Ah. I see. The old “I’m not going to answer any direct questions that might actually shed light on what I’m trying to say I’ll just keep posting random thoughts” ploy, eh?
So who is this Nostradamus person in this documentary? I’ve never heard of him in all my time on a hoax forum!
Randi lost CONTROL over his own challenge, the deluded fool
See the URL below to see how we stopped the CHALLENGE as the little fraud would obviously not pay up:
No, he doesn’t seem to have lost control of it. He’s decided to end it, although not right away. So if he’s still continuing it, but plans to end it, then that implies that he has full control over it.
Please observe how the entire atheist movement has been CRUSHED by the hand of NOSTRADAMUS
Ummmm. . .I am failing to see much sign of crushedness in the atheist movement. Many of them still seem to be going along fine. Nor does Nostradamus seem to be very active these days, being sort of dead and decomposed for many centuries.
For James Randi and Richard Dawkins…..Are these even *REAL* names?
Yes, Richard Dawkins is really Richard Dawkins, though his full name is Clinton Richard Dawkins. James Randi was born Randall James Hamilton Zwinge, but as he is known mainly as James Randi (when not The Amazing Randi on stage) then that name can be said to be as real as his birth name.
You are *wrong*…..and you are going to **** PAY THE PRICE ****
You would take away *HOPE FOR THOSE WHO HAVE NONE*
Wait. . .you’re saying that he’s taking away hope, and he’s using it for those who have none? What’s so bad about that? Or did you mean “You would take away *HOPE FROM THOSE WHO HAVE NONE*“? If so, then how could he take hope from those who have none? Perhaps what you really mean is “You would take away *HOPE FROM THOSE WHO HAVE SOME*“. But with you, it’s hard to tell what you mean.
Both are “INFERNAL HOUSES” like all rehabs…. THEIR NAMES ARE THE
EXACT OPPOSITE OF WHAT IS
INSIDE…
Houses full of enslaved addicts and alcoholics…
Ummmm. . .yes, they are. That’s sort of the point of them. Drug and alcohol rehab isn’t much good for people who aren’t addicted to drugs and/or alcohol. So what’s your problem with these places? They try to get people to stop being addicted. Are you against addicts becoming non-addicted?
Quit the drugs, folks, or you’ll end up in “FREEDOM” HOUSE OR “LIBERTY”
HOUSE
XXXIIII
Quand le deffaut du Soleil lors sera
Sur le plein iour le monstre sera veu:
Tout autrement on l’interpretera,
Cherte’ n’a garde nul n’y aura pourueu.
Of course, not only did they not happen at the same time (there was at least a ten-day difference between when the lamb was born and when the eclipse happened), but there wasn’t a total solar eclipse in Belgium at all then. The total solar eclipse was in a narrow line from Ghana through Egypt and Turkey through Kazakstan and into Mongolia.
Also, sheep with more than four legs are born fairly often. It’s not anything new or earthshaking. They just make the news when it’s a slow news day. To quote this news page, “It is a condition that occurs once in several million sheep.“. . .and there are many millions of sheep being born every year. According to what sources I could easily find, there are well over a billion sheep in the world today. . .and sheep can breed at young age and often. So given an incidence of just one such lamb born out of every five million, that still gives us over 200 polymeliac lambs born. In just a quick search, I found that there was a seven-legged one born in New Zealand at the end of last July, another one born in the start of the same month in England, one with six legs born in Nebraska in late February 1992, a five-legged one born in Kansas in mid-February 2007. . .there are lots of them.
Furthermore, solar eclipses occur fairly often. There are generally at least a couple every year. So having a solar eclipse around the general time that a polymeliac sheep is born has probably happened thousands (at least) of times. There have almost certainly been times when such a lamb was actually born on the very day of the eclipse, which isn’t even the case with your own example here.
If it’s just a case of there being an eclipse during the same time that there is a polymeliac lamb alive, then we’ve really got lots of such cases having happened. In each of the examples of lambs that I mentioned a couple paragraphs above, there was an eclipse not long after the lamb was born (the eclipse only being a few weeks after the Feb. 2007 one).
THE DIVINE MONSTER:
Century III, Quatrain 34 {Benoist Rigaud edition de 1568}
Quand le deffaut du Soleil lors sera
Sur le plein iour le monstre sera veu:
Tout autrement on l’interpretera,
Cherte’ n’a garde nul n’y aura pourueu.
When the eclipse of the Sun will then be,
In broad daylight the MONSTER will be seen
Everyone will differ on the interpretation,
High price unguarded: none will have prepared.
Ah, yes. That’s nice and clear. And of course, there’s no possible chance of misunderstanding of a vague pronouncement that has been through translation.
Says who? I don’t recall anything about polymeliac lambs in the Bible. There is a lamb with seven eyes and seven horns. . .who is Christ, not the antiChrist (Rev. 5:6). The only connection between a lamb and the antiChrist is Revelations 13:11, where the beast who acts as a messenger for the other beast has horns like a lamb. . .but your six-legged lamb doesn’t fit that description, does it?
Whatever happened to that lamb, anyway? Does anybody know?
And I want to quote entire from here because it is ALL-IMPORTANT….
monstr-, monst-
(Latin: an omen; a supernatural manifestation; hence,
“horrific-supernatural being; supernatural manifestation”
Primarily used in medical references to a fetus or an infant with
substantial physical abnormalities considered by some to be like a
“monster”.
“Regardless of the form a monster takes, all monsters have one thing
in
common: they are all awe-inspiring, even frightening, by virtue of
some
aspect of their physicality or personality. In fact, the word monster
comes from the Latin monstrum, meaning ‘an evil omen’ which in turn
seems to be a derivative of the verb monere, meaning ‘to warn,
remind’.“
Webster’s Word Histories;
(Springfield, Massachusetts: Merriam-Webster Inc., 1989).
Why did you say you wanted to “quote entire”, and then start off by copying and pasting only selected bits from the webpage? Some might consider your claim there to be a tad fallacious in nature. . .
——————————————————————————————————— ——-——-
monster
1. Any large, ugly, terrifying animal or person found in mythology or
created by the imagination, especially something fierce that kills
people. Monsters are often featured in folklore and fairytales as
evil
creatures resembling a mixture of different animals.
2. In medicine, a fetus or infant with such pronounced developmental
anomalies as to be grotesque and usually nonviable.
monstrance
In the Roman Catholic Church, a receptacle that holds the Host (the
consecrated bread or wafer of the Eucharist or Communion for the
Mass)
[Latin: monstrum, “portent, monster” from monstrare, “to show, point
out, indicate”].
monstricide
1. In medicine, destruction of a fetal monster.
2. The slaughter of monsters.
monstrosity
1. In medicine, great congenital deformity; a monster or teratism.
2. An object, animal, or person that is very unpleasant or
frightening
to look at, often because it is large and strangely shaped.
monstrous
1. Enormous; horrible.
2. Wicked, cruel, or unpleasant to an extent that is morally
unacceptable.
3. Greatly different from what is considered the norm.
monstrously
Something done in a way or to an extent that shocks or offends other
people.
monstrousness
The quality of being monstrous, in various senses of the adjective;
especially, unnaturalness, hugeness; enormity.
monstrum (singular), monstra (plural)
In medicine, a monster.
multimonstrous
Consisting of many monstrosities.
So, let’s consider the definition. You seem to be fixating on only a footnote of one definition, the rest of which clarifies that it refers to a fetus or infant that is just severely abnormal in developement. It doesn’t even have to be alive. So, now according to your own definition it’s not just little polymeliac lambs who are staggering around bleating that count. It’s any physically deformed lamb, even the ones stillborn. So that further decreases the specialness of your one lamb that you’ve chosen as your “sign”. Severely malformed lambs (alive or dead) are much more common than the one-in-five-million rate that applies to polymelia alone. Instead, we’re talking about one in thousands. And of course, “monster” doesn’t apply just to sheep. It applies to any animal. So now we’re talking about one in thousands, out of trillions of animals. What number does that give us? There must be hundreds of them born at the moment of every eclipse. Your specially-selected lamb there is getting less special as we go on here.
And what of the other definitions for “monster” that you ignored? Such as the very first definition given on that page, which you so carefully skipped over? That monster is something large, ugly and terrifying. Could your lamb terrify people? Perhaps. Is it ugly? People could think so. Is it large? Well, there we have a problem. It’s a lamb. It’s not an apatosaurus. Lambs are small. Here we have your own chosen source of definition providing a meaning that actually excludes your chosen lamb.
And what else do we have as definition? We see that Nostradamus’ “monstre” might not even refer to a “monster” as defined in English, but just as a general sort of sign or omen. That’s a good possibility for what Nostradamus meant when (and if) he wrote that, considering that he was writing about signs and omens frequently.
Century VIII, Quatrain 66 {Benoist Rigaud edition de 1568}
Quand l’escriture D.M.trouuee,
Et caue antique lampe descouuerte,
Loy, Roy,& Prince Vlpian esprouuee,
Pauillon Royne & Duc sous la couuerte.
When the inscription D.M. is found
in the ancient cave, revealed by a lamp.
Law, the King and Prince Ulpian tried,
the Queen and Duke in the pavilion under cover.
More stunning clarity. . .
The D.M. stands for Depeche Mode…..
And you know this. . .how? How do you know it’s not, say, Danger Mouse? Or Deutsche Mark? Or Dungeon Master? Or Dominica? Or Daily Mississippian? Or Dubai Municipality? Or any of the literally countless other things, places, people, and ideas that are abbreviated DM? And in what ancient cave is their name inscribed? You do realise that the band by that name (not even counting the magazine Dépêche mode which they were named after) has been around since 1980? They seem to be taking their time about whatever nefarious plot they’re up to.
They are singing “ENJOY THE
SILENCE” on TOP of the
WTC….STRANGE…
No, it’s not strange. It’s the tallest building around in New York. It stands out. That’s why a lot of people took pictures and videos of it. I don’t know how many movies include footage of the buildings, but there are sure to be many (probably some of the movie geeks here can give some examples).
When was the video filmed, anyway? The song apparently was released in 1990.
WHAT DOES THIS MEAN?
It means that they decided to film a video on top of one of the most prominent locations in New York City, where they’d have a great view in the background of their video?
AND:
the ORIGINAL VIDEO OF THE “KING OF TERROR” by D.M.
NOTICE THEY ARE SINGING *ABOUT* THE KING OF TERROR…...
Ummmm. . .no, they don’t seem to be. I can’t watch the video, but here are the song lyrics I could find. Nothing about kings or terror there. One of the guys in the video dresses up like a king in parts, but is apparently the King from “The Little Prince”. . .hardly the King of Terror.
And notice that that version has nothing to do with the World Trade Center.
The ****HOUSE of NOSTRADAMUS**** in SALON, FRANCE.
Notice the WTC and the MUSICIANS in the BACKGROUND PAINTING !!!!
Notice how you fail to give anything other than the picture, so that we don’t know what’s what in it. Notice how there’s no sign of anything in that picture being related to Nostradamus. Notice how the musicians are not much like those in Depeche Mode at all. Notice how that is a modern painting, so it wasn’t done by Nostradamus. Notice how the place in the picture, though in Salon-de-Provence, shows no sign of being actually connected to Nostradamus’ house:
At best, we can see that there is a big picture of Nostradamus on a wall a little ways down the street from the picture of what may be the World Trade Center with musicians in front of it.
So we have a painting done long after Nostradamus that may or may not be anywhere near Nostradamus’ house, which might possibly show the World Trade Center, and which shows musicians not much like those in Depeche Mode. Great.
The word TRAGEDY literally means “GOAT SONG”. tragis oide: “goat
song”; perhaps the derivation of the word “tragedy” (were goats
awarded as prizes? does this refer to the ritualistic slaughter of
the
sacrificial animal? the scream that the goat makes when slaughtered?)
The sacred animal of Dionysus was the goat. To honour Dionysus, men would drape themselves in goatskins and splash themselves with wine and dance around singing. This song was the tragoedia, the goat song. It told the story of Dionysus, who went through a lot of hard times. This was eventually formalised into a purely lyric version, and this form of it was the dithyramb. Eventually somebody (Thespis has been suggested) got the idea of having one of the men actually put on a mask and act out the story.
Dionysus wasn’t a popular god to begin with, and didn’t catch on in urban areas until long after he was more-or-less accepted in the rural areas. In the cities, they would clear a big area near his temple and have the tragoedia/dithyramb and the one actor doing their thing. Gradually this became fancier and fancier, and new storylines were also thought up. And so we had Greek theatre develop. Æschylus introduced the idea of having two actors, so that conflict could be more fully shown.
As more was added to the dithyramb, it got longer. Eventually they got to be so long that they started breaking them up, and the convention became to break the play into four parts. Out of tradition, one part would roughly be like the original tragoedia, where the chorus would perform. The rest of the dithyramb would be about some great and noble character going through all sorts of problems (generally because of his own hubris). Which became the sort of play that the Greeks called tragedies, as opposed to the later comedies.
also:
Now what does the WORD “TRAGEDY” mean…....“GOAT SONG” .......STRANGE…
Of course, what the Greeks meant by a tragedy is nothing like what it generally means in modern English. To the Greeks, a tragedy was a specific format of play that involved a strong central character of high birth and standing who goes through all sorts of extraordinary travails (see Aristotle’s Poetics).
and now notice BUSH is reading about a GOAT ****EXACTLY**** as the WTC burns.
So. . .Bush decided to read a book featuring an animal that is connected to an ancient Greek term that relates to a form of dance that eventually became part of a style of play whose name was later misapplied by English-speaking people to any situation of great woe such as the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center, because. . .
Because. . .
Why would he do that?
This is a question of *SECONDS*.
DOUBLE!
Eh?
Notice also the REVERSALS in this scene…...The DRUMMING OF THE TEACHER…
The drumming of the teacher, as opposed to the reverse which would be. . .the teaching of the drummer?
THE KIDS READING TO HIM NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND….
Darn that literacy! How dare they be encouraged to read!!!
THE MOST POWERFUL MAN IN THE WORLD SURROUNDED WITH THE
POOREST AND MOST POWERLESS SEGMENT OF US SOCIETY
(i.e., mainly black young girls), many of which will be condemned
to a miserable existence, working *as if* they were slaves
for a capitalist system that allows the Bushes and other rich
BigWigs to lord over everyone.
And this is a sure sign of what, exactly? Other than that there are rich people and poor people?
You people are fighting God when you should be fighting the capitalists…....You are so wise.
Encouraging literacy is fighting God? Exposing fradulent “magic” is fighting God (despite the Bible saying that we should do just that)? Filming videos on top of famous buildings is fighting God? Sheep giving birth to malformed lambs is us fighting God? Trying to get people to stop being addicted to alcohol and drugs is fighting God?
Gah. . .I really don’t feel like going through all of your writings on that other forum, Drmabus, and replying to it all like I did above there. But looking through it, I see that it’s all basically the same stuff. A bunch of looooong stretches at things that are supposed to be striking coincidences, things that don’t really appear to relate to each other, and outright errors.
I’ll just mention one of the later. In your very next post on that forum, you write:
L’an mil neuf cens nonante neuf sept mois
Du ciel viendra un grand Roy deffraieur
Resusciter le grand Roy d’Angolmois.
*Avant apres Mars regner par bon heur.*
THE ACTUAL X.72 PROPHECY BY NOSTRADAMUS:
Century X, Quatrain 72
The year 1999, September,
From the sky will come a great King of Terror:
To bring back to life the great King of Angolmois,
*BEFORE AND AFTER MARS TO REIGN WITH GOOD FORTUNE.
“L’an mil neuf cens nonante neuf sept mois” does not translate as “The year 1999, September” (though you could possibly make a case for it meaning “The year 1999, July”, or even “The year of 999 millets in July”). So your whole little theory about the hidden meaning there is based on a totally false premise. Besides which, your trick of simply adding the number two to any situation where you think it will give you good results but then ignoring the “add two” rule whenever it doesn’t isn’t all that convincing.
I do still love how this is basically a continuation of the ‘Randi has no intention of letting anyone win/doesn’t have the money/etc’ argment used by so many to explain why they haven’t claimed the prize.
The man has posted the rules, clearly and for anyone to see. If he were to violate those rules, someone could sue the foundation.
The money exists, and isn’t even in his hands, but rather is being held by the foundation. Yes, it’s a bond, held by a financial institution, but that’s the way foundations hold money, rather than stuffin the entire million under their mattress.
Theoretically, the chalenge could be won without Randi being in any way, shape or form involved. His opinion of someone or somethign makes no difference.
Meh.. Dunno why I bother. Everyone here already knows how it’s set up and the nutters won’t listen. They’d much rather rant and froth from the safety of their own world where they’re always right.
