Nostradamus and the Moon landing hoax

originally posted by: AdmireTheDistance

originally posted by: turbonium1
They've tried to interpret these 3 quatrains for many centuries, to match with a possible event(s) of the future, and they all failed.

Of course they have.

Even as separate quatrains, they failed to hold up.

None of Nostradamus' quatrains "hold up", until some nutter twists the actual words around to make them vaguely fit an event after it has happened.

Twisting words does not make sense. Such interpretations are never able to hold up, in fact.

It is easy to twist around words to support any type of previous event. There are many examples of it, for sure.

They are all worthless, for that very reason.

I used to think the same as you, that it's a bunch of baloney..

But, I later realized it was the interpretations that were all baloney, in fact.

The work I did with these 4 quatrains made me realize that...


I'm only aware of that because I went through the entire process, by interpreting these quatrains, myself.

After I presented this, it was scoffed at, just like you scoff at it now.

They said the same as you do, that anything can be twisted around to say anything you want, it's all so vague, etc.


I asked them to show another interpretation that holds up as well, and a few accepted my challenge....


They all failed to do it. And not even close...

So I'm asking you to try and support your claim, as they tried to.

If not, you do not make a case for your claim, and it fails

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: turbonium1
Our actual planet Mercury cannot, does not, will not, cause an actual eclipse, of our actual Sun. It is absolutely impossible. This is a fact.

It is actually NOT a fact, Mercury does eclipse the sun!

www.astrobio.net...

I suggest you do some research on Astronomy.

It is actually called a transit, not an eclipse.

I suggest you take your own advice, before giving it out, in future.

originally posted by: turbonium1
It is actually called a transit, not an eclipse.

Oh dear, you are wrong again!

You missed this bit, which you would have seen if you actually read the article!

Rarest of All Eclipses

and

Western North Americans will not see the eclipse at all

and

No one alive has viewed this rarest of all eclipses

So as you can clearly see, it is a eclipse!

a reply to: hellobruce

didn't it cross your mind that the article may be wrong?

the 'eclipse' term is sometimes abused it seems. check the definition on the wikipedia:

en.wikipedia.org...

you would need to be in the shadow cast by mercury or venus on earth to even think of calling it an eclipse - and while some of the light gets blocked by those planets during transit, the amount is so minimal that it doesn't really count as eclipse. even while standing in the exact point where the shadow should be, you wouldn't notice any difference - the light from the rest of sun's surface will reach that place just like any other.

and since in ancient greek this term means the darkening of a heavenly body, well. you are wrong. terrible, isn't it?

originally posted by: jedi_hamster
the 'eclipse' term is sometimes abused it seems. check the definition on the wikipedia:
en.wikipedia.org...

So we find

An eclipse is an astronomical event that occurs when an astronomical object is temporarily obscured, either by passing into the shadow of another body or by having another body pass between it and the viewer. An eclipse is a type of syzygy.[1]

So it will be a eclipse, as I and the article said! Why do people post references without even reading them?

you would need to be in the shadow cast by mercury or venus on earth to even think of calling it an eclipse -

Incorrect, as the article says, and some people WILL be in the shadow, again as the article says....

century X - 55

The unfortunate nuptials will be celebrated
In great joy but the end unhappy:
Husband and mother will slight the daughter-in-law,
The Apollo dead and the daughter-in-law more pitiful.



The unfortunate nuptials will be celebrated In great joy but the end unhappy:

the propagandists will attempt too use a future Manned Moon Landing to prove the Apollo misssions ,thereby marrying Apollo with the new (Un-Named) program/mission (the daughter-in-Law)........ at first there is celebration man finally going "back to the moon" ,,but it ends in failure exposing Apollo

Husband -Zeus "god of sky"and mother-Leto - disputed will slight the daughter-in-law,

Zeus is known for his erotic escapades. These resulted in many offspring

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: jedi_hamster
the 'eclipse' term is sometimes abused it seems. check the definition on the wikipedia:
en.wikipedia.org...

So we find

An eclipse is an astronomical event that occurs when an astronomical object is temporarily obscured, either by passing into the shadow of another body or by having another body pass between it and the viewer. An eclipse is a type of syzygy.[1]

So it will be a eclipse, as I and the article said! Why do people post references without even reading them?

you would need to be in the shadow cast by mercury or venus on earth to even think of calling it an eclipse -

Incorrect, as the article says, and some people WILL be in the shadow, again as the article says....

An eclipse is..."when an astronomical object is temporarily obscured".

So, the definition of 'obscure'...

Obscure

keep from being seen; conceal.
"gray clouds obscure the sun"
synonyms: hide, conceal, cover, veil, shroud, screen, mask, cloak, cast a shadow over, shadow, block (out), obliterate, eclipse, darken;

An eclipse of the Sun occurs when an object temporarily 'obscures' - hides, conceals, covers, casts a shadow over, blocks out, darkens - the Sun.

Does Mercury ever hide the Sun, or conceal the Sun, or cover the Sun, or mask the Sun, or cast a shadow over the Sun, or block out the Sun?

No, it does not.

That's why I told you Mercury transits the Sun, it does not, cannot, and will not, ever eclipse the Sun.

edi-hamster is correct, the term 'eclipse' is often misused...like the article you cited misuses the term.


Anyway, the whole point was to show the quatrain describes a Sun, which is eclipsed by Mercury. The Sun cannot be eclipsed by Mercury, as we've (hopefully) realized now, so it cannot refer to the actual Sun or planet Mercury.

Just to confirm that it cannot be the actual Sun or planet Mercury, we go back to the quatrain..

4-29

'The Sun, hidden, eclipsed by Mercury.
It will be placed only second in the heavens
Hermes will be made the food of Vulcan
The Sun will be seen pure, glowing red, and golden"'

In the first line, if taken as an actual Sun, we must have the Sun being hidden, eclipsed by Mercury. The actual planet Mercury can certainly not keep the actual Sun 'hidden', no matter if it did somehow 'eclipse' the Sun.

The second line also confirms it is not the actual Sun. This Sun 'will be placed only second in the heavens'.

So if the Sun is second in the heavens, and is 'eclipsed' by Mercury, then Mercury must be first in the heavens.

Which would not be a good thing for us, because our Sun would be closer to Earth than our Moon is.

There is absolutely no doubt it cannot be the actual Sun or planet Mercury, and now we can move along...

As they are not the actual Sun or planet Mercury, they must be something else in the heavens, he called the 'Sun' and 'Mercury'. That's where Apollo and Mercury fit in.

But it is much more interesting than that - he notes the 'Sun' is eclipsed by 'Mercury', and is placed "only second in the heavens"..Which means Mercury, eclipsing it, is 'first' in the heavens.

Earth's closest celestial neighbor is the Moon. So in Nostradamus' day, they knew Moon is placed 'first' in the heavens, above Earth.

In the quatrain, the Sun is placed 'only second in the heavens', and Mercury is first, because it eclipses the Sun.

These objects he calls the Sun and Mercury are placed below the Moon.

The Sun is "placed only second in the heavens". That is, Apollo did not go anywhere close to the Moon, it "only" flew slightly above Mercury', only second in the heavens.

That also means Gemini flew an orbit higher than Apollo, which "only" flew second in space (the heavens), above Mercury.

Everything fits in, perfectly...

originally posted by: turbonium1
Does Mercury ever hide the Sun, or conceal the Sun, or cover the Sun, or mask the Sun, or cast a shadow over the Sun, or block out the Sun?

Again you show your ignorance of Astronomy and physics - it does hide the sun if you are in its shadow.

Anyway, the whole point was

To show once again you are wrong, which I showed. The best you can do is bring up a much failed seer to try and support your silly conspiracy theory about the moon hoax - remember, the other person pushing that silly theory here has just posted a credible source that shows man landed on the moon!

Relative reference. A spacecraft in orbit around Mercury, would experience a number of eclipses of the Sun by the planet. Messenger went in orbit around Mercury more than 4 years ago. It was the "second in the sky", as Mariner 10 was the first and last time Mercury was visited, more than 30 years ago.

The reference to the Red Sun could be SOHO/LASCO images, which of course, have produced astounding images of the Sun.

Hermes is Mercury, Vulcan, the mythological planet that was suspected of being inside Mercury's orbit....

I think the Nos was referencing our astronomical achievements.

As for the Moon, well there are those pesky pictures of the landing sites with the vehicles, foot and wheel traffic taken by the LRO, the only way you could get enough resolution to discern them.

originally posted by: Misinformation

century X - 55

The unfortunate nuptials will be celebrated
In great joy but the end unhappy:
Husband and mother will slight the daughter-in-law,
The Apollo dead and the daughter-in-law more pitiful.



The unfortunate nuptials will be celebrated In great joy but the end unhappy:

the propagandists will attempt too use a future Manned Moon Landing to prove the Apollo misssions ,thereby marrying Apollo with the new (Un-Named) program/mission (the daughter-in-Law)........ at first there is celebration man finally going "back to the moon" ,,but it ends in failure exposing Apollo

Husband -Zeus "god of sky"and mother-Leto - disputed will slight the daughter-in-law,

Zeus is known for his erotic escapades. These resulted in many offspring

I can only say Apollo being known as a hoax might fit in as 'The Apollo dead..". The rest of it doesn't fit as well, unfortunately.

I've found the quatrain to be very interesting, as it might fit another well-known event...the marriage of Diana to Prince Charles...


The unfortunate nuptials will be celebrated
In great joy but the end unhappy:
Husband and mother will slight the daughter-in-law,
The Apollo dead and the daughter-in-law more pitiful.

The nuptials were indeed "unfortunate", in the marriage of Diana and Charles. They were certainly celebrated in great joy, and the end was most unhappy.

So the first two lines seem to fit very well, I'd say.

The next line is even better - Charles and his mother, Queen Elizabeth, slighted Diana, who was"the daughter-in law")

'The definition of "slighted" is..

insult (someone) by treating or speaking of them without proper respect or attention.

What fits better than Prince Charles and his mum, the Queen, in that? They basically treated Diana like dirt, they gave her no respect at all, and Charles never paid attention to her, as he either spent most of his time off on his own, or was cheating on her with that ugly mutt Camilla.

The last line is very tricky, and I'm still trying to figure it all out, as of now. So it might need more refinement to really hold up. However, if it does (eventually) hold up, it may be the key piece to the puzzle...

"The Apollo" - in Greek mythology, Apollo was the twin brother of...Diana. And Princess Diana had a brother, Charles Spencer, in fact.

That's a nice fit, I'd say.

The problem I have is with "the Apollo dead" part. Charles Spencer is not dead, so that doesn't fit in. It works in that Charles Spencer was 'dead' to the royal family, as he was an outcast. But I'm not sure yet, so I have to work on that part.

Otherwise, it does work.

If you want to give your opinion on my idea, please do.

Sorry it's off topic, but I felt I had to mention it here..

originally posted by: hellobruce

Again you show your ignorance of Astronomy and physics - it does hide the sun if you are in its shadow.

Cite your sources on that, if you have any....

originally posted by: hellobruce
To show once again you are wrong, which I showed. The best you can do is bring up a much failed seer to try and support your silly conspiracy theory about the moon hoax - remember, the other person pushing that silly theory here has just posted a credible source that shows man landed on the moon!

You've shown nothing.

Can you back up your arguments, or is it all just talk?

originally posted by: charlyv
Relative reference. A spacecraft in orbit around Mercury, would experience a number of eclipses of the Sun by the planet. Messenger went in orbit around Mercury more than 4 years ago. It was the "second in the sky", as Mariner 10 was the first and last time Mercury was visited, more than 30 years ago.

He said the Sun was hidden, eclipsed by Mercury, and was "placed only second in the heavens".

Again - the Sun is placed only second in the heavens. It is positioned above Earth, in the heavens, only second higher than another object, which eclipsed it, Mercury.

You are describing an object, a spacecraft, which flew to Mercury, and was the second craft to do so. It doesn't fit the description of the quatrain, but thanks for your input on the issue..

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: turbonium1
Does Mercury ever hide the Sun, or conceal the Sun, or cover the Sun, or mask the Sun, or cast a shadow over the Sun, or block out the Sun?

Again you show your ignorance of Astronomy and physics - it does hide the sun if you are in its shadow.

Anyway, the whole point was

To show once again you are wrong, which I showed. The best you can do is bring up a much failed seer to try and support your silly conspiracy theory about the moon hoax - remember, the other person pushing that silly theory here has just posted a credible source that shows man landed on the moon!

does hide?

take a big bulb/desktop lamp/whatever.
turn it on.
put something relatively small between you and the bulb, even in the dead center, so that it casts a 'shadow' on you. something like a bean, or preferably something 10 times smaller.

does it HIDE the bulb?

if you can't imagine the stuff you're talking about, the paths that the light from the sun follows, and you can't understand the physics behind it, stop talking crap.

mercury and venus are too damn small to hide the sun for anyone on earth, considering their distance from the sun and from the earth. that's why it's called a transit, not an eclipse, and no matter how many times you'll abuse that word, just like so many ignorant people like the author of that article, it won't change the fact it is not an eclipse.

and turbonium was perfectly right. you didn't even understand the word 'obscure', and here you go, talking about people pasting references without reading them.

I have no problem with debating Nostradamus' work, or my interpretations of the 4 quatrains. In fact, I encourage it.

I have a problem with the so-called 'experts' on Nostradamus, who totally ignore my interpretations.

I made repeated attempts to post my interpretations on their own official sites, and sent them emails on it, but they never added my posts, to the site, and they never replied to any of my emails, either.

Only people who lavish them with praise, as being great experts on Nostradamus, are ever posted on their sites, it appears.

The so-called 'experts' are the real problem. They are the phonies, and flakes. They have made Nostradamus' work look hokey to most people, in effect.

These 4 quatrains might indicate other events have not properly, fully, interpreted, as yet. Not that I'm aware of anything, but it's quite possible, as I see it.

There is something interesting about the moon hoax quatrains which I didn't realize before..

The first 3 moon hoax quatrains are numbered 4-29, 4-30, and 4-31.

4-29 (4+2) 9 gives us 69
4-30 (4+3) 0 gives us 70
4-31 (4+3) 1 gives us 71

The first three years Apollo was claimed to land on the moon - 1969, 1970, 1971 - in order.

Clever guy, Nostradamus


The 4th quatrain is not put in order with the other three.

It is numbered 9-65. Adding 965, 429, 430, and 431, gives us 2255. I am convinced this is the year the moon landing hoax will be revealed to the world.

Unfortunately, I won't be around to find out if I got it right!

obviously the lemon story Is a hoax. had an astronaut hung a lemon on the shuttle the astronaut would have lIkely been double checked.
luna Is the only reason to thInk the quatraIn has somethIng to do wIth the moon and that Is out of the entIre quatraIn whIch says no It Is not about the moon nor Is the quatraIn a predIctIon.

the correct InterpretatIon Is by way of use and relevance whIch is sImIlar to edIble products or cIggerette use. the use of he and she and certaIn name use Is merely dIrectIon of thought whIch have lIttle to no relevance. kInd of lIke cIggerette use when the package Is dIscarded.

I lIke to thInk at the moment the book of revelatIon Is an IntroductIon to a type of bIble even though revelatIon obvIously Is not the correct tItle but moreso a book of hIstory.
a book of rIddles wrItten even though It was advIsed do not wrIte It down.

a brIef example of a correct InterpretatIon forthcomIng.

pay nay loron wIll be more of fIre than blood to swIm In praIse the great one to flee the confluence of rIvers.
he wIll refuse entry to the magpIes pampon and the durance wIll keep them confIned.
Is a quatraIn explaInIng an event and happenIngs over an extended perIod of tIme.
It begIns wIth the resurrectIon whIch occurred when the tsunamI happened sIgnIfyIng three groups who are not separated.
then to swIm In praIse descrIbes the dIstrIbutIon of the tsunamI.
then to flee the confluence of rIvers Is about transportatIon by atmosphere.
he wIll refuse entry Is about the trIangle sIgn on the sun sIgnaling to block whIch Is not beIng entIrely explaIned at the moment because It Is very complIcated.
the durance Is about wItches.

I have reason to thInk the quatraIn partIally explaIned Is the fInal quatraIn as In the correct order.