Nostradamus and the Aegean Sea event
Claude Latremouille
on or about March 11, 2002:
*
> Subject: Nostradamus and the Aegean Sea Event
> Date: 11 Aug 2001 21:23:32 GMT
*
> Nostradamus and the Aegean Sea Event
*
What follows is the decrypted text from Nostradamus' prophecies
relating directly or indirectly to the March 11, 2002, incident
over the Aegean Sea.
*
I-83 [1555]
Quand la bien sotte Russie "tue Riga"
le Onze Mars de l'An Deux, sa fusée tue
cent mille Grecs attaqués sans raison et
occis par vne grosse erreur stupide.
*
II-3 [1555]
Lors que la chaleur de l'Atome Russe
cuit tous les poissons dans la Mer Égée,
Mes Bons Parisiens ne voyent le Danger
de l'erreur aussi Atomicque de l'Enfer d'U S.
*
II-5 [1555]
Une grosse fusée d'Atome ira en Mer Égée
pour y punir la Grèce (qui aura le sort
de Paris) en un Massacre barbare
d'autres Gens punis à tort en erreur.
*
II-22 [1555]
L'OTAN ne pourra pas partir de
l'isle Britannique de Chypre, assommée
par la phalange des Turcs en l'An
Deux, quand la Bombe de Russie ira en Mer Égée.
*
II-46 [1555]
Le Onze Mars Deux Mil Deux, Paris subit l'anagrame
de Claude La Trémouille sus une Mer Égée
aussi frite que Paris de la Géhenne
(loin de la France) qui tue cent mille Grecs.
*
II-52 [1555]
L'Atome Russe très stupide ira "tuer Riga"
le si stupide Onze Mars Deux Mil Deux,
car ma prophétye dessus la Mer Égée ne
sera pas creue de cent mille Grecs tués là.
*
III-3 [1555]
Le Onze Mars, l'Année MMII, la Mer Égée est très
extrêmement occise vers midi
par l'Atome d'vn très fol nauire Russe
esclaté loin de Paris... encor perplexe !
*
III-89 [1555]
Paris n'acceptera que l'Enfer Russe
dedans une douce Mer Égée en Mars
MMII est la preuve de la Prophétye sus Paris,
car le Doux Paris y est tué par le Bon U S.
*
IV-32 [1555] - Greek alphabet in brackets
Le Onze Mars Deux Mil Deux, la grosse chaleur
du rude Atome si fatal occira cent mille
Égéens et, le rude XIII Aoust UU VII, trois
Millions à [Pa]ris ont le mesme affront.
*
V-27 [November 1557]
La Bonne Mer Égée frira d'vng Atome Russe,
car dedans vn nauire son Pilote décède
et son Atome chemine sur la Belle Grèce,
quand l'Atome de ce nauire vise... Riga !
*
V-90 [November 1557] - first version
La très grande chaleur incendie les isles
près du Pelloponnesse, l'Atome destiné
à incinérer Riga le Onze Mars de l'An Deux
M Deux estant tyré chez une folle Russie !
*
V-90 [November 1557] - second version
Les Cyclades près d'Athènes périssent de
la plus grosse sottise d'Atome de l'An
II Mil Deux, vng Onze Mars pas assez affreux
pour que Mon Cher Paris voye sa destinée !
*
V-95 [November 1557]
Un Atome Russe, qui est bien mal tiré
dans Riga vn Lundi Onze Mars, occira par
maladresse cent mille Bons Égéens,
empoysonnant en effect la Chère Grèce.
*
VI-84 [November 1557]
Quel rude Onze Mars ! La Mer Égée cuyte par
la trop fière Russie atacquant
Riga quand elle torture la Grèce
lors que meurt le Pilote de sa fusée !
*
IX-75 [1568]
L'An Deux Mil Deux, le Pays de Grèce
sera despeuplé par l'Atome Russe qui
sera une menace perpétuelle pour
la Mer Égée, victime de la sotte Russie.
*
IX-78 [1568]
La Grèce nye qu'elle aura l'Atome
de Russie qui cuyt la Bonne Mer Égée, car
à Paris, l'anagrame n'est que théorique
et les Grecs aiment bien mourir à Paris.
*
IX-91 [1568]
L'innocente et philosophe Mer Égée fryt
le Onze Mars d'vne chaleur d'Atome et, icy,
à Paris, voilà les chapelles d'Athés
qui nient la Géhenne de l'U S en France !
*
X-37 [1568]
Vng Atome de Russie massacre la Mer Égée,
en Mars de la trop sotte Année MMII,
car vng nauire soubz la Mer perd son Pilote et
a ung Commandant archi-imbécile à bord.
*
X-39 [1568]
Le XI Mars MMII, la Mer Égée chauffe pour
rien, car dedans vn nauire Russe, vn fol
Commandant tout excité a changé
de cap auant de brusler trop de Grecs.
*
X-49 [1568]
Quand le Onze Mars Deux Mil Deux finit
la si Grande Mer Égée d'vn Atome Russe
qu'on pense allé sus la Cité de Riga,
Mon Paris nye qu'il sera exécuté par le Bon U S.
*
X-78 [1568] - first version
De toutes les bestes iniustices
à massacrer les Braues Hommes Grecs
l'An Deux Mil Deux, l'Atome de Russie sera la pire
bestise osant annoncer à Paris l'erreur de l'U S.
*
X-78 [1568] - second version
L'U S tire icy sa Bombe très iniuste
malgré Mars MM Deux, car la Mer Égée a
l'Atome de Russie destiné à brusler Riga, pas la
Concorde à Paris, bestement sinistrée par l'U S.
*
PRÉSAGES POUR 1559 - DÉCEMBRE (#46 transcribed by Chavigny)
Quand l'Atome Russe cuyra la Mer Égée, l'An
Deux Mil Deux, en Mars, les Gens de Paris
seront rasseurés à tort par vn très Bon Ami
(l'U S) sus la prose d'vng idiot... Nostradamus !
*
=== cla...@torfree.net ===
=== CLAUDE LATRÉMOUILLE ===
===========================
Dorian West
a select few close to the time of the event as foreknowledge of the prophecy
can change it. We've got 500 years of foreknowledge here. Once again, shit.
"Claude Latremouille" <cla...@torfree.net> wrote in message
news:20020210061455...@sheppard.torfree.net...
Claude Latremouille
> This is shit. Nostradamus is shit. Prophecy is shit and can only be done by
> a select few close to the time of the event as foreknowledge of the prophecy
> can change it. We've got 500 years of foreknowledge here. Once again, shit.
Your views have been read and noted.
*
Have a nice day, you all!
*
--
**** cj...@freenet.carleton.ca ****
C L A U D E L A T R E M O U I L L E
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
spyridon
preparing your apologies?
"Claude Latremouille" <cj...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> a écrit dans le message
news: a6i407$o72$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca...
gogu
Here we are again!
Some time ago I asked you if you would be ready to apologize if your 11
March
mambo jumbo will not come true and your reply was a clear "yes"!
As you know, today IS 11 of March 2002, Greek time 23.00 and as far as I
know no nuclear bomb was
"lost" somewhere in Aegean sea nor 100.000 Greeks are dead because of it:-)
So, I (we...) are waiting for your excuses.
Ο "Claude Latremouille" <cj...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> έγραψε στο μήνυμα
news:a6i407$o72$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca...
spyridon
Devines quoi? Ils ont Internet au paradis! Saint Pierre vient de me
configurer mon outlook pour que je puisse lire les forums mais il doit pas
être à jour : je ne vois pas la moindre trace de l'accident nucléaire ni
aucun post triomphant de ta part!
Alors pourquoi ce silence? ne me dit pas qu'une bombinette s'est perdue dans
ton jardin et que tu as toi aussi été pulvérisé?
Quelle perte pour l'humanité!
Allez rassure-moi vite! Car si tu n'es ni sur terre ni au ciel, je n'ose
l'imaginer : Serais-tu en enfer?
Quelle injustice!
Spyridon
"Claude Latremouille" <cj...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> a écrit dans le message
news: a6i407$o72$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca...
Claude Latremouille
> Hi la Tremouille... 17:45 now and no apocalypse in the Aegean yet... Are you
> preparing your apologies?
Hmmm, if you consider what follows an 'apology', then, it is
done. If not...
*
> Subject: REPOSTED - After March 11, 2002
> Date: 12 Mar 2002 07:01:12 GMT
*
Originally posted as:
*
> Subject: After March 11, 2002
> Date: 12 Mar 2002 01:02:32 GMT
> Message-ID: <a6jk38$ria$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca>
*
In the light of the Chirac non-event and of the Aegean Sea non-
event, it is useful to state the main views on Nostradamus'
prophecies expressed from time to time in this NewsGroup.
*
PROPOSITION #1: Prophecy is impossible. Therefore Nostradamus'
texts, be they coded or uncoded, are not prophecies.
*
Comment: Proponents of this proposition find comfort in the two
abovementioned non-events. To them, this is proof that their view
is the correct one and that those who disagree are mistaken.
*
PROPOSITION #2: Prophecy is possible, but Nostradamus did not
code his prophecies. Therefore, anyone who undertakes to 'decode'
what is not coded is mistaken.
*
Comment: The abovementioned non-events are also used by the
proponents of this proposition as evidence that their view is
correct. Note that both propositions #1 and #2 are contradictory
but their proponents are able to use the same facts as a basis
for the correctness of their views.
*
PROPOSITION #3: Prophecy is possible, Nostradamus did code his
prophecies, but the decoder has not shown that he has correctly
decoded them with respect to future events.
*
Comment: Only this proposition allows for a rational discussion
of the decoding process used, as the other two preclude any
prophetic (#1) coding (#2) whatsoever.
*
After March 11, 2002, we can conclude that the following cryptic
anagrams (marked with an arrow) about the Aegean Sea non-event
are incorrect:
*
> I-83 [1555]
> Quand la bien sotte Russie "tue Riga"
> cent mille Grecs attaqués sans raison et
> occis par vne grosse erreur stupide.
> *
> Le Onze Mars Deux Mil Deux, Paris subit l'anagrame <====== 2
> de Claude La Trémouille sus une Mer Égée
> aussi frite que Paris de la Géhenne
> (loin de la France) qui tue cent mille Grecs.
> *
> II-52 [1555]
> L'Atome Russe très stupide ira "tuer Riga"
> car ma prophétye dessus la Mer Égée ne
> sera pas creue de cent mille Grecs tués là.
> *
> *
> III-3 [1555]
> extrêmement occise vers midi
> par l'Atome d'vn très fol nauire Russe
> esclaté loin de Paris... encor perplexe !
> *
> du rude Atome si fatal occira cent mille
> Égéens et, le rude XIII Aoust UU VII, trois
> Millions à [Pa]ris ont le mesme affront.
> *
> La très grande chaleur incendie les isles
> près du Pelloponnesse, l'Atome destiné
> M Deux estant tyré chez une folle Russie !
> *
> V-90 [November 1557] - second version
> Les Cyclades près d'Athènes périssent de
> la plus grosse sottise d'Atome de l'An
> pour que Mon Cher Paris voye sa destinée !
> *
> Le XI Mars MMII, la Mer Égée chauffe pour <=============== 8
> rien, car dedans vn nauire Russe, vn fol
> Commandant tout excité a changé
> de cap auant de brusler trop de Grecs.
> *
> X-49 [1568]
> la si Grande Mer Égée d'vn Atome Russe
> qu'on pense allé sus la Cité de Riga,
> Mon Paris nye qu'il sera exécuté par le Bon U S.
*
after March 11, 2002. The remaining decrypted poetry about an
Aegean Sea future event is not affected by the March 11, 2002,
non-event. Either it is totally wrong, or parts of it are
correct.
*
Only the passage of time will tell.
*
Claude Latrémouille
gogu
I wonder why people have no guts to admit "I was wrong"!
Ï "Claude Latremouille" <cj...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> Ýãñáøå óôï ìÞíõìá
news:a6l6g1$13l$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca...
Claude Latremouille
*
[...]
*
> I wonder why people have no guts to admit "I was wrong"!
Perhaps it is not so much a matter of guts, but one of...
intelligence. One cannot admit to being wrong if one does
not know that one is wrong. And once one knows that, one
can admit to that, but only to what has been demonstrated
to having been wrong. Which is what is done in the quoted
post below.
Paléologue
"Claude Latremouille" has written :
> PROPOSITION #1: Prophecy is impossible. Therefore Nostradamus'
> texts, be they coded or uncoded, are not prophecies.
False. Maybe Nostradamus was realy beleaving in his prophecies. Your
proposition should be : Prophecy is impossible, Nostradamus was just an
asshole and la Tremouille-sa-chemise a fart.
> PROPOSITION #2: Prophecy is possible, but Nostradamus did not
> code his prophecies. Therefore, anyone who undertakes to 'decode'
> what is not coded is mistaken.
Possible even if prophecy is impossible
> PROPOSITION #3: Prophecy is possible, Nostradamus did code his
> prophecies, but the decoder has not shown that he has correctly
> decoded them with respect to future events.
> *
> Comment: Only this proposition allows for a rational discussion
> of the decoding process used, as the other two preclude any
> prophetic (#1) coding (#2) whatsoever.
> *
You need your décoded "events" to turned to be false to start doupting about
your stupid method? You are ridiculous!
> After March 11, 2002, we can conclude that the following cryptic
> anagrams (marked with an arrow) about the Aegean Sea non-event
> are incorrect:
Come on! We knew it far before March 11, 2002!
Where are your apologies for spreading such rumours?
We already knew you have no brain, now you show you have no guts either!
Claude Latremouille
"Paléologue" <Paléolo...@yahoo.fr> wrote about what
*
>"Claude Latremouille" has written :
*
[...]
*
>> After March 11, 2002, we can conclude that the following cryptic
>> anagrams (marked with an arrow) about the Aegean Sea non-event
>> are incorrect:
>
>Come on! We knew it far before March 11, 2002!
Glad to see that you (who is 'We'?) do possess the gift of
prophecy. Unfortunately, I do not possess such a gift. I had to
wait and see if the cryptic anagrams derived from Nostradamus'
poetry and pointing to March 11, 2002, were correct or not. Now I
know they are not correct and I have so indicated in the post you
have snipped.
*
>Where are your apologies for spreading such rumours?
The cryptic anagrams pointing to March 11, 2002, are not rumours,
but are an honest attempt at decrypting Nostradamus' poetry. It
seems that the fact that I have informed this NewsGroup about my
findings *before the fact* does not please you. Would you have
preferred that I wait until *after the fact* to do so? Seems to
me that it would have been a serious omission, had the date of
March 11, 2002, been correct.
*
Ah, yes, I was forgetting: you are a prophet, as you already
*knew* that the date of March 11, 2002, was incorrect.
*
>We already knew you have no brain, now you show you have no guts either!
In addition to being a prophet, you seem to be a rather impolite
fellow. You are not alone. Your other aliases are as well. Maybe
that is what happens when someone writes using his guts but not
his brain.
*
Have a nice day, you all!
plat4
Hey claude get the fuck out of SCG with your assinine mumbo jumbo. Go
back to alt.prophecies.nostradamus .........where BTW you also are not wanted.
Manos
Paléologue
It is not prophetic to say your decoding in a joke and your prophecies
bullshit. Everyone told you ever since you started posting your insanities
here. It is not impolite to tell an idiot that he is stupid nor to a coward
he has no guts. It appears you are an addict to your notradamned idiotic
poetry and there is no way to cure you fom it. Ever reality is not enough.
Talking to you is a loss of time. So you realy deserved me to grow impolite
and here it is : shut your f... mouth and get the h... out of this newsgroup
you stupid trisomic b.... And I mean it.
"Claude Latremouille" <cj...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> a écrit dans le message
news: a6otc0$3bl$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca...
Agamemnon
"Claude Latremouille" <cj...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
news:a6otc0$3bl$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca...
> On Wed, 13 Mar 2002 12:50:43 +0100, writing under yet another alias,
> "Paléologue" <Paléolo...@yahoo.fr> wrote about what
> *
> >"Claude Latremouille" has written :
> *
> [...]
> *
> >> After March 11, 2002, we can conclude that the following cryptic
> >> anagrams (marked with an arrow) about the Aegean Sea non-event
> >> are incorrect:
> >
> >Come on! We knew it far before March 11, 2002!
> *
> Glad to see that you (who is 'We'?) do possess the gift of
> prophecy. Unfortunately, I do not possess such a gift. I had to
> wait and see if the cryptic anagrams derived from Nostradamus'
> poetry and pointing to March 11, 2002, were correct or not. Now I
> know they are not correct and I have so indicated in the post you
> have snipped.
> *
> >Where are your apologies for spreading such rumours?
> *
> The cryptic anagrams pointing to March 11, 2002, are not rumours,
> but are an honest attempt at decrypting Nostradamus' poetry. It
If you had the ability to actually read French especially what is written of
the cover you would know that Nostradams NEVER claimed to have written any
prophesies. What he did was write down his observation concerning the Mental
Patients that he saw.
> seems that the fact that I have informed this NewsGroup about my
> findings *before the fact* does not please you. Would you have
> preferred that I wait until *after the fact* to do so? Seems to
> me that it would have been a serious omission, had the date of
> March 11, 2002, been correct.
The above date was NEVER recorded in the text.
> *
> Ah, yes, I was forgetting: you are a prophet, as you already
> *knew* that the date of March 11, 2002, was incorrect.
> *
> >We already knew you have no brain, now you show you have no guts either!
> *
> In addition to being a prophet, you seem to be a rather impolite
> fellow. You are not alone. Your other aliases are as well. Maybe
> that is what happens when someone writes using his guts but not
> his brain.
> *
> Have a nice day, you all!
> *
> Claude Latrémouille
Learn to read French properly.
gogu
Anyway, learn to accept it when you are wrong without trying to find any
excuses. Real men just say "yes, I was wrong" and that's all!
Adios.
PS
I do not subscribe to personal insults against you (I've seen some in
this thread), though...
You may have a difficulty to accept your mistake but compared to other
"parachutists" in this ng you have been polite.
Ï "Claude Latremouille" <cj...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> Ýãñáøå óôï ìÞíõìá
news:a6mo2m$5el$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca...
Claude Latremouille
> Yeah... Whatever...
> Anyway, learn to accept it when you are wrong without trying to find any
> excuses. Real men just say "yes, I was wrong" and that's all!
> Adios.
Intelligent ones also try to explain why they were wrong.
*
> PS
> I do not subscribe to personal insults against you (I've seen some in
> this thread), though...
> You may have a difficulty to accept your mistake but compared to other
> "parachutists" in this ng you have been polite.
Oh, but *I do* accept my mistakes. But so far, most impolite
posters have not accepted my attempts at describing them and
explaining them.
*
A good night to you from Toronto,
*
Claude Latrémouille
WolfWolf
his errors.
Of course we knew it already, but now it's public.
Pathetic, pathetic ...
WolfWolf
The European
"gogu" <gola...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:a6r75h$4dl$1...@usenet.otenet.gr...
gogu
> "gogu" (gola...@yahoo.com) writes:
> > Yeah... Whatever...
> > Anyway, learn to accept it when you are wrong without trying to find any
> > excuses. Real men just say "yes, I was wrong" and that's all!
> > Adios.
> Intelligent ones also try to explain why they were wrong.
Nevertheless wrong, isn't it?
> > PS
> > I do not subscribe to personal insults against you (I've seen some in
> > this thread), though...
> > You may have a difficulty to accept your mistake but compared to other
> > "parachutists" in this ng you have been polite.
> Oh, but *I do* accept my mistakes. But so far, most impolite
> posters have not accepted my attempts at describing them and
> explaining them.
Maybe because they sound like excuses?...
> A good night to you from Toronto,
Same to you from Thessaloniki.
> Claude Latrιmouille
Claude Latremouille
> Ο "Claude Latremouille" <cj...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> έγραψε στο μήνυμα
> news:a6rf24$gmd$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca...
>> "gogu" (gola...@yahoo.com) writes:
>> > Yeah... Whatever...
>> > Anyway, learn to accept it when you are wrong without trying to find any
>> > excuses. Real men just say "yes, I was wrong" and that's all!
>> > Adios.
>
>> Intelligent ones also try to explain why they were wrong.
>
> Nevertheless wrong, isn't it?
Agreed.
*
>> > PS
>> > I do not subscribe to personal insults against you (I've seen some in
>> > this thread), though...
>> > You may have a difficulty to accept your mistake but compared to other
>> > "parachutists" in this ng you have been polite.
>
>> Oh, but *I do* accept my mistakes. But so far, most impolite
>> posters have not accepted my attempts at describing them and
>> explaining them.
>
> Maybe because they sound like excuses?...
Difficult to imagine an explanation as to why something
went wrong without it sounding a little bit like an
excuse. Just to change the subject, look at these
engineering explanations for the collapse of the Twin-
Towers in Manhattan on September 11, 2001. All of them
sound very nice but... do not 'explain' why the third
tower also collapsed later that day. No plane went into
it.
*
But if I were on the receiving end of it, I would much
prefer to know *why* something went wrong, than just
knowing that it went wrong. This, anybody can see.
Few people, however, can explain why.
*
Claude Latrιmouille
Agamemnon
Build yourself a tower of cards and then jump up and down.
That's what happened to both the third tower and to you theories about
Nostradamus.
gogu
> "gogu" (gola...@yahoo.com) writes:
> >> Intelligent ones also try to explain why they were wrong.
> >
> > Nevertheless wrong, isn't it?
> *
> Agreed.
Good.
> >> > PS
> >> > I do not subscribe to personal insults against you (I've seen some
in
> >> > this thread), though...
> >> > You may have a difficulty to accept your mistake but compared to
other
> >> > "parachutists" in this ng you have been polite.
> >> Oh, but *I do* accept my mistakes. But so far, most impolite
> >> posters have not accepted my attempts at describing them and
> >> explaining them.
> > Maybe because they sound like excuses?...
> Difficult to imagine an explanation as to why something
> went wrong without it sounding a little bit like an
> excuse.
1) Because you were very sure about what you were talking about, and this is
the first mistake a "prophet" can do if the time of the prophecy is near:-)
2) Because you were/sound very convinced about your deductions and you
didn't leave a small percentage to be wrong.
> Just to change the subject, look at these
> engineering explanations for the collapse of the Twin-
> Towers in Manhattan on September 11, 2001.
Real speculations, hoaxes and anti-Semitic propaganda! Do you remember that
INEXISTENT "flight number" that when "turned" to wingdings,some anti-Semitic
symbols appeared? LOL!
> All of them
> sound very nice but... do not 'explain' why the third
> tower also collapsed later that day. No plane went into
> it.
Third tower? What third tower? You mean the smaller one in the same complex
as the two other towers? Well, as an engineer I can say that it was expected
IF the two towers were going to crash!
> But if I were on the receiving end of it, I would much
> prefer to know *why* something went wrong, than just
> knowing that it went wrong.
Correct! As I said, I am an architect engineer and I am used to think that
way, too! But!... Here we are talking of prophecies, trying to "explain"
words, we have no indisputable data to be based on! So what you say can be
laudable, but it can not realize because of lack of indisputable data. It
will always be just "speculations", "interpretations", whatever you want,
but NO workable data...
> This, anybody can see.
Me too, but I do not agree that it can be a methodology to find out what
"went wrong" in this case! The only way to find out will be AFTER (and
IF...) it will happen!
> Few people, however, can explain why.
I said it why! There are no safe evidences/facts to rely on! In science
facts are facts and you can work on/with them in a logical line. In "poetry"
(permit me this simplification:-)) you just can not! Literature is not a
precise science if you want, to provide indisputable facts...
Claude Latremouille
> Ο "Claude Latremouille" <cj...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> έγραψε στο μήνυμα
> news:a6uc31$d5r$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca...
[...]
*
>> >> Oh, but *I do* accept my mistakes. But so far, most impolite
>> >> posters have not accepted my attempts at describing them and
>> >> explaining them.
>
>> > Maybe because they sound like excuses?...
>
>> Difficult to imagine an explanation as to why something
>> went wrong without it sounding a little bit like an
>> excuse.
>
> 1) Because you were very sure about what you were talking about, and this is
> the first mistake a "prophet" can do if the time of the prophecy is near:-)
Agreed.
*
> 2) Because you were/sound very convinced about your deductions and you
> didn't leave a small percentage to be wrong.
Agreed. In this NewsGroup, I did not repeat the articles
about the degrees of certainty which I have concerning
the texts decrypted from Nostradamus' poetry. In another
NewsGroup, I have repeatedly pointed out that the only
certainty I had concerned another event (because of the
very large number of decrypted lines), whereas for the
Chirac non-event and for the Aegean Sea non-event, I
was much less certain of it (given the lesser number of
decrypted lines).
*
Bottom line: I had enough lines to feel it necessary to
inform those interested in what I had found, but not
enough to be absolutely certain.
*
Unfortunately, I could not give a percentage of probability
that I might be wrong, as I knew that I would either be
right 100%, or wrong 100%. And I was wrong 100%.
*
About the collapse of the third tower on September 11, 2001:
*
> as the two other towers? Well, as an engineer I can say that it was expected
> IF the two towers were going to crash!
The explanation given for the collapse of the two higher
towers was related to the plane which crashed in each of
them. Since no plane had crashed in the third tower, I
felt that the explanation did not really 'explain' it
and sounded like an excuse: "Oh, these building were
properly constructed, you know, BUT a plane crashed into
them, that's why they collapsed."
*
Back to prophecy:
*
> way, too! But!... Here we are talking of prophecies, trying to "explain"
> words, we have no indisputable data to be based on! So what you say can be
> laudable, but it can not realize because of lack of indisputable data. It
> will always be just "speculations", "interpretations", whatever you want,
> but NO workable data...
Before the fact, no, there are no objective data to base
the prophecy as allegedly discovered. The only possible
objective fact which can 'prove' the prophecy is the event
itself... after the fact.
*
> [...], but I do not agree that it can be a methodology to find out what
> "went wrong" in this case! The only way to find out will be AFTER (and
> IF...) it will happen!
Agreed.
*
> [...] There are no safe evidences/facts to rely on! In science
> facts are facts and you can work on/with them in a logical line. In "poetry"
> (permit me this simplification:-)) you just can not! Literature is not a
> precise science if you want, to provide indisputable facts...
*
Nostradamus' prophecy were a scientific undertaking, I
would never be wrong. As you point out, it is a mere
literary undertaking, therefore not a an act of science.
*
Only two things can guide me in this endeavour: logic
and facts.
*
Logic led me to March 11, 2002, but the facts turned me
away from that date. Logic now leads me to another date.
gogu
I consider that we have a general agreement (more than 90%) on the matter we
are discussing! Further analysis may no be interesting for the rest of the
posters. I wish you more success in the future, because as I said you I am
not a non believer or someone that "levels" everything, I like to read
Nostradamus, I've read Erich Von D., I know about Roswell etc, and I think
that we are not alone "out there"; but I am a person who wants to have some
proofs for that. I say that "I believe to E.T" but if you come and tell me
that you saw one, I will ask you to present him to me to believe:-)
Have a nice evening
Ο "Claude Latremouille" <cj...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> έγραψε στο μήνυμα
news:a76fm8$797$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca...
Claude Latremouille
> OK Claude:-)
> I consider that we have a general agreement (more than 90%) on the matter we
> are discussing! Further analysis may no be interesting for the rest of the
> posters.
My feeling, exactly.
*
> I wish you more success in the future, because as I said you I am
> not a non believer or someone that "levels" everything, I like to read
> Nostradamus, I've read Erich Von D., I know about Roswell etc, and I think
> that we are not alone "out there"; but I am a person who wants to have some
> proofs for that. I say that "I believe to E.T" but if you come and tell me
> that you saw one, I will ask you to present him to me to believe:-)
> Have a nice evening
Thank you and have a nice Spring!
*
Claude Latrémouille