Videl on Nostradamus (tranlsated) #1
Peter Lemesurier
Laurens Videl was a doctor and astrologer who taught at Avignon and
Lyon, and the author of Almanachs with Claude Fabri (i.e. he knew what
he was talking about!), who in 1557 wrote (and published in 1558) a
pamphlet entitled the 'Declaration of the Abuses, Ignorances and
Seditions of Michel Nostradamus', which on the basis of its known
finances had a print-run of 6,000.
The following are some choice extracts. It is addressed to 'Michel de
Nostredame' in person:
..."I can say with complete confidence that of true astrology you
understand less than nothing, as is evident not merely to the learned,
but to learners in astrology too, as your works amply demonstrate, you
who cannot calculate the least movement of any star whatever:
and no more than knowing the movements do you understand how to use
your tables. Nor do you show your knowledge of the tables when you
state that the spring of this year 1557 will start on the 15th day of
March when the sun enters the First Point of Aries at 0 degrees 53
minutes. See how ignorant you are...What is this First Point? Do you
not show that you have no idea what this Point is? For, when the sun
is at the First Point, there are consequently no minutes, given that a
point is indivisible...
"I ask you, Michel, what makes you say that, if not your ignorance,
you who are unaware that the planets in the ephemerides are calculated
for noon, and that the sun has long since passed the First Point of
Aries when it gets to 52 minutes. What you ought to have said was that
spring will start on the 10th of March at 3 pm when the sun enters the
First Point of Aries, as calculated with YOUR ephemerides, which were
calculated (I believe) for the meridian of Venice, which is very
different from ours, and which you wouldn't know how to adjust for...
"Look, Michel, I ask you whether you aren't an even greater ignoramus
and ass than I say? The full moon that you mention in your Presages
for January 1557 -- you say that the moon is at 37 degrees and 46
minutes of Cancer. What ARE you talking about, you great idiot -- the
sun in Aquarius and the moon opposite it in Cancer? Who on earth told
you that Cancer was opposite Aquarius? Would even anybody who had
never seen an astrology book drop a bigger clanger than yours? Aren't
you a great ninny if you don't understand that Leo is opposite
Aquarius, and not Cancer?...
"Certainly, if I wanted to recite all the ignorances, abuses and
idiocies that you have been putting in your works for the last four or
five years, it would need a pretty big book...
"...However, I see that you predicted *yourself* jolly well in January
1555, when you said that many would seduce the people by forging
prophecies: for my part, the only person playing the prophet was you,
and [so] I wonder whether you might not be one of the prophets of the
Antichrist that are supposed to show up during the Last Times?
"...and I reply for all three of those [astrologers whom you have
attacked] that they have forgotten more mathematics than you will ever
know, for you started too late and didn't enter by the true door...
"...So now I would like to ask you whether you are not trying to tell
everybody that you have a prophetic spirit that reveals everything to
you, given that you speak as if you were assuredly God? Perhaps you
will tell me that you receive revelations from a spirit, but not an
evil one -- but you should understand that is is the Father of Lies
who tries to transform himself into an angel of light, and for every
truth he tells you, he tells you five hundred lies, as is obvious from
all your works, which are full of them..."
--
Peter Lemesurier
lordm...@my-deja.com
Peter Lemesurier <lem...@bengal.demon.co.uk> wrote:
Either Lauren was jeoluos or he clames Michel was Mentally challanged
witch is not the case so this claim is either defination propaganda or
idiocy writen by a man that was not as popular as Michel?
The language is concerning in that usually a jelous rage is followed by
these words! But then Michel would not care about what a lauren Videl
would be saying because he was a baby boy and needed his bottle of
salted fish milk in the sanatorium!
Look as far as sedreial and preogressed and other hidden Judical
movements are concern are not for the babies; They still needed their
mothers breast to suckle!!!
You dumbasss Videl; "Cancer can be opposite Aquarius?" in a chart
especialy in Rigormortanus house system! But then again the great
dumbass is still around today in all the school books! NNOOTTT!!!!!
Archangel Michael
"Look, Michel, I ask you whether you aren't an even greater ignoramus
and ass than I say? The full moon that you mention in your Presages for
January 1557 -- you say that the moon is at 37 degrees and 46 minutes of
Cancer. What ARE you talking about, you great idiot -- the sun in
Aquarius and the moon opposite it in Cancer? Who on earth told you that
Cancer was opposite Aquarius? Would even anybody who had never seen an
astrology book drop a bigger clanger than yours? Aren't you a great
ninny if you don't understand that Leo is opposite Aquarius, and not
Cancer?...
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Claude Latremouille
Peter Lemesurier <lem...@bengal.demon.co.uk> wrote in part:
For those interested in reading what Nostradamus wrote, here is a
snippet from his LA GRAND' PRONOSTICATION for the year 1557:
LINE 4 Du Primtemps 1557.
LINE 5 Le Primtemps ceste annee 1557. entrera le xi.iour de
LINE 6 Mars,le Soleil entrant au premier poinct d'Aries, au.
LINE 7 deg.53.mi. d'Aries, pour la Lune, & autres planettes se-
So, he does refer to Spring arriving on March 11, 1557. So far so
good. (Nostradamus having lived under the Julian Calendar, the
start of each season would occur about 10 days sooner than under
our current Gregorian Calendar.)
My modern ephemeris gives the start of Spring on March 10, 1557.
But the ephemeris gives March 11, 1557, as the first day for the
Sun being in Aries all day long. The first point of Aries being
0° ARIES, the first day for that event is March 11. The last day
of Winter was March 10, when the Sun was still in PISCES.
And, an interpolation of the two positions (29°04'03" PISCES and
00°03'24" ARIES) at midnight GMT for both days would give us the
time of the EXACT arrival of Spring, in the late evening of March
10, 1557, GMT.
From the planetary position given by Nostradamus, it is apparent
that he was using an ephemeris calculated for a place other than
Greenwich (highly understandable!), and it is also apparent that
HE WAS NOT interpolating the positions given in his ephemeris,
but was quoting a position *as is*. (This, by the way, enables us
to know from which ephemeris he was reading; in this case, he was
using Simus, an ephemeris calculated for Bologna.)
>"Look, Michel, I ask you whether you aren't an even greater ignoramus
>and ass than I say? The full moon that you mention in your Presages
>for January 1557 -- you say that the moon is at 37 degrees and 46
>minutes of Cancer. What ARE you talking about, you great idiot -- the
>sun in Aquarius and the moon opposite it in Cancer? Who on earth told
>you that Cancer was opposite Aquarius? Would even anybody who had
>never seen an astrology book drop a bigger clanger than yours? Aren't
>you a great ninny if you don't understand that Leo is opposite
>Aquarius, and not Cancer?...
I have been unable to find that reference in Nostradamus. The
Moon cannot be at 37 degrees and 46 minutes of Cancer, unless one
wants to write the Moon's position in Leo, but wishes to use
degrees of Cancer to so describe it, in which case 37°46' CANCER
is 7°46' LEO.
And if the Sun is in Aquarius, then the Moon being in Leo makes
perfect sense if one speaks of a Full Moon. So, other than this
bizarre use of the previous Sign to give the Moon's position, I
see no problem with this. By the way, that Full Moon occurred on
January 15, 1557, shortly after midnight GMT, when both the Sun
and Moon were at 4° (NOT 7°) Aquarius-Leo.
So it seems that the 'great idiot' is not the one who wrote down
these planetary positions, but the one who peddles in this
NewsGroup Videl's notion that Nostradamus knew so little about
astrology that he was ignorant of the fact that Spring starts
when the Sun is at 0°00'00" ARIES EXACTLY.
The mathematical knowledgge required to interpolate two planetary
positions correctly is so modest, that it is patently ridiculous
to assert that Nostradamus was devoid of that mathematical
knowledge. A child from primary school can do it.
Indeed, the only logical conclusion one can draw from
Nostradamus' failure to interpolate planetary positions is
that... he chose not to do so.
As I have said above, the best way to tell the whole world which
ephemeris he was using was to leave the ephemeris positions as
they were printed (presumably for Noon and for the meridian of
Bologna) and not to attempt to change anything to them.
Knowing the fate awaiting the world's best astronomers,
Nostradamus was not about to show any reliable knowledge of that
science to the ignorant Cardinals of Rome. So, he abstained.
Result? His works were not censored by the Roman Catholic Church
and we are now able to read his original texts. In my view, that
was well worth being called... a great idiot.
And, needless to say... I now know the feeling. :-)
--
**** ac...@freenet.toronto.on.ca ****
C L A U D E L A T R E M O U I L L E
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
lordm...@my-deja.com
It is inpossible for the moon to move past 29D 59' 59" so 37 degrees and
46 Minuets is 7D 37' Cancer so Nostradamus was using trickery!
But does Videl Understand No! He may understand how distinguish bettween
his left and right arm, but after that ,, Can't say much!
> >minutes of Cancer. What ARE you talking about, you great idiot -- the
> >sun in Aquarius and the moon opposite it in Cancer? Who on earth told
> >you that Cancer was opposite Aquarius? Would even anybody who had
> >never seen an astrology book drop a bigger clanger than yours? Aren't
> >you a great ninny if you don't understand that Leo is opposite
> >Aquarius, and not Cancer?...
Usual idiodic rant from a real idiot!
>
> I have been unable to find that reference in Nostradamus. The
> Moon cannot be at 37 degrees and 46 minutes of Cancer, unless one
> wants to write the Moon's position in Leo, but wishes to use
> degrees of Cancer to so describe it, in which case 37°46' CANCER
> is 7°46' LEO.
Oh I just wrote that! Deja down and I'm in the mess files! (g~)
cAN'T READ THE THREAD WOOPs
Anywhay, Videl is smart as a ROCK!
>
> And if the Sun is in Aquarius, then the Moon being in Leo makes
> perfect sense if one speaks of a Full Moon. So, other than this
> bizarre use of the previous Sign to give the Moon's position, I
> see no problem with this. By the way, that Full Moon occurred on
> January 15, 1557, shortly after midnight GMT, when both the Sun
> and Moon were at 4° (NOT 7°) Aquarius-Leo.
>
> So it seems that the 'great idiot' is not the one who wrote down
> these planetary positions, but the one who peddles in this
> NewsGroup Videl's notion that Nostradamus knew so little about
> astrology that he was ignorant of the fact that Spring starts
> when the Sun is at 0°00'00" ARIES EXACTLY.
>
> The mathematical knowledgge required to interpolate two planetary
> positions correctly is so modest, that it is patently ridiculous
> to assert that Nostradamus was devoid of that mathematical
> knowledge. A child from primary school can do it.
You have 29 Oranges and One Cherry! When you get to 30 Oranges (you
ask the Black Sourceress )to plant the seed in groung *Zero to grow the
first Cherry!
All School kids were taught this in 1500's France! And Videl skipped
class and the Black Sourceress made him fall on his head! And he
became stupid! HA HA! :)
Archangel
>
> Indeed, the only logical conclusion one can draw from
> Nostradamus' failure to interpolate planetary positions is
> that... he chose not to do so.
>
> As I have said above, the best way to tell the whole world which
> ephemeris he was using was to leave the ephemeris positions as
> they were printed (presumably for Noon and for the meridian of
> Bologna) and not to attempt to change anything to them.
>
> Knowing the fate awaiting the world's best astronomers,
> Nostradamus was not about to show any reliable knowledge of that
> science to the ignorant Cardinals of Rome. So, he abstained.
> Result? His works were not censored by the Roman Catholic Church
> and we are now able to read his original texts. In my view, that
> was well worth being called... a great idiot.
>
> And, needless to say... I now know the feeling. :-)
> --
> **** ac...@freenet.toronto.on.ca ****
> C L A U D E L A T R E M O U I L L E
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
Claude Latremouille
Anonymous <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in an
unarchived post about what:
On Sat, 6 May 2000, ac...@torfree.net (Claude Latremouille) wrote:
>On Sat, 29 Apr 2000 17:11:08 +0100,
>Peter Lemesurier <lem...@bengal.demon.co.uk> wrote in part:
[ my snip of what Peter wrote ]
>>For those interested in reading what Nostradamus wrote, here is a
>>snippet from his LA GRAND' PRONOSTICATION for the year 1557:
>>
>>LINE 4 Du Primtemps 1557.
>>LINE 5 Le Primtemps ceste annee 1557. entrera le xi.iour de
>>LINE 6 Mars,le Soleil entrant au premier poinct d'Aries, au.
>>LINE 7 deg.53.mi. d'Aries, pour la Lune, & autres planettes se-
>>
>><more snippage, see previous article>
>>
>
>Claude, are these original texts available over the internet? If so,
>where can one download these for comparison with Peter Lemesurier's
>"translations" ?? I've seen several sites where the original texts
>of many of Nosty et al letters of correspondence are available, but
>I didn't find any of the almanachs on-line whether translated or not,
>neither did I locate Videl's 'Abuse Declaration' on-line in order to
>ascertain just who is misquoting whom for the benefit of the reader.
>
>I'm reluctant to accept that even the likes of Peter could distort
>these original texts to the point where he'd mistranslate xi as 15
>and not 11, as you claim the original "LA GRAND' PRONOSTICATION"
>for that year states. If this is really true--that Nosty wrote xi
>and NOT xv (or whatever?)--then why would anyone, even Peter L.,
>go on record as making such an obvious mistranslation--i.e. lie?
>No one in the world can honestly say that "xi" translates as 15,
>and it is obvious that anyone who'd do this is a dishonest person.
>
>I thank you for pointing out this egregious error on Peter's part,
>as he so frequently refers to Nostradamus' writings and critiques
>thereof as undeniable proof of Nostradamus' "incompetence.." etc.
>
>Now, more than ever, I'd like to peruse these original texts and in
>their entirety. If Peter is found guilty of this blatant distortion
>i.e. claiming that xi translates as 15, what else is he guilty of?
>Or did the venerable doctor Laurens Videl instigate this conundrum?
>Readers in a.p.n. deserve to know just who is lying and who is not!
>
>Your input on this is very much appreciated, Claude,
>Daniel J Min-
Daniel, it would seem that Peter might have inadvertently given
an incorrect date for the Spring Equinoxe in this case. As I do
not have Videl's original text, I can only refer to what Pierre
Brind'Amour wrote about what Videl wrote, at p. 70-71 of his
"Nostradamus astrophile", 1993, Les Presses de l'Université
d'Ottawa, ISBN 2-7603-0368-3, Éditions Klincksieck, 1993, ISBN 2-
252-02896-3.
Assuming that Brind'Amour did report correctly what Videl said,
then, Nostradamus did indeed refer to March 11 and not to March
15, 1557. Videl's problem is not with Nostradamus' date but with
his use of uninterpolated planetary positions, in this case, the
Sun's position.
As to whether Nostradamus' original is or is not on the Internet,
I cannot be certain. If the original of Nostradamus' "LA GRAND'
PRONOSTICATION" for the year 1557 is photographically reproduced
somewhere on the Internet (you may ask Mario to post a copy of
that page on his site), then, you will be able to see it for
yourself.
As to the source of the text I posted above, it is found in
Bernard Chevignard's "Présages de Nostradamus", June 1999, Seuil,
ISBN 2-02-035960-X, at p. 401. Mario may have this book.
This last book is worth purchasing if only for the few hitherto
unpublished Nostradamus originals it contains. They are:
1. LA GRAND' PRONOSTICATION... for 1557, pp. 394-417.
2. PRONOSTICATION NOVVELLE... for 1558, pp. 419-442.
3. LES SIGNIFICATIONS de l'Eclipse (Sept. 16, 1559), pp. 445-460.
My suggestion to Peter would be to post, side by side, his
originals and his translations. This way, if he makes a mistake,
he will be able to catch it easily. And if he is faithfully
translating an incorrect date written by Videl, then it shall be
obvious who the 'great idiot' is.
In neither case shall it be Nostradamus! :-)
Claude Latremouille
Anonymous <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote about what
On Sat, 6 May 2000, ac...@torfree.net (Claude Latremouille) wrote:
>On Sat, 6 May 2000 13:26:44 -0600,
>Anonymous <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in an
>unarchived post about what (it's that X-No-Archive: yes):
>>><snippage>
>>Daniel, it would seem that Peter might have inadvertently given
>>an incorrect date for the Spring Equinoxe in this case.
Having now seen from Mario's website what Videl published, it is
now obvious that Peter mistranslated Videl, who wrote:
LINE 2 merides quant tu metz le printemps ceste année
LINE 3 1557. entrera le xj iour de mars le soleil entrant au
LINE 4 premier point d'aries a o.degrez 53 minutes, Re-
[ my snip ]
>>As to whether Nostradamus' original is or is not on the Internet,
>>I cannot be certain. If the original of Nostradamus' "LA GRAND'
>>PRONOSTICATION" for the year 1557 is photographically reproduced
>>somewhere on the Internet (you may ask Mario to post a copy of
>>that page on his site), then, you will be able to see it for
>>yourself.
>>
>That'd be great, but I'd be more than happy with plaintext, at
>least that way anyone can download it for convenient reference.
If you have seen Mario's recent post, you now know that Mario has
Videl on line in *.jpg format. And the quoted excerpt above comes
from this. Never trust plaintext, especially with Nostradamus, as
it is not what he writes which matters, but how he places his
text on the printed page. Hence, an image of his page is worth...
a thousand words!
[ my snip ]
>That's for sure. And if the original edition of this almanach(s)
>exists, that should settle the matter to everyone's satisfaction.
It is not an Almanach. Nostradamus sometimes published two (2)
annual books, one called an Almanach, but the other often called
a Prognostication. This comes from his Prognostication for 1557.
>If I had to guess I'd guess "xi.iour" is what he actually wrote,
>otherwise I think L. Videl would've been equally upset over THAT
>error, but according to Peter, Videl failed to even mention this
>"xv" which obviously would've been four+ days after the equinox!
>I think you must be correct in that Peter simply overlooked this.
>And I'll be sure to read the balance of your reply to Peter more
>carefully, Claude, before I attempt any further analysis of this.
>Also, the fact that you seem confident that Peter's error is/was
>unintentional, I'm given to overlook this error and proceed with
>my calculations as soon as I've finished with the study of yours.
>
>Thanks for your help,
>Daniel J Min-
Agreed. Videl would have pounced on Nostradamus had Nostradamus
announced the Equinox for March 15, when it was March 10. Which
is why I often urge Peter (who stupidly ignores this advice) to
post his originals and translations side by side. That way, if he
does not catch his own mistakes, someone else will.
Guess he does not want that either! :-(
After all, he is supposed to be the expert... :-)
Claude Latremouille
: In article <Fu49K5.3t...@torfree.net>,
: ac...@torfree.net (Claude Latremouille) wrote:
: > On Sat, 29 Apr 2000 17:11:08 +0100,
: > Peter Lemesurier <lem...@bengal.demon.co.uk> wrote in part:
: >
: > >(Cat among pigeons time? ;)
: > >
: > >Laurens Videl was a doctor and astrologer who taught at Avignon and
: > >Lyon, and the author of Almanachs with Claude Fabri (i.e. he knew
: what
: > >he was talking about!), who in 1557 wrote (and published in 1558) a
: > >pamphlet entitled the 'Declaration of the Abuses, Ignorances and
: > >Seditions of Michel Nostradamus', which on the basis of its known
: > >finances had a print-run of 6,000.
: > >
: > >The following are some choice extracts. It is addressed to 'Michel de
: > >Nostredame' in person:
: > >
: > >..."I can say with complete confidence that of true astrology you
: > >understand less than nothing, as is evident not merely to the
: learned,
: > >but to learners in astrology too, as your works amply demonstrate,
: you
: > >who cannot calculate the least movement of any star whatever:
: > >and no more than knowing the movements do you understand how to use
: > >your tables. Nor do you show your knowledge of the tables when you
: > >state that the spring of this year 1557 will start on the 15th day of
: > >March when the sun enters the First Point of Aries at 0 degrees 53
: > >minutes.
We now know from Mario's website that Videl did not write the date
March 15, 1557.
: > > See how ignorant you are...What is this First Point? Do you
In fact, Nostradamus was hiding under this Prognostication his
secret prophecy in anagrams about the end of Paris.
: But does Videl Understand No! He may understand how distinguish bettween
: his left and right arm, but after that ,, Can't say much!
Don't be too harsh on Videl, who was reading Nostradamus'
published text, not the hidden text. And Videl provides us with
ample evidence that Nostradamus' text is sometimes too ridiculous
to be taken at face value. So, as you said above, Nostradamus was
indeed using trickerey... and could not say so to Videl!
: > >minutes of Cancer. What ARE you talking about, you great idiot -- the
: > >sun in Aquarius and the moon opposite it in Cancer? Who on earth told
: > >you that Cancer was opposite Aquarius? Would even anybody who had
: > >never seen an astrology book drop a bigger clanger than yours? Aren't
: > >you a great ninny if you don't understand that Leo is opposite
: > >Aquarius, and not Cancer?...
: Usual idiodic rant from a real idiot!
The poor Videl could not have guessed at what that text was about.
He read it literally, and got the garbage he was reading. And
Lemesurier, by translating that garbage into English, has allowed
this NewsGroup to wonder who is the greatest idiot of all...
: > I have been unable to find that reference in Nostradamus. The
: > Moon cannot be at 37 degrees and 46 minutes of Cancer, unless one
: > wants to write the Moon's position in Leo, but wishes to use
: > degrees of Cancer to so describe it, in which case 37°46' CANCER
: > is 7°46' LEO.
: Oh I just wrote that! Deja down and I'm in the mess files! (g~)
: cAN'T READ THE THREAD WOOPs
: Anywhay, Videl is smart as a ROCK!
No, he is an astrologer who knows that Nostradamus' prophecy
COULD NOT have come from astrology. In that sense, he is correct.
: > And if the Sun is in Aquarius, then the Moon being in Leo makes
: > perfect sense if one speaks of a Full Moon. So, other than this
: > bizarre use of the previous Sign to give the Moon's position, I
: > see no problem with this. By the way, that Full Moon occurred on
: > January 15, 1557, shortly after midnight GMT, when both the Sun
: > and Moon were at 4° (NOT 7°) Aquarius-Leo.
: >
: > So it seems that the 'great idiot' is not the one who wrote down
: > these planetary positions, but the one who peddles in this
: > NewsGroup Videl's notion that Nostradamus knew so little about
: > astrology that he was ignorant of the fact that Spring starts
: > when the Sun is at 0°00'00" ARIES EXACTLY.
: >
: > The mathematical knowledgge required to interpolate two planetary
: > positions correctly is so modest, that it is patently ridiculous
: > to assert that Nostradamus was devoid of that mathematical
: > knowledge. A child from primary school can do it.
: You have 29 Oranges and One Cherry! When you get to 30 Oranges (you
: ask the Black Sourceress )to plant the seed in groung *Zero to grow the
: first Cherry!
: All School kids were taught this in 1500's France! And Videl skipped
: class and the Black Sourceress made him fall on his head! And he
: became stupid! HA HA! :)
: Archangel
: >
: > Indeed, the only logical conclusion one can draw from
: > Nostradamus' failure to interpolate planetary positions is
: > that... he chose not to do so.
And if you are using Simus' ephemeris to speak of 53 minutes, and
if Paris is destroyed at 3:53 a.m., on August 13, 2017, then these
53 minutes are quite useful to Nostradamus. Even if it reaps for
him the title of 'great idiot'.
: > As I have said above, the best way to tell the whole world which
Vincent
Maybee, but look in my website an find the time-picture 1549-1584:
There You wil find his full moone in Cancer to Aquarius!
And maybee You can think about rest???
Vincent
>--
> **** ac...@freenet.toronto.on.ca ****
> C L A U D E L A T R E M O U I L L E
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Vincent
http:\www.nostradamus.dk
Peter Lemesurier
wrote:
>>Knowing the fate awaiting the world's best astronomers,
>>Nostradamus was not about to show any reliable knowledge of that
>>science to the ignorant Cardinals of Rome. So, he abstained.
>>Result? His works were not censored by the Roman Catholic Church
>>and we are now able to read his original texts. In my view, that
>>was well worth being called... a great idiot.
>>
>>And, needless to say... I now know the feeling. :-)
>Maybee, but look in my website an find the time-picture 1549-1584:
>There You wil find his full moone in Cancer to Aquarius!
>And maybee You can think about rest???
No -- not Claude! ;)
--
Peter
Claude Latremouille
Anonymous <nob...@noisebox.dhs.org> wrote about what
On Sun, 7 May 2000, ac...@torfree.net (Claude Latremouille) wrote:
>On Sat, 6 May 2000 23:55:13 -0600, in yet another unarchived post:
>
>Claude, that's the "X-No-Archive: yes" directive added automatically
>(a default setting) by the 'Reliable' program that all remailers run.
>Not every news server honours this directive, though. Deja news does.
Understood. But what is the point of using an anonymous remailer
and an unarchived post when you sign your name to each and every
post? If you are not ashamed of what you write, why not allow
people reading DéjàNews to look at your posts, then?
[ my snip ]
>>Having now seen from Mario's website what Videl published, it is
>>now obvious that Peter mistranslated Videl, who wrote:
>>
>>LINE 2 merides quant tu metz le printemps ceste année
>>LINE 3 1557. entrera le xj iour de mars le soleil entrant au
>>LINE 4 premier point d'aries a o.degrez 53 minutes, Re-
>>
>That's really great news! Since it means Videl was likely
>meticulous in his critique, thus his "you said this" etc.
>are, at least probably, quoting directly or paraphrasing
>Nostradamus' actual words. Furthermore, this shows that
>Nostradamus did not claim an obscure reference for the
>vernal equinox, but was right in there with March 11th.
>That in itself is a relief, since it means that most if
>not all of Nostradamus' other references are straight
>forward and identifiable by astronomical calculation.
As long as you understand that Nostradamus' original texts are
hiding something, there is nothing wrong at seeing Nostradamus'
references for what they are. Many of them can indeed be
identified via any good astroLOGICAL ephemeris.
>>If you have seen Mario's recent post, you now know that Mario has
>>Videl on line in *.jpg format. And the quoted excerpt above comes
>>from this. Never trust plaintext, especially with Nostradamus, as
>>it is not what he writes which matters, but how he places his
>>text on the printed page. Hence, an image of his page is worth...
>>a thousand words!
>>
>I'll trust your expertise on the matter, but I am no less
>interested in obtaining the plain text of this work. Much
>thanks to Mario for responding so quickly to this request.
As long as the plain text faithfully reproduces what is on the
printed page, no problem. But my experience in the matter has
allowed me to see that a few things can be seen on the printed
page (or on the image of that page) but cannot be seen on even
the most faithful plain text reproduction.
Example: When Nostradamus deliberately ties in two words which
should not be tied, and deliberately breaks in two parts a word
which should be left as one word, one can only see in the image
of that page that this is not done because the printers do not
have enough space in their line to allow the two words to be kept
separate, as the image shows that there is plenty of space in
that line to leave the two words separate.
And when one looks at the next line and sees one word split in
two, then the more observing of Nostradamus' readers can get the
idea that these apparent typographical anomalies are in fact very
deliberate, and are a way for Nostradamus of telling his readers:
Hey! Look at what I have done!! You see, if you tie two words
together, this does not change the anagram at all. If you
separate the same word in two parts, this does not change the
anagram either!!!
And of course, the best way for Nostradamus to show this is when
he decides to exchange in the same line two letters which are
obviously exchanged and which cannot be the product of an
incompetent printer.
Example, line 4 of X-86:
Et yront contre le roy de Babilon.
where one can see that Babylon was never spelled with an "i", and
that "iront" was never spelled with a "y" either. Another way for
Nostradamus of saying: See?! I've done it again!! But this
exchange of letters does not affect the anagram either!!!
And he plays the same trick elsewhere. He even does it twice in
the same line, in the 1555 Letter to Caesar. On the first line of
a page, making it verrry obvious. There too, the anagram is not
affected. But the originally published text is.
Which goes to show that the published text is not the one
Nostradamus wants us to read... after his hidden text has been
discovered.
Claude Latremouille
Anonymous <nob...@noisebox.dhs.org> wrote about what
On Mon, 8 May 2000, ac...@torfree.net (Claude Latremouille) wrote:
[ my huge snip ]
>I've read some of your posts on your anagrams, Claude, and I
>admit that I do not recognize the basis for your conclusions.
>When someone can show me that 2 + 2 = 4 (unambiguously) then
>I can accept such clearly-defined formulae without argument.
>If your "hidden" terms were more clearly defined then I'd be
>the first one to "jump on the anagram bandwagon" as it were.
>As I've readily admitted before, I blame my own ignorance of
>this subject of anagrams for my inability to understand you.
Understood.
[ another snip ]
>>As long as the plain text faithfully reproduces what is on the
>>printed page, no problem. But my experience in the matter has
>>allowed me to see that a few things can be seen on the printed
>>page (or on the image of that page) but cannot be seen on even
>>the most faithful plain text reproduction.
>>
>>Example: When Nostradamus deliberately ties in two words which
>>should not be tied, and deliberately breaks in two parts a word
>>which should be left as one word, one can only see in the image
>>of that page that this is not done because the printers do not
>>have enough space in their line to allow the two words to be kept
>>separate, as the image shows that there is plenty of space in
>>that line to leave the two words separate.
>But the printers are the ones who printed the printed page, yes?
Under Nostradamus' close supervision, yes. Were it not the case,
Nostradamus would have been unable to have had his coded texts
correctly published. So, an entire prophecy written in cryptic
anagrams requires an absolute control by Nostradamus over what
came out of his printers' shops.
>You say "as long as the plain text faithfully reproduces what is
>on the printed page, no problem". Yet you contradict yourself by
>referring to the printers as the ones who, for lack of "space in
>their line" etc, are guilty of perverting Nostradamus' autograph
>albeit for perfectly understandable limitations of movable type.
You may have misunderstood. It was a common practice in those
days to abbreviate some words by placing an indication which most
of the time looks like a tilde above a letter which precedes the
letter which is omitted but which would normally follow. As long
as the printers place that mark above the preceding letter, it is
possible to reconstruct the word as if all of its letters were
printed sequentially. Example: "Mo~ filz = Mon filz. In this
case, it is possible to use plaintext to represent these marks. I
was therefore referring to something else, i.e., to the way the
text ended up being printed, and to the space available to the
printers, had they printed separate words separately.
>I appreciate your meaning, though, that Nostradamus' own writing
>frequently confounded the conventional wisdom of the day with his
>atypical "breaks" and strange "ligatures" etc. giving the reader
>cause to examine his writings intact - using "mistakes" and all!
>Such was the duty of the scribe, to faithfully copy the original
>text VERBATIM, mistakes & all lest he must start all over again.
>Given your hair-splitting faithfulness to the text, I would ask
>the oracle if YOU were a Hebrew scribe in some past incarnation?
I only plead guilty to being a hair-splitting Virgo! :-)
>>And when one looks at the next line and sees one word split in
>>two, then the more observing of Nostradamus' readers can get the
>>idea that these apparent typographical anomalies are in fact very
>>deliberate, and are a way for Nostradamus of telling his readers:
>>Hey! Look at what I have done!! You see, if you tie two words
>>together, this does not change the anagram at all. If you
>>separate the same word in two parts, this does not change the
>>anagram either!!!
>>
>Yours is a gift, Claude. It seems you are using your gift well.
Nostradamus seems to think so... given his many decrypted
quatrains where he states that I correctly 'translated' (his
verb) his poetry into prose.
>>And of course, the best way for Nostradamus to show this is when
>>he decides to exchange in the same line two letters which are
>>obviously exchanged and which cannot be the product of an
>>incompetent printer.
>>
>>Example, line 4 of X-86:
>>
>> Et yront contre le roy de Babilon.
>>
>>where one can see that Babylon was never spelled with an "i", and
>>that "iront" was never spelled with a "y" either. Another way for
>>Nostradamus of saying: See?! I've done it again!! But this
>>exchange of letters does not affect the anagram either!!!
>
>That is compelling. Compare the Hebrew spelling lbb {baw-bel'}
>(vowel points "lebab" in the margins of the masoretic scrolls),
>with the koi-ne' babulwn{bab-oo-lone'}, var. babulwnov, babulwni,
>babulwnov, babulwn, etc. [ref. Byzantine Majority & Alexandrian],
>where clearly the Greek letter ypsilon(upsilon) is the y/u vowel,
>and not the 'i' (iota), as you have clearly pointed out, Claude.
>Spelling variants and cognates I can understand, but how these
>convert to your anagrams is definitely beyond my comprehension.
Simply stated: line 4 of X-86 above can be converted into the
fourth part of a number of clear and simple French sentences in
prose, all hidden in the four lines of that verse. One of these,
from page 444 of my book, reads:
Et la Bombe tuera trop d'Innocens.
Meaning: "and the bomb shall kill too many innocents." If you can
reconstruct the original line 4
>> Et yront contre le roy de Babilon.
from the text I just gave you, you have understood how the
conversion is made.
>Again, I'm happy to take your word for it. I'm too preoccupied
>to other pursuits to do otherwise, but I'll occasionally drop
>in on your posts on anagrams to see if something doesn't click.
>I'm sure you wouldn't be spending so much time and effort doing
>what you're doing if you didn't believe you were on to something.
Forgive me for sounding a little blasé about it, but *I have
been* spending a lot of time on it, in fact from 1993 to 1998.
Now, most of what I am saying here in a.p.n. is a re-statement of
what I have found during these five years. So, the subject
retains all of its actuality for my readers, but has lost all of
its novelty for me.
(Case in point: because I have discovered on December 23, 1994,
the date and time of the future destruction of Paris, this is for
me 'old hat', although some of my readers will hear about this
for the first time in the years to come.)
[ snip ]
>I think I'd better stick to the ol' judicial astrology for now.
>Daniel J Min-
Can't object to that. After all, this is what gave me the fateful
date, i.e., August 13, 2017, at 3:53 a.m.
As Nostradamus says (in code): it happens... before an eclipse,
and it happens... after an eclipse. It happens on a beautiful
Summer Sunday. I had the choice between three possible dates,
given the letters I had to play with: trois (3), treize (13), or
trente (30). The only one of these three which was a Sunday
between two eclipses was... August 13, 2017.
The time? How many quatrains are there in the 1555 edition of the
Centuries? 353. Bingo! 3:53 a.m., also confirmed in anagrams,
both as "three fifty-three" in the morning and as "seven to four"
in the morning... which is the same thing.
Except for the fact that I was discovering at the same time that
about three millions of the then residents of Paris would perish
from that unintended bombing of "too many innocents", I must say
that finding these anagrams was great fun.
But now, the fun is over, and I have to face the formidable
opposition of those who have to gain from a systematic campaign
of disinformation about the prophecy.
There are quite many of these 'land merchants', as Nostradamus
calls them, who stand to gain by discrediting the prophecy ahead
of time. In one decrypted text, Nostradamus calls them criminals,
since they allow the good people of Paris to die horribly, while
they have fled to safety in the US and the UK, where they have
safely tucked away the proceeds from their sale of Paris land,
just before that second holocaust.
Such is the prophecy.