Three hoax-arguments refuted

Someone on Twitter claimed that Oera Linda had been proven to be a 19th century forgery, because

The paper it's been written on was manufactured in 1850, the OLB-language is 19th century-ish and there are witnesses who heard the three men (HaverSchmidt, Verwijs and, obviously Over de Linden) laughing while producing the work.

These three assumed reasons why Oera Linda would be fake will be refuted below:

1. Its paper was manufactured in 1850
2. Its language is 19th century-ish
3. Witnesses heard the three alleged creators laugh while producing the work

1. Paper argument

An apparently ambitious investigation (2006-2011) by a paper-research team, assisted by 7 specialists from various institutions (Tresoar, RUG/KNAW, NFI, RCE, the National Archives and a paper analysis lab) did not lead to publication of final results, as had been announced.

Beforehand they had assumed Jensma was right and that the paper had to be from the 19th century, as that would have been established in 1870s. But the 1870s waterlines argument from that claim was invalid, as medieval Spanish-Arab paper has them too.

And even if the paper would be modern, its content can still be authentic.

Details in blog post The Oera Linda paper research fail (Sept. 2018).

2. Language argument

Linguist Verwijs wrote to board member Winkler that some parts were easy to translate, but others not at all. This also applies to the well-known Old Frisian texts.

One of the few Old Frisian experts at the time (besides Ottema) De Haan Hettema judged that the Frisian spelling was “much more in line with the older and very regular”. He made no distinction between Old Frisian and Rural or Farmers’ Frisian.

Details in Dutch language article Vermeend moderne zinsbouw (Dec. 2022)

3. Witnesses argument

It concerns a third-hand (!) statement, dated 1965 (!), from the housemate of the widow of a grandson of Cornelis Over de Linden (DGG* p. 161). The memories of the grandson are said to date from the summer of 1869: 100 years before the statement.

*DGG: ‘De Gemaskerde God’, Jensma 2004

Verwijs already asked the Provincial Executive for permission to purchase the manuscript in 1867. If someone had insisted on seeing it then, it would not have been ready yet (if witness acc. is correct). Verwijs could not have taken such a risk (if he was co-creator).

There is, among other witness accounts, a first-hand statement from a naval officer who confirms that he had heard about the manuscript as early as 1854, but according to Jensma he must be a liar and participant in the conspiracy. (DGG p. 243).

That's how selective one can be in taking witness accounts seriously.

Compare Jenma's bizarre ‘witness accounts’ about Ottema's alleged suicide motive, recently proven to be a malicious lie (he died of pneumonia):