Talk:Nostradamus

Nostradamus astrology real science

Michel Nostredame gives the formala hint in a public epistle: Que toutes ces figures ∫ont iu∫temêt adaptees par les diuines lettres aux cho∫es cele∫tes vi∫ibles, c'est à sçavoir, par Saturne , Iupiter , & Mars ,[241] & les autres conioincts [...] first published about 1558 A.D. Nostradamus tells us he uses visual astrology ('cele∫tes vi∫ibles,' lit. visible universe), not tropical astrology, for his poems.

http://bookoflife.org/gamma/OI/oi_vii.i.f.htm this is a the major war codex from Nostradamus. You or anyone in the world can now predict any large game shifting war in history forward and backward based soley upon nostradamus' own claim in his public writings. Just because one gets a masters or studies N for 30+ years does not nor will it ever imply they have intelligence.

Nostradamus did not need to create houses and charts and stuff as this is astronomical, as he has pointed out ('cele∫tes vi∫ibles) , ref. to Aussie visable modern astrologer, Bernadette Brady for bring back this concept.

If you have not been able to figure this out you need to get out of Nostradamus all together, otherwise you work for Satan's Army. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.183.42.25 (talk) 21:43, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

As you can see for yourself via the article's External Links, Nostradamus published umpteen astrological charts that did indeed feature houses and signs, all based on tropical, not sidereal astrology. But then this is not the place for bookspam anyway! --PL (talk) 09:48, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Using a picture to stand in for article text

Currently, in the section "Origins of The Prophecies", there is a section that reads:

His rejection of the title prophet is consistent with the fact that he entitled his book [PICTURE OF TITLE] (a title that, in French, as easily means "The Prophecies, by M. Michel Nostradamus"—which is what they were—as "The Prophecies of M. Michel Nostradamus", which, except in a few cases, they were not, other than in the manner of their editing, expression and reapplication to the future).

I changed this to have the actual title in text and moved the picture to the right [1]. However, this change was reverted - without comment - by PL [2]. Using a picture to stand in for article text is a a very bad idea for a number of reasons: 1) It breaks the flow of the text itself. People are not accustomed to reading article pictures as part of the article text itself. 2) It breaks accessibility for those using screen reading software that can't read the text in the picture. For those users, the sentence would make no sense at all. 3) It breaks the sentence for those who, for whatever reason, are reading the page without images. 4) The text in the picture is not searchable. 5) It is confusing in general, especially considering that the picture has a caption, which I gather is not supposed to be read as part of the article text, only the picture's content. Also, it is explicitly against the the manual of style. Per WP:BRD, I'd like to open a discussion on why anyone would think this is preferable. Niamh (talk) 12:43, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

OK, didn't realise you'd retained the pic, so your version restored. Seems an extraordinary amount of fuss to make about a minor detail, though, given that the rubric merely says almost always, and that the article has been that way for years!--PL (talk) 16:50, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

It is only minor when it doesn't negatively impact you personally. :) Thanks for restoring it. Niamh (talk) 18:48, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

April 2014 vandalism

Can an admin please step in and protect this page? It's been targeted with the same pro wrestling-related vandalism repeatedly today. Damon Killian (talk) 01:43, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it needs total protection for the time being, until the still-continuing vandalism stops (people out there are reproducing the vandalised text as if it were genuine). Either that or automatically block anybody who perpetrates it. --PL (talk) 08:32, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Hy Celestra, I try to fulfill all your requests...

Semi-protected edit request on 8 May 2014

".... He was expelled shortly afterwards by the university's procurator, Guillaume Rondelet, when it was discovered that he had been an apothecary, a "manual trade" expressly banned by the university statutes,[12] and had been slandering doctors.[13] The expulsion document (BIU Montpellier, Register S 2 folio 87) still exists in the faculty library.[14] However, some of his publishers and correspondents would later call him "Doctor". After his expulsion, Nostredame continued working, presumably still as an apothecary, and became famous for creating a "rose pill" that supposedly protected against the plague.[15] ...."

The above paragraph is not the complete truth because Nostradamus after being expelled in date 3 octobre 1529 received the help of professor Antoine Romier and after 20 days from the expulsion he obtained to be reinscribed...

The source of the historical records is : "Seconde inscription retrouvée de Michel de Nostredame, en date du 23 octobre 1529, conservée à la Bibliothèque Interuniversitaire de Montpellier, registre S 19, f° 105 v : Nostradamus est inscrit dans le Livre du Procurateur (Liber procuratoris)."

Related info at the web page http://cura.free.fr/xxx/26benaz4.html and http://cura.free.fr/xxx/26benaz4.html</ref>

So i suggest the following new paragraph:

".... He was expelled shortly afterwards by the university's procurator, Guillaume Rondelet, when it was accused to have been an apothecary, a "manual trade" expressly banned by the university statutes,[12] and had been slandering doctors.[13] The expulsion document (BIU Montpellier, Register S 2 folio 87) still exists in the faculty library.[14] However, 20 days later, thanks to the help of professor Antoine Romier he obtained to be re-inscibed in the "Liber procuratoris" (BIU Montpellier, Register S 19 folio 105) and so he had the possibility to complete his study and become a Medical Doctor. ...."

Orsini Guglielmo (talk) 18:01, 8 May 2014 (UTC)Orsini Guglielmo

Question: Please only show a small amount of unchanged text so that one doesn't have to search for the changes. The first small change, changing 'discovered' to 'accused', results in an ungrammatical sentence. Can you explain the reasoning for this change. The new final sentence is also not grammatical but I am concerned about the content as well. I do not speak French, and google translate's attempt includes nothing which supports the change, but that could be google. Could you expand on what it is in the source which supports this change? Thanks, Celestra (talk) 05:12, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

The last sentence should be omitted, as the 'second inscription' mentioned (scratched out by Rondelet when expelling him) states 'on the same day', which, when you examine the previous entry on the page in the Liber scolasticorum, is exactly the same date as his admission (23 October 1529). This is illustrated on page 49 of Lemesurier: Nostradamus Bibliomancer. The '20-day' canard is a very old one, based on the alleged researchers' evident inability to understand the Latin for '23rd'.--PL (talk) 08:52, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Hy Celestra, I trimmed the above paragraphs under discussion and I post here my answers to your notes.

1) Nostradamus was expelled because he was accused to be involved in apothecary works, but we have no historical evidence about the correctness of the charge, so I personally think that is more suited the word 'Accused' than "discovered"

2) The French text reported above gives detailed evidence that the Universitary Library of Montpellier holds the proof about the Nostradamus re-inscription, precisely in the register "S 19", sheet 105 Related info at the web page http://cura.free.fr/xxx/26benaz4.html at the paragraph 'Le doctorat en médecine (1529 - 1933)' -second image-

3) You say ':The last sentence should be omitted, as the 'second inscription' mentioned (scratched out by Rondelet when expelling him) states...' but the 'scratched out' inscription isn't the 'second inscription' but instead is the 'first' in date 3 octobre 1529. Related info at the web page http://cura.free.fr/xxx/26benaz4.html at the paragraph 'Le doctorat en médecine (1529 - 1933)' -first image-

4) I don't have a copy of the book that you mention: Lemesurier - 'Nostradamus Bibliomancer' so I can only argue basing myself on the images and data shown on the linked web pages...

My English is not perfect so if the suggested changes are approved I kindly ask your help to pubblish correct sentences.....

A big 'Ciao' from Italy

Guglielmo

Extract from the book in question, pages 49-50:

As you can see for yourself, the entry immediately above Nostredame’s actually reads: Fuit conscriptus vicesima 3a [for tertia] octobris M[agister] Jud[remainder of name indecipherable]…, or ‘There was enrolled on the twenty-3rd of October Master Jud[ ]…’. This is followed directly by Nostredame’s entry, which reads: Eadem die fuit conscriptus M[agister] Michaletus de n[o]s[tr]a d[o]m[in]a…, or ‘On the same day was enrolled Master Mickey of our Lady…’ In both cases, of course, the title ‘Master’ indicates that the applicant was presumed already to have gained his necessary First Degree.

Thus, Nostredame’s name was entered into the Liber scolasticorum not twenty days before his registration but, as might reasonably be expected, on the self-same day, 23 October. A few days later he should by tradition have been paraded before the Chancellor to have his credentials examined. However, even before his lack of a valid First Degree diploma could be officially discovered, news evidently reached the ears of Rondelet, the Student Registrar, by way of the students and one of the city’s apothecaries, that the applicant had himself been an apothecary, and rude about doctors to boot. And so Rondelet was ordered to strike him off again, which he did forthwith. Possibly news of it never even reached the Chancellor himself, or a more formal expulsion would probably have been recorded. Thus, there was no reprieve. Nostredame was out on his ear and, so far as the Montpellier archives are concerned, never became a doctor in the first place.

OK? --PL (talk) 08:11, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Celestra I examined the extract you posted and I now understand the mention about the misunderstanded date... ...but some discrepancy still remains:

1) Try a search in Google "images" for the character "François Rabelais" and you will see that he wears the same hat as did Nostradamus in many historical paintings and book covers. I absolutely can't believe that on those times somebody could wear such a distinguishing hat without having a proper degree ! Today somebody can also publicly wear Papal dresses, but in the Nostradamus age things were for sure different.

2) How could he work as a doctor at the royal court of France and perhaps in some other, together with certified and high level doctors, without having a proper degree ?

3) How could he had the freedom to fight the plague giving medical help and prescribing drugs in regions and towns where, for sure, other official physicians were on duty ?

4) The extract you posted says "However, even before his lack of a valid First Degree diploma could be officially discovered...." so according to the author Nostradamus was also lacking of a "First Degree diploma" ! And he goes so easily without any hesitation to ask to be inscribed in the "liber scolasticorum" asking and obtaining also the protection of Antoine Romier ?!

5) The extract you posted says "And so Rondelet was ordered to strike him off again...." ...."again" ? He wasn't striked two times !

Resuming all I've the impression that despite many historical and tangible proofs about his role as doctor or physician, is everything deleted upon the affirmations presented in the book "Lemesurier - Nostradamus Bibliomancer". Moreover the term "bibliomancer" refers to individuals that give predictions thru the opening of books at random pages and according to the text present form the prediction.... that title is absolutely misleading and false when tied to Nostradamus...

At least, considering the present findings, I think that further investigation is needed...

If you agree I'm fully available to cooperate with you to find the truth.

Regards Guglielmo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.253.138.212 (talk) 15:17, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

That may be your view, but Wikipedia isn't open to personal opinions or original research (try reading the rubric). The article, like all articles, is simply based on the published sources indicated in the Bibliography, of which Nostradamus, Bibliomancer is merely the latest and most up-to-date with its research. If you wish to criticise it, then perhaps the first step is actually to read it? If you then wish to discuss Nostradamus, this isn't the place to do it (read the rubric again). Try one of the forums listed under External Links?--PL (talk) 16:04, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Nostradamus since late 2005 A.D. has been a LEMONHEAD edition on his own personal opinions. Lemonhead did not invent Wikipedia nor does he own it. It claims all truth are evil academics. You know the academics that advocated for leadtoxic for 25 years as a health benefit before the US Congress and won because they were academics? On TV advertisements lauded the wonders of this new mineral of lead and the health benefits. It took people being kicked out of academia and proving LEAD was toxic to the human body, and academia fought tooth and nail to cover it up. So the argument on Wikipedia is that EVIL academia only has the truth. When the facts are closer that LEMONHEAD is still learning languages and still not competent to analyze what is written.

I mean 2002 Ian Wilson is an academic and made claims against LEMONHeads's views, and LEMONHEAD tried for years to keep him out with Lemonhead's argument that only academics are allowed in but if you read his books, Lemonhead hates Nostradamus, thinks he is a filthy money grubbi' Jew. You do not have to believe me, just read his trash.

It is a good thing that others, not included here, are better writers on Nostradamus, have a wider audience, and people scream for the truth. For example, Nostradamus uses astron for his predictions. So I made one where anyone now can predict any way at any time in all of history with 100% accuracy. To get this information, I read myself, and put it to the test. When reading Nostradamus' prose, you will find he mentions he does not use Astrologie, he mentions this once, he says he uses Astronomy, at least five times, and these are not represented at all in LEMONHEADS' works. Perhaps, he does not know how to read. He may be getting better, but practice makes perfect.

Britain controlled the world for centuries intermixing truth to lies to control populations, and LEMONHEAD is not different form this approach, he was schooled in it. The British even got Ghandi to believe that India never had a civilization until the British showed up on their shores with ships in the early modern age. That is how evil their schooling system is. His second and third books proclaimed somewhere around 1998-2003 the world would collapse, apparently he did not understand astronomy, and had to lift Rutherford's inaccurate data because Britain tough him to be a copying idiot. He has no data fields himself or any unique researcher, his claim is to bring others opinions, and that he claims wikipedia is not about opinions, of course, it is a lair and why it is called a lemonhead.

When Nostradamus fought and caught the plague he did so at the behest of one of his family members in local government and because all the Montepieer Doctors fled to Marseille because they are Frauds, like Rondelet and so Nostradamus perhaps told Rondelet that he is a fraud, he will run from duty and was fired by ACAEVILIA.

I can teach every 10 year-old on the planet to predict wars in the future with `100% accuracy, LEMONHEAD cannot. I believe the reason is he had and has a tough or difficult time understanding what he reads, he is still in the learning stages. And since hemade it his mission to be wikipedia gate keeper for the Evil academics ( in reality because they are brain tards ( slow thinkers)) we get this and unless we have a military to overthrow him, we have to deal with his government of Propaganda, via Room 40 code W. Churchill uber racist and model of the British citizen.

The Lemonhead was born with the Bully star very prominent, and most people I know that knew him, in the past, all say he is a low intel bully. And you can tell here the work on this page is ranked f- ( but to retards it is ranked A+).

Wikipedia means become an expert by relying on others with out data, processes or facts, and become a 'quick' ( Hawaiian, wiki) authority. In otherwords, the blind leading the blind or the devil or god is in the details. Guglielmo who cares, LEMON HEAD will be a tard until he passes away, and its purpose is to promote anti Antisemitism. If you read his bio on Nost, you come away with feeling Nost was a rich jew, and was a criminal his whole life, and robbed others and defrauded others to become rich, filthy rich. Why there is no proof of his narrative( he uses a death threat letter by Lurent Vidal, a person connected to a competitive almanache producer as I fettered out, as his 'TRUTH source,' and thus he is a lemonhead. He cannot do history and was not trained to do so. Just reading modern languages does not make one a historian or culpable to contributing fact and data for historical relevance. The revelations that Nostradamus was participating in water projects was done by a French Psychiatrists, the books reside at U.C.L.A. and was not uncovered by Lemonhead in his bio on Nost, it was already researched and written, he just took it out of French and put it into English, but often forgets to cite footnotes, and if he has time to cite inref. to the source. We are still waiting for facts and data from the lemonHEAD that claimed to have beed studying this individual for decades. Where is it, not others' opinions, then given as facts here. When we think of Lemons in the USA, 1970s, it was associated to use car dealers that sold junker cars to the public on false premises. To sell a bill of goods, so -to-speak and that is what one gets in a LEMONHEAD nost. production.

So that is wikipedian history on Nost since 2005 and continuing as I write this.

It lies because it is not Gentleman Messiah ( le mesurier) it is British, Brit[t]on, nee Briton, so false hoods are already in the scope when dealing with the LEMONHEAd. source Gale Group Bio Archives, public information on Authors.

so trying to change wikipedia nost is a waste of time unless you have an army to rid the world from these corrupted and evil lemonheads.

Michael — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[Special:Contributions/ ]] ([[User talk:|talk]]) 20:45, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Establishment Doctor And Racist Doctors

So Nostradamus wrote Doctor on his texts, and we know he did not get a degree from MontPoop U. But we also know that Doctors were needed in the field Aix....Prov.. because MontPoop U Doctors fled to Marseille to escape the plague. And we know, because he mentions it, Nost. gets the plague. The theme on Nost. Wikipedia, controlled by LEMONHEAD has a claim that Academia is truth and non Academia is false ( full of stupid crazies). So the truth doctors fled their vows and ran to safety to the shores of the Mediterranean and NOst fought plague and got infected and survived, so he put Doctor on his text and the rest is history, so STFU Lemonhead.

So claiming Nost is not a Doctor is a opinion and not based upon facts. Just because rich elitist retads hold Academia power structures does not make one a doctor or not. MOst people point this out to hater LEMONHEAd but he ignores this because in his world his MA Cambridge has a social class structure where in America we try not to give a shit, but have been turning toward Fraud-autocracy in recent decades.

End Game: You fight plague because real academic doctors full of riches flee for health safety and laugh as the suffering die, so having no degree but actively participating you get Doctor title.

These are facts, and help to explain why people in private correspondence and Nost put his name as Doctor in some of his titles or others did for him in the posthumous editions. There needs to be world standards for honesty or logic. It may be the case, LEMONHEAD Is actually retarded or Cambridge has very poor standards back in the 1950s.

2005 A.D. (late Dec) -- Current : Nostradamus wiki is Opinions by Lemonhead all derived by other sources, often with no data but only opinions.