Snopes give no indication in this article on bogus Nostradamus propecies as to where such a version can be located in its entirety. If you read this link you will see what I mean.
They discuss how Neil Marshall altered the Nostradamus text in an essay published on the internet and how others added to his work but there is no information given on where to find a “standard” Nostradamus fake or, I suppose, even if one exists. I am more grounded than I seem and, in my opinion, Neil Marshall’s essay says everything about Nostradamus that anyone needs to know. However, something someone said in my How Did Mr Bush Learn To Speak Proper thread about journalists inspired me to pursue the idea that game playing among groups of people should be given correct focus. It is a rational and reasonable idea to believe, not that Nostradamus predictions are true but that a group or individual could conspire to make them true as part of their political agenda. The “made up” stanzas which were created before the WTC are very accurate in their descriptions aren’t they? The originals don’t possess that quality and that is the whole point of Skeptics everywhere. So, is there a fuller, altered version available?
Sorry, that link just goes to Snopes homepage and I don’t understand why. If you are interested enter Nostradamus in their search engine and click the first link you get. That’s the one I copied, but it didn’t paste.
Do a search, this has been covered somewhere on these boards since the event, possibly comments on Cecils Columns. It’s a complete fabrication where lines were taken out of several different quatrains and other parts just made up, that’s why you can’t find an original. It’s enhanced in the same way that celebrity heads pasted onto the bodies of naked pornstars are ‘enhanced’, an interesting euphemism for ‘completely manufactured’.
Whether Nostradamus wrote that stanza or not is completely irrelevant. That those words apparently existed before the terrorist attack is what is relevant. My point is not that they were predictive or prophetic (even inadvertently) but that they were made use of by the wrong people.
Which stanzas were made up before 11 September 2001, that are “very accurate” in their descriptions? Going to the snopes article (the snopes website uses frames, scroll to the bottom of the page to find a direct link to the article) says that this is the original (translated):
What I mean is, those words weren’t, at the time they were written, predictive or prophetic. They weren’t written by anyone with any “psychic ability” whether it was Nostradamus or Neil Marshall. However, it is possible to consider isn’t it, that someone actualised them, made them come true?
Arnold Winkelried: No, Snopes do not indicate when that stanza was written. They say that Neil Marshall wrote his essay in 1997 and only that his text has been altered and added to since that time. Does anyone know for sure?
Without knowing for sure when the stanzas were written, I would say it’s a pretty safe bet that if some text is claiming to exactly describe a “future” event, the text was already written before.
As far as a group of (allegedly) arab terrorists deciding to plan their attack to fulfill a “fake” prophecy based upon the web page of a canadian student that was trying to disprove the predictive powers of Nostradamus, why would they do that? That seems almost as unlikely as the first hypothesis.
I’m sick of all this nostradamus BS. I thought that this shit was settled the past 10 or so times that he predicted that the world would end and it didn’t. The sooner that the civilized world comes to terms with the fact that prescience doesn’t exist, the sooner that Mz. Cleo stops making money. If she really wanted it after all she could just stop by and pick up a cool million from the James Randi Foundation
It’s not like modern science hasn’t investigated it, in fact they’ve got all sorts of theories like ‘General Relativity’ which explain why it isn’t possible.
No, I don’t see it that way but I’m only too well aware that trying to discuss that viewpoint is risky. If I was to tell the truth a lot of my stuff here alludes to things that are just too difficult to discuss in any satisfactory way. You may have seen my ahem thread, you may not. May be it is time to call it a day (what with pay per fatuous remark coming up and all). Game playing, by people in organised groups is surely an inevitable part of human nature. The game could be anything at all. A group of people with powerful jobs could use them to achieve some aim (as in the film Sleepers, I suppose) or they could pick a victim and orchestrate events in that person’s life. That last aircrash could be the result of infiltration of aircraft maintenance industry by a group of anti-American white people. Why the hell not? I suppose there are limits to healthy supposition although real science requires a totally open mind doesn’t it? You know Moslems aren’t all that…uncosmopolitan. I knew an Afghan guy briefly once. He asked me out. I’ll pray he never reads this (not a chance in hell, probably) but what a sleazebag! He had a wife in Afghanistan, he told me that - several times. He said she would be pregnant in three days when she arrived here [sic]. Then he asked me out again. I’d always wanted a rug and everything but I decided to stick with my sheepskin.
