Hallo,
Ich denke BB`s Spürnase für etwaiges Tonnenfutter hat ihn zumindest bei der vorgeblichen Brandt-schen Vision eines extremen Erdbebens nicht getrogen.
Ich habe vor kurzem bei prophecies.us einen kleinen Aufruf gestartet, ob jemand in diese "Vision" quellenmäßig etwas Licht reinbringen kann. Bisher kann man sagen, VOR 1969 gibt es nichts. 1969 wurde der Artikel in der Zeitschrift "Living waters" Vol. 1X, No. 2. gedruckt mit der Bemerkung, daß sie dem Herausgeber von einem persönlichen Freund ausgehändigt wurde: "The man who wrote this was a personal friend of the publisher at the time. The article is given as he wrote it in 1937, in boyish handwriting."
Somit keine Quellenangabe und nicht nachzuprüfen.
Ich denke wir können konstatieren, daß somit 1969 das Entstehungsjahr diese "Vision" war und somit erstmals in Druck ging.
Auf prophecies.us gibt es noch einen eigenen Thread, der sich mit Joe brandt`s "Vision" befasst. Darin gibt es ein Posting von vzduch (ist unter diesem Namen auch im Zukunftsforum aktiv), indem er ein E-Mail postet von einem Mike Mc.Clellan, der sich die Orthographie dieser "Vision" ganz genau anschaute. Er kommt zum Fazit, daß ALLES für eine Entstehungszeit um 1969 spricht und NICHTS für eine Entstehungszeit um 1937.
Da ich gerade keine Zeit und Lust habe das alles zu übersetzen, bringe ich es im Original. Wäre schön, wenn das jemand übersetzen kann, oder zumindest die Kernaussagen übersetzen könnte:
Quelle: http://prophecies.us/yabb/YaBB.pl?num=1208415318
Re: Vision by - Joe Brandt - Earthquakes
Reply #5 - 04/19/08 at 04:29:42
Some things to think about when reading this prediction. Mike McClellan of newprophecy.net e-mailed this to me last August; he had posted this the year before on his Prophetic Messenger forum:
I couldn't help but want to make some observations regarding this account by Joe Brandt.
One thing is certain, it was written BEFORE or BY 1977, but that is all we can say for sure. Claims that it was written in 1937 and the document found in 1967 are just that .. claims.
I have problems accepting this account for what it is purported to be. Here is why:
"like the silver screen of the "talkies" .."
By 1937 they just weren't calling movies with sound "talkies" anymore, unless it was an old person perhaps. Certainly not a 17-year-old. "Talkies" pretty much fell out of usage after about 1931. It was a popular term when sound began being used in 1928 and for a few years thereafter, but by 1937 it was no longer a novelty. By that time thousands of films with sound tracks had been produced, including serials, and people took the medium pretty much for granted, especially adolescents. If our "Joe Brandt" had simply said "like the silver screen", I might let that pass.
If he was Canadian (or even a US citizen living near the Canadian border) I would understand his spelling of "colour" instead of "color." But unless he was an amateur writer trying to impress his reading audience, a kid from Fresno, CA would be spelling it "color": even back in 1937.
Too much melodrama in the narrative, especially a device known as "echoalia" (the repetition of words to attain a more dramatic effect). Some examples: "There was that sound again. that lack of stillness. Stillness, stillness, stillness." AND "The buildings were holding, better than you could believe. They were holding. They were holding ... Everything else breaking around them, and they were holding, holding. I was up over them -- looking down. I started to root for them. Hold that line, I said. Hold that line. Hold that line."
Writers, especially hack writers of that time and well into the 1950s and early 1960s, used echoalia to distraction. Script writers, unfortunately, also overused the device as so many older films will attest. Ultimately, this became a device that was predominately found in comic books and illustrated horror/sci fi magazines of the 1960s and 1970s (Marvel, DC, Warren, etc). Otherwise, its use was the signature of the juvenile writer, the inexperienced wannabe author.
This is NOT the normal way anyone, even an adolescent, would recall a dream or any other experience they had ... not now and not back in 1937. Normal people simply do not speak this way ... not now and not in the past, either. It IS the way a bad writer trying to convince his late 1970s audience that they were reading an actual account by a person from back in the 1930s might write, however.
Another sceptic of this document pointed out on a forum a few years ago that, back in 1937, "tomorrow" was still normally being spelled "to-morrow" (with a hyphen). Joe is using the more modern spelling, "tomorrow."
The beards on the men and miniskirts on the women tend to date this glimpse into a future that still has not yet happened. It reminds one of the late 1960s in some respects, but the earrings make it more mid-1970s when, initially, the gay community began wearing them at disco bars, after which the disco community and then the punk/new wave culture took it up. As I understand it, a single earring in the left or right ear (don't know which) was supposed to mean the man was gay, the other ear meant he was straight. Eventually, it didn't matter anymore. Please note that no other body piercings are mentioned that would place this account in our time or near future, like nose studs or tongue studs, for example (or even tattoos on men OR women).
"Kiddo" and "cat's pyjamas" among other jargon liberally pepper this account. Too much of a good thing, it is an intentional device by someone to make this account look like it was written in 1937. Overworked. Like all the rip-offs of "American Graffiti" which took director George Lucas's 1972 mood masterpiece idea and went full tilt with it, throwing together a few dozen songs of the era to make unsophisticated film-goers feel like they are watching a movie set in the 1950s or 1960s. What worked the first time rarely ever works again.
"Frowzy" hair pretty much was out of fashion by the 1980s, but still in vogue in the 1970s, even the late 1970s. It began with the "natural look" adopted by the hippies (and hippie wannabes) in the late 1960s. Not that there wasn't any hair styling for men and women from roughly 1972 onwards (beginning with the "shag" look). This general lack of hair styling definitely dates the article to the late 1960s or 1970s and is simply not applicable to our times or the near future (which it is intended to be a description of).
Where are all the cell phones?>>>>>>>>> Ham radio operators instead?>>
And here is the great, dramatic finish, complete with ham radio operators reporting: "This is California. We are going into the sea. This is California. We are going into the sea. Get to the mountains. Get to the hilltops. California, Nevada Colorado, Arizona, Utah. This is California. We are going into the sea."
Whoever wrote this without question had heard a recording of the 1938 Mercury Theatre broadcast of "War of the Worlds" adapted from the H. G. Wells novel, directed by and also starring a young Orson Welles. Audio cassettes of this broadcast were widely available for purchase in the 1970s (and 1980s). In addition, a lot of similar radio, television, and film melodramas with this sort of ending have been created since 1938.
This document, likewise, is a work of fiction, a hoax perpetrated by a science fiction buff in the 1970s (but before or by 1977), intended to be passed off as an authentic glimpse of the future for some reason we can only guess.
My personal opinion is: Perhaps this Joe Brandt existed and he had a story to tell along the lines of what was published in 1977, but it was 'polished' by (wannabe?) professional authors to make a good read. Anyway, I wouldn't want to dismiss it altogether yet.
mit freundlichen Grüßen
Fred
@Taurec: Ich denke so langsam müssen wir uns leider von dieser eigentlich "interessanten" Vision verabschieden. Das ändert natürlich nichts daran, daß "the big one" doch noch passiert, möglicherweise sogar dieses Jahr (->bariona) Auf deiner Quellensammelliste würde ich zumindest mal ein dickes Fragezeichen hinter diese "Vision" setzen...
--
Prognosen sind schwierig, besonders, wenn sie die Zukunft betreffen. (Karl Valentin)