11:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vrank_Bouleen View Post
If it had been the original script of this tribe, why did they incorporate the explaining letter sheet inside the MS?
Why not? It was meant for their descendants.
I can also ask you:
If it would be a forgery, why would the creators have added the sheet?
It spoils part of the fun.
Quote:
Would it not have been more logical if that sheet was a separate sheet?
I don't see why.
Who says it was meant to decipher the book?
It shows how the letters fit in the JOL-wheel and it shows the run-script, that will more have been for everyday fast-handwriting. 

=== July 21st, 2012, 12:10 AM  
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vrank_Bouleen View Post
And the OLB people didn't live isolated from 600 BC and onwards (...), so it's unlikely that the language didn't change a great deal in 2600 years time.
The people who left and arrived will mostly have been men.
Children will usually learn their 'mother tongue' from... guess who?

If it was indeed a matriarchal culture, the women will have had a good say in who they chose as fathers of their children. They may have had a preference for men that they could communicate with.

Remember that map I made with where my ancestors from the last 7 generations (ca. 250 years) came from? Almost exclusively Westfriesland. In the 7 generations before them, their ancestors will have migrated even less. Besides the wars between the counts of Holland and WF - till 1297 CE - (in which mostly men will have been killed), I don't know of any great disturbances or migrations. The Romans and Franks will mostly have stayed below the big rivers. So the language will not have changed that much. Some sailing, some trading, some men going to wars elsewhere. But most of the people indeed lived pretty isolated. 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vrank_Bouleen View Post
Not only the men were 'on the move'. There is talk about colonies in the OLB.
Minerva left with a few famna. What percentage of the whole polulation will that have been?  

=== July 21st, 2012, 09:27 AM 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ib-issi View Post
Although we are told Cornelis could not read the text, i cant find anything to say whether Hidde could...
There may have been parts that Hidde did not understand completely (but copied it anyway), but as he wrote his letter in the same language, he must at least have had enough basic knowledge of it.
Quote:
... however if he could but realised the spellings had changed since it was first writen down, could he have updated the spelling and replaced words to his generations useage in the 13th century so that his decendants could still read it in a few hundred years.
There will not have been one strict spelling at his time. Even today spelling is not strict. Whether I write school (English, Dutch) or skool (Westfrisian), you will know what I mean. In fact, it's only the "oo" that sounds a bit different.

There are texts that have been copied by different monks. None of those copies are exactly the same. It all depends on how good their eyes were, how dark it was at the moment they were copying, how tired or concentrated they were, etc. Sometimes they may have changed syntax a bit, sometimes spelling, not always consequently.
Quote:
You guys may know, but i have also read however that the spellings of the same words are different at the end of the book, to those used at the beginning... is this true?
Yes.
Quote:
... if so any thoughts that Hidde is the one who may have updated the language/ spellings and made them "too Modern" falls down, because presumably he would have changed it uniformly throughout the book if he started from scratch.
Good point, but he may still have changed details. One must imagine the circumstances in which he copied it. It will have been a lot of work, he may have gotten tired or bored of it, or in a hurry. Some parts are more neatly written than others. The copying process may have taken many years. Who knows he started when he was 20, and finished it 40 years later? Parts may have been done by his wife or a brother...

Also, the changing of the syntax and spelling may have been a gradual thing. Every copyist may have changed bits.

Imagine we found one of the originals from Adela's time (600 BCE). They would never be exactly the same.
W = vv
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vrank_Bouleen View Post
someone forgot to add the Jol wheel version of the letters -W- and -GS- . Ottema added the Jol wheel -GS-, but he too forgot the Jol wheel version of the -W-.
No. W is just double V.
That they often wrote them attached, as a W, did not make it a new letter for them.

=== July 21st, 2012, 08:52 PM  by Alewyn Raubenheimer
OLB’s Historical Accuracy

I think it should by quite clear by now that not a single one of the hoax theories around the OLB has been, or can be, proven. Every proposed culprit (or culprits) has some serious flaw that rules him (or them) out. Whilst it may be an interesting exercise for some to speculate around identities and motives and bend the facts to suit the different theories, they all eventually come to a dead end.

The second test re the OLB, of course, is the matter of the language. Again, we have to resort to speculation. We just do not have any surviving ancient documents from this small corner of Europe that we can compare with. Although the OLB script and language does not seem to fit our frame of reference, it is still very plausible that the book may be authentic. Linguistics, as it stands at present, is not an exact science and much of it is based on the training, experience and opinions of individuals – sometimes quite diverging. We cannot, therefore, use the language issue to prove the OLB either way.

The third and, to my mind, the only reliable test, is the book’s historical accuracy. Whether these facts were known in the 19th century, or only discovered subsequently, is of secondary importance in the initial stages of our investigation. If all the verifiable facts are correct, we are then obliged to give the book the benefit of the doubt and assume that the non-verifiable or unknown statements are also correct. In other words, the OLB should be subjected to textual criticism or, more precisely, recension (if those are the correct terms) by comparing it with other sources first to determine its credibility. The OLB should therefore be regarded as authentic until proven otherwise. Subsequent discoveries which vindicate the book’s claims obviously drastically enhance its credibility. I would like to believe that I have proven beyond reasonable doubt in my research that the OLB is a credible and, therefore, an authentic account of a small part of Europe’s and South-West Asia’s pre-history.

We have the enigma that the OLB was declared a fraud without any evidence and, ever since Verwijs and Winkler, people have been trying to force the facts to suit. The problem then starts feeding on itself. If the OLB is a lie, then all the letters and documents pertaining to it must also be lies. Although Verwijs was one of the first to raise the suspicion that the OLB may be a hoax and planted this idea in Winkler’s head, he became a suspect himself. The authors of not only the OLB, but of all these other documents must then all be part of a greater conspiracy – a conspiracy for what purpose? If the book was a 19th century hoax or a joke, why has the secret been guarded as though peoples’ lives depended on it? Why did someone not come forward, admitted the joke, had a good laugh and moved on?

I would like to suggest that everyone who has examined the OLB and the people around it know that the book is authentic and the “Hoax Theorists” are knowingly promoting the deception that the book is a hoax. The facts cannot be interpreted any other way. The big question is “why?”

What could possibly be the purpose for denying a major part of European pre-history or the early achievements of our forebears such as democracy, freedom of speech and association, monotheism, equality of the sexes, free enterprise, the “Greek” alphabet, “Arabic” or “Hindu-Arabic” numerals (although Arabians do not use it)? Why is it that the battle cry of the French Revolution only became entrenched and bore fruit in Europeans until very recently: “Liberty, Equality and Fraternity”? Why give the credit to the Egyptians, Phoenicians, Greeks or whoever when nothing in their history suggests that they ever embraced these principles? Why is it that only European and European-founded societies are the only peoples to display all these attributes to this day?

I am not one who indulges in conspiracy theories but somewhere I smell a rat. If we are to entertain conspiracies and hoaxes, we should rather try to establish why the “Oera Linda Book Hoax” deception is so aggressively promoted or defended? If anything, this is the main riddle behind the OLB.

=== July 22nd, 2012, 12:33 PM 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Transvaler View Post
If the book was a 19th century hoax or a joke, why has the secret been guarded as though peoples’ lives depended on it?
Because it was explosive material. It could have caused chaos and revolution.

=== July 23rd, 2012, 08:11 AM  
main riddle behind the OLB

Alewyn raised an important question here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Transvaler View Post
We have the enigma that the OLB was declared a fraud without any evidence and, ever since Verwijs and Winkler, people have been trying to force the facts to suit.
[...]
If the book was a 19th century hoax or a joke, why has the secret been guarded as though peoples’ lives depended on it?
[...]
I would like to suggest that everyone who has examined the OLB and the people around it know that the book is authentic and the “Hoax Theorists” are knowingly promoting the deception that the book is a hoax. The facts cannot be interpreted any other way. The big question is “why?”
[...]
If we are to entertain conspiracies and hoaxes, we should rather try to establish why the “Oera Linda Book Hoax” deception is so aggressively promoted or defended? If anything, this is the main riddle behind the OLB.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Otharus View Post
Because it was explosive material.
It could have caused chaos and revolution.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Transvaler View Post
Even so. That reason surely does not exist today?
Apparently, there are still people who think the OLB is (or its 'believers' are) 'dangerous'.
Since the OLB played a certain role in the evolution of Nazi ideology, that fear is understandable.

On 'Unexplained Mysteries'-forum, 26 February 2012, Abramelin posted:
Quote:
"it will only be [dangerous] when people start using the OLB as some sort of new 'holy book'."
I read that same fear between the lines of Jensma's dissertation (2004), for example here:

"De Gemaskerde God", page 17:

"This Ottema was followed by a long procession of believers of suspicious character. Of them SS-Führer Heinrich Himmler is most notorious, but he was certainly not the only one. Theosophists, nazi's, New Agers and right extremists of various sorts explained and still explain this OLB as an authentic and important source for our knowledge of western civilisation."

Original text:
Deze Ottema kreeg een lange stoet van gelovigen van bedenkelijk allooi achter zich aan. De SS-Führer Heinrich Himmler is van hen de beruchtste, maar hij was zeker niet de enige. Theosofen, nazi's, New Agers en Nieuwe Rechtsen van allerlei pluimage verklaarden en verklaren dit Oera Linda-boek nog steeds voor een authentieke en belangrijke bron voor onze kennis van de westerse beschaving.

=== Posted 24 July 2012 - 06:51 AM
Very interesting VG, it makes sense.

Val => Dutch verb "falen" (to fail) => German noun "fehler" (mistake)

North-Holland has two villages Kwadijk and Koedijk.
One would initially associate the latter with "koe" ="cow", but I agree it could come from KVA = KV =KU  

=== July 28th, 2012, 01:36 PM 
suppression of European pre-history

Quote:
Originally Posted by Transvaler View Post
My question was about the suppression of European pre-history as related in the OLB.
It goes far beyond the petty politics of the Netherlands.
It looks like it does, indeed.

"Where Troy Once Stood" (1990-2012) by Iman Jacob Wilkens (1936) provides an abundance of evidence for his conclusion that Troy has to be located in England and that the Achaeans and Pelasgians were 'sea-peoples' from NW-Europe.

This is what Wikipedia reads:

"Where Troy Once Stood is a book by Iman Wilkens that argues that the city of Troy was located in England and that the Trojan War was fought between groups of Celts, against the standard view that Troy is located near the Dardanelles in Turkey. Wilkens claims that Homer's Iliad and Odyssey, though products of ancient Greek culture [???], are originally orally transmitted epic poems from Western Europe. Wilkens disagrees with conventional ideas about the Historicity of the Iliad and the location and participants of the Trojan War."

On the Dutch version (translated into English):

"The author uses topographic, archaeologic and historiographic means to demonstrate that the city of Troy, known from Homer's works, was located in England and not in Turkey as was thought. Wilkens [...] ignores scientific views of classicists, who point at a lack of valid arguments from Wilkens."

So far I have read almost a third of Wilkens' book and already found enough evidence to accept his general conclusion.

I have to conclude that the 'classicists' that reject Wilkens' conclusion either:

A) have not taken the effort to read his book,
B) have a dysfunctional mind, or
C) are lying 

=== August 8th, 2012, 09:28 AM  
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vincent_VdB View Post
Say you wanted to write an essay on WW II yiddish literature, and its linguistics... Then, should you add a paragraph where you proof (just for those who never believed the holocaust ever happened) that the holocaust actually happened, before you can talk about the linguistics of its literature?
Very subtle, Vincent, to suggest that 'OLB-believers' (including people who doubt the hoax-theories) are like holocaust-deniers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vincent_VdB View Post
I was interested primarily in how the author wrote it grammatically, considering, indeed, the fact that he had to make up a grammar of its own before starting to write in this language. Assuming indeed, that it was fake.
Do you see how you transformed an assumption into a 'fact'?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vincent_VdB View Post
- on one weblog (...) I am considered being a mid-20th century person.
Here is what I wrote again about your thesis.
Quote:
Fragment p.5, with translation:

"... in het midden van de twintigste eeuw [werd] het papier, de inkt en de binding onderzocht. Het resultaat van dit onderzoek was eensluidend: Thet Oera Linda Boek kon geen vervalsing zijn. Toch vallen de voorstanders van de echtheid na dit onderzoek stil. In de tweede helft van de twintigste eeuw zijn enkel nog stemmen te horen die de onechtheid van het boek onderstrepen."

"... in the mid-20th century, paper, ink and binding were investigated. The result of this research was unambiguous: The OLB could not be a forgery. Yet the proponents of its authenticity stay silent after this. In the 2nd half of the 20th century only voices are heard that claim it's a hoax."

Unfortunately, vd Bossche does not give sources for this mid-20th C. investigation.
I don't know what he was referring to.
So, the question is: What mid-20th C. investigation were you referring to?

No comments:

Post a Comment