Newsgroups: alt.prophecies.nostradamus
From:

Responding to Alef in:
[HEADER SNIPPED: Re: Jan 29 to Peter]
Claude Latremouille wrote:
[ snip ]

An example of cryptic anagrams using X-86 [1568]:

Original quatrain X-86 from the 1568 edition:

Comme vn gryphon viendra le roy d'Europe
Accompaigné de ceux d'Aquilon,
De rouges & blancz conduira grand troppe
Et yront contre le roy de Babilon.

And its version in prose, decrypted by Claude Latrémouille:

Vn Tyran invade pour rien le Royaume de
Quoueit, l'Amy d'Occident en Paix,
Puis le Grand O N U tentera d'occire ce Saddam
Et la Bombe tuera trop d'Innocens.

[ snip ]

PETER: So in that case, why does he bother to use C16 forms such
as 'occire' at all, when - knowing that he's really writing it
for Claude Latremouille to decode - he could (being a prophet)
simply have written the whole thing in C20 French?

CLAUDE: Since I did not make the anagrams, I just found them, it
is possible that the letters of the ancien verb "occire" were
more useful to him in the making of HIS anagrams than the letters
of that other verb "tuer" which he also uses in other decrypted
quatrains. He uses both, Peter.

Remember, there is at least another decrypted version to this
quatrain dealing with the destruction of Paris, and since that
version uses the werb "occira" in the third decrypted line, it
would make sense that - had he used "tuer", he would not have
been able to write what he intended in that other version as
well, while writing a valid line of poetry on top of that.

And, to top the cake, you can't write Chirac, with the verb
"tuer". But you can write Chirac, if you accept the ancient
verb "occire", or "occira". You see, Peter,
O-C-C-I-R-A = C(H)I R A C + O.
But you don't play Scrabble(R), so I won't bother you
further with the technicalities of these cryptic anagrams.

ALEF: Hi Claude.
Your method are so strange to me that I find it
amazingly surprising that from OCCIRA you
find the way to build the word CHIRAC
But from this word I see your point. Now ,
how do you chose to insert an ( H ) ?
CLAUDE: Alef, I do not *decide* to insert an (H). Only the
context forces me to do so. As you may have read my already
posted version of that quatrain concerning Chirac, you will agree
that the context calls for that word, and since only one (1)
letter per word can be missing, the only missing letter in that
anagram had to be the "H" of Chirac. Look again at the third line
of that quatrain. It does not contain an "H".

De rouges & blancz conduira grand troppe

So, if the context calls for the use of the word "Chirac", the
basic rule of the cryptic anagram forces me to select the "H" as
the missing letter, as I am not allowed to do anything else.

Don't forget that, before that third line, I already have two
anagrams giving the beginning of the full 4-line sentence, so
when I reach the third line (and therefore the third anagram), I
already know the subject matter of that version of the quatrain.
ALEF: ... is it a kind
of letter calculation or you decide on the moment
that if you put this letter in, you have this word
with all the existing letters minus one.
CLAUDE: As I have already indicated above, there is no numbers
game involved. The only 'calculation' at play here is counting
the number of unused letters versus the number of added letters.
To put it in your terms, I already know that - if the name Chirac
is indeed in that anagram, the "H" MUST BE the missing letter, as
I cannot replace any other letter in addition to the "H".
ALEF: Now don't think that I am siding with Peter

I hold this guy in very low esteem as you
must have noticed.

I am just trying to understand how you
are doing these anagrams and always end
up with full sentences, right in your sight
and or wrong in mine, but nevertheless
with sentences.
CLAUDE: I always end up with full sentences, because Nostradamus
constructed his poetry so as to allow for that result to happen,
which is the best evidence in my view that the anagrams do not
just occur by chance. What are the chances of having four (4)
independent anagrams which would "just happen" to be four
distinct pieces of the same complete good French sentence?

ALEF: According to your anagrams, what is coming
for Irak/US in the near future.
CLAUDE: The only absolutely certain anagrams for the future deal
with the circumstances of the destruction of Paris. All the rest
being less certain, I do not wish to flame the fires of the so-
called skeptics by discussing minor points of the prophecy.
ALEF: Peter's points of views is no point, pointless.
Irrelevant on the matter.

Alef
CLAUDE: If Nostradamus' prophecy were not entirely made of
cryptic anagrams, Peter's point of view would be highly
consistent.

Only when he contradicts himself or remains silent on
the obvious presence of anagrams does he get from me a few darts!

FROM ANOTHER POST BY ALEF:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[HEADER SNIPPED: Re: Jan 28 à Peter ]
ALEF: Peter doesn't care whether you, me, or anybody else
are right to the last letter.

Or if what he has for sale
is also wrong to the last letter.

He just have an
inventory to liquidate and a publisher which tells
him that as long that he can attach Nostradamus
name to his comics book they will sell. The
only thing he has to do is to argue every one
else out of the net anyhow he can.

CLAUDE: Well, he does at times behave like that, and I cannot
disprove what you state above.

He does make many informed points
which only a good student of Nostradamus' literature can make.

So, in that limited sense, he cannot be an intellectual fraud, as
he has - at least - read the darn books!

If he wants to win an argument, just as I also like to win an
argument, he has to assert his point of view. Only when he does
remain silent about the (sometimes obvious) presence of anagrams
in the poetry does he look to me slightly foolish. But since I am
probably the only one who remembers what he has snipped out of
his replies, I suppose he calculates that he can get away with
it. I have met many people who act like this, mostly lawyers!

But the Americans have a saying: You can fool somebody all the
time, you can fool everybody some of the time, but you cannot
fool everybody all of the time.
To establish Peter's state of mind, the most telling piece of
evidence would be to have a look at the contract which binds him
to his publishers, and which might preclude him from being
totally intellectually honest, so as not to hurt the sales of
his/their books. That would be "the smoking gun", as far as I am
concerned.

And, Alef, even if you do not agree with the cryptic anagrams, or
see them as the prophecy itself, you will probably agree that -
if they are indeed the prophecy - the entire Nostradamus Industry
(which thrives on the ignorance of the prophecy) would have good
reason to jump over the cliff...

Which might explain some recent desperate attempts by Peter in
a.p.n. to force me to deny the authorship of what I have found.

As far as I am concerned, he can go fly a kite...