Not to mention, of course, the fact that most of these folks have
books to defend, and are not about to admit that these books miss
that point entirely. In this NewsGroup, over the past ten years,
Rino Mailloux, Jean-René Guernon and Peter Ewart Britton, a.k.a.
Peter Lemesurier, have all steadfastly stood their ground in
refusing to consider the possibility of enciphered texts.

The anonymous trolls supporting (and in some cases plagiarizing)
their views here, are nothing but a cohort of active and retired
Anglo-Saxon military goons who lack the basic knowledge necessary
to assess the enciphered nature of Nostradamus' texts.

What can't they see? That Nostradamus' texts are constructed in a
manner which escapes logic. They read translations of them into
English, the worst possible way to deal with them, as those
translations tend to make sense of that nonsense. Some even make
these translations rhyme in English as well!

To the cryptanalyst,

the real key to Nostradamus' cryptogram is
the fact that thousands of enciphered lines of text ALWAYS
produce the same result:

A vivid description of the circumstances
leading to the worst mistake in human history, committed by the
US military. (Hence the persistent attacks by this same military
and its allies upon what you have just read here.)

*
A cryptanalyst will only come in contact with Nostradamus' texts
if they are generally recognized as being enciphered in some
manner. Problem: They are not so recognized.
*
Given that they do not appear to be enciphered, the first
question a cryptanalyst might then ask is: Is it possible that
they use some form of steganography, i.e., that they hide a text
in plain sight?
*
Most commentators would respond truthfully: Not to our knowledge.
Had Nostradamus used such a device, its existence would have been
detected long ago.
*
Indeed, for more than 400 years, the enciphered nature of
Nostradamus' texts was never taken seriously. Personally, I
studied them for twenty-five years(1969-1994) without ever
realizing that they were a form of polygraphic and steganographic
cipher. Why not? Because I thought (like most of my predecessors)
that, had it been there, someone else before me would have
discovered it. So, my original study of his texts was done in the
most classical manner, i.e., attempting to give the proper
meaning to all the words of a given poem.
*
Cryptanalysts know that -- when a steganographic method of
encipherment is used -- the published text is sometimes stilted
in some manner. The reason for this is obvious: Having to conform
to some hidden rule, its author *has to* do certain things to his
text which are not natural.
*
The next logical question then becomes: Did Nostradamus write in
a manner which suggests that his writings are not natural? And
the answer is a resounding YES!
*
Those who are in the worst possible situation to assess the
unnatural character of Nostradamus' writings are those who know
them best. To a point that they call this so unnatural manner of
writing... Nostradamus' style!
*
Which in turn explains why most, if not all, commentators of
Nostradamus' works cannot possibly see the anomalies they
contain. They have grown so accustomed to their peculiarities
that they cannot possibly bring themselves to acknowledge that
they have been blind to their *raison d'=EAtre* for so long.
*
Not to mention, of course, the fact that most of these folks have
books to defend, and are not about to admit that these books miss
that point entirely. In this NewsGroup, over the past ten years,
Rino Mailloux, Jean-Ren=E9 Guernon and Peter Ewart Britton, a.k.a.
Peter Lemesurier, have all steadfastly stood their ground in
refusing to consider the possibility of enciphered texts.
*
The anonymous trolls supporting (and in some cases plagiarizing)
their views here, are nothing but a cohort of active and retired
Anglo-Saxon military goons who lack the basic knowledge necessary
to assess the enciphered nature of Nostradamus' texts.
*
What can't they see? That Nostradamus' texts are constructed in a
manner which escapes logic. They read translations of them into
English, the worst possible way to deal with them, as those
translations tend to make sense of that nonsense. Some even make
these translations rhyme in English as well!
*>From a cryptanalyst's point of view, how could Nostradamus' texts

be described?
*
First, they contain their own encipherment/decipherment tools. No
need for *external* keys, codewords, etc. Everything one needs to
decipher the text is already there, in plain sight. Hence, its
steganographic nature.
*
Second, they have been enciphered in a manner which keeps the
number of letter substitutions to a minimum. Most letters from
the enciphered text find themselves in the plain or deciphered
text.
*
Third, the subject matter of the obscure text reveals itself in
the plain text. The cryptanalyst therefore knows before starting
his decipherment which topic the plain text will likely talk
about.
*
With these main points in mind, the cryptanalyst will eventually
realize that each line of enciphered text produces one line of
deciphered text, the enciphered text having been much more
convoluted than the deciphered one.
*
He will also eventually discover that the deciphered text always
obeys the same rule: No deciphered word may be written with more
than one letter substitution.
*
Finally, given the nature of the line-based cryptic anagram,
which is the manner in which Nostradamus has enciphered all his
published texts, the cryptanalyst will realize that this method
allows for more than one solution to be found. Eventually, he
will discover that ALL LINES of enciphered text, EVERYWHERE,
contain a piece of the puzzle concerning ONE, AND ONLY ONE future
event: The unintended destruction of Paris, on Sunday, August 13,
2017, at 3:53 a.m.
*
To the cryptanalyst, the real key to Nostradamus' cryptogram is
the fact that thousands of enciphered lines of text ALWAYS
produce the same result: A vivid description of the circumstances
leading to the worst mistake in human history, committed by the
US military. (Hence the persistent attacks by this same military
and its allies upon what you have just read here.)
*
Have a nice day, folks!
*
------------------- %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Claude Latr=E9mouille % -- "Claude! There ain't no stinkin' -- %
Le 12 mars 2007 --- % cryptic anagrams in them dang verses,- %
APNCL#1498 -------- % ya hear?!" (A chorus of a.p.n. voices) %
------------------- %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
*
=3D=3D=3D