*
On 11 Feb 2007 05:16:32 -0800, discussing three things at the same time
and thus getting very confused, "Eagal" <cjs...@cnmnetwork.com> wrote
about:
*
I - THE END OF NOSTRADAMUS' PROPHECY
*>> After that, the total eclipse of the Sun happens, August 21,

2017, over the mainland of the United States of America, source
of the atomic blast of August 13, and Nostradamus' prophecy ends.

Actually, he wrote it ends in 3797.
Eagal

*
No, he did not. First, he did not write in English. Second, the
text you have incorrectly translated is encyphered. Third, here
is what he says about the end of his prophecy:
*
His prophecy ends with an eclipse of the Sun. (The decyphered
text reveals which eclipse of the Sun it is, i.e., that of August
21, 2017.)
*
His prophecy ends when the great number seven elapses. On
September 3, 2017, the last four digits of the Julian Dating
Number (a system of dating which HE invented) go from 7999 to
8000.
*
His prophecy ends during the lunar month (i.e., the lunar year)
following the eclipsed Full Moon of August 7, 2017, whose Julian
Day Number ends with the four digits... 7 9 7 3 which, in turn,
when reversed as he reverses the word icy and spells it "yci" in
the expression "...pour d'yci a l'an 3 7 9 7." becomes...
3 7 9 7.
*
That's what Nostradamus tells us about the end of his prophecy.
It ends during the Summer of 2017.
*
II - QUATRAIN IX-55
*
You were twice admonished not to use other quatrains to explain a
quatrain. While discussing III-61, you introduced quatrain IX-55.
O.k., then, let's talk about quatrain IX-55, if you insist:
*
-------------------- C E N T V R I E___I X. ------------------
------------------ (=E9dition pr=E9tendue de 1568) ---------------
*
------------------------------ L V. --------------------------
--------- L'horrible guerre qu'en l'occident s'apreste -------
--------- L'an ensuiuant viendra la pestilence, --------------
--------- Si fort horrible que ieune,vieulx,ne beste, --------
--------- Sang,feu,Mercure, Mars,Iupiter en France. ----------

This quatrain has nothing to do with Iraq. This quatrain has
nothing to do with quatrain III-61. This quatrain has nothing to
do with an Islamic attack upon Paris occurring *during* an Iraqi
occupation by Christian forces (which began in 2003). *During*
also means *before the end of* the US occupation of Iraq.
This quatrain does not help us understanding quatrain III-61.
*
It is an encyphered text, one of whose versions describes the
fate of Paris, at 3:53 a.m., on Sunday, August 13, 2017, whether
you like it or not:
*
--------- Quand l'horrible erreur d'U S tue Paris en est=E9 ----
--------- l'Ann=E9e Dix Sept, en Aoust, la nuict, =E0 IV ---------
--------- Heures moins Sept, le feu terrible qui viole -------
--------- la France est vng feu mal tir=E9 sur P=E9quin. ---------

III - QUATRAIN III-61
*

------------------ C E N T V R I E___T I E R C E. ------------
------------------------- (=E9dition de 1555) ------------------
*
----- 61 - La grande bande & secte crucigere -----------------
---------- Se dressera en Mesopotamie: -----------------------
---------- Du proche fleuue compaignie legiere, --------------
---------- Que telle loy tiendra pour ennemie. ---------------
*
Although we both see in lines 1 and 2 the current occupation >of
Iraq by sectarian Christians, i.e., Protestants, our main point
of disagreement has been so far the issue of whether the first
part of the poem is a device used by Nostradamus to date the
second part, i.e., to point to the time period when the second
part is fulfilled using the current occupation of Iraq as a time-
marker, or whether the entire poem is about only one general
topic.

No, I am making the presumption that part one is an earlier phase of
the same situation - just a hunch.

*
'Only one general topic' and 'the same situation' do not seem to
be contradictory. We both know that you are talking about Iraq.
And that you are talking about a river close to the two other
rivers forming Mesopotamia. And that you are talking about two
phases of the same conflict.
*>> Had Nostradamus not done elsewhere what he appears to have done

here, i.e., dating an event using another one, I too would have
agreed that both halves must refer to the same area of the world.

The dating is elsewhere, such as IV.33 signifying the time of the 2003
invasion astrologically without mentioning any event. This
description is plain, unadorned and literal; the halves only shift in
time, not location or subject. Iraq is an important issue on its own,
without needing to be muddled. And the Seine is not near Mesopotamia.

I just gave the most likely interpretation...

*
I have no problem with that. And we both know that the Seine is
not near Mesopotamia. And we both know that Nostradamus does not
name the Seine in this poem. And we both know that the expression
"Du proche fleuue" CAN mean a river near Mesopotamia, but CAN
ALSO mean a river much closer to Nostradamus.
*
You do not seem to know that Nostradamus often dates an event
using another one. The two events are unrelated, but just happen
to coincide in time. A future Islamic attack upon Paris has
nothing to do with the occupation of Iraq, except that it happens
while that occupation is ongoing.
*
[...]
*>Intuition plays a role here; I usually feel a certain approach being

successful for each verse. But here you're attempting to dissuade me
from simple logic, to accept that things were inferred that just
aren't there. You're trying to rewrite it with Paris.

*
I am not attempting to dissuade you from anything (after all we
agree on the first part of the quatrain, don't we?), I am merely
suggesting that the manner in which the poem is written can also
easily be seen as a reference in part 1 to event #1, indicating
the timing of yet another event vaguely referred to in part 2,
which I call event #2. That's all I am trying to do. The fact
that I speak of Paris (and NOT of the destruction of Paris of
2017) is a consequence of a decyphered version of this quatrain
which just happens to speak of an Islamic attack in Paris.
*
[...]
*>You are overly peristent about twisting plain fact into your own

fiction.

*
It is fiction until it happens. If it does not happen, it remains
a fiction. If it happens, it is... a prophecy by Nostradamus.
*
As to 'plain fact', you seem to be suffering from the Guernon
syndrome of confusing his own opinions with facts.
*
[...]
*>It was what he wanted to mention, because it matters; without France

being involved at all.

*
How do you know that? Or is it just an opinion?
*
[...]
*> A child could get it, but not

someone trying to push another idea.

*
What's wrong with introducing other ideas into a discussion? Why
does this automatically make one 'a child'?
*
[...]
*> The story has been dominating the papers - without

Paris being mentioned every other word.

*
I doubt very much that the story of an Islamic attack upon Paris
and occurring during the US occupation of Iraq has dominated the
papers.
*
[...]
*>> Actually, the only chronology I have conjectured so far is that

the Iraqi occupation starts *before* an Islamic attack in Paris,

Really? Here's the coda to your 8 Feb post:

< So, in a veiled manner, Nostradamus links the timing of an
Islamic attack in Paris to the occupation of Iraq. Which means
that whatever happens in Paris as a result of that Islamic attack
shall happen *before* US troops leave Iraq. >

You emphasized a Paris event PRIOR to the end of the occupation,

*
Yes, I did, and I still do. As we both know, this is fiction
until that future event happens. If it does not happen, it
remains a fiction. If it happens, it is a Nostradamus prophecy.
*
[...]
*>So your approach to the Iraq issue is to suggest fear of Paris being

nuked?

*
No, this is not what I suggest. You have confused my view of
quatrain IX-55 (which you insisted upon bringing into the
discussion while discussing quatrain III-61) with my view of
quatrain III-61. That's what happens when one introduces other
quatrains to discuss a quatrain.
*
[...]
*>It's out of bounds to present conclusions without any substantiating

material, and you've already rejected the idea of discussing other
verses, so unless you can derive a Parisian reference from III.61 (and
I'm afraid you'll try) please drop it.

*
Oh, you prefer a monologue? My only reference to Paris in III-61
comes from the words "Du proche fleuue" in line 3, which come
after a colon at the end of line 2.
*
Earlier, I have indicated that Nostradamus oftens likes to draw
parallels and contrasts between situations. Here, he contrasts
the great gang of Christian invaders in Mesopotamia with the much
smaller commando arriving as enemies of that near river.
*
You have another view? That's not a problem. It is... another
view, a very normal occurrence in a discussion group.
*
Have a nice day, folks!
*
Claude Latr=E9mouille
February 11, 2007http://web.ncf.ca/cj559
*
=3D=3D=3D

- Show quoted text -