Nostradamus predicted the moon landing hoax

[turbonium]

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.

As I said, the quatrains have to taken as written - word for word, and all of it being correct.

It is true, Gemini went higher than Mercury. So it would indeed be placed second in the skies.

Now, here's the interesting part I've just realized here-

If he said Apollo is placed only second in the skies, above Mercury, then he must also mean that Apollo is actually - now get this - flying below Gemini!!

He said Apollo is placed ONLY second in the skies, right?

So Mercury is placed first, Apollo is placed ONLY second, and Gemini is placed third.

That not ony accounts for both Mercuryand Gemini, but gives us the exact altitude range for the Apollo flights!

I can't thank you enough for helping me figure this out! Really.

.

...

[turbonium]

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

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

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

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".

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.

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

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.

Simple. He didn't. You did.

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.

He knew that the actual planet Mercury did not, and cannot, actually eclipse the actual Sun.

And we know it, as well

So the Sun, Mercury, eclipse, would have to be symbolic. Not a real Sun, or real planet Mercury, or real eclipse. Right?

If you don't agree, then tell me what the Sun, etc. mean. You think they are real? No. It is impossible they are real..

.

They must be meant as something else then - right?.

.They are SYMBOLS.

Just like I told you they were, many times..

..

If we know Mercury can't be the actual planet Mercury, and we know the Sun can't be the real Sun, why would you think the eclipse must be a real eclipse?? Come on, really now.

[turbonium]

Another example for you -

If you see something written in code, it will look like gibberish to you, right?

It seems to make no sense, it is entrirely vague, random letters scrambled about at random.

But it's not.

It does make perfect sense, in fact.

But you don't know it, because you don't even realize it is in code form.

You can only see what it means by knowing how to de-code it.

If you can't de-code it correctly as written, then you won't know what it means.

Get it yet?.

[aquatus1]

He knew that the actual planet Mercury did not, and cannot, actually eclipse the actual Sun.

Then why did he use the word "eclipse"?

And we know it, as well

Which is why we don't use the word "eclipse".

So the Sun, Mercury, eclipse, would have to be symbolic. Not a real Sun, or real planet Mercury, or real eclipse. Right?

Actually, it could simply be wrong, which it is, but like I said in my very first response to you, we'll go ahead and assume, for the sake of the argument, that it is right (which, again, it isn't).

If you don't agree, then tell me what the Sun, etc. mean. You think they are real? No. It is impossible they are real..

I don't think they mean anything. I think that they, just like all of Nostradamus's 5000-6000 quatrains, are the result of schizophrenia.

They must be meant as something else then - right?.

Whose to say? They might, they might not.

.They are SYMBOLS.

Just like I told you they were, many times..

Turbo...

NO ONE is referring to them as literal. NO ONE.

Yes, it was understood from the very first post you made that you were taking them as figurative. It was understood from the very first post you made that you were using the orbits of the actual planets as a metaphor for the paths of the space missions. That was never in any doubt by anyone on this thread. It wasn't a mystery and it wasn't hard to figure out. Get over yourself.

What is being said is that it doesn't work. It doesn't translate figuratively to "eclipse". It isn't a metaphor for the word that you claim it is for. It is wrong because it describes something that is not describe by that word.

If we know Mercury can't be the actual planet Mercury, and we know the Sun can't be the real Sun, why would you think the eclipse must be a real eclipse?? Come on, really now.

I am starting to think you are intentionally winding me up. You can't be so foolish as to think I am speaking literally after I have directly told you 4 times that I am not.

[aquatus1]

Another example for you -

If you see something written in code, it will look like gibberish to you, right?

Depends on the code. Some look like gibberish, some look like ordinary text. Nostradamus's, assuming they are a code (which is not a given) fall somewhere in between.

It seems to make no sense, it is entrirely vague, random letters scrambled about at random.

But it's not.

It does make perfect sense, in fact.

But you don't know it, because you don't even realize it is in code form.

Some codes are like that, sure. Not Nostradamus's quatrains, as they are not random letters scrambled about, but some codes, yeah.

You can only see what it means by knowing how to de-code it.

If you can't de-code it correctly as written, then you won't know what it means.

Get it yet?.

There is one thing that all codes, no matter what kind they are and no matter how hard or how easy they are to solve have in common.

All codes have a "key".

This key is what allows one to decipher the code. This key is what can be applied by anyone, objectively, reliably, and repeatedly, and the code will respond with the exact same message. If you do not require a key, you do not have a code.

What is your code, Turbo? What set of rules do you apply to Nostradamus's quatrains that allow for a translation of "Gus Grissom"? That could be applied by anyone and allow them to get the same message.

If you do not have a key, you do not have a code. All you have is an interpretation. And in your case, you have an interpretation that revolves around having the wrong definition of a word.

[Likely Guy]

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...

.

How about Gemini? I'm sorry but what you produced there is absolute bafflegab.

Edited March 17, 2014 by Likely Guy

[Perceptivum]

What a ridiculous waste of time and energy. The moon landings were not a hoax, so ends the debate over Nostradamus and his delusions predicting it. Move on to a mystery that has a bit more explaining to do.

[+Noteverythingisaconspiracy]

The trouble is that the moon hoax is an obsession with Turbonium, no amount of evidence will move him, but it is possible that other hoax believers might change their mind, if you show them that the moonlanding wasn't hoaxed.

I have convinced quite a few hoaxbelievers that they were wrong, by presending them with explanations for the hoax arguments.

Usually it turns out they have their information from youtube and just don't know much about spaceflight and physics in general.

So in short for me its not about convincing Turbonium and his like, its about educating the majority of people who are still capable of rational thought on the matter.

[scowl]

When did the act of "prediction" become reinterpreting vague poems into describing something that has already happened?

If you don't know something will happen until after it happened, what are you "predicting"?

[+Noteverythingisaconspiracy]

When did the act of "prediction" become reinterpreting vague poems into describing something that has already happened?

If you don't know something will happen until after it happened, what are you "predicting"?

In the words of Niels Bohr:

"Prediction is very difficult, especially if its about the future"

Edited March 17, 2014 by Noteverythingisaconspiracy

[Taun]

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...

.

So maybe "Luna" isn't meant to be the actual moon.... perhaps he was using three alias', rather than two and an actual name...

[turbonium]

I don't think they mean anything. I think that they, just like all of Nostradamus's 5000-6000 quatrains, are the result of schizophrenia.

That's your opinion of him - so what?

His work is the only relevant issue here, period.

Whose to say? They might, they might not.

Say what?

Turbo...

NO ONE is referring to them as literal. NO ONE.

Yes, it was understood from the very first post you made that you were taking them as figurative. It was understood from the very first post you made that you were using the orbits of the actual planets as a metaphor for the paths of the space missions. That was never in any doubt by anyone on this thread. It wasn't a mystery and it wasn't hard to figure out. Get over yourself.

If you know all that, why are you talking about the eclipse being real, then??

It's not.

What is being said is that it doesn't work. It doesn't translate figuratively to "eclipse". It isn't a metaphor for the word that you claim it is for. It is wrong because it describes something that is not describe by that word.

He uses the term 'eclipse' as a metaphor, without any doubt.

You don't think it's the correct term to use? That's your opinion, once again.

It is still the term he used here - whether you like it or not.

I think it's the ideal term to use in this case.

His quatrain is referring to space, with symbols of the Sun and Mercury.

Within that context, he wants to describe where the Sun is in relation to Mercury. It is slightly above Mercury.

An eclipse describes where the 'Sun' is, within the context of the quatrain.

What do you think he should have called it, within the context of this passage?

I'd like you to tell me....

[turbonium]

Depends on the code. Some look like gibberish, some look like ordinary text. Nostradamus's, assuming they are a code (which is not a given) fall somewhere in between.

Some codes are like that, sure. Not Nostradamus's quatrains, as they are not random letters scrambled about, but some codes, yeah.

There is one thing that all codes, no matter what kind they are and no matter how hard or how easy they are to solve have in common.

All codes have a "key".

This key is what allows one to decipher the code. This key is what can be applied by anyone, objectively, reliably, and repeatedly, and the code will respond with the exact same message. If you do not require a key, you do not have a code.

What is your code, Turbo? What set of rules do you apply to Nostradamus's quatrains that allow for a translation of "Gus Grissom"? That could be applied by anyone and allow them to get the same message.

If you do not have a key, you do not have a code. All you have is an interpretation. And in your case, you have an interpretation that revolves around having the wrong definition of a word.

The Sun is the key in this code - it is Apollo, for two consecutive quatrains. Everything else falls in line after we know this key..

We know about Hermes, which fits perfectly as Gus Grissom. And so on..

[turbonium]

When did the act of "prediction" become reinterpreting vague poems into describing something that has already happened?

If you don't know something will happen until after it happened, what are you "predicting"?

The world thought it was a real moon landing, and we still are told it was real, right to this day.

So the eventual revealing of it as a hoax hasn't happened yet, right?

[aquatus1]

That's your opinion of him - so what?

Hey, you asked for my opinion, I gave it to you.

If you can't handle someone having a different opinion than yours, don't ask.

His work is the only relevant issue here, period.

Then why did you ask me what I thought he meant? Why are you asking questions that you yourself consider irrelevant?

Say what?

You claimed that they must mean something. I say that there is no reason to assume they did.

If you know all that, why are you talking about the eclipse being real, then??

It's not.

I'm not. I am talking about the eclipse being used as a metaphor, in exactly the same way out are referring to it. The problem is that as a metaphor, it does not work the way you want it to work.

He uses the term 'eclipse' as a metaphor, without any doubt.

Assuming he does, which is not a given (again, there is no reason why his writings have to mean anything), then he would have used the word "eclipse" correctly, either as a metaphor, as literal, or whichever way he used it. The word "eclipse" means that something is being obscured, and it means that regardless of whether you are being literal or figurative.

You don't think it's the correct term to use? That's your opinion, once again.

No, it is not. The facts are on my side. Pick up a dictionary, and you will find my definition there, not yours. Would Nostradamus have used the same definition I use? Yes, he would have. The word "eclipse" comes from the Old French word eclipser, which means "to block out, obscure, overshadow". Nostradamus, being an old French dude himself, would not have used the word incorrectly, particularly not as a metaphor, considering the purpose of metaphors to begin with.

It is still the term he used here - whether you like it or not.

I don't have a problem with the term Nostradamus used. He was probably using it correctly, whether or not he was schizophrenic or a seer. It is you who is using it incorrectly. It is your translation that doesn't work with the actual meaning of the word.

I think it's the ideal term to use in this case.

Well, being that it doesn't match up with the actual word in any way, shape, or form, your opinion is a rather poorly supported one. There are a half-dozen words he could have used that better fit the description you want just off the top of my head.

His quatrain is referring to space, with symbols of the Sun and Mercury.

According to you, metaphorically, yes, we all know that.

Within that context, he wants to describe where the Sun is in relation to Mercury. It is slightly above Mercury.

Which has nothing to do with the word "eclipse".

An eclipse describes where the 'Sun' is, within the context of the quatrain.

The word "eclipse" means that something is between you and something else, blocking that other thing from sight. It means the same thing whether you are speaking literally or metaphorically. That is the actual purpose of metaphors; to apply the literal meaning of a word to a figurative situation. The definition of the word does not change.

What do you think he should have called it, within the context of this passage?

I'd like you to tell me....

Last time you said something like that you got all snippy because I told you. Why should I believe you are going to be any more sincere now?

[aquatus1]

The Sun is the key in this code - it is Apollo, for two consecutive quatrains. Everything else falls in line after we know this key..

We know about Hermes, which fits perfectly as Gus Grissom. And so on..

No, Turbonium. A key is something that unlocks the pattern of a code, which allows anyone familiar with the pattern to apply the key and decipher the meaning, regardless of what the code says. Saying that the "Sun" is the key is meaningless; it doesn't give you any pattern or any process that leads to an objective translation of the alleged code.

What you are doing is assuming the "sun" means something, and then shoehorning everything else to fit the meaning (actually, I believe that you believe the moon hoax conspiracy means something, and are shoehorning everything to fit that, but as you said, we'll stick to what Nostradamus and you are saying here). That makes it a personal interpretation. If you gave this quatrain to anyone else without telling them anything else about it and told them the key to understanding it was the "Sun", they would not be able to come to the same interpretation as you did. You can call Nostradamus's works many things, but unless you can show a key that actually works with a pattern, you can't call it a code.

[turbonium]

Hey, you asked for my opinion, I gave it to you.

If you can't handle someone having a different opinion than yours, don't ask.

Then why did you ask me what I thought he meant? Why are you asking questions that you yourself consider irrelevant?

You claimed that they must mean something. I say that there is no reason to assume they did.

I'm not. I am talking about the eclipse being used as a metaphor, in exactly the same way out are referring to it. The problem is that as a metaphor, it does not work the way you want it to work.

Assuming he does, which is not a given (again, there is no reason why his writings have to mean anything), then he would have used the word "eclipse" correctly, either as a metaphor, as literal, or whichever way he used it. The word "eclipse" means that something is being obscured, and it means that regardless of whether you are being literal or figurative.

No, it is not. The facts are on my side. Pick up a dictionary, and you will find my definition there, not yours. Would Nostradamus have used the same definition I use? Yes, he would have. The word "eclipse" comes from the Old French word eclipser, which means "to block out, obscure, overshadow". Nostradamus, being an old French dude himself, would not have used the word incorrectly, particularly not as a metaphor, considering the purpose of metaphors to begin with.

I don't have a problem with the term Nostradamus used. He was probably using it correctly, whether or not he was schizophrenic or a seer. It is you who is using it incorrectly. It is your translation that doesn't work with the actual meaning of the word.

Well, being that it doesn't match up with the actual word in any way, shape, or form, your opinion is a rather poorly supported one. There are a half-dozen words he could have used that better fit the description you want just off the top of my head.

The word "eclipse" means that something is between you and something else, blocking that other thing from sight. It means the same thing whether you are speaking literally or metaphorically. That is the actual purpose of metaphors; to apply the literal meaning of a word to a figurative situation. The definition of the word does not change.

Let's go over it one more time...

e·clipse

iˈklips/<p>

noun

• 
  1.
  
  
  
  an obscuring of the light from one celestial body by the passage of another between it and the observer or between it and its source of illumination.
  
  
  synonyms: blotting out,
  blocking
  ,
  covering
  , obscuring, concealing, darkening;
  More
  
  
  
  
  • 
    
    
    
    a loss of significance, power, or prominence in relation to another person or thing.
    
    
    synonyms:
    decline
    ,
    fall
    ,
    failure
    ,
    decay
    ,
    deterioration
    ,
    degeneration
    , weakening,
    collapse
    More
    
    
    
    
  [*]

verb

• 
  1.
  
  
  
  (of a celestial body) obscure the light from or to (another celestial body).
  
  
  
  
  • 
    
    
    
    literary
    
    
    obscure or block out (light).
    
    
    synonyms: blot out,
    block
    ,
    cover
    ,
    obscure
    ,
    hide
    ,
    conceal
    ,
    obliterate
    ,
    darken
    ;
    More
    
    
    
    
  • 
    
    
    
    deprive (someone or something) of significance, power, or prominence.
    
    
    synonyms:
    outshine
    ,
    overshadow
    ,
    surpass
    ,
    exceed
    ,
    outclass
    ,
    outstrip
    ,
    outdo
    ,
    top
    ,
    trump
    ,
    transcend
    ,
    upstage
    
    

https://www.google.ca/search?q=eclipse+synonym&rlz=1C1AVNC_enCA576CA577&oq=eclipse+sy&aqs=chrome.1.69i57j0l5.10247j0j8&sourceid=chrome&espv=210&es_sm=122&ie=UTF-8

You claim "The word "eclipse" means that something is between you and something else, blocking that other thing from sight."..

You can see the second definition isn't about "blocking from sight", yes?

It can mean to deprive something of significance, power, or prominence.

Saying Apollo is 'eclipsed' by Mercury fits this definition very well, doesn't it?.Sure.

[turbonium]

No, Turbonium. A key is something that unlocks the pattern of a code, which allows anyone familiar with the pattern to apply the key and decipher the meaning, regardless of what the code says. Saying that the "Sun" is the key is meaningless; it doesn't give you any pattern or any process that leads to an objective translation of the alleged code.

What you are doing is assuming the "sun" means something, and then shoehorning everything else to fit the meaning (actually, I believe that you believe the moon hoax conspiracy means something, and are shoehorning everything to fit that, but as you said, we'll stick to what Nostradamus and you are saying here). That makes it a personal interpretation. If you gave this quatrain to anyone else without telling them anything else about it and told them the key to understanding it was the "Sun", they would not be able to come to the same interpretation as you did. You can call Nostradamus's works many things, but unless you can show a key that actually works with a pattern, you can't call it a code.

The Sun is a perfect fit as Apollo.

We know, from the first line, that the Sun cannot be the real Sun. Nor can Mercury be the actual panet Mercury.

That is not a personal view, or an interpretation. It is a known fact that the planet Mercury cannot eclipse the actual Sun.

However, he also tells us 'Mercury' and the 'Sun' are in the skies/heavens. Once again, this isn't a personal view, or interpretation.

So we have to figure out what the 'Sun' and 'Mercury' really mean here.

The very next line, he mentions 'Hermes' - a figure from Greek mythology.

And in Greek mythology, the Sun is 'Apollo'.

This is simple enough to follow, right?.

Mercury is clearly a fit, as well.

You think it's personal opinion, when it is clearly a logical progression.

[aquatus1]

Let's go over it one more time...

You claim "The word "eclipse" means that something is between you and something else, blocking that other thing from sight."..

When used literally.

You can see the second definition isn't about "blocking from sight", yes?

Yes, it is. Blocking it from sight figuratively. Obscuring it. Overshadowing it.

That's why you can use "eclipse" as a metaphor, to indicate that something is being obscured by something else, for instance: "The news about the big treasure find eclipsed the story about the missing dog being found."

It can mean to deprive something of significance, power, or prominence.

It can mean that too. Which has nothing to do with how they were placed in the heavens, or which one was in Low Earth orbit or in the non-existent Near Earth Orbit.

Saying Apollo is 'eclipsed' by Mercury fits this definition very well, doesn't it?.Sure.

Which isn't how you were using it, but sure, let's move the goalposts.

Okay, all done moving? All right then, let's move on.

No, Apollo didn't eclipse the Mercury missions. No one has forgotten the Mercury missions. The Mercury missions didn't eventually end with the dramatic de-powerment of NASA.

[turbonium]

The next quatrain confirms the Sun is Apollo - "More than 11 times the Moon will not want the Sun."

Apollo was (supposedly) going to the Moon. There were more than 11 Apollo missions.

The number 11 is the most significant figure to Apollo.

It all fits together perfectly.

[aquatus1]

The Sun is a perfect fit as Apollo.

1) No, it isn't.

2) It still doesn't make "sun" into a key for a code.

We know, from the first line, that the Sun cannot be the real Sun. Nor can Mercury be the actual panet Mercury.

But Luna, apparently, can be the real Moon. Why?

Because we choose to interpret it that way out of convenience.

That is not a personal view, or an interpretation. It is a known fact that the planet Mercury cannot eclipse the actual Sun.

Well, I have my doubts about whether it was known to you prior to this thread, but go on...

However, he also tells us 'Mercury' and the 'Sun' are in the skies/heavens. Once again, this isn't a personal view, or interpretation.

Nor, for that matter, particularly significant. Where else would they be, regardless of what they were referring to?

So we have to figure out what the 'Sun' and 'Mercury' really mean here.

Assuming they actually mean anything, of course.

The very next line, he mentions 'Hermes' - a figure from Greek mythology.

And in Greek mythology, the Sun is 'Apollo'.

This is simple enough to follow, right?.

Like I said, get over yourself.

Mercury is clearly a fit, as well.

Why? Because it shares the same name? Why did the Mercury eclipse Apollo, and not Gemini, or any of the Russian flights? What makes Mercury the logical fit?

You think it's personal opinion, when it is clearly a logical progression.

Logical progression?

You take a program whose vehicles are named after astronomical groupings, find a quatrain that refers to astrological groupings from a man who wrote four books filled with little other than references to astronomical groupings, ignore all the astronomical groupings that came in between the two, some of which are of far greater interest in terms of what overshadowed what, and refer to that as logical progression?

You missed a few steps. It isn't logical progression. It's hopscotch around an entire field of facts, cherry-picking the ones you like and ignoring all the ones you can't shoe-horn into your interpretation.

[Skep B]

It's hopscotch around an entire field of facts, cherry-picking the ones you like and ignoring all the ones you can't shoe-horn into your interpretation.

I feel like if UM ever has it's own T-shirt, this quote should be put on it somewhere

[turbonium]

It can mean that too.

Yes, and now we can move along...

Which has nothing to do with how they were placed in the heavens, or which one was in Low Earth orbit or in the non-existent Near Earth Orbit.

It doesn't have to, because he actually said where it was placed in the heavens - "only second".

No, Apollo didn't eclipse the Mercury missions. No one has forgotten the Mercury missions. The Mercury missions didn't eventually end with the dramatic de-powerment of NASA.

It's the other way around. He didn't say Apollo eclipsed Mercury. He said Apollo was eclipsed by Mercury.

Apollo is being outdone/outclassed (or eclipsed) by Mercury. He sees Apollo as inferior, even to Mercury. Apollo is placed "only" second in the heavens.

Again, he confirms this in the next quatrain -

Apollo is "Both raised and lowered by degrees"

"And (Apollo is) put so low that one will stitch little gold"

In other words, Apollo amounts to squat. . Hardly (among) the greatest milestone achievements, tosay the least! .

You can say these quatrains work for any event, instead of actually proving it.

Are you aware nobody else has effectively interpreted these 3 consecutive quatrains on another event... for over 400 years?

There have been countless interpretations on them, of course. All of them have failed to hold. Some say they are 'occult', and/or astrological in nature. If the interpreter is a famous 'expert', his fans will be impressed by all that gibberish. It's all crap.

But no worries - I'm sure you can do what nobody else has managed to do in over four centuries!

[Skep B]

Are you aware nobody else has effectively interpreted these 3 consecutive quatrains on another event... for over 400 years?

Maybe he was just a crazy old man and obsessives have combed his vague claims for centuries in hopes that they gain some sort of special knowledge.

The Christians do it with the book of Revelations all the time. Others have done it with Issac Newton's jabberings. It stands to reason that This could be the same

[Hideout]

Are you aware nobody else has effectively interpreted these 3 consecutive quatrains on another event... for over 400 years?

There have been countless interpretations on them, of course. All of them have failed to hold. Some say they are 'occult', and/or astrological in nature. If the interpreter is a famous 'expert', his fans will be impressed by all that gibberish. It's all crap.

But no worries - I'm sure you can do what nobody else has managed to do in over four centuries!

Define effectively. It seems that most people in these types of scenarios already have a conclusion drawn, and then fit the interpretation to match their conclusion. Any other interpretation that doesn't fit their viewpoint is seen as 'ineffective'. As Scheming B said, it's done with Revelation, and honestly just about every other part of the Bible, all the time.