One of the most enjoyable features of an on-topic discussion in
this NewsGroup with one of its former regular contributors, The
Guernon, was to see him wiggle when confronted with a question he
was not very comfortable answering.
*
It is even funnier to see him do the same thing with... another
wiggler.
*
Case in point: the issue of *why* no one has ever been able to
understand any of Nostradamus' quatrains before the events it
depicts have happened or are about to happen.
*
The identity of these two wigglers:
*
"leigh8bee@optusnet.com.au" <leigh8bee@optusnet.com.au>
*
and
*
Jean Guernon <jguernon@globetrotter.net>
*
As I was asking the question earlier in this NewsGroup, here is a
repeat of it, just to go on record as having asked it first:
*
"How come those who comment on Nostradamus' quatrains only speak
of people or events which are already there? How come what is
supposed to be a prophecy always turns out to be a prophecy after
the fact?"
*
Now, let's see how the first of these two Keystone Cops manages
to ask the question himself:
*
"Have you ever considered why no one has been able to use a single
Quatrain to predict an event to date?
LB"
*
Now look at the wiggling weasel, attempting to escape the answer
by... speaking of something else:
*
"Of course, and since it is what he infers, because they are designed
that way, otherwise, as you know, he would have dated them, there is no
surprise there."
*
What is not surprizing at all is to see the wiggling weasel, The
Guernon, avoid answering the question by replying to a question
which was not asked. The unasked question: Why are Nostradamus'
quatrains not dated?
*
For about eight years, here, both Peter Lemesurier, a.k.a., Peter
Ewart Britton, and myself, have in vain attempted to elicit from
The Guernon a clear, direct answer to a clear, direct question.
*
For the record, lest anyone would think that I have not answered
the original question myself, here is my answer: The reason why
Nostradamus' quatrains have never been understood before the fact
is that THEY ARE NOT Nostradamus' prophecy, but are hiding within
them Nostradamus' prophecy.
*
That prophecy is encyphered via the technique of the line-based
cryptic anagram; and the funniest thing of all is to see both
Keystone Cops denying that fundamental fact about Nostradamus'
texts, while at the same time both agreeing that they can't be
understood before the fact.
*
So, they both agree that they are not prophetic as published, and
have to await the passage of time to be understood; and they both
assert that they are not encyphered.
*
In other words, each for his own reasons prefers to wiggle out of
the explanation as to why they are not prophetic as published: if
they are encyphered, the entire Nostradamus industry collapses
unto itself, Leoni, LeVert, Lemesurier (which the first wiggler
likes to quote), Dufresne and Guernon (which the second wiggler
swears by) becoming very obsolete.
*
Have a nice day, folks!
*
Claude Latrémouille
Le 28 décembre 2005
http://web.ncf.ca/cj559
*
=== ===
=== CLAUDE LATRÉMOUILLE ===
===========================
.
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Wiggling in Nostradamus_Moderated |
29 Dec 2005 03:48:42 PM |
|
|
"In other words, each for his own reasons prefers to wiggle out of
the explanation as to why they are not prophetic as published: if
they are encyphered, the entire Nostradamus industry collapses
unto itself, Leoni, LeVert, Lemesurier (which the first wiggler
likes to quote), Dufresne and Guernon (which the second wiggler
swears by) becoming very obsolete. "
The reason is quite simple despite your efforts to obscure the real
question.
The answer is this Because the said commentators are not very "Bright"
a translator is not neccesarily a commentator and most have this
"Disney" based Hero view of Christian prophecy, Nostradamus on the
other hand (my opinion) is that he was a poet historian of the
Virgilian ilk.
Besides Claudie boy how do you get around Nostradamus own assertion
that his work is not encyphered?
Give us an answer do!
Oh for reference:
Epistle:
By the danger of the times, O Most Serene King, requires that such
secrets should not be bared except in enigmatic sentences having,
however, only one sense and meaning, and **nothing ambiguous or
amphibological inserted.** Rather they are under a cloudy obscurity,
with a natural infusion not unlike the creation of the world,
But don't let the evidence, marr your efforts to prove Nostradamus
wrong!
Sounds like one Roger Bacon:
He followed the maxim 'Cease to be ruled by dogmas and authorities;
look at the world!'
.
|
|
|
| User: "Claude Latremouille" |
|
| Title: Re: Wiggling in Nostradamus_Moderated |
30 Dec 2005 11:29:25 AM |
|
|
On 29 Dec 2005 13:48:42 -0800, "leigh8bee@optusnet.com.au"
<leigh8bee@optusnet.com.au> asked:
*
Besides Claudie boy how do you get around Nostradamus own assertion
that his work is not encyphered?
Give us an answer do!
*
Answer: Nostradamus does not assert that his work is not
encyphered. Nostradamus never saw, never wrote, the text you have
posted here. You are indulging in sheer disinformation.
*
Do you think for one bloody moment that, had Nostradamus stated
what you say he asserted, Peter Lemesurier would not have quoted
it a very long time ago here to support his view that
Nostradamus' texts are not encyphered? Lemesurier never did,
because he knew that Nostradamus never asserted such a thing.
*
Lemesurier preferred to state that Nostradamus was not smart
enough to have encyphered all of his published texts.
*
Have a nice day, folks!
*
Claude Latrémouille
Le 30 décembre 2005
http://web.ncf.ca/cj559
*
=== ===
=== CLAUDE LATRÉMOUILLE ===
===========================
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Wiggling in Nostradamus_Moderated |
30 Dec 2005 02:23:13 PM |
|
|
" Do you think for one bloody moment that, had Nostradamus stated
what you say he asserted, Peter Lemesurier would not have quoted
it a very long time ago here to support his view that
Nostradamus' texts are not encyphered? Lemesurier never did,
because he knew that Nostradamus never asserted such a thing. "
Well apart from your dodgy methodology Mr Le Mesurier had you cold, you
have yet to explain choice of words and better yet the sequencing, not
to mention how when reconstituted they are FLAT like beer.
you know variation and sequencing, not to mention your focussing on a
message that is clearly out of the bounds, of probability
But Mr Nostradamus says they are not encyphered, denial is not an
answer.Disinformation indeed!
LB
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
