The Oera Linda Forum

''The origin of the Huns and their relationship to other peoples identified in ancient sources as Iranian Huns such as the Xionites, the Alchon Huns, the Kidarites, the Hephthalites, the Nezaks, and the Huna, has been the subject of long-term scholarly controversy.''
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_the_Huns

''It's like people hear about Genghis Khan and think there was nothing before him and mongols.'' - Comment by a deleted account, Reddit
https://www.reddit.com/r/etymology/comm ... e_han_and/

Hello everyone. Now when my job streak is nearly over, I want to bring attention to one thing that has been on my mind for a long time. As those who have read my (loooong) introduction (viewtopic.php?t=8) and are aware of my main focus, there is one thing above other historical matters which hasn't had the attention it deserves. Before going any further, I want to ask straight away from those who have been digging about the subject I'm going through after, because I myself have been to busy with other things. Two questions:
#1: Are there any worthy studies regarding Hungarian history? Please recommend me some if you have looked into some.
#2: Do you know any books about Huns and/or Chinese history worth reading?Are you familiar of other writings similar to the production by Albert Terrien de Lacouperie? Please recommend me some.

Like the title suggests, I'm sharing my confusion about the blank concerning the contact of Europe and far East, but for now mainly relying to Wikipedia, because my attention is also drawn to its curious attitude to the whole subject. While I became aware of this one thing through mr. Ott sharing knowledge about this in web, I'm also mentioning the lecture ''Catastrophe & Chronology'' by Gunnar Heinsohn (See it here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=nhh6GNhPknU), for the following thing and this one are propably(?) heavily affiliated with each other.

I'm going to build upon this subject very soon, because the Chinese history (what we are led to believe in this day and age), in itself, has some points here and there that put ephasis why the subject I'm going through might be very important.

I'm indeed heavily interested in Bock saga and been looking into it for couple of years for now, so while digging into this following subject, it would be dishonest of me not stating my agenda. This is my view at this moment, and it may change, but for now:

OL shows hints that Bock saga's story about 3 arctic races is indeed correct. In OL: Finns (''Finland'' not mentioned), FINNA HÉTEN, Sven-land, SKÉN.LAND and DÉNNEMARKUM, Danmark. If Fryas are an off-shoot of the folk of Danmark, for there's only slight implying it being so if not only very subjective possibility made in translation and at least no mention when this off-shoot happened, but other than that there's actually no confusion regarding these similarities in mythology, as far as I have been reading.

The OL mentions that Magyars and Finns are a separate folk, but if this is so, there comes a very heavy question at play, that Asha Logos has already brought to our attention, who were the Magyars? Norse Edda talks about a war between Æsir and Vanir, that could possibly refer to the war between white aser-vaners and dark vaners mentioned in the Bock saga (I think it is mentioned in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QP3zGCJdCrQ&t=1127s) after the 2nd Ragnarök, which in this context has to be Finns vs. Piking-people, which resulted as Mongol people. The confusion shows itself when we look into the attitudes of the mainstream academia saying that ''Huns'' came, compared to a time thousands years ago, much much later, if we are to bring up the fact that how much devastation the caused.

Concerning Bock saga; It's just a guess, but because in both Bock saga and OL the women were the handlers of the education (in Bock saga, women understood the Mis-steries, men, His-stories), the aim of the Magyars was most likely to displace the female idols (that meaning, Svan, Ella and Maj) with themselves, stealing their knowledge and status and make them work for the Magyars (See [OL 35 and 38]). If this was the case, similarities between the culture of Bock saga and the Magyars should be observed this point in mind. The name ''Magus'' (MAGÍ) is fairly similar with Maj, the female ''virgin'' aser idol for the vaner.

Also note: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magister_militum

Lets start by quoting the latest english translation of OL with highlighted litteration of the codex:

[OL 51]

1. THAT FOLK NAS NAVT NE WILD LIK FÉLO SLACHTA FINDA.S ...
THA PRESTERA SEND THA EN’GOSTA HÉRA HJA HÉTON HJARA SELVA MÁGJARA.
This folk was not wild like many of Finda’s tribes, ...
The priests are the only masters — they call themselves Magyars. ...

2. HJARA ALLER OVIRSTE HÉT MAGÍ.
The supreme one is called Magus. ...

3. ALLET ÔRE FOLK IS NUL IN.T SIFFER ÀND ÉLLIK ÀND AL VNDER HJARA WELD.
THÀT FOLK NETH NAVT ÉNIS EN NÔME. THRVCH VS SEND HJA FINNA HÉTEN
All other folk count for nothing and are entirely under their rule.
They do not even have a name(?), but we call them Finns, ...

Please note:
''These Majgars are a type of the Turks. Their leader rides out with 20,000 warriors. This leader they call künde [kende]. This is the title of the greater of their kings. That leader who appoints the functionaries they call jula [jole]. What the jula commands, the Majgars do.'' (F)inna, Julla?
— Gardizi, 11th-century Persian historian
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gyula_(ti ... th_century

There is ''this folk'', priests - Magyars (1.), leader of Magyars - Magus (2.), and then there are ''all other folk'' - including Finns (3.), that are under ''their'' rule - those who call themselves Magyars (1.). Please note that Finns are called ''other folk'' (3.), and Magyars are refered as Finda's tribe (1.), being separate folks; it is not specified, but could it be that the connection between Fryas and Finns is still an open question? Please note, that Magyars are noted being unlike other tribes of Finda (1.), so this means that the the concept of priests are not synonymous with Magyars. Still, not much is explained further about Finns, even though the matter of priests is in itself likewise an open question also:

[OL 51] THAT FOLK NAS NAVT NE WILD LIK FÉLO SLACHTA FINDA.S MEN É.LIK ANDA ÉGIPTA.LANDAR. HJA HÀVATH PRESTERA LIK THAM.
This folk was not wild like many of Finda’s tribes, but similar to the Egyptians. They have priests like them, ...

[OL 60] THA GOLA. ALSA HÉTON THA SÀNDALINGA.PRESTERA SÍDON.IS.
The Gools, as the missionary priests of Sidon were called, ...

[OL 68] HI STEK THUS MITH SINUM FLÁTE NÉI LYDJA. ... THÉR WILDON THA SWARTA MÀNNISKA FÁTA HJAM ÀND ÉTA
... MEN MIN.ERVA SÉIDE HALD OF HWAND HIR IS THJU LOFT ÔLANGNE VRPEST THRVCH THA PRESTERA.
Thus, he crossed over with his fleet to Lydia, ... There, the black people wanted to capture and eat them.
... (but) Minerva said: “Hold off, for the air here has long been contaminated by the priests.”

When I have been reading the translation of the OL I've started to get the impression how priesthood seems to be somekind of phenomena emerging from corruption, relating to enslavement. This, instead of Finda being a unified force with a common agenda. The fact that priesthood appears among Magyars, Egyptians, Gools and other unmentioned tribes of Lydia, this seems to be the case. It seems as if Bock saga's story about the cult of Ukko has not made it into the OL at all, as if it never affected Fryas, which is not completely impossible considering the folk that surrounded their lands (See [OL 49]) might have blocked them. Could it be that the OL mentions modern populance of Finland with a name that we still have difficulties connecting to through etymology and other methods of study? What if the burg Walhalla (WALHALLAGÁRA) with its seven island is the Bock saga's seven islands?

Moving on! Then, who are the Magyars, and could they be the populace later described as Huns?

Let's see what internet has to say about the subject:

''During the 4th millennium BC, the Uralic-speaking peoples who were living in the central and southern regions of the Urals split up. ... From at least 2000 BC onwards, the Ugric-speakers became distinguished from the rest of the Uralic community, of which the ancestors of the Magyars, being located farther south, were the most numerous.''
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarian ... century_AD

The Anglo-Saxon 'Cotton' world map (c. 1040) calls the territory of the Kingdom of Hungary: “Hunorum gens” = “Hun race”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Name_of_H ... nd_Hungary

''The origins of the Huns and their links to other steppe people remain uncertain: scholars generally agree that they originated in Central Asia but disagree on the specifics of their origins. Classical sources assert that they appeared in Europe suddenly around 370.''
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huns#Origin

Also note: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huna_people#History

Q: Is there any ethimological connection between Hun and Han?
''Do you mean etymological connection? If yes, then I think there is no such connection. ...
But ethnological connection between Hun and Han? I would say practically nil. They were two distinct ethnic groups. It is generally believed that the Huns were descendants of Xiongnu or Hungno. Some even think the Hungarians were somehow linked to them. But the Han people were definitely the natives living along the Yellow River from time immemorial. While the Hans have been an agrarian people all along, the Xiongnus or the Huns were nomadic or horse-back people.'' - Carl C, Quora
Source: https://www.quora.com/Is-there-any-ethi ... un-and-Han

Q: Are Mongolian Khan, Korean Han (韓), and Chinese Han (漢) related in etymology?
''Mongolian Khan and Korean Han share the same origin, both meaning stood for “great.” The Korean title Han had already come into being in the Three Hans period (三韓). After Chinese characters were introduced to Korea, the character 韓 was borrowed for the sound.
The Chinese word 漢 could be related to these two, and might’ve come from a dead Central Asian language earlier in the Neolithic period (10,000–4,500 BC). The word 漢 also meant “great” or “greatness” originally. The Han River 漢江 literally meant “the Great River” in Old Chinese. Due to association with this river, the word Han in Chinese became the territory around the Han river, which then became the name of a particular dynasty whose founder was given land in the area.'' - Anymous commenter, Quora
Source: https://www.quora.com/Are-Mongolian-Kha ... -etymology

''The origin of the term (Khan) is disputed and unknown, possibly a loanword from the Ruanruan language.'' (wtf...)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khan_(title)#Etymology

''The first data of the title, recorded by Ibn Rusta and Gardizi, can be traced back to the earlier works of Abu Abdallah al-Jayhani. According to these earliest pieces of evidence, the Hungarians were ruled conjointly by two ‘kings’. The major one, called kende (or künde), enjoyed nominal leadership, while effective power was exercised by his colleague, inferior in rank, called the gyula. This peculiar form of governance (‘dual kingship’) is generally supposed to have been imitative of the Khazar Khaganate, which did indeed have a similar organization.''
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gyula_(ti ... th_century

To apply to the present confusion, considering the Magyars were most likely a folk that worked along with trade:

''What does han mean in Turkish?''
https://www.wordhippo.com/what-is/the-m ... e5dd6.html

The term seems quite broad. Many well known caravanserais' names have the word ''Khan'' or ''Han'' in them:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caravanse ... avanserais

The conclusion: It seems clear to me that the whole eastern part of the continent was very connected all over for long periods of time so it is hard to make distinct differences from one group from another, yet according to Wikipedia huns ''came out of nowhere'' in the year 370, but this is based on an attitude that Magyars were not related to Huns, and even that Huns' relations don't reach all the way to the far corner of the East. This remains debated...

Consider all of this, while looking into these subjects, that connect the Middle-East and Far-East together:

The Convoluted True Origin of Aladdin (Is the story of Aladdin based on China?)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9byjwstN18

Are Japanese an ancient Hebrew tribe?
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=P ... 4399666349

Also, OL in itself doesn't imply that ''Finns'' were part of the tribe of Finda, and separates them from the Magyars, whatever relation they may have, other than that Magyars had some unnamed folk under their rule, called Finns. Indeed, this rises much questions about them, besides the cult of Ukko in Bock saga and also the Magyars - why are these all covered by fog?

I'm ending this one with some sillyness:

Here is an interesting possible explanation to the eastern part of Finland called ''Karjala'' in finnish, Karelia. Karja means cattle in finnish. As I have understood it, in the Genesis in the Old Testament, ''cattle'' was at times synonymous with ''tribe'':

''Caria was a region of western Anatolia extending along the coast from mid-Ionia (Mycale) south to Lycia and east to Phrygia. The Ionian and Dorian Greeks colonized the west of it and joined the Carian population in forming Greek-dominated states there. Carians were described by Herodotus as being of Minoan descent, ...''
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caria

''It is not clear when the Carians enter into history. The definition is dependent on corresponding Caria and the Carians to the "Karkiya" or "Karkisa" mentioned in the Hittite records.''
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carians

I hope somebody finds this useful. Please let me know your thoughts. Thank you for reading.

PýrKlépsas wrote: ↑12 Jan 2023, 00:08
There is ''this folk'', priests - Magyars (1.), leader of Magyars - Magus (2.), and then there are ''all other folk'' - including Finns (3.), that are under ''their'' rule - those who call themselves Magyars (1.). Please note that Finns are called ''other folk'' (3.), and Magyars are refered as Finda's tribe (1.), being separate folks; it is not specified, but could it be that the connection between Fryas and Finns is still an open question? Please note, that Magyars are noted being unlike other tribes of Finda (1.), so this means that the the concept of priests are not synonymous with Magyars. Still, not much is explained further about Finns, even though the matter of priests is in itself likewise an open question also:

https://books.google.com.au/books?id=0X ... edir_esc=y This is one idea.

"OL shows hints that Bock saga's story about 3 arctic races is indeed correct. In OL: Finns (''Finland'' not mentioned), FINNA HÉTEN, Sven-land, SKÉN.LAND and DÉNNEMARKUM, Danmark. If Fryas are an off-shoot of the folk of Danmark"
The Skenlanders and Danes are names given to Fryas that lived in those specific regions, and the Finns are foreigners essentially. I think it's weird to label these 3 groups in specific the 'artic races'. it seems like you are making connections that aren't there.

"The OL mentions that Magyars and Finns are a separate folk"... "who were the Magyars?"
I have a lot of questions around this too, especially on a genetic level. I think the OLB implies the Magyars were a sort of ruling priest caste that were ethnically different from the finns. I've heard many theories.

A response to Er Aldaric

OL 50-51
One hundred and one years after Aldland sank, folk came out of the East. They had been driven out by another folk. Beyond our Twiskland, they had fallen into dispute; they divided into two large groups and each went its own way.

Well, you are making two assumptions I think we have draw your attention to.

Er Aldaric wrote: ↑01 Feb 2023, 04:22 The Skenlanders and Danes are names given to Fryas that lived in those specific regions, and the Finns are foreigners essentially.

First, as I see it, you assume that the name 'Finn' is a label to connect to the modern people that live in a place called 'Finland', and that this is the same folk that is mentioned in OL - that is YOU when you read the translation of the OL, not the OL in itself. What I mean is that when you call 'Finns' foreigners (besides this latest post by you: viewtopic.php?t=46), it seems to be that you are reflecting your on personal feelings on the OL, and that is not very 'historical' approach to things. The same applies to ''names given to Fryas that lived in those specific regions'', when they are words that are similar to the words used today, when we don't have the exact knowledge where the borders were, and what separated these people from the 'Finns'. This does not of course mean we can't discuss about these things.

Just so you know, I'm 'a Finn', respectively, but in finnish we call our homeland 'Suomi'. The Bock family saga mentions 3 arctic people living in the north - Finland is a name given to our homeland by foreigners (which is a fact), and while Modern Finns have been living under superpowers for almost 1000 years, because we still are. Also, some old maps Finns give a picture that ''Finns'' didn't exist at all, because to them Sami-people were all the same, and they coloured the area of Finland all the way up to north with the title ''Finnland''. Some maps did not make it so. Compared to this, Mikael Agricola had already wrote in 16th century that ''Finns'' consisted of separate tribes, and none of these included the Sami-people. If you can find one clear fact among these sources to support one side of the argument, please let me know, because I can't.

Er Aldaric wrote: ↑01 Feb 2023, 04:22 I think it's weird to label these 3 groups in specific the 'artic races'. it seems like you are making connections that aren't there.

Second, when Ior refers to a tribeleader called Fin - I want you to understand that Ior talks the saga of Bock family ('Bockin perheen saaga'), which consists of #1 mythology (of Väinämöinen) and #2 history (=historical happenings) - and this is why we have to regard his story as a part-mythology. Ior used to say ''You don't have to believe the story, but you can understand it'', so he was not a fanatic about the historical aspects - he didn't make the claim that the saga is to be regarded as something that is the ultimate truth or something of that caliber - you are, and that's why you end up questioning his sanity. The saga is whatever you want it to be, for you.

I don't really feel like writing a too long response if you're going as far as calling mr. Bock a charlatan AND to claim that he is mentally ill, but I might mention some things for you to chew on.

Regarding Ior Bock's mythological aspects about this ancient fertility cult, semen consumption is indeed documented in Finland, and that it would get you killed in the time after church reformation. The rite was called Ukon kuppi, ''the toast for Ukko''. This is from the book: Synnin paikka on kuolema, 1994, by M. Nenonen & T. Kervinen, and because I know what you are thinking: Ior started to talk about the saga in the year 1984, 10 years before this particular book.

And, Alain Daniélou's fantastic book from 1995 (english translation) called ''The Phallus'' does indeed show some heavy proof that what was at play in the Vedic times does resemble some kind of a fertility cult. That was a long time ago.

I have heard from multiple sources, from people who have heard from other people who have visited, or have themselves personally visited Hindistan, that in some parts there are still traditions where they practice emission consumption as a tradition or as a part of religious rite, but they keep a low profile, because they get the same treatment within the villages like ''the Finns'' of the past did by the church. Likewise, Narakasura, the guy who was, according to Bock saga, the past king of Hindistan and who was killed by Krishna thousands of years ago: there are yearly rites of him being built out of wood-and-paper as a statue resembling him, with horns and an open mouth with sharp teeth, and it being burned - Sound familiar? (Information is easily available through internet regarding this tradition, look it up)

Tonight we celebrate midsummer with witches and bonfires
https://cbswire.dk/midsummer-denmark-time/

Wicker man
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wicker_man

Further:

You called Ior Bock a charlatan, now, tanslate this news article with Microsoft Edge to english and read:
https://yle.fi/a/74-20004246

Ior Bock called Finland with the name ''Vinland''
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vinland

There might be some truth to this:
Nieuwe Paskaert Voor een'Gedeelte Van de Oost-Zee: Beginnende 2 Myl bewesten Broklom tot aen Strellen, als mede de Kust van Oost Vinlandt, Beginnende van Parna tot aen de Schans ter Ny ; Zynde Naeukeurigh op gestelt en van veel Fouten Verbetert, 1692, Amsterdam

Source: https://www.raremaps.com/gallery/detail ... van-keulen

There are many many things I could add here...

Er Aldaric wrote: ↑01 Feb 2023, 04:22 I have a lot of questions around this too, especially on a genetic level. I think the OLB implies the Magyars were a sort of ruling priest caste that were ethnically different from the finns. I've heard many theories.

Regarding those many theories you refer to, if you have anything you want to share please turn it into a post and keep us up to date.

Other than that I wish you could change your tone a bit if you end up visiting this forum more often, so that if you happen to have some questions you wish to raise, it would make me feel more like answering them for you if I can.

you assume that the name 'Finn' is a label to connect to the modern people that live in a place called 'Finland', and that this is the same folk that is mentioned in OL

No I don't. I assume that the Finns mentioned in the OL (who are described as foreigners 'Thjud') don't have a direct relationship to modern day Finnish people. Correct me if I'm wrong but the term 'Finn' used the way we know it only came about in the 12th century or so, far from the time of the Finn/Magyar invasion. Who the Finns and Magyars were in the OL is a mystery to me.

''You don't have to believe the story, but you can understand it''

I understand Ior doesn't claim to have invented or believe wholeheartedly in these things - and that they are supposed telling of an oral tradition within the Bock lineage. That still doesn't make me want to put my faith in his words. I think works like the Kalevela would be more legitimate to cross reference with the OLB.

You called Ior Bock a charlatan, now, tanslate this news article with Microsoft Edge to english and read:
https://yle.fi/a/74-20004246

I don't see how that proves he couldn't be a liar. Followers of Bock have a large burden of proof to back up. I am interested to see what is discovered when/if the cave/temple is excavated.

Also I do plan on making a post about the theories around who the Magyars and Finns were soon, and you may find my tone to be rude but you should realize there is going to be discussion and pushback of ideas on a forum where we discuss this sort of stuff. I don't have anything against you.

Er Aldaric wrote: ↑02 Feb 2023, 00:05 The Skenlanders and Danes are names given to Fryas that lived in those specific regions, and the Finns are foreigners essentially.

Er Aldaric wrote: ↑02 Feb 2023, 00:05 I assume that the Finns mentioned in the OL (who are described as foreigners 'Thjud') don't have a direct relationship to modern day Finnish people.

You can't call people liars when you are making assumptions. Does this compute? Or are you going to turn my post into a wall of shame?

Er Aldaric wrote: ↑02 Feb 2023, 00:05 That still doesn't make me want to put my faith in his words. I think works like the Kalevela would be more legitimate to cross reference with the OLB.

Er Aldaric wrote: ↑02 Feb 2023, 00:05 I don't see how that proves he couldn't be a liar.

Before charlatan, now 'he could be a liar'? I'd have liked to hear all sorts of thoughts and other possible sources for my posts, instead I get lies that anyone can get from magazines for free, so of course I'm annoyed, you would be too. I shouldn't be forced to tell you this. To be honest, because you haven't even pointed out a single lie by mr. Bock, there's no accusation either, so you might as well stop. Thank you.

Er Aldaric wrote: ↑01 Feb 2023, 04:22"The OL mentions that Magyars and Finns are a separate folk"... "who were the Magyars?" I have a lot of questions around this too, especially on a genetic level. I think the OLB implies the Magyars were a sort of ruling priest caste that were ethnically different from the finns. I've heard many theories.

A 'Magyar' may be linguistically correct modern-day rendering of OL MS 051 MÁGJARA, but as with the al-Idrisi's Tabula Rogeriana world atlas use of "Magus" for Finns, it may just be subsitute term for native terms 'seer' (tietäjä), 'wizard' (velho, intomies/Indomies), 'magician' (taikuri, mahtaja with root word mahti understood in magical context), all terms attested from likes of SKVR poetry and Mythologia Fennica. Academics have deducted from the usage of Baltic Sea naval themes and archaic heathen myths that much of the SKVR poetry must originally date from before ~1000 era (time when Fennoscandia became Christian), reminding in this sense the Norse sagas that also date from medieval Christian era, but are believed to be much older in origins. An example is SKVR I2 1025 sung by one Vihtoora Lesońi back in 1894 about a Finnic cultural hero Ahti Lemminkäinen with the first name denoting a noteworthy sea king. The relevant line goes 'as seer for every road, as magician for every land' (lines 343-344: Joka tiellä tietäjäkse, Joka moalla mahtajakse). Hero name Lemminkäinen is same as 13th century historical Baltic Sea region pagan king name Lammechinus rex or 'Lemminkäinen king', begging the question if his poetic additional titles like mahtaja above gives us the "Magus" names seen in al-Idrisi's work and Oera Linda.

As is detailed in the Authenticity Debate sub-section of this forum, the chronologically first (oldest) introduction of Finns in OL narrative bears similarity to select Norse sagas (Frá Fornjóti, Ynglingasaga) that also deal with Finnish presence in Scandinavia. In Norse sources the Finns in question are the same as in Finland of today, plus those of Gotland island further away (Gotland island is nowadays part of the Swedish state). The rule of king Þorri, or THÍR DROCHTENA in OL MS 058 terms, is said therein to cover: "Gotlandi, Kænlandi ok Finnlandi" which is understood to cover modern Gotland island, northern Finnish Kainuu region (Kvenland in medieval Norse terminology) and southern Finland (still called Finland Proper). The Magus battling Wodin has match in a Swedish king Gylfi (Ynglingaga) who is described as descendant of the Finnish kings (Frá Fornjoti), making that specific Magus to be the same as a Sweden-Finnish king of Norse saga sources.

That Finns used once to dwell much further west, as in OL MS narrative and other echoes like the Norse saga above, is backed up by 2020s DNA evidence:

On Gotland, there are many more Danish-like and North-Atlantic-like genetic components (as well as an additional ‘Finnish-like’ ancestry component) than Swedish-like components, which indicates extensive maritime contacts for Gotland during the Viking Age [...] Finnish and Baltic ancestry reached modern Sweden (including Gotland) [...] The exception is Swedish-like ancestry, which is present at only 15–30% within Sweden today: one cluster from Sweden is closer to ancient Finnish populations, and a second is more closely related to Danish and Norwegian populations [...] However, we also see ancient Swedish-like and Finnish-like ancestry in the westernmost fringes of Europe, and Danish-like ancestry in the east, defying modern historical groupings [source: Population genomics of the Viking world]

This is consistent with the Norse sagas above, OL narrative parts about Wodin's Baltic Sea wars (OL 051-056), later Finnish episode in Scandinavia (OL 130-131) and all those Anglo-Saxon stories about Finn of Finnesburg and Beowulf's lineage from Wægmund or Väinämöinen (closest known character match to Magus in most OL mentions).

You can't call people liars when you are making assumptions. Does this compute? Or are you going to turn my post into a wall of shame?

Re-read my response, You accused me of assuming something, I was correcting you on what my assumption was - which seemed to agree with you so I have no clue why you are lashing out like this.

And again with the Bock saga 'proof', the Burden of proof relies on the believers of Bock. It may be true, it may not. Some parts may be true while other parts aren't. I myself am not going to put the same faith I put in the OL towards something that at the end of the day is on the word of one man. I do think the Bock saga has a place here in the discussion but I don't like something that 'loose' domineering the Oera Linda forum.

That Finns used once to dwell much further west, as in OL MS narrative and other echoes like the Norse saga above, is backed up by 2020s DNA evidence:

This is good stuff Nordic. How closely related do you think modern day Finnish people are to the OL Magyar/Finns? I assumed the connection wasn't that direct but I may be wrong. Would the OL Finns have looked more asiatic than the finns of today? How did we go from calling them Finns to Suomi then back to Finns?

Great channel, fortress of Lugh
Origins of Hungarians.
Shows links to Iranian, control of slavs by kazar through magyar and other things completely in line with OL manuscript

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ojbXGwFlmgw