Nostradamus predicted the moon landing hoax

[+Noteverythingisaconspiracy]

Nosty said the Sun, which is Apollo, was put "only second" in the skies/heavens. Mercury,eclipses Apollo - so Mercury was first and Apollo was (only) second (in the skies/heavens).

To make this fit, you have to explain why Nostradamus didn't count the Gemini missions ?

The fact is that by using your definition Apollo was third in the sky !

If you count the Vostok and Voshkod spacecrafts, Apollo was Fifth.

There is no reason to believe that Nostradamus would only count American spacecrafts, so if he was so good at predicting, where is his prediction of Gagarin ?

His mission is one of the most significant achievements in history, yet not a single word from Nostradamus ?

[toast]

Nosty said the Sun, which is Apollo, was put "only second" in the skies/heavens. Mercury,eclipses Apollo -

so Mercury was first and Apollo was (only) second (in the skies/heavens).

That`s incorrect because the correct order of the US space missions in discussion is a follows:

Last MERCURY mission, orbital: 15.05.1963

First GEMINI mission, orbital: 23.03.1965. In total 10 orbital GEMINI missions.

First APOLLO mission, ballistic (AS201): 26.02.1966

First APOLLO mission, orbital (AS203): 06.07.1968

As aquatus1 stated already, there was never a situation where a MERCURY spacecraft were able

to "eclipse" an APOLLO spacecraft.

BTW: "Nosty"?

Edited March 15, 2014 by toast

[turbonium]

Mercury went from 1959 to 1963, Apollo from 1963 to 1972. How could they eclipse when they didn't even overlap?

The Sun is not eclipsed by Mercury, right?

It is not a literal eclipse, it is a figurative eclipse.

It's not the Sun, it is Apollo missions. It's not planet Mercury, it's the Mercury missions.

Saying the Sun is eclipsed by Mercury means Apollo flies slightly above the Mercury missions. As in Apollo is "only" second in the skies/heavens. Not such a great feat..

[+Noteverythingisaconspiracy]

I guess great minds think alike toast

Turbinium you are still ignoring the other missions mentioned !

Edited March 15, 2014 by Noteverythingisaconspiracy

[toast]

As in Apollo is "only" second in the skies/heavens. Not such a great feat..

False, check post #27 even it hurts you.

[turbonium]

To make this fit, you have to explain why Nostradamus didn't count the Gemini missions ?

The fact is that by using your definition Apollo was third in the sky !

If you count the Vostok and Voshkod spacecrafts, Apollo was Fifth.

There is no reason to believe that Nostradamus would only count American spacecrafts, so if he was so good at predicting, where is his prediction of Gagarin ?

His mission is one of the most significant achievements in history, yet not a single word from Nostradamus ?

Apollo was placed second in the skies. The skies above us.

I've explained Gemini already.

Mercury is used as a reference point for the Apollo flight paths.

There's no point in mentioning Gemini. He probably chose Mercury instead of Gemini because it works within the context of the quatrains - Sun, Moon, and the planets. Gemini doesn't fit so well, clearly....

Once more, second is the point where Apollo reaches to, above us in the skies. It is not about the second or fifth space mission, in a chronological order..

Gagarin wasn't mentioned? So what? This isn't about someone you think he should have mentioned.

The moon hoax quatrains are the issue here. As in Apollo. Not Gemini. Not Gagarin.

If you want to discuss the actual issue, go ahead... ...

[turbonium]

That`s incorrect because the correct order of the US space missions in discussion is a follows:

Last MERCURY mission, orbital: 15.05.1963

First GEMINI mission, orbital: 23.03.1965. In total 10 orbital GEMINI missions.

First APOLLO mission, ballistic (AS201): 26.02.1966

First APOLLO mission, orbital (AS203): 06.07.1968

As aquatus1 stated already, there was never a situation where a MERCURY spacecraft were able

to "eclipse" an APOLLO spacecraft.

BTW: "Nosty"?

Have you even read my interpretations?

Mercury flew in near Earth orbit, right?

He says Apollo goes into LEO, which is above near Earth orbit, right?

So Apollo is second in the skies above, right?

If you assume Apollo went to the moon, you'll never get the point here.

The point is - he predicts Apollo was a hoax with these 4 quatrains.

I have no idea why you'd bring up the first Apollo or Mercury missions, either.It's not relevant

[turbonium]

Second is the position reached above us.

Is everyone clear about this yet?

[+Noteverythingisaconspiracy]

Lets try a different approach.

How do you explain that a man in the 16th Century was able to predict the moonlanding hoax ?

Did he have a time machine ?

Or is it possible that he didn't actually predict anything, but made so many vague prediction, that people can use them to "prove" whatever they like ?

[toast]

I have no idea why you'd bring up the first Apollo or Mercury missions, either.It's not relevant

You placed the card with the Apollo and Mercury missions first, so you have to deal with responses to as you try to bend the reality. And good that you bring the word relevance into the discussion. Yes, it`s absolutely not relevant what a guy wrote some hundreds of years ago and how it is interpreted by some ppl today in relation to hard facts and todays science, even if the N-pro community interprets some writings by N as forecasts for lunar landings. That´s a confirmation therefore that the writings are such flexible to avoid that a claim given can be confuted or get proven.

If you assume Apollo went to the moon, you'll never get the point here.

There are a lot of fair and professonal discussions about faked moon landings based on, more or less on the fake-pro side,

scientific facts. Some old writings, like the Nostradamus hogwash, should not included into these discussions as they will

have the same value in argumentations like some lousy cave paintings anywhere.

Edited March 15, 2014 by toast

[aquatus1]

The Sun is not eclipsed by Mercury, right?

Correct. Even though Mercury is between the sun and the Earth, it is too small to eclipse the sun. The term isn't eclipse; a planetary body crossing the bright disk of the sun is correctly referred to as a "transit".

It is not a literal eclipse, it is a figurative eclipse.

I am assuming you are talking about your interpretations.

It's not the Sun, it is Apollo missions. It's not planet Mercury, it's the Mercury missions.

Yes, I know.

Saying the Sun is eclipsed by Mercury means Apollo flies slightly above the Mercury missions. As in Apollo is "only" second in the skies/heavens. Not such a great feat..

Wait...

In the example you give, we have the planet Mercury in position between the Earth and the Sun described by yourself as an eclipse (which it is not in any stretch of imagination or meaning; there is literally zero obscuration of light, but whatever...). However, when you want to apply it to the moon missions, you cannot, because the Mercury capsule was never in the position you incorrectly call an eclipse. It was never between the Earth and the Apollo mission. They were never is space together.

It's already a stretch to refer to planet Mercury causing an eclipse of the sun; to claim it could do so without even being in position between the sun and the Earth is simply incorrect in any interpretation of the word, as incorrect as it would be to refer to a Mercury mission being between the Earth and an Apollo mission when it was never near it. There is literally no way to define an eclipse as something not being between one celestial (or whatever point A we are slapping together for this train wreck of a definition) body and another. By sheer definition, they have to be in line with each other at a minimum, and that is stretching it because you aren't even acknowledging the obscuration of light, which is the entire purpose of the word "eclipse". That is why we have the word "transit", as opposed to "eclipse".

Edited March 15, 2014 by aquatus1

[aquatus1]

Have you even read my interpretations?

Mercury flew in near Earth orbit, right?

He says Apollo goes into LEO, which is above near Earth orbit, right?

There's no such thing as Near Earth Orbit. Low Earth Orbit is the minimum orbital level, at it starts at around 160 km altitude, which means that out of the 6 Mercury missions, only the first two test missions (the ones that only lasted 15 minutes each), didn't reach orbital altitude (not that they were meant to). The actual missions, the ones that went from 5 hours to 2 days, where all at Low Earth Orbit.

So Apollo is second in the skies above, right?

That depends on how you are counting. Mercury had 6 missions. Even if we ignore the first two, that's still four missions in space. The first 6 Apollo missions were unmanned, so maybe we can skip them (just like we are skipping the Soviets and all the Sputniks, the Luna's, and the Venera). Yuri Gagarin was, of course, the first person in space by all accounts, back in 1961, something we didn't manage till 1968, by which time the Russians had already followed up sending two dogs into space with sending an entire crew to spend the day up there, as well as the first woman in space, and a bunch of other firsts. Heck, we haven't even gotten into the actual race to the moon yet.

How exactly are we defining "second"?

If you assume Apollo went to the moon, you'll never get the point here.

That should tell you something right there.

The point is - he predicts Apollo was a hoax with these 4 quatrains.

Even for a Nostradamus interpretation, this is pretty unspectacular.

I have no idea why you'd bring up the first Apollo or Mercury missions, either.It's not relevant

Why?

How do you determine what data is relevant or not?

[turbonium]

Lets try a different approach.

How do you explain that a man in the 16th Century was able to predict the moonlanding hoax ?

Did he have a time machine ?

A better question is - can we "explain" such a phenomenon?..

Afaik, he did not have a time machine.

.

Or is it possible that he didn't actually predict anything, but made so many vague prediction, that people can use them to "prove" whatever they like ?

Before I deciphered the 4 quatrains on the hoaxed moon landings, I'd say it's very possible (that he didn't predict anything).

These quatrains cannot be dismissed away, no matter how much you try to.

[aquatus1]

A better question is - can we "explain" such a phenomenon?..

Of course. Wishful thinking has a long history among humans.

Afaik, he did not have a time machine.

Well, at least we have that...

Before I deciphered the 4 quatrains on the hoaxed moon landings, I'd say it's very possible (that he didn't predict anything).

Again, that should tell you something right there.

These quatrains cannot be dismissed away, no matter how much you try to.

Except for the part about no eclipse actually occurring either figuratively, metaphorically, or even logistically, and the part about defining "second in space" as little other than "ignoring everything else that came before"

[turbonium]

You placed the card with the Apollo and Mercury missions first, so you have to deal with responses to as you try to bend the reality.

No, I'm dealing with people who think they can twist or revise my ACTUAL interpretation of the quatrains, in order to make an argument. That's who is trying to "bend the reality".

In my original post about this, I said...

"Mercury was placed first in the sky (in sub-orbit). The Sun (Apollo) "will be placed only second in the sky" (in low-Earth orbit)."

I've tried to explain this point to you, repeatedly,

And you don't have the nads to even acknowledge that I said it??.

Grow up...

.

And good that you bring the word relevance into the discussion. Yes, it`s absolutely not relevant what a guy wrote some hundreds of years ago and how it is interpreted by some ppl today in relation to hard facts and todays science, even if the N-pro community interprets some writings by N as forecasts for lunar landings. That´s a confirmation therefore that the writings are such flexible to avoid that a claim given can be confuted or get proven.

The quatrains are open to all sorts of different interpretations. They do seem very vague, and obscure.

We call them 'puzzles', or 'riddles', because that's exactly what they are. Like many puzzles, they seem to be very vague, obscure. There are all sorts of different views about how to solve - or interpret - puzzles.

If the puzzle has only one solution, all the different attempts at solving it will fail, save for the one..

A few seem to get part of the puzzle..

But, you don't solve a puzzle by getting close. Or if you seem to be close.

That's what your argument is...many different interpretations are made, because it's so "flexible", etc.

Look at the view counter to mine -

The quatrain which predicts the moon landings.

All the so-called 'experts' say so. .

Who am I to challenge John Hogue, one of the greatest experts of all things 'Nostradamus'?

I don't care what he is, or thinks he is.

"He will come to go into the corner of Luna,"

Where he will be captured and put in a strange land:

"The unripe fruits will be the subject of great scandal,"

"Great blame, to one great praise."

So he predicted the Apollo moon landings!.

Why do you say that, Mr. John Hogue?

Well, he said we will go to the corner of the moon!

No, he didn't say that.

He said we will come to go to the corner of the moon, where we will then be captured, or taken, in some way, and put on a 'strange land'.

So what, they all say. We are the experts here, and we all say he's talking about the Apollo moon landings.

They mention we are put on a strange land. They don't mention the part about being captured, or taken, and THEN put on a strange land. .

No big deal, right?

Third and fourth lines of this quatrain - .

"The unripe fruits will be the subject of great scandal,"

"Great blame, to one great praise."

..

Oops.

Well, this isn't going to fit with the Apollo landings, now is it?

So they have to change it, so it can fit in,

.

In this one quatrain, he predicts the moon landings. But that's only in the first part of the quatrain. There are 2 parts to it, you see? The second part of the quatrain is about something else. It's not about Apollo anymore. It might be referring to the Shuttle disaster, or maybe Apollo 13. We don't know for sure, but it can't be about the genuine moon landings!

That's a complete joke!

..

We cannot take out parts of it. Or switch it to fit your argument, which was also revised.

That's right - it is about the moon landings. It's also about the Shuttle disaster, or possibly on the Apollo 13 pickle. Anyway, we know that both are about NASA space missions, which means they are related events!

"The unripe fruits will be the subject of great scandal".

That must be about something else, because the moon landings, or Apollo in general, were never the cause of a great scandal. Apollo 13 was almost a disaster, but no major scandal came of it,

The Challenger disaster was the biggest NASA-related scandal. since the Apollo 1 incident.. . So it fits in better than Apollo 13 does, on that point,. But it's not really an event connected to the Apollo moon landings, so Apollo 13 fits better on that part.

It must be a second event, and must relate to the first event - so they find another space mission which fits in best..

My interpretation of the same quatrain stands as written, without any parts taken out. Everything has to fit in.

Btw, I sent my interpretations to John Hogue, several times, without any reply. His site didn't - or wouldn't - post my work, as well. They posted others, before and after mine was sent, however. I guess showering Hogue with compliments, with gushing adoration of his brilliance gets you posted over there..Oh well, at least I tried..... . . . .... . . .

There are a lot of fair and professonal discussions about faked moon landings based on, more or less on the fake-pro side,

scientific facts. Some old writings, like the Nostradamus hogwash, should not included into these discussions as they will

have the same value in argumentations like some lousy cave paintings anywhere.

We are talking about Nostradamus. If you want to discuss it from a scientific angle, or whatever, that's great.

This is not about what you think about him, or his work. It's not relevant...

.

[turbonium]

In the example you give, we have the planet Mercury in position between the Earth and the Sun described by yourself as an eclipse (which it is not in any stretch of imagination or meaning; there is literally zero obscuration of light, but whatever...). However, when you want to apply it to the moon missions, you cannot, because the Mercury capsule was never in the position you incorrectly call an eclipse. It was never between the Earth and the Apollo mission. They were never is space together.

It's already a stretch to refer to planet Mercury causing an eclipse of the sun; to claim it could do so without even being in position between the sun and the Earth is simply incorrect in any interpretation of the word, as incorrect as it would be to refer to a Mercury mission being between the Earth and an Apollo mission when it was never near it. There is literally no way to define an eclipse as something not being between one celestial (or whatever point A we are slapping together for this train wreck of a definition) body and another. By sheer definition, they have to be in line with each other at a minimum, and that is stretching it because you aren't even acknowledging the obscuration of light, which is the entire purpose of the word "eclipse". That is why we have the word "transit", as opposed to "eclipse".

These 4 quatrains are about Apollo moon landings being faked. You do understand that, right? It's important that you know what the specific issue is here.l.

Mercury is not the issue. Apollo moon landings being hoaxed is the issue..

Mercury is used by Nostradamus as a reference point. We know Mercury was in near Earth orbit. So if Apollo is being 'ecpliped' by Mercury, we know Apollo flew slightly above where Mercury flew. This is the only reason he brings up Mercury.

For what possible reason do you think he is referring to an actual eclipse here? It is quite obvious he is not.

He said Mercury flies below Apollo, which is correct. He said Apollo flew over 11 missions (or times), also correct.

He said Gus Grissom (Hermes) dies in a fire, also correct.. He says Grissom was promised to become immortal, to be known as the first human to ever set foot on the moon. Again, he is correct about that. He even describes the position Grissom was in when he died in the fire. Eyes to the south, hands to the chest, body in the fire. That is exactly how he was positioned in the capsule when he died.

Those are a few of the facts he mentioned in these quatrains.

How do you think he managed to put all that into three quatrains, which are in consecutive order?

I suppose you think it's one of the most incredible coincidences in all human history? I'd say he is really talking about a moon hoax and Grissom..

[Silver Surfer]

Despite the fact i think prophecies a load of bollockss I still enjoyed this read and would like to think that you are correct... maybe it would make the world a more interesting place if such things could happen...

Anyhow..if your right.. it looks like we are in for suffering and plague before we find out.. well at least america is anyway. Thanks for an interesting read.

Edited March 16, 2014 by Silver Surfer

[turbonium]

Except for the part about no eclipse actually occurring either figuratively, metaphorically, or even logistically, and the part about defining "second in space" as little other than "ignoring everything else that came before"

No, Apollo is PLACED only second in the skies/above.That is what he says. Of course, I've told you all this, over and over, ad nauseum..

But hell, if you want to keep playing the ignorant doofus go ahead. This is the last time I will explain it to you, as I've wasted enough time already.

[willowdreams]

Yes, that's correct. Mercury cannot eclipse the Sun.

You haven't read my interpretations, in which I go over this point.

To recap - the Sun isn't meant to be the actual Sun. Nor is Mercury meant to be the actual planet, Mercury.

He says the Sun is hidden, and is eclipsed by Mercury, and is placed only second in the skies/heavens.

They are both in the skies/heavens, like the real Sun / Mercury. So now...

What would be called a Sun that is in the skies/heavens, but would not be the actual Sun? A symbolic Sun, perhaps?

Apollo is the Sun (or Sun god) in Greek mythology. NASA's Apollo was in the skies/heavens...

Mercury makes sense now.

And so on...

.

Your interpretations.

It is easy to make things fit what you need them to fit in order to argue your point.

Instead of going to the supernatural to try to make a point, use hard core facts that cannot be disputed

Sorry, normally I never enter threads pertaining to things quite like this.. but this time I just had to add my own opinion.

I think this will be the last that i comment on posts of someone trying to prove move landings a hoax.. Maybe this time i am commenting because I am going on two days of next to no sleep

[turbonium]

Despite the fact i think prophecies a load of bollockss I still enjoyed this read and would like to think that you are correct... maybe it would make the world a more interesting place if such things could happen...

Anyhow..if your right.. it looks like we are in for suffering and plague before we find out.. well at least america is anyway. Thanks for an interesting read.

Thanks for the comments.

If such a catastrophe does occur, it would seem that many of us won't even be around to see how the hoax is revealed!! That's a sad thought..

[toast]

No, I'm dealing with people who think they can twist or revise my ACTUAL interpretation of the quatrains, in order to make an argument.

That's who is trying to "bend the reality". In my original post about this, I said...

"Mercury was placed first in the sky (in sub-orbit). The Sun (Apollo) "will be placed only second in the sky" (in low-Earth orbit)."

And again, it`s wrong that APOLLO was “placed only second in the sky”, after MERCURY. Again the missions order: MERCURY/GEMINI/APOLLO.

If you claim that the writing of N. is a prediction that came true, you are wrong as the prediction does not match the reality.

MERCURY missions 6/7/8/9 (1962-1963) operated in LEO. Their orbits involved an apogee of approx. 260km.

GEMINI 5 (08/1965) operated in LEO. It`s orbit involved an apogee of approx. 350km

AS-201 (APOLLO test mission) was launched 02/1966.

APOLLO 4 was launched 11/1967.

So, GEMINI “was placed second in the sky”, and not APOLLO. And literary speaking, GEMINI was eclipsed by MERCURY first, and not APOLLO

by MERCURY. In addition the altitude order, by height/mission is MERCURY/GEMINI/APOLLO (highest).

These are the facts and mixing them up on demand, like you did, is what I call bending of reality.

Edited March 16, 2014 by toast

[aquatus1]

No, Apollo is PLACED only second in the skies/above.That is what he says. Of course, I've told you all this, over and over, ad nauseum..

Well, 1), you have said it once, and I responded exactly to what you wrote.

and 2), repetition is meaningless. Try explaining it in a way that actually addresses what I wrote, namely "Why is it considered second compared to everything else that is up there?"

But hell, if you want to keep playing the ignorant doofus go ahead. This is the last time I will explain it to you, as I've wasted enough time already.

Mind your manners Turbonium. You've got enough priors that I don't have to tolerate any attitude from you.

[turbonium]

Your interpretations.

It is easy to make things fit what you need them to fit in order to argue your point.

Instead of going to the supernatural to try to make a point, use hard core facts that cannot be disputed

Sorry, normally I never enter threads pertaining to things quite like this.. but this time I just had to add my own opinion.

I think this will be the last that i comment on posts of someone trying to prove move landings a hoax.. Maybe this time i am commenting because I am going on two days of next to no sleep

It's easy to make things fit - just by changing a few words, or ignoring a few words, etc.

It's not so easy to fit things in exactly as they are written - in all of its parts, in full, word for word.

If anyone thinks it's easy to interpret a quatrain as it is written, word for word, and in full, to any event of your choosing, please try it out yourself....I would really like to see what you can come up with!.

I'm specifically challenging anyone who told me how easy it is, to go and create your own version......

. .

[aquatus1]

These 4 quatrains are about Apollo moon landings being faked. You do understand that, right? It's important that you know what the specific issue is here.l.

Turbonium, the Apollo landing moon hoax is all you talk about. How could it possibly refer to anything else?

Mercury is not the issue. Apollo moon landings being hoaxed is the issue..

You are using Mercury in you argument about Apollo, are you not?

Mercury is used by Nostradamus as a reference point. We know Mercury was in near Earth orbit.

Again, no such thing as near Earth orbit. Anything below Low Earth Orbit is called "falling".

So if Apollo is being 'ecpliped' by Mercury, we know Apollo flew slightly above where Mercury flew. This is the only reason he brings up Mercury.

How does "Eclipsed" define that in any way, shape, or form? There is no alignment, there is no obscuration, there is no overlap, there is no connection at all. The closest you can even get is that one flew at a different apogee than the other during an entirely different point in time, which cannot in any way be defined using the word "eclipsed".

For what possible reason do you think he is referring to an actual eclipse here? It is quite obvious he is not.

I know you (not Nostradamus; I couldn't care less what he said) are not referring to an actual eclipse. You are pretending that the word "eclipse" has some figurative or metaphorical meaning, and like I said, fine, whatever. My argument is that the word "Eclipse" means that one thing is between another thing, blocking it from sight. That is the entire purpose of the word. So even using it figuratively or metaphorically, you do not have an eclipse occurring with the missions. There is nothing blocking anything because nothing was between one thing and another. If you are just claiming that one path in one point in time is blocking another path (in terms of altitude) at a different point in time, then figuratively, that is the equivalent of claiming that Mercury (the planet) is always eclipsing the sun because its orbit is between the Earth and the Sun, even if Mercury isn't actually between the two.

Get it? You cannot use the word "eclipse" to define a space, or a path between two things. "Eclipse", by definition, is about whatever is on that path actually blocking these two things from each other.

He said Mercury flies below Apollo, which is correct. He said Apollo flew over 11 missions (or times), also correct.

He said Gus Grissom (Hermes) dies in a fire, also correct.. He says Grissom was promised to become immortal, to be known as the first human to ever set foot on the moon. Again, he is correct about that. He even describes the position Grissom was in when he died in the fire. Eyes to the south, hands to the chest, body in the fire. That is exactly how he was positioned in the capsule when he died.

Whatever. I'm sticking to your failure of definition. There's plenty of errors to go around for everyone to pick one.

Those are a few of the facts he mentioned in these quatrains.

No. These are interpretations you have made of the quatrains. Unless you see "Gus Grissom" in that quatrain, it isn't a fact that Nostradamus mentioned him.

How do you think he managed to put all that into three quatrains, which are in consecutive order?

Simple. He didn't. You did.

I suppose you think it's one of the most incredible coincidences in all human history? I'd say he is really talking about a moon hoax and Grissom..

I don't think it is a coincidence at all. I think it is just another example of someone manipulating the interpretations until they find something they like.

When all is said and done, however, there is no way to stretch the definition of "eclipse" to include three points that never cross because they are separated by space and time in the most literal sense of the word. In the same way that planet Mercury doesn't eclipse the sun if it is on the other side of it (or, for that matter, even if it is directly in front, but I already talked about that), the Mercury mission doesn't eclipse Apollo if it isn't actually in front of it. It isn't the orbit of planet Mercury that does the eclipsing, any more than it is the flight path of Mercury, in any sense, figurative or otherwise.

[Rafterman]

Turbs is getting desperate.

What's next? Myan prophecy?