"DHM" <DHM@hotmail.com> wrote in message

"Absolute Zero" <AmyCaton@GoFree.indigo.ie> wrote in message
news:ad960a96.0312210959.53b35b85@posting.google.com...

<DaarkSyde@everywhere.com> wrote in message
news:kmfbuvg002cfgqcuugc1hf510499u99k7s@4ax.com...

On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 09:55:56 -0500, "DHM" <DHM@hotmail.com> wrote:

<DaarkSyde@everywhere.com> wrote in message
news:k93buvks06g0cdg8g4i40aklmlakne87qa@4ax.com...

Hahahahah what a MORON. There is no anti-christ, and Nosty never
talked about America.

Now why don't you go to http://run.to/nostradamus and click on X,

see

if America is mentioned in the all-important quatrain dealing with

Antichrist...

That's it, keep your head in the sand. Nostradamus is not to be
understood until after the event has happened.

Mein Gott, Daark. Gotta agree with you there.

Your attitude to N seems to have evolved a little, no?

-A

Where does Nostradamus say that his prophecies will be understood only

the event has occurred.....

Where does he say that they WILL be understood BEFORE the event? If he
did, he was wrong.

The opposite is true....


Hogue correctly used X.49 to predict the destruction of the WTC BEFORE

happened....

If you can provide a clear and definite citation to that end, I for
one (and probably the rest), would like to read it.

The prophecies do not provide a perfect understanding of the
future but they are rather a rough outline or sketch of the flow of

history. The prophecy for the year 1999 should demonstrate the

Nostradamus' prophetic powers to predict the modern age, THE SPACE

To you.

If the reference to Mars in X.72 were meant to indicate THE SPACE AGE
then a mention of 2003 would've been much the more impressive.

a) The planet was at its closest planetary opposition for 60,000
years.

b) Because of a) an unprecedented number of missions were
undertaken... the two NASA rovers Opportunity and Spirit + the
European/Brit Mars Express/Beagle 2. The latter lands Xmas day and
probably represents the best chance yet of convincing evidence, alien
life or not, one-way or the other.

Like EVERYONE else, I'm not persuaded.

The following is an exchange between myself and Claude that
more-or-less summarises my opinion.

This is a bit of a quagmire but--if you make a prophecy that is
precise and clearly understood with a widespread expectation that it
will likely come to pass... you're unleashing forces that will both
tend to ensure [self-fulfilling] and prevent [self-opposing] it
occurring. In general, I'd expect the anti-outcome to succeed more
often as it should be easier to derail an event than keep it on track,
assuming that winners and losers are implicated. So I propose Amy's
first conjecture of prophecy: successful prophecy can only be
recognised after the event else it won't be successful. A bit like...
history teaches us that history teaches us nothing, writ forward.

Perhaps an example would serve - suppose Claude became world famous
upon an Aegean *incident*... what chance then the nuking of Paris
2017? Yep, none ;)

-A

*
Interesting. Let's see the logic of it. First statement:
*
This is a bit of a quagmire but--if you make a prophecy
that is precise and clearly understood with a
widespread expectation that it will likely come to
pass... you're unleashing forces that will both tend to
ensure [self-fulfilling] and prevent [self-opposing]
it occurring.
*
Which is perhaps why -- assuming the above to be correct --
Nostradamus did not offer a prophecy that is precise and clearly
understood with a widespread expectation that it will likely come
to pass... Which would mean that no such forces have been
unleashed, as the prophecy becomes sufficiently clear *after the
fact*, as it was too obscure before the fact to unleash whatever
is supposed to be unleashed.
*
Second statement:
*
In general, I'd expect the anti-outcome to succeed more
often as it should be easier to derail an event than
keep it on track, assuming that winners and losers are
implicated.
*
Can't say if it applies to Nostradamus' texts, as the first
statement is not applicable to his published texts.
*

Clarity you mean? Little that I can discern... So like you I wonder if
there's a reason beyond the usual Vatican type considerations. I'm not
dead set on this but it seems to me that clarity inevitably militates
against fulfilment.

Third statement:
*
So I propose Amy's first conjecture of prophecy:
successful prophecy can only be recognised after the
event else it won't be successful.
*
What event? If there is no event, the statement is meaningless.

It was meant to parallel 'history teaches us that history teaches us
nothing'. That statement is meaningless also, yet everyone knows what
it means. The preceding sentence also collapses under its own internal
contradictions :-)

*
Next paragraph:
*
Perhaps an example would serve - suppose Claude became
world famous upon an Aegean *incident*... what chance
then the nuking of Paris 2017? Yep, none ;)
*
An optimist. Although I did ask myself how could the good people
of Paris ignore the decrypted prophecy about Paris, after the
unintended nuking of the Aegean Sea? As both events were found
using the same method, if the first happens, why wouldn't the
second?

Absolutely!

Or, more to the point, if both events happen, why did
Nostradamus bother writing a prophecy about the Paris event, as
he knew it would not be believed before the fact, and would be
praised by the 2,25 millions dying of radiation sickness (the
Atomick Plague) in Paris... after the fact?

So that people might say...
"Clever, eh, this Nostradamus?!"

*
Have a nice day, you all!
*

Ditto

-A