Questioning the Atland timeline

[Coco]

The spelling "Jessos" is an Ottema invention, as evidenced by the manuscript's spelling of the name as JES.US.

The year 594 BCE corresponds closely with Blavatsky's dating of Buddha's enlightenment to 592 BCE. The Theosophical Glossary, a reference work compiled by Blavatsky, offers the following clarification (emphasis mine):

Buddha Gautama, the fourth of the Sapta (Seven) Buddhas and Sapta Tathâgatas was born according to Chinese Chronology in 1024 BC; but according to the Singhalese chronicles, on the 8th day of the second (or fourth) moon in the year 621 before our era. He fled from his father’s palace to become an ascetic on the night of the 8th day of the second moon, 597 BC, and having passed six years in ascetic meditation at Gaya, and perceiving that physical self‐torture was useless to bring enlightenment, be decided upon striking out a new path, until he reached the state of Bodhi. He became a full Buddha on the night of the 8th day of the twelfth moon, in the year 592, and finally entered Nirvâna in the year 543 according to Southern Buddhism. The Orientalists, however, have decided upon several other dates.

According to OLB chapter 136.08, Jesus/Buda's birth occurred in the year 594 BCE (1600 years after Aldland sank), rather than his attainment of enlightenment. This suggests the possibility that the Fryas intended to indicate that the collective events transpired around that period, a notion that is further substantiated by the rounded nature of 1600. It is noteworthy that an analogous tradition has been transmitted in both India and Europe concurrently, thus offering a plausible explanation for the recurrence of the years 592/594 BCE in two distinct narratives concerning the same individual.

[Wil Helm]

According to OLB chapter 136.08, Jesus/Buda's birth occurred in the year 594 BCE (1600 years after Aldland sank), rather than his attainment of enlightenment. This suggests the possibility that the Fryas intended to indicate that the collective events transpired around that period, a notion that is further substantiated by the rounded nature of 1600. It is noteworthy that an analogous tradition has been transmitted in both India and Europe concurrently, thus offering a plausible explanation for the recurrence of the years 592/594 BCE in two distinct narratives concerning the same individual.

True.
Do be complete there are 2 dates of birth mentionned in some sources at once: 623 BC AND 563 BC.
593 BC is exactly 30 years in the middle. With 593 BC following OLB this is remarkable when many agree Budha got enlightend around 30 years of age. So some confusion about 30 years in the min or plus around 593 BC. Idd, not pinpointing here for 1 year about year zero.

"According to Buddhist tradition, Queen Mahamayadevi gave birth to Siddhartha Gautam in 623 BC. Gautam, who achieved Enlightenment and became the Lord Buddha and founded Buddhism. There are over 25 Buddhist monasteries in the area. People study Buddhism, meditate and visit the birthplace within the sacred Mayadevi Gardens.
Mayadevi Temple:

Mayadevi Temple (Source: The History Hub)

Maya Devi Temple is an ancient Buddhist temple which is at the UNESCO World Heritage Site of Lumbini, Nepal. It is the main temple at Lumbini, The spiritual heart of Lumbini, the Maya Devi Temple marks the spot where Queen Maya Devi gave birth to Siddhartha Gautama in around 563 BC."

https://mahaguthi.com.np/lumbini-the-bi ... am-buddha/
Lumbini is not Kashmir though. Some striking year similarities, location is not.

I still find adding 593 to 1256 confusing. ... Ultimately it is an error.

It is difficult to grasp, but I wouldn't call it an error.
Maybe try to look it this way:
Bottom line is, that if we assume our modern timeline AD is 593 years too long.
What year "true AD, after Jesus" were we in in our modern year 1848/1849?
Nothing more, nothing less. But is 1256 years after Jesus.
I think it is an error to assume that 593 BC (following our prolongued timeline) can be looked at as the true date of Jesus.
That would mean he lived even 2617 years before now. That is a double extension of the true timespan from now.
If we assume there are some phantom years in our timeline after AD, Jesus lived shorter from us than 2024 years as we assume now. Not more by saying the true date of Jesus is 2617 years before us (593 BC modern timeline).
I think this will stay prone for discussion, but i understand the twist needed to follow, so i understand your sceptism.

[Coco]

A fresh perspective on the prefaces of Liko and Hidde: Initially, Liko's letter lacked a date. The letter was composed by Liko in his advanced years, subsequent to his observation of the outcome of the Frankish-Frisian wars, which concluded with a Frankish victory in 772 AD. Given this context, the focus on priests rather than a looming army becomes more understandable, as the war had already come to an end.

Consequently, it was Hidde who dated both letters. Hidde's approach involved the utilization of the Frisian Volksalmanak, in any form it might have been available at the time, along with the church's Anno Domini year, to determine the date of his own letter. Subsequently, he estimated the date of Liko's letter by examining the extant historical sources he could find, including his family tree, and added it to the letter. This meticulous approach is the reason for the precision in Hidde's dates and the absence of an Aldland date in Liko's letter. Hidde deemed it unnecessary to include an Aldland date in the latter, as doing so would have necessitated the redundant use of additional ink.

The flood to which Hidde refers is the flood of 1248-1249, which impacted the provinces of North Holland, Friesland, and Groningen. Hidde's letter was composed in Leeuwarden following his escape, indicating that his family resided in proximity to the coast or on an island and sought refuge in Leeuwarden, which was equipped with superior defenses against floods, including terps.

Hidde's letter is dated VRLÉDEN JÉR. In the Scandinavian languages, "forleden" signifies "recent," akin to the English term "yesteryear," which can denote either a recent year or the previous year. Thus, it is possible that Hidde's intention was to convey the meaning of "in the year that recently passed." One can conceptualize a timeline as such:

• 1248 to 1249: The Oera Linda family, residing in proximity to the coast or on one of the islands, successfully evacuates and takes refuge in Leeuwarden (LJÛWERT).
• 1249 to 1256: Hidde spends seven years meticulously creating a new copy of the Oera Linda Book.
• 1256: In his advanced years, as a component of his preparations for his final will, he authors a letter as a preface to his son, Okke. While Liko's objective was to caution his contemporaries, Hidde's aim is to ensure the preservation of his work for posterity. Consequently, he invested significant effort in accurately dating both his own letter and Liko's letter.

[Wil Helm]

To complete my line of thought, I think the result of assumingly having the same event occuring on 2 different points in time due to, let's say, "wrong interpretation" is a doubled prolonguation of the "real" timeline. Because the years "before" in the latter are also misplaced in the former. When we double 592 (or 593) we get 1184 (or 1186). It is that year 1185 AD which Fomenko pinpoint as date of crucifiction of Jesus. Again with the 30 years lap, he places birth 30 years aerlier in 1152. I leave out the person he describes it to, just as the location of Budha in Kashmir/Lumbini this does not correspond, I'm looking at the era. How amazing the offset of a same event can have repercussions on the used timeline when you take these figures and the analysis of Fomenko. I don't dare to state I understand this fully, but the coincidence is there.

[Coco]

It is my position that two interpretations are possible.

The first interpretation is that we shift recent years backwards:

• 1256−3449−1=2194 BCE: Aldland is submerged
• 2194−1600=594 BCE: Real Jesus/Buda (Buddha Gautama)
• 2194−1602−2=590 BCE: Frana's death
• 2194−1888=306 BCE: Frethorik
• 1 CE: Fake Jesus/Buda (Jesus of Nazareth)
• 230s CE: Tenth Century Collapse
  Dates after the Tenth Century Collapse are subtracted by 592~700 years:
• 803−594=209 CE?: Liko's letter. Date uncertain because 803 is between 230~930 CE.
• 1256−594=662 CE: Hidde's letter
• 1848−594=1254 CE: Cornelis inherits the Oera Linda Book
• 2024−594=1430 CE: Current year

Or we shift old years forwards:

• 2194−594=1600 BCE: Aldland is submerged
• 594−594−1=1 CE: Real Jesus/Buda (Buddha Gautama)
• 590−594−1=5 CE: Frana's death
• 306−594−1=289 CE: Frethorik
• 1+594=595 CE: Fake Jesus/Buda (Jesus of Nazareth)
  Dates after the Tenth Century Collapse are intact:
• 803 CE?: Liko's letter. Date uncertain because it is between 230~930 CE.
• 930s CE: Tenth Century Collapse
• 1256 CE: Hidde's letter
• 1848 CE: Cornelis inherits the OLB
• 2024 CE: Current year

The presentation is simplistic; some geographical regions are only misdated by approximately 300 years relative to the Tenth Century Collapse, while others are misdated by approximately 0. It is conceivable that Jesus of Nazareth was a real person who shared the name with the earlier figure known as Jesus/Buda. However, the numerous parallels between the two figures are too substantial to be explained by mere coincidence. Moreover, the historical sources available on specifically Jesus of Nazareth are considered questionable. Consequently, I hypothesize that Jesus of Nazareth is a fictional double invented by the Church in tandem with the creation of Anno Domini, possibly to substantiate the Armageddon 1000-year prophecy (his "Second Coming"). Guyénot has documented how forgery by the Church is the norm rather than the exception.

I am unable to take the majority of Fomenko's work seriously due to his excessive and absurd cherry-picking of evidence, which results in the drawing of implausible conclusions. Conventionally, historians endeavor to align event dates with other documented historical sources, which are already dated in Anno Domini, and they have largely accomplished this task effectively. However, the period spanning from 230 to 930 CE is muddy, a finding that emerged from Heinsohn's analysis of sediment layers.

[Coco]

Raubenheimer's research draws upon sources that corroborate the accuracy of Frethorik's account of widespread destruction in 306 BCE attributed to natural forces. Strabo, a Greek historian who lived 300 years later, provides an account of the Cimbri, the Roman appellation for the Jutes, in his work Geography:

As for the Cimbri, some things that are told about them are incorrect and others are extremely improbable. For instance, one could not accept such a reason for their having become a wandering and piratical folk as this—that while they were dwelling on a peninsula they were driven out of their habitations by a great flood-tide.

Thus, the onset of the Viking age was earlier than the conventional date of 793 CE, when the abbey at Lindisfarne was raided. This discrepancy may be attributed, in part, to the inclusion of phantom years. The peninsula in question was Jutland, as described in the OLB ch. 145.25, which also details how the Danes turned to piracy following the natural disaster.

Raubenheimer makes reference to the Manhattan Tsunami, which occurred around 300 BCE and was documented in a New York Times article. The cause of this tsunami in Manhattan was also the catalyst for the calamity that Frethorik had previously recorded. Raubenheimer's analysis also encompasses a comprehensive review of scientific articles and historical sources focusing on a significant catastrophe around 2194 BCE, referred to as the 4.2 ka event. In conclusion, it can be asserted that the dates provided by Hidde and Frethorik, as well as the dates of Jesus/Buda and 2194 BCE, are reliable.

[Wil Helm]

A critical evaluation of Fomenko's work reveals a tendency to selectively cite sources and draw conclusions that are absurd.

As i read again that post, you were the one bringing up Fomenko?
That said, damn interesting posts there, allready forgot i did

[Nordic]

I take the 4.2 kiloyear chronology in OL as written: Christian reference in the letters, confused Buddhist reference in the Jesus episode. That Sumerian King List and Old Testament more or less put the same characters at about 2000 BC cements this to my mind. Alternatively, if there was an error it had to be in all three: Frisian, Sumerian and Biblical. A textual case can be made that Bible (OT+NT) was written in the early AD era (beginning Genesis of OT mirroring end Revelation of NT; OT book of Job sons of God mirroring NT Revelation Jesus).

Mathematically the exact date is 2194 BC, not 2193 or 2192. Based in the latest OL paper test, the manuscript does not mention the latest copier or copy date and the AD 1200s is thus the last time the narrative changed in the book (other than the missing pages errors, which could have taken place later).

Dela Hellenia prophecy of OL MS 141 seems real to me, with an error of 1 year (official end of British slavery in 1807 vs 1806). Still absolute astounding by any rv or seer standards (that usually have better accuracy of up to ~50 years). A naysayer could say it was put into the text by clever forger after the fact a la constantly updated Hindu works. That forgery, if true, would be a neat one. An argument against it is the fact that the mid-1800s Dutch in possession of the manuscript seem to have been mystified by it, further underlining who in ~1807 could have forged that detail only to have been missed by his near contemporaries.

[ott]

I'll just post this image to clarify my theory for now, made after a Dutch version as used in a recent interview.
(hidden test version of subtitled fragment)
There will be much more to add later, when I find the time and patience.

timelineOL.jpg (521.79 KiB) Viewed 323 times

[Coco]

In order to solve the chronology mystery, it is also necessary to take into account the Bronze Age Collapse. In a previous post, Kraftr linked to a video in which David Rohl presents his theory regarding the 300 phantom years that led to the formation of the so-called "Greek dark ages."

Is the Bronze Age Collapse Wrong? ~ Dr. David Rohl