*
Those who were not around more than five years ago would not know
of a time when Nostradamus' prophecies were actually discussed
here. With this in mind, here is an excerpt of an exchange
between myself and a then (almost) reasonable British military
writer:
*
[QUOTED FROM]
*
Subject: Re: WTC prophecy
Date: 13 Apr 2002 00:53:59 GMT
Message-ID: <a97vj7$7ve$1@freenet9.carleton.ca>
*
On Fri, 12 Apr 2002 08:55:13 +0100,
"Krib" <krib@address.is.invalid> wrote about what
*
"Claude Latremouille" <> wrote in message
news:20020411100427.F72926-100000@sheppard1.torfree.net...
As to everything I deciphered, I must remind you that I
had decrypted 440 years of history prior to discovering
anagrams about our future (something I first thought was
impossible to do).
But you were able to do that knowing the way past events
had occured. It's not unreasonable to assume you were able
to force your decryptions to match said events, (look at all
the kooks that post here after any major event claiming they
all prophecied them no matter what their original posts
said, they manage to twist anything to fit). That said, it is
highly likely that your decryptions of future events are wrong
so, again, either your methodology is wrong or there is nothing
to decipher, no?
__
krib
*
Hmmm, since most of what you say is perfectly reasonable, let me
add a few important points which are missing from your analysis.
*
But you were able to do that knowing the way past events
had occured.
*
This is true only in part. There were some past events which I
did not know about when I began the decrypting job and which I
learned *from* the decrypted text.
*
To add a missing element: I was able to do that (i.e., taking a
well-known quatrain and decrypting it) only after having studied
for 25 years Nostradamus' original texts, as is, no anagrams, no
nothing. And - at the time of my first discovery of an anagram,
october 1993, I also had the benefit of about 400 years of
various commentaries by many French authors about many quatrains.
*
So, if you want to make a list of what I knew at the time, you
would have to say:
*
1. An intimate knowledge of certain well-known quatrains.
2. An awareness of the meaning ascribed by many other French
authors to certain of these well-known quatrains.
3. A rather vague knowledge of certain past events to which
certain authors had linked certain well-known quatrains.
*
It is obvious to me - and apparently not that obvious to you -
that I would not have been able to make my discovery of these
hidden texts had I not first understood as prophecies of my past
some of these original texts. This point is entirely missing from
your analysis.
*
It's not unreasonable to assume you were able
to force your decryptions to match said events
*
A most reasonable statement, as long as you add... to match
certain well-known quatrains (already ascribed by others to said
events) to these very same known events, and then, and only then,
to find an hitherto unknown text referring sometimes directly
sometimes indirectly to these very same events, said text having
the persistent habit of being in prose, of flowing from one line
to the other (while each line is a distinct and separate anagram
which just happens to fit very nicely with the other three), of
using certain words which do not form part of my own vocabulary,
of using a spelling which is not mine, of using a style which is
definitely not mine either, telling me something very clearly,
while the original text was not clear at all.
*
That said, it is
highly likely that your decryptions of future events are wrong
*
As I have said in the previous post, I thought at first that I
would not be able to find future events using that method,
because making these anagrams requires knowledge of names,
places, dates, etc., for these future events, something I do not
have.
*
So, I would re-phrase your statement thus: it is more likely than
in the case for past events that my decryptions of future events
are wrong. To this I add: the Chirac non-event and the Aegean Sea
non-event do confirm the above.
*
so, again, either your methodology is wrong or there is nothing
to decipher, no?
__
krib
*
No. You have omitted a third hypothesis, the obvious one. Let's
list all three:
*
1. There is nothing to decypher.
2. There is something to decypher but the method is wrong.
3. There is something to decypher, the method is correct, but in
some cases the method is/was incorrectly applied.
*
My turn to ask you (and all others who have said the same thing
here over the past six years) a question:
*
Why is it that you people always 'forget' to mention the third
hypothesis? [END OF QUOTE]
*
Have a nice day, folks!
*
Claude Latrémouille,
January 5, 2008,
http://web.ncf.ca/cj559
*
=== ===
=== CLAUDE LATRÉMOUILLE ===
===========================
.
|
|
| User: "onoit" |
|
| Title: Re: When this NewsGroup was interesting (3) |
06 Jan 2008 02:17:20 PM |
|
|
Things might have been different if the Great King of Terror had showed
up on schedule.
Maybe he's just rescheduled.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Claude Latremouille" |
|
| Title: Re: When this NewsGroup was interesting (3) |
07 Jan 2008 08:36:40 AM |
|
|
*
On Sun, 6 Jan 2008 14:17:20 -0600, "onoit" <onoit@sno.tso>
wrote about quatrain X-72 (without naming it):
*
Things might have been different if the Great King of Terror had showed
up on schedule.
Maybe he's just rescheduled.
*
Hmmm, fascinating how Nostradamus' only reasonably dated quatrain
has sparked so many misconceptions about the original text. Even
with the passage of time (after all, everybody -- except an
unsuperable Aussie Moron -- KNOWS that NO Great King of Terror
ever came from the sky in July 1999), there are still some who
refuse to see what most French commentators had seen long before
1999, i.e., that three lines of X-72 refer to the total eclipse
of the Sun of August 11, 1999.
*
Here is how these three lines of quatrain X-72 ought to be read:
*
-------------- C E N T V R I E___D I X I E S M E. ------------
------------------ (édition prétendue de 1568) ---------------
*
-------------------------- L X X I I. ------------------------
--------- L'an mil neuf cens nonante neuf sept mois ----------
--------- Du ciel viendra vn grand Roy deffraieur ------------
--------- Resusciter le grand Roy d'Angolmois. ---------------
--------- Auant apres Mars regner par bon heur. --------------
*
Anyone who knows French ever so slightly KNOWS that line 1 is not
constructed normally:
*
--------- L'an mil neuf cens nonante neuf sept mois ----------
*
Its first part is perfect:
*
--------- L'an mil neuf cens nonante neuf --------------------
*
It means, and has always meant... The Year One Thousand Nine
Hundred and Ninety Nine. No argument there.
*
Its second part stinks:
*
----------------------------------------- sept mois ----------
*
These last two words ARE NOT linked properly with the rest of the
line. They mean "seven month(s)", as "mois" is spelled "mois" in
French, whether you mean one month or many months.
*
The most obvious meaning is... July, as July is the seventh month
of the year. I accept that meaning.
*
The second line is clear, but offers a trap to those who lack an
intimate knowledge of French and who play with dictionaries to
find the meaning of Nostradamus' texts:
*
--------- Du ciel viendra vn grand Roy deffraieur ------------
*
Those who have an excellent knowledge of French (as I do) know
that the last word is in fact TWO WORDS which ought to have been
spaced by an apostrophe. Thus:
*
--------- Du ciel viendra vn grand Roy d'effraieur -----------
*
This is not the only case where Nostradamus deliberately
misspells his text. He even does it in the very same book, using
the very same word, just to show the Great King of Disinformation
how stupid this Commoner born out of an Abdicating King really
is.
*
In the Letter to Henry, at page 15, at line 22, he prints the
expression "l effrayeur" without the apostrophe. Thus:
*
LINE 22 --- orient tremblera de l effrayeur d'iceux freres
*
Here he uses the "y", while he used the "i" in X-72. But in this
case, he leaves a space between the article "l" and the noun
"effrayeur", indicating that these are TWO WORDS.
*
To have a space between two words which ought to have been
spelled with an apostrophe between them requires that the author
- not the printer - intended that result. Otherwise, the printer
would either have closed the gap between "l effrayeur", or would
have added an apostrophe as these two words required it. Neither
was done.
*
So, reading line 2 with this understanding in mind,
*
--------- Du ciel viendra vn grand Roy deffraieur ------------
*
we get to ask, before the fact, before July 1999: What Great King
of Great Fear can possibly come from the sky in July 1999?
*
And the answer was, among various French commentators: The
upcoming total eclipse of the Sun, scheduled for August 11, 1999.
*
Yes but... August is not July. True. However, in the Julian
calendar under which Nostradamus was writing, August 11 is July
29. So, line 1 fits the eclipse.
*
What about line 2? How can a Great King of Great Fear become an
eclipse?
*
It can't. But Nostradamus did use, as a cryptic anagram of each
other, the two French words "Roy" and "Noyr" interchangeably. If
we apply this trick to the Roy in line 2, we can read it as:
*
--------- Du ciel viendra vn grand noyr deffraieur -----------
*
There! The eclipse appears in plain sight, as "noyr" means...
black. Line 2 can thus be read: From the sky shall come a great
blackness of great fear.
*
But... even though eclipses used to cause great fear amongst
primitive people, everybody knows that, in 1999, in France, such
superstitions no longer exist. So, no one can fear an eclipse in
France, right?
*
Wrooong! An opinion poll showed that about 9% of the population
in France dreaded the upcoming eclipse. Why? Because a well-known
fashion designer named Paco Rabanne, had announced that Paris
would be destroyed (he was right) on the day of the August 11,
1999, eclipse (he was wrong).
*
The first two lines are perfectly consistent with the
circumstances of that eclipse.
*
The last line speaks of what happens before and after that
eclipse:
*
--------- Auant apres Mars regner par bon heur. --------------
*
Mars is the God of War. If Mars rules, then there is war. A war
which occurs both before and after that eclipse? No. After the
fact, we know that TWO wars occurred in 1999. The first one
before the eclipse, NATO vs. Milosevic, started in March and
endend in June. The second one, Russia vs. Chechnya, began for
the second time October 1, after the eclipse.
*
So, three lines of quatrain X-72 refer to the August 11, 1999,
eclipse. No Great King of Terror, no re-scheduling necessary.
*
Have a nice day, folks!
*
Claude Latrémouille,
January 7, 2008,
http://web.ncf.ca/cj559
*
=== ===
=== CLAUDE LATRÉMOUILLE ===
===========================
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Marvin The Paranoid Android" |
|
| Title: Re: When this NewsGroup was interesting (3) |
05 Jan 2008 12:39:12 PM |
|
|
On Jan 5, 1:21=A0pm, (Claude Latremouille)
wrote:
*
Those who were not around more than five years ago would not know
of a time when Nostradamus' prophecies were actually discussed
here. With this in mind, here is an excerpt of an exchange
between myself and a then (almost) reasonable British military
writer:
*
[QUOTED FROM]
<snip>
Have a nice day, folks!
*
Claude Latr=E9mouille,
January 5, 2008,http://web.ncf.ca/cj559
*
=A0 =A0 =3D=3D=3D =3D=3D=3D
=A0 =A0 =3D=3D=3D CLAUDE LATR=C9MOUILLE =3D=3D=3D
=A0 =A0 =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
That *was* interesting, but it was also because of 9-11 that a lot of
activity was generated here.
Since then ... well ... did Nosty prophecy Britanny and K-Fed?
Lindsay Lohan's substance abuse nightmare? You know ... BIG news!
Hope you have a great day too Claude.
Cheers,
Marvin
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ronald More-More Moshki" |
|
| Title: Re: When this NewsGroup was interesting (3) |
05 Jan 2008 08:49:49 PM |
|
|
On Jan 5, 1:39=A0pm, Marvin The Paranoid Android
<marvinparanoidandr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Jan 5, 1:21=A0pm, (Claude Latremouille)
wrote:
*
Those who were not around more than five years ago would not know
of a time when Nostradamus' prophecies were actually discussed
here. With this in mind, here is an excerpt of an exchange
between myself and a then (almost) reasonable British military
writer:
*
[QUOTED FROM]
<snip>
Have a nice day, folks!
*
Claude Latr=E9mouille,
January 5, 2008,http://web.ncf.ca/cj559
*
=A0 =A0 =3D=3D=3D =3D=3D=3D
=A0 =A0 =3D=3D=3D CLAUDE LATR=C9MOUILLE =3D=3D=3D
=A0 =A0 =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
That *was* interesting, but it was also because of 9-11 that a lot of
activity was generated here.
Since then ... well ... did Nosty prophecy Britanny and K-Fed?
Lindsay Lohan's substance abuse nightmare? =A0You know ... BIG news!
Hope you have a great day too Claude.
Cheers,
Marvin
Yes. If Noshki had known how stupid we were gonna get,
he would have warned us.
Maybe he knew we wouldn't have listened.
Ronald "Know-Know" Noshki
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
