Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * - - - 14 votes

Nostradamus predicted the moon landing hoax


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
1508 replies to this topic

#31    turbonium

turbonium

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,344 posts
  • Joined:14 Mar 2005

Posted 15 March 2014 - 10:29 AM

View PostNoteverythingisaconspiracy, on 15 March 2014 - 09:50 AM, said:

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... ...


#32    turbonium

turbonium

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,344 posts
  • Joined:14 Mar 2005

Posted 15 March 2014 - 10:43 AM

View Posttoast, on 15 March 2014 - 09:52 AM, said:

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


#33    turbonium

turbonium

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,344 posts
  • Joined:14 Mar 2005

Posted 15 March 2014 - 10:46 AM

Second is the position reached above us.

Is everyone clear about this yet?


#34    Noteverythingisaconspiracy

Noteverythingisaconspiracy

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,413 posts
  • Joined:31 Dec 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:A very small country north of Germany

  • "An open mind is like an open door, unless you're careful anything might get in." Sir Wearer of Hats

Posted 15 March 2014 - 11:21 AM

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 ?

"People will generally accept fact as truth only if the fact agree with what they already believe"
Andy Rooney

"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and im not sure about the former"
Albert Einstein

#35    toast

toast

    President of the Galaxy

  • Member
  • 3,147 posts
  • Joined:24 Nov 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Germany

  • WARNING!REALITY ADVISORY!
    Posts by this user may contain
    statements that may offend
    publishers of pics/clips of
    supposed UFO/alien sightings.

Posted 15 March 2014 - 12:15 PM

View Postturbonium, on 15 March 2014 - 10:43 AM, said:

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.

View Postturbonium, on 15 March 2014 - 10:43 AM, said:

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 by toast, 15 March 2014 - 12:29 PM.

“For every moment of triumph, for every instance of beauty, many souls must be trampled.”  - Hunter S. Thompson -
"Very funny, Scotty, now beam down my trousers!" - James T. Kirk -
"I think enormous harm is done by religion – not just in the name of religion, but actually by religion." - Steven Weinberg -  
"I am discounting the reports of UFOs. Why would they appear only to cranks and weirdos?" - Stephen Hawking -

#36    aquatus1

aquatus1

    Forum Divinity

  • 19,484 posts
  • Joined:05 Mar 2004
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 15 March 2014 - 12:30 PM

View Postturbonium, on 15 March 2014 - 09:53 AM, said:

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".

Quote

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

I am assuming you are talking about your interpretations.

Quote

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

Yes, I know.

Quote

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 by aquatus1, 15 March 2014 - 01:00 PM.


#37    aquatus1

aquatus1

    Forum Divinity

  • 19,484 posts
  • Joined:05 Mar 2004
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 15 March 2014 - 12:55 PM

View Postturbonium, on 15 March 2014 - 10:43 AM, said:

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.

Quote

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"?

Quote

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

That should tell you something right there.

Quote

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

Even for a Nostradamus interpretation, this is pretty unspectacular.

Quote

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?


#38    turbonium

turbonium

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,344 posts
  • Joined:14 Mar 2005

Posted 16 March 2014 - 03:26 AM

View PostNoteverythingisaconspiracy, on 15 March 2014 - 11:21 AM, said:

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.

.

View PostNoteverythingisaconspiracy, on 15 March 2014 - 11:21 AM, said:

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.


#39    aquatus1

aquatus1

    Forum Divinity

  • 19,484 posts
  • Joined:05 Mar 2004
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 16 March 2014 - 05:59 AM

View Postturbonium, on 16 March 2014 - 03:26 AM, said:

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

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

Quote

Afaik, he did not have a time machine.

Well, at least we have that...

Quote

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.

Quote

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"


#40    turbonium

turbonium

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,344 posts
  • Joined:14 Mar 2005

Posted 16 March 2014 - 09:43 AM

View Posttoast, on 15 March 2014 - 12:15 PM, said:

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...

.

View Posttoast, on 15 March 2014 - 12:15 PM, said:

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..... . . . .... . . .      


View Posttoast, on 15 March 2014 - 12:15 PM, said:

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...


.


#41    turbonium

turbonium

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,344 posts
  • Joined:14 Mar 2005

Posted 16 March 2014 - 11:10 AM

View Postaquatus1, on 15 March 2014 - 12:30 PM, said:

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..


#42    Silver Surfer

Silver Surfer

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 226 posts
  • Joined:07 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New Zealand

Posted 16 March 2014 - 11:14 AM

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 by Silver Surfer, 16 March 2014 - 11:16 AM.


#43    turbonium

turbonium

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,344 posts
  • Joined:14 Mar 2005

Posted 16 March 2014 - 11:23 AM

View Postaquatus1, on 16 March 2014 - 05:59 AM, said:

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.


#44    willowdreams

willowdreams

    Conspiracy Theorist

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 964 posts
  • Joined:12 Jun 2009
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:USA

  • Never let the facts get in the way of the truth- heard during an episode of 'Lie to Me' by Dr. Cal Lightman

Posted 16 March 2014 - 11:33 AM

View Postturbonium, on 15 March 2014 - 07:00 AM, said:

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 :P

Posted Image


#45    turbonium

turbonium

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,344 posts
  • Joined:14 Mar 2005

Posted 16 March 2014 - 11:40 AM

View PostSilver Surfer, on 16 March 2014 - 11:14 AM, said:

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..





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users