11 March 2014

Forum #42 (26 jan. - 11 march 2014)

Posted 26 January 2014 - 06:40 PM
Since the beginning of this thread (1st part already), Abramelin has argued that OLB can't be authentic because the word BEDRUM (translated as "bedroom") can't be that old, as Shakespeare would have been the first to have used it.

On 25 sept. 2010, I said:

An example [of alleged anachronistic words] often used (e.g. by dr.Jensma) is "BEDRUM", translated by him as 'sleepchamber' (slaapkamer).
BEDEN means to ask, pray, offer (Dutch: bidden, bieden); RUM means space or room (Dutch: ruim, ruimte).
The modern word "bed" can hereby be explained.
Abramelin replied:
"bedrum fon thêre Moder" "slaapvertrek van de Moeder" (Ottema)
"bedroom of the folk-mother" (Sandbach)

You appear to suggest that this folk-mother was about to be raped in her own... what, 'praying chamber'?
I clarified (7 oct.'10):
TEX FRYAS (p. 11/12 original manuscript) point 3:


Modern versions of this word may very well be:
BIDDEN (Dutch) meaning to pray
BIEDEN (Dutch) meaning to offer
BITTEN (German) meaning to ask
BJUDA / BEDJA (Swedish) meaning to ask, invite, request

This is why I think BEDRUM does not need to mean exactly the same as the modern English word BEDROOM. In Dutch I would translate it -close to the original word- with BIDRUIMTE, a room for meditation, as we would say today.
Now I found something to support my idea that "BEDRUM" originally may have meant oratory (praying- or offering-room):

In "Frieslands Oudheid" (Frisian Antiquity), dr. H. Halbertsma (2000; eds. Cordfunke, Sarfati); p.168;
Referring to a fragment from "Vita Landeberti" (Leven des salighen martelers ende busscops sinte Lambrechtz), about st. Lambert of Maastricht who lived in the 7th century:

"He put off his sword, withdrew in his room, the dormitory (sleep-chamber) that he also used as a oratory (praying-chapel), and streched down arms-wide on the floor, praying for mercy for himself as well as for his enemies." (my translation)

Original text:
"Hij legde zijn zwaard af, trok zich terug in zijn kamer, het slaapvertrek dat hij tevens als bidkapel gebruikte en strekte zich met wijd-gespreide armen uit over de vloer, genade biddende voor zichzelf zowel als zijn vijanden."


Posted 18 February 2014 - 02:40 PM
OliverDSmith, on 18 February 2014 - 03:42 AM, said:
Are there actually people in this thread claiming Oera Linda Book is not a forgery?
On your website you wrote (last january 26):
... the Oera Linda Book. Anyone trying to defend this sort of stuff lacks intellectual honesty.
What makes you say this?
How would you defend your conclusion that it must be a forgery?


Posted 18 February 2014 - 04:29 PM
This upstart, who got his bachelor of arts last year, boasts on his website about his almost encyclopedic knowledge of classical literature:
My knowledge of classical literature is almost encyclopedic, but I am far less knowledgeable on other topics.
... but admits to be far less knowledgeable on other topics.
I'd advise him to be more modest on topics about which he doesn't have a clue.

Posted 19 February 2014 - 09:32 AM
OliverDSmith, on 18 February 2014 - 08:24 PM, said:
... people who think Oera Linda Book is not a forgery
How many of them do you actually know, Oliver?
And even if you would know a few, you should not generalize.
They are not all the same.
Since you represent part of the readers, I thank you for speaking your mind and welcome you to this thread.
I am prepared to seriously answer your questions and comments.

But before we continue, please tell us, what is it you really want from taking part of this discussion?


Posted 20 February 2014 - 09:35 AM
OliverDSmith, on 18 February 2014 - 03:23 PM, said:
Can you find a peer-reviewed work or scholarly source defending it?
Can you find a dito work or source proving it is a forgery?

Even if it would be a 19th century forgery, it would be an interesting study subject, if only for the language in which it was written.
Dr. Ottema took it seriously and his career was destroyed by malicious press.
A similar thing happened to Dr. Wirth (who was forbidden to publish or teach by the nazis).

The strong attacks they suffered can easily be explained, because some ideas in the OLB may feel like threats to the establishment, in particular centralised wealth and power (princes and priests in the english translation), as well as to common dogmas about language, history and religion.

These attacks are one explanation. So far, no established historian has dared to risk being excommunicated by being declared pseudohistorian (which is the common tactic of subsidized science).

My carreer (as Msc) was in the world of science, politics and mass media - I stepped out of that treadmill 10 years ago. I know from theory (history and philosophy of science) as well as personal experience that there are taboos, dogmas and lots of internal conflicts in science. So science is not like a religion to me, as it still seems to be to you.

Otherwise you would need to explain why no historian takes it serious. It was not even written to be taken serious.
You claim to know who created it and why?  


Posted 20 February 2014 - 09:56 AM
OliverDSmith, on 18 February 2014 - 03:36 PM, said:
You're only left with crazy conspiracy theories.
That is a term often misused by people who only believe what they learn at school and from mainstream media.
The prevailing OLB theory is by Dr. Jensma from the University of Groningen.
He did not investigate the authenticity, but started from the assumption that OLB is a hoax and tried to answer the question who might have created it.
At least three specialists (professors in dutch literature & language, church history and Oldfrisian/ Oldsaxon) publicly declared that they did not share his conclusions (see end of my 1 hour video).
His theory is that vicar-poet Haverschmidt, linguist Verwijs and shipwright Over de Linden created it together in deepest secret, while many witnesses who confirmed the authenticity simply lied.

Now that is a conspiracy theory, litterally.


Posted 20 February 2014 - 10:03 AM
OliverDSmith, on 18 February 2014 - 03:46 PM, said:
So the only 19th century philologist who studied the manuscript came to the conclusion it was a forgery... only to "save his career"?
Dr. Verwijs (1830-1880) was not the only one.
Dr. Ottema (1804-1879) studied and translated it (whilst Verwijs tried, but did not succeed).
He concluded it was authentic and argued why. As said he was crushed. Verwijs was at the start of his carreer and when public opinion turned against the OLB he changed his (public) opinion.


Posted 20 February 2014 - 07:02 PM
OliverDSmith, on 18 February 2014 - 08:24 PM, said:
Hatred found its way among them.
They each bore twelve sons and twelve daughters—
at every Juul-time a couple.
Thence come all mankind.

Lyda was black, with hair curled like a lamb's;
her eyes shone like stars,
and shot out glances like those of a bird of prey.
Finda was yellow, and her hair was like the mane of a horse.
She could not bend a tree,
but where Lyda killed one lion
she killed ten.
Frya was white like the snow at sunrise,
and the blue of her eyes
vied with the rainbow.
This is discredited 19th century race typology when the world was split into three races: "Mongoloids" (yellow), "Negroids" (black) and "Caucasoids" (white).
"Hatred" for "od" was a mistranslation, much discussed since first publication and in this thread.
Ottema related it to Latin "odium", but it makes more sense to relate it to nordic words like Norse "odd" (peak, point, phallic object) or German "odem" (gods breath, life force), as Over de Linden suggested.

Since you probably never had a look at the original language, here is a simplified transcription with improvised translation of the first part:


Wralda´s <od> entered them,
and now each gave birth to twelve sons and twelve daughters,
each Yuletime twins.
Thereof all people have come.




That the idea of three root races was popular (again?) in the 19th century, and that this concept got discredited later, are no good arguments against OLB´s authenticity.

The following fragment demonstrates a vision of peaceful co-existence and co-operation between the races:


Translation Sandbach (p.191):
Finda's folk shall contribute their industry to the common good,
Lyda's folk their strength, and we our wisdom.
Then the false priests shall be swept away from the earth.
[...] There shall be neither princes, nor masters, nor rulers,
except those chosen by the general voice.


Posted 21 February 2014 - 08:47 AM
Van Gorp, on 20 February 2014 - 06:36 PM, said:
Does the OLB give a kind of etymology about Minos...
In OLB the name is "MINNO".
The etymology is not given explicitly, but "MIN" means "my" or "mine" (dutch: mijn - german: mein - scandinavian languages: min).
The dutch verb "minnen" or "beminnen" means to love or to make love.
Would make sense to use this root-word for a name.


Posted 21 February 2014 - 04:03 PM
OliverDSmith, on 19 February 2014 - 05:08 PM, said:
... which is why Oera Linda Book [...] was used as propaganda by the Nazis.
On the contrary, they publicly declared it fake as early as 1934:

gestur, on 04 April 2013 - 11:45 AM, said:
Fragment of "Het Oera-Linda-Boek in Duitschland en hier" (The OLB in Germany and here), by Dr. Murk de Jong (1939), about the way Herman Wirth was silenced by Nazi-'scientists'.

With a (shortened) translation he had made it accessible for the German people. It was a smasher. Teachers took it to school to read it to the youth, like Wirth did for his students at university. An Oera-Linda-cult impended, with Wirth as its prophet.
But also a crisis in German science.
In feverish fuss all was done to crush Wirth or the OLB, that was virtually the same. [...]
Finally on the 4th of May 1934, it took a great demonstration of German scientists, to silence Wirth for the time being. A demonstration (show) it was, more than a scientific debate [...]
That it became known as "Himmler´s Bible" after the war, has surely helped to discredit it some more.
But it is true that Himmler personally took the book seriously and had secret investigations done till ca. 1943.
Hitler liked Wagner´s music. Does this mean it should be banned?


Posted 21 February 2014 - 04:18 PM
OliverDSmith, on 19 February 2014 - 05:25 PM, said:
No scholar or historian considers the Oera Linda Book to be a non-forgery.
That is because too few of them know of its existence and even less take the effort to investigate it themselves, let alone publish about it.

No scholar or historian has disproven its authenticity, that's why I asked:

gestur, on 20 February 2014 - 09:35 AM, said:
Can you find a dito work or source proving it is a forgery?

Posted 21 February 2014 - 04:30 PM
OliverDSmith, on 19 February 2014 - 07:54 PM, said:
Yet no civilization in their ancient Germanic homeland ever appeared, funny that.
I guess you consider as 'civilization' only cultures that built and left big temples and palaces and conquered lots of land and peoples.
Well, that was indeed the opposite of what the (matriarchal) Frya's (or proto-Frisians) were about, according to the OLB.
And there used to be plenty of oakwood here in the fertile and strategic riverdelta of Europe.


Posted 26 February 2014 - 04:19 PM
OliverDSmith, on 18 February 2014 - 03:23 PM, said:
The obvious answer why Oera Linda is a forgery is because this is what the historical method (i.e. source criticism) shows it to be.
What study (of the OLB) were you referring to?


Posted 26 February 2014 - 05:18 PM

Smith used so many fallacies that are commonly used in this debate, that his contributions provide an interesting case study.
Let's analyse what happened.

Source for listed fallacies: http://en.wikipedia....st_of_fallacies

1. I asked why OLB has to be a forgery.

gestur, on 18 February 2014 - 02:40 PM, said:
On your website you wrote (last january 26):
... the Oera Linda Book. Anyone trying to defend this sort of stuff lacks intellectual honesty.
What makes you say this?
How would you defend your conclusion that it must be a forgery?
2. His answer can be summarised as: because no scholar takes it seriously.
OliverDSmith, on 18 February 2014 - 03:23 PM, said:
Oera Linda Book has no academic credibility. Can you find a peer-reviewed work or scholarly source defending it? Otherwise you would need to explain why no historian takes it serious.
> Argumentum ad populum - where a proposition is claimed to be true or good solely because many people believe it to be so.
> argumentum ad antiquitam - a conclusion supported solely because it has long been held to be true.
> argumentum ex silentio - a conclusion based on silence or lack of contrary evidence.

3. To distract from the argument, he attacks his opponent:

OliverDSmith, on 18 February 2014 - 03:46 PM, said:
See how gestur has to invoke those conspiracy theories...
OliverDSmith, on 18 February 2014 - 08:24 PM, said:
How many of the following applies to people who think Oera Linda Book is not a forgery?
treats myths, legends, sagas and similar literature as literal truth
is neither critical nor skeptical [... etc.]
> Argumentum ad hominem - the evasion of the actual topic by directing the attack at your opponent.
> Appeal to ridicule - an argument is made by presenting the opponent's argument in a way that makes it appear ridiculous.

4. Smith goes even further and plays the nazi card:

OliverDSmith, on 19 February 2014 - 05:25 PM, said:
The "OeraLindists" who consider it real are a few neo-Nazi cranks on places like Stormfront, or people who just want to claim it is not a forgery (when it clearly is) to feel special or get attention. I'll put you in the latter camp, however your website quotes Nazis like Herman Wirth etc as evidence, so you could overlap with the former.
> Reductio ad Hitlerum - comparing an opponent or their argument to Hitler or Nazism in an attempt to associate a position with one that is universally reviled.

5. I steered back to the original and most important question:

gestur, on 20 February 2014 - 09:35 AM, said:
OliverDSmith, on 18 February 2014 - 03:23 PM, said:
Can you find a peer-reviewed work or scholarly source defending it?
Can you find a dito work or source proving it is a forgery?
... which he ignored.
And instead more false reasoning:

OliverDSmith, on 20 February 2014 - 04:43 PM, said:
The fact only Nazis took an interest in it and it became "Himmler's Bible" is more than a clue.

Posted 27 February 2014 - 10:33 AM
OliverDSmith, on 26 February 2014 - 07:52 PM, said:
I did not quote individual authorities or appeal to the majority, but the scientific (academic) consensus.
What good is that alleged consensus if there is not a single valid publication proving that OLB can't be authentic?
As long as you fail to refer to any academic source, your claims are empty.

The only people who claim it is, are non-surprisingly pseudo-scientists.
You became a bachelor of arts in 2013 (why are you not busy writing a masters thesis?), I am a master of science since 1996, so following your logic, I have more authority than you.
I know many examples of science being driven (because financed) by political or economic interests, rather than by the desire for truth.

What makes Dr. Ottema and Dr. Wirth (just two examples of OLB advocates from the past) 'pseudo-scientists'?


Posted 27 February 2014 - 11:03 AM
OliverDSmith, on 26 February 2014 - 07:52 PM, said:
The fact the consensus among historians is Oera Linda Book is a forgery - makes it the default position.
Very few historians know of its existence, far less even have studied it themselves, judging the number of publications about it (zero).
So this 'consensus' is rather unfamiliarity.

Your blog doesn't even qualify as research. All you do is try to shift the burden of proof and employ conspiracy theories.
I don't claim that it is. It is merely a scrapbook for myself and whoever is interested.
It contains links, copies of discussions from this forum and others, word- and language-studies, creative experiments and translations into english of relevant dutch sources.

What you labelled a conspiracy theory before, was merely a speculation (that Dr. Verwijs changed his public opinion "probably to save his career").


Posted 27 February 2014 - 11:18 AM
OliverDSmith, on 26 February 2014 - 07:52 PM, said:
The fact I admit I am less knowledgeable or dumb about most other things is precisely why I quote the scientific consensus -- I am quoting the experts. In contrast you think the experts are wrong and you know better than them.
Still waiting for you first expert quote.

I don't claim the experts are wrong.
I claim there are none.

You can save yourself the effort of referring to Dr. Jensma ("The Masked God", 2004). He did not argue why OLB has to be a forgery, but started from the assumption that it is, and speculated about who the creative conspirators might have been. As I show at the end of my one-hour video, at least three experts (professors), did not accept his conclusions. So no consensus there either.


Posted 27 February 2014 - 12:10 PM
OliverDSmith, on 26 February 2014 - 07:52 PM, said:
All I pointed out is that your sources are from Nazis or anti-semites. You don't have one credible source.
You suggest that all my sources are discredited ones, while your only example was Dr. Wirth (1885-1981), who was a co-founder of SS Ahnenerbe (in 1935), but who was also forbidden to teach and publish by the Nazi regime.
Even if he was my only source, the assumption that he was or has been a national socialist or an anti-semite, does not on it self exclude the possibility that some of his claims may have been right or valid.
Also, I can quote someone without agreeing with everything he said. I may even quote him in order to oppose his views.
If you want to accuse me of having made any improper statement in the OLB-debate, then I challenge you to be specific.


Posted 27 February 2014 - 12:51 PM
OliverDSmith, on 26 February 2014 - 07:52 PM, said:
However I should point out that I already showed the anachronistic inconsistencies in the Oera Linda Book which reveal it to be a forgery. For example, if the Oera Linda Book is an ancient document, why does it contain 19th century racial taxonomy?
1. Is this taxonomy from before or after publication of the OLB? "... historian Goffe Jensma claims that the concept of root races was first articulated in the Dutch esotericist book Oera Linda, which was translated into English by William Sandbach in 1876." Source: wiki/Root_race

2. If this taxonomy existed before OLB's publication, this does not prove beyond doubt that OLB has to be fake. The idea of three root races may have existed long before it was written down (again) in the 19th century. It may even have been kept vivid (or revived) by people who had read or heard of some of OLB's content. The great grandfather of Cornelis Over de Linden, Jan OL (c.1718-1794) was a book printer and publisher in Enkhuizen. It is not known (yet) what sort of texts he published in this age that ended with the French Revolution.

As for the supposed historical inconsistencies:
If OLB is authentic, it does not mean that all information in it has to be true facts.
In theory, it could still be 13th century fiction (all or part of it).


Posted 27 February 2014 - 01:04 PM
Once more from your website:
... the Oera Linda Book. Anyone trying to defend this sort of stuff lacks intellectual honesty.
You claim that advocates of OLB's authenticity lack "intellectually honesty", in other words, they are lying.

The terms intellectually dishonest and intellectual dishonesty are often used as rhetorical devices in a debate; the label invariably frames an opponent in a negative light. It is a round about way to say "you're lying".
Source: urbandictionary/Intellectual dishonesty

You will have to present better arguments to support this bold claim.


Posted 27 February 2014 - 05:59 PM
OliverDSmith, on 22 February 2014 - 11:25 PM, said:
The Oera Linda Book isn't even good for toilet paper.
With his almost encyclopedic knowledge of classical literature, Smith may be familiar with the fable of the fox and the grapes by Aesop (c.620-564 BCE):
"The Fox and the Grapes" is one of the traditional Aesop's fables and can be held to illustrate the concept of cognitive dissonance. In this view, the premise of the fox that covets inaccessible grapes is taken to stand for a person who attempts to hold incompatible ideas simultaneously. In that case, the disdain the fox expresses for the grapes at the conclusion to the fable serves at least to diminish the dissonance even if the behaviour in fact remains irrational. Before "cognitive dissonance" was invented there was a moral to the story and the moral was "Any fool can despise what he can not get".
Source: wiki/The_Fox_and_the_Grapes

In this case: "... what he can not fathom."


Posted 27 February 2014 - 07:53 PM
OliverDSmith, on 27 February 2014 - 07:19 PM, said:
The idea of "root races" is traceable to theosophical teaching (again, 19th century).
The Theosophical Society was founded in 1875, three years after the first OLB-translation was published.


Posted 28 February 2014 - 11:00 AM
OliverDSmith, on 27 February 2014 - 08:10 PM, said:
Here's [five] academic sources showing Oera Linda Book is a forgery:
[1] http://www.degruyter...bl.2007.019.xml
[2] http://www.bmgn-lchr...ticle/view/6451
[4] http://onlinelibrary...0375.x/abstract
[5] http://www.karant.pi.../Propaganda.pdf
These sources don't argue why OLB has to be a forgery, they assume it:
1. "How to Deal with Holy Books in an Age of Emerging Science. The Oera Linda Book as a New Age Bible", Goffe Jensma (2008).

This article discusses as the title says, it is not about the question why OLB can't be authentic. It refers to Jensma's PhD thesis "De Gemaskerde God" (2004). This study investigated the theory that OLB was created by Haverschmidt, Verwijs and Over de Linden, assuming - not argueing - that it was fake. Jensmas work did not lead to consensus among the specialists: 

Jensma acquired his PhD with his Haverschmidt-thesis at the faculty of Theology in Groningen, on December 6, 2004.
Three days later the theory was debated in the presence of the following specialists:
- Dr Eric Cossee, professor of Dutch church history
- Dr Marita Mathijsen, professor of Dutch language and literature
- Dr Henk Meijering, emeritus professor Oldfrisian and Oldsaxon 

The next day (Dec. 10) a report appeared in de leading Frisian newspaper (Leeuwarder Courant: "Van het Oera Linda-boek, de Friese kip en de zeespiegel"), which stated:
"Although the speakers without exception praised Jensma's work, he had not been able to convince any of them of his truth that François Haverschmidt is the main author of the Oera Linda-book."
"Emeritus professor Frisian, Henk Meijering, teasingly labelled Jensma's thesis a <scientific novel through which he had acquired his doctorate>."  

2. "Het Oera Linda-boek. Falsificatie of mystificatie?", W. Prevenier (2006)

This article is a review of Jensma's book. As the title says, it deals with the question forgery or hoax, not authentic or forgery/ hoax

3. "The Year's Work in Modern Language Studies", K. Fokkema (1937)

This is not the report of a study, it is a survey of publications.  

4. "'Männerbund' and 'Mutterrecht': Herman Wirth, Sophie Rogge-Börner and the Ura-Linda-Chronik", Peter Davies (2007) 

"This paper explores the ideological complexity of issues connected with matriarchal myth [...] by examining the controversy over the Ura-Linda-Chronik [...]"
Again, this article assumes OLB is forgery, but does not argue why. That is not what the article is about. 

5. "The past as propaganda: totalitarian archaeology in Nazi Germany", Bettina Arnol (1990)

This is not a study of the OLB, but the reference to "Herman Wirth's Ura-Linda-Chronik und die deutschen Vorgeschichtsforscher", K.H. Jacob-Friesen (1934) is interesting. Let's see if we can find that.

~ ~ ~
A note in general:
You keep making the mistake of reasoning like "it is fake because everyone says so" or "... because that has always been known".

These arguments are invalid (argumentum ad populum & ad antiquitam).
The argument you made about 19th century race-taxonomy might have been valid, but I refuted it. 


Posted 28 February 2014 - 11:14 AM
OliverDSmith, on 27 February 2014 - 08:27 PM, said:
... its only supporters were the Nazi "lunatic fringe".
As Abramelin can confirm, that label does not apply to Overwijn and Raubenheimer, to name just two examples.


Posted 28 February 2014 - 11:15 AM
Abramelin, on 27 February 2014 - 11:32 PM, said:
Yes, and Blavatsky visited Belgium a couple of years before. You know, just after the OLB was published.
Indeed, she may have been inspired by it, or by people who were.


On 28 Feb. NO-ID-EA posted about a 'review' by R. Macalister (1941) of the Chronicles of Eri:

the above review is very disappointing... and i was really looking forward to reading it... So that is what a scholarly review looks like? should it not break down the history the writer claims, and show how it is wrong by proofs to the contrary ? ... this is nothing but a rant in flowery language, just full of one mans opinion, so we get told the work was evaluated and found to be a fake by the scholar Macalister... but as per usual the scholar does not have to show his proof, but just make accusations, and allude to the other mans insanity... and that is supposed to be good enough reason to write him and his book off for ever... same old story...

Posted 01 March 2014 - 08:31 AM
Smith seems to think that all scholars are always right, simply because they are scholars. [The ones who are not right - in his opinion - are pseudo-scientists...]
How naive.
The fact that they often strongly disagree with eachother, or later were proven to have been wrong says enough.
Also cases of serious scientific fraud are known, or cases where they are paid to push through a certain opinion (serving political, religious or economic interests).
Alas, for too many 'science' has become like a just another dogmatic religion.


Posted 01 March 2014 - 07:33 PM
OliverDSmith, on 01 March 2014 - 06:55 PM, said:
Re-read what I posted a page or so back. [...] Here's another post that explains:
[...] However, when the majority of the evidence available supports a position, it is reasonable to hold it as a tentative conclusion regardless.
What evidence?!

Re-read my earlier reply:

gestur, on 27 February 2014 - 10:33 AM, said:
What good is that alleged consensus if there is not a single valid publication proving that OLB can't be authentic?

Posted 02 March 2014 - 09:43 AM
OliverDSmith, on 01 March 2014 - 10:58 PM, said:
Well obviously there is evidence, otherwise the academic consensus would not be Oera Linda Book is a forgery.
Then why has none of the self-declared skeptics been able to reproduce this obvious evidence in this (two part) thread?
And why do you need demagoguery to make your point?

OliverDSmith, on 22 February 2014 - 11:25 PM, said:
The Oera Linda Book isn't even good for toilet paper.
OliverDSmith, on 27 February 2014 - 08:27 PM, said:
... its only supporters were the Nazi "lunatic fringe".
OliverDSmith, on 18 February 2014 - 03:36 PM, said:
You're only left with crazy conspiracy theories.

Posted 02 March 2014 - 04:14 PM
OliverDSmith, on 01 March 2014 - 10:58 PM, said:
What you're doing is the equivalent of me asking you to disprove there is a pink unicorn somewhere in space. It is faulty logic.
No, this simile is invalid.
Our discussion started with you claiming (last Jan. 6th on your website) that anyone who defends the OLB "lacks intellectual honesty", in other words: ... is lying.
I asked you to explain why and your answer seems to be: because they challenge the academic consensus.
I hope you will agree that it has happened more often that what was once consensus, changed later, after it was at some point challenged. I recommend you read "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" (Kuhn, 1962). Those who challenge an existing paradigm are not by definition liars.
Unless you are paranoid, you can not simply accuse a fellow man of lying and demand of him to prove that he is not.
You will have to provide better arguments.


Posted 03 March 2014 - 09:12 AM
You make a big effort to distract from the main question, because you have no good answer to it.
I asked:

gestur, on 02 March 2014 - 09:43 AM, said:
Then why has none of the self-declared skeptics been able to reproduce this obvious evidence in this (two part) thread?
Your answer:
OliverDSmith, on 02 March 2014 - 09:07 PM, said:
We don't need to produce evidence.
Indeed, but that's not what I asked.
I asked why you can't RE-produce or refer to any evidence.


NO-ID-EA, on 03 March 2014 - 09:15 AM, said:

Why don't the authorities do the appropriate modern tests on the paper on which the OBL is written? i find it hard to believe they have not done that already, so why do they not publish their findings, why keep that piece of invaluable information to themselves? knowing if the paper is 13th Century paper, or 19th Century paper would answer a lot of questions [...]


Posted 03 March 2014 - 11:56 AM
NO-ID-EA, on 03 March 2014 - 09:15 AM, said:
I am still left wondering if O'Connors work was demonized because he was seen as a political enemy of both the Irish, and British Government around the time of it's publication, rather than what he wrote of the history of Eri, because the 1941 review is either just a rant by Macalister, or if he has the proof, in his arrogance he feels he does not need to inform us, which is it??
I think these verses from the Old Testament (Deuteronomy 12, 2-3 - King James Bible) speak volumes:
Ye shall utterly destroy all the places, wherein the nations which ye shall possess served their gods, upon the high mountains, and upon the hills, and under every green tree: And ye shall overthrow their altars, and break their pillars, and burn their groves with fire; and ye shall hew down the graven images of their gods, and destroy the names of them out of that place.

Posted 03 March 2014 - 03:43 PM
The Puzzler, on 03 March 2014 - 02:24 PM, said:
The most important clue given by Homer is the cremation of Achilles, Patroclus and Hector, whose ashes were collected in golden urns. [...] But cremation was a typical Celtic custom that was not shared by other peoples in Europe at the time.


Posted 04 March 2014 - 07:46 AM
OliverDSmith, on 03 March 2014 - 11:23 PM, said:
Gestur dismisses scholarly literature as part of a conspiracy theory that academia is run by Jews...
Where did I say or suggest that?
... the opponents he debates he dismisses if they have a Jewish username or surname (see how he treated the poster Abremlin).
I did not.
Someone else in that thread made fun of him and he asked for it. You totally missed the point.
But with all this you succesfully distracted from the main question:
Why is it so obvious that OLB is fake?
What is the alleged obvious evidence?


Posted 04 March 2014 - 08:41 AM
OliverDSmith, on 03 March 2014 - 07:43 PM, said:
But why believe in stuff that is completely false?
I could ask you the same.


Posted 05 March 2014 - 08:56 AM
OliverDSmith, on 03 March 2014 - 05:24 PM, said:
Why would the Iliad and Odyssey be written in Greek, thousands of miles away and not British Celtic in Britain?
Why would these films have been made in English, the current lingua franca?
Posted Image

Posted 06 March 2014 - 10:05 AM
NO-ID-EA, on 23 February 2014 - 11:54 AM, said:
Chronicles of Eri is another book that has been claimed to be a forgery, not "proved" to be a forgery ...
I started reading and, after 44 pages of introduction, am already hooked.
Most fascinating and providing many possible missing clues.
Thanks for the tip, No-Id-Ea!

Links to downloadable PDFs of the two parts (both 500+ pages):

part 1
part 2

Some memorable fragments (my underlining):

p. xxxiv

This captivating mode of recording the past, prevailed in Greece, nearly till Herodotus made his appearance. Hath Herodotus been honored with the title of "Father of history?" The glory hath been tarnished by the foul addition of "Shade between fact and fiction," both epithets bestowed in days of faint and glimmering beams of intellectual light, succeeding dreary ages of profound darkness, wherein, with a beastly submission, men suffered their understandings to be shrouded by the stupifying power of priestcraft, which cherished ignorance, the guarantee of its dominion, and detested knowledge, the foe to its various frauds, gloomy debaucheries, inhuman cruelties and manifold enormities, when a slight acquaintance with the language in which Greeks and Romans spoke and wrote, was accepted for wisdom, and travel and learning were held to be synonimous.
p. xl
Such is the history of Herodotus, wherefrom, in my judgment, is only to be inferred that he knew nothing of the subject, insomuch that one is almost tempted to accord with the censures of Josephus, in his reply to Apion, wherein speaking of the Greek historians he says, "that those most zealous to compose history were not so solicitous for the discovery of truth, altho' it was very easy for them to always make a profession of it, as to demonstrate that they could write well."

Posted 06 March 2014 - 10:27 AM
Alewyn Raubenheimer has, in his book and in this thread, argued that Phrygians may have been Fryans and that the Faroe Islands may be the remains of Frisland.

I found something that may be of interest.

This is the so-called Phrygian cap:
"The Phrygian cap is a soft conical cap with the top pulled forward, associated in antiquity with the inhabitants of Phrygia, a region of central Anatolia." Posted Image
(Paris of Troy wearing a Phrygian cap)

And this is the cap of a Faröese boatman: Posted Image
Source: Pen and pencil sketches of Faröe and Iceland. (1862) p.28 


Van Gorp posted:
Mitra also
Posted Image 
One of the symbols associated with Mithras was the Phrygian cap which symbolised freedom and the pursuit of liberty.

If we should somehow consider the possibilty of a link between OLB's Frya's people, the Frisii, Vriezen and Phrygian cap:
it can than be considered to be in the words also:

Vriezen can then be interpreted as OLB describes Frya's people: those who are free (not enslaved by others or creeds, live freely).

De Vriezen = Die Vry Zyn
Fryas = Free's
Phrygian hat as symbol for liberty

Vrie = Vry = Phry = Fry = Free


Posted 11 March 2014, 09:06 AM
NO-ID-EA, on 09 March 2014 - 07:34 PM, said:
... what are your thoughts Gestur... [on Atlantis]
On 26 Dec. 2010, I said:

My feeling about "Atlantis" is this:
If, as OLB suggests, Atlant comes from ALD-LAND, meaning old land, than it would probably not have been called that before the 'big flood' and it can refer to any land that was lost in the 'big flood', so it does not need to have been the name of just one specific island or continent.

As for the old Frya's land...

I have the feeling that Alewyn's Frisland theory points in the right direction [FRISLAND, of which the Faröe Islands would be the remains].
(chapter 8, Survivors of the Great Tsunami)
And last October:

gestur, on 28 October 2013 - 08:24 AM, said:
The ode to Frya ends with the land where she lived sinking and everything being lost, the people fled and resettled and named the land Texland. Therefore - although in one text it is suggested that (an) "Aldland" had been in the east - it is more likely that the Fryan calendar was named after the "old land" somewhere northly of our current Texel (between England, Holland, Denmark and Norway).
(Sandbach p.19) ... Frya! The land from which she had risen was now a stream...
If indeed a huge tsunami (caused by a a major electric discharge) was the cause, whole coastal areas will have been swept away.
IMO "old land" is just a way of referring to the "old (lost) world" from before a global disaster.
It may not have meant exactly the same (pointed to the same geographical location) for everyone.


Posted 11 March 2014, 09:15 AM
Van Gorp, on 06 March 2014 - 09:09 PM, said:
... as OLB describes Frya's people: those who are free (not enslaved by others or creeds, live freely).
And because the struggle between people who want to be free and others who want to enslave/ dominate them is very old, OLB can be interpreted as referring to various revolutions in which this was a theme:
- Abramelin thinks it is about the French revolution (end of 18th century)
- Jensma thinks it is about orthodox versus more liberal (free thinkers) protestantism (mid 19th century)
(I think it is what it says it is)


Posted 11 March 2014, 09:33 AM
This study (brand new video) may be extremely important in understanding the origin of the solar wheel (or Jol, Yule) symbol:

03 March 2014

"Think for yourself" ~ others discussing OLB

On another website (Cipher Mysteries) I found an interesting discussion (2009-2012) about the OLB. 

Specially the last contribution by Kingq is a smasher.

Nick Pelling (April 7, 2009):
I think you can split historical revisionists into two broad camps: (a) desperate mainstream historians looking outwards to fringe subjects for a reputation-making cash-cow book; and (b) clever writers on the fringes who appropriate the tropes and tools of history to construct a kind of literary outsider art that is (almost) indistinguishable from history. That is, revisionism is a church broad enough to cover both historians posing as outsiders and outsiders posing as historians.
[...] a resoundingly 19th century hoax, the Frisian Oera Linda Book (...). This describes all kinds of odd things (such as “Atland”, a 17th century revisionist Atlantis), and claims to have been written in 1256, [...]
 Alan Kenworthy (February 14, 2011):
Your definition of historical revisionism is inadequate and in general your writing is self-indulgent, superficial, show-off, and designed to show how clever you are. You say it is difficult to prove a hoax, yet you find it easy to dismiss the Oera Linda Book. You picked a bad example there, because the more you read the Oera Linda Book the more you realise that it is a genuine history with dates, separate from and starting earlier than the Classical tradition, which begins with mythology. It is just the earliest European written history and should be compulsory in schools throughout Europe. Let me guess: you haven’t read it, or, if you tried, you found it difficult to judge because you don’t have enough knowledge of the Classical tradition, so, ignorance being bliss, you blithely dismiss it with a sneer.
Presumably you would sneer at Schliemann as revisionist, as did the scholars and historians in their libraries whose descendants in modern times have rejected the common sense of Tim Severin on Odysseus and James Mavor on Atlantis. You obviously go along with Hilaire Belloc’s ”Oh let us never doubt what nobody is sure about”, but in the end if you are at all interested in history you will have to look hard and with common sense, at evidence. And beware of insulting revisionists: Arthur Evans got it badly wrong at Knossos by imposing Victorian monarchist values onto his archaeology of a gloomy burial ground and mausoleum. Revisionism is a necessary process.
Nick Pelling (February 14, 2011):
[...] I did take the time to read plenty (and think plenty) about the Oera Linda Book before I put a single finger to key, and I stand by every damn word I wrote. Revisionism is necessary, sure – but that doesn’t mean you have to accept every foolish thing written as true. And the OLB is – plain as day – not true.
Alan Kenworthy (February 19, 2011):
Ah, Nick, I can’t convince you, can I? I feel like Whistler when he told the judge he could never convince him of the artistic merit of any work of art. I notice that those dismissing this book don’t want to look at the detail in it, whereas those who see it as genuine do look, and find a lot of evidence which is inescapable, especially the parts which were later proved true by archaeology (eg Troy, and the Lake Dwellers, which were unknown in 1850.) I get the impression that the book has been used (by Himmler and co, the neo-nasties), and abused (by the Dutch, who find it easy to belittle the Friesians whom they regard as country bumpkins and inferior), but is it read for what it is? The devil is in the detail, unfortunately, and it is the detail in it that remains and can be corroborated, provided modern religion and politics take a back seat. What is difficult to swallow, I admit, is the idea that continuous prose narrative was written by individuals so long ago, at a time when all other civilisations relied on ancestor worship, deification of leaders, and speaking to gods to guide their decisions and had no prose writing. In Greek history some time later, rational thought took over from “hearing voices“ and led to Thucydides in a dramatically short time. But the Friesians had Runic script and did not rely on revealed truth, only their own realism and simple democratic rules, which were written in stone at first. (Have you read Julian Jaynes book, The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind?) For me the important question is not whether the Friesians wrote rationally, but what led them to it so early?
Nick Pelling (February 19, 2011):
[...] What I find particularly glorious about the Oera Linda book is the sheer scale of its ambition, the historical sweep of its pen: such a shame it’s all made up, but there you go, it is what it is.
Alan Kenworthy (February 24, 2011):
Nick, I know you’re after entertainment rather than establishing any truth, but please at least keep an open mind [...]
Nick Pelling (February 24, 2011):
[...] Even so, it’s still a load of vaguely syncretic nonsense, regardless of whoever was foolish enough to write it.
Kingq (June 15, 2012):
Every adult human on this planet needs some extensive time off. Enough to get really bored and start thinking for themselves critically and questioning everything. For me it was being laid off and jobless for six months in my 30s. I finally started thinking for myself and realized that things are not right. People know that politicians and the media are liars, but they still take them at their word, even I did. Why? That’s nothing compared to the deceptive tactics uses by literally everybody in a position of power, especially academics.

The whole thing is run by group-thinking sociopaths who are biased toward certain POVs and use manipulative rhetoric and sophistry to deceive us into believing them. Or all the politically-motivated junk scientists who are paid to research dead ends. Consensus-based theoretical science doesn’t use the scientific method. It uses a closed system of half-truths based on alternative literal definitions of words like a lawyer or a commission salesman (think back to Bill Clinton’s “I did not have *sexual relations” comment which interpreted *sexual relations to exclude head. Those are their tricks.). You can’t prove them wrong but you can’t prove them right. If you disagree with the group, your career is over. What does that have to do with the Oera Linda Book? These sociopaths call any discoveries that challenge their established consensus a hoax. Just keep in mind who these people work for. Ever since the 17th century, bankers have used revolution and warfare to take control of the world and they remain in control today using manipulative tactics and the power that comes along with being the money supply to keep things that way.

Pre-Columbian European artifacts in America? A hoax they say. Everything is a hoax they don’t like. On the surface, the OLB is harmless. Just like the underwater Yonaguni complex. The latter is an excellent example of their deception. Mainstream archaeology wants Yonaguni to be a natural structure. One of the only reknowned archeologists to study the site said it was definitely carved by man from a natural structure. The wikipedia article quotes him out of context as proof that it’s natural and that’s not what he said. What is the harm in it being man-made and underwater? It makes no sense to shun this. Nobody would care, which to me indicates these people are threatened by it being artificial. They wouldn’t lie otherwise.

So back to the OLB, if you do your homework you’ll see that Frisians had a colony long abandoned on the Faroe Islands. You got the Zeno brothers Frisland on Mercator’s map that doesn’t exist (flooded?). The Frisians/ Jutes/ Anglos/ Saxons all have mysterious and disputed origins. There are myths and facts in books like the Irish book of invasions that are also similar to the OLB. Contrary to sociopathic consensus, the Atlantis myth is older than Plato and in Egyptian sources as the Western Land with similar mythology.

If I said the bible was a hoax with almost no archeological evidence to support it, a hoax used as a control method, some rational folks would probably support me. But bible believers would get offended. Why this irrational drive to make the OLB a hoax based on no evidence? Is the sociopathic establishment afraid of something? Why is anti-white racism exceptable if the whole idea is to eliminate racism? Why are all these kooks spreading lies about RH–[negative] blood as ‘reptillian’? Why are Nordic people and Vikings being demonized as historic Barbarians? Why is European history being re-written all the time to talk down our memory?

That they want the OLB to be a hoax is all the proof you need to realize it isn’t one. It’s important. It deserves attention. They’re talking down our history and our memory in favor of a lie used for who-knows-what. We need to snap out of this collective amnesia. Remember who we are and where we came from. And how did we let this merchant caste/ class come to rule us and re-write our history? Even in the mid 20th century our knowledge of history was so much greater than it is today.

Think for yourself, ask rational and critical questions. Avoid their rhetorical and emotive tricks and smears.