Why is Odyssey Borealis a "true" Crackpot Theory

Photo by Lee Miller

While researching these matters I made some notes in other forums discussing thus theories. People were very quick to reply that thous theories where BS and the people behind these theories were crackpots.

As a foreigner, my understanding of the English language has some limitations. So I started doing research on the meaning of the word "crackpot".

At https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/crackpot they describe a crackpot as: "A crackpot is a colorfully strange or odd person."

And yes, I can agree that very much of the theories are bullshit and I totally agree that thous people indeed are "crackpots" including me. It would in fact been impossible to get to the bottom of this if they were not crackpots. This story's biggest crackpot was actually Odysseus.

Today, the crackpot is the least valued member of the society. People telling so colourful and over-exaggerated stories that people just shake their heads and turns away. But in a micro-community in the middle of nowhere like the island Røst where I come from, thus people is what makes life interesting. They make the craziest jokes and jaw-dropping comments, seeing things from a slightly different angle.

Before the invention of books, I believe that thous people had much more power and authority than today. They would be the ones that told the children the stories that carried the culture to the next generation. The more colourful thous story's where told the better it would stick to the brain of the receiver.

Odysseus had the dilemma of winning back his kingdom when he, at last, returned to Isaka. The story of his achievements in the War of Troy had already come home with returning soldiers years before he came home. Stories that would give him status almost like a good. But the Odysseus that came ashore did not look much like a God. In rags and totally alone without his fierce soldiers at his side. A fierce warier himself, but vulnerable alone. To secure his position he had to regain the trust of his people. The way I believe he did this, was by creating the Odyssey. A story that was built on a combination of urban myths from the places he had been. Myths that was already known among some of his countrymen, and the actual journey. Making it all a struggle between Odysseus and his crew and the Gods. And in this way maintaining Odysseus status as a leader approved by the Gods. And since Odysseus was the only survivor, no-one was there to confirm if it was correct or not. Odysseus probably used BIG letters to capture and scare his audience. This also explains why the Iliad doesn't have fairytale elements. Thus events would have had lots of witnesses that would have been hard to get around.

If Odysseus had just been sticking to the plain facts, no-one would have bothered memorizing it and the story might have survived a couple of days instead of 4500 years.

The other "crackpots": Iman Wilkens, Felice Vinci, Morten Alexander Joramo and I, Finn Olav Olsen has all missing pieces and holes in over theories but put correctly together they make an almost complete pot. Hopefully, some of you reading this have insight that can eider build under and compliment this theories or chisel of the things that aren't right.

To find answers that are lying outside the box is easier when you are living outside the box.

Organizing, checking scorches, and presenting the data scientifically correct isn't a "crackpots" strongest side.

So I hope that I have brought beyond reasonable doubt that the origins of this story lies in Northern Europe and that Homer wrote it for a Greek audience connecting it to parallel events in Greek history. And doing this in such a genius way.

"I don't lie. I just make fiction with my mouth," is one quote written by Homer.