User:-A

From Talk:Nostradamus
(-A) Source: PL - Nostradamus - checking the facts. [http://groups.google.com/group/alt.prophecies.nostradamus/browse_frm/thread/4ae6e989a824d8b/7ffcd4a559c546d5?q=Videl+Peter+Lemesurier&rnum=1#7ffcd4a559c546d5 Vide I

A repost with more:Videl II

Here are some people looking at this.Videl III

PL’s response to another thread on this:Videl VI

I believe the translation is by Lemesurier – correct me if I’m wrong.

Almanac Chart: February 10, 1556 Salon de Provence.

"Saturn with regards to a Sextile of the Lion" - "You even say 'Saturn regarding the Lion with a sextile aspect': Saturn is in Aries, and you want it to regard Leo with a sextile?!" - translated by Peter Lemesurier see links.

February 10, 1556 Salon de Provence there was the planet Saturn sextile to Leo at 8:00 pm.

Lets look at what is a new (or full) moon?

"For the month of February 1556 you talk about the new moon of the 10th in Aquarius. Look, you ignoramus -- the sun is in Pisces and the moon in wouldn't make as many mistakes as you do." - Videl trans. Peter Lemesurier.
 * Aquarius*? Truly, if a literate carter were to try writing almanacs, he

A new (or full) moon cited by extreme points of view are as little as 12 seconds to as much as 10 degrees.

The sun and the moon are 4 degrees apart which many astrologers would say this is a conjunction, otherwise in the phase called the new moon.

Sun 1 degrees Pieces and 11 minuets apprx. Moon 27 degrees Aquarius and 11 minuets apprx. ( Albeit correctly stated by Videl with the moon in another sign)

What I feel is that this Videl character had different views of his own on astrology which was not compliant with the methodology of Nostradamus. This is a perfectly applicable conjunction, also called the new moon phaseto some points of view.

However, I could well see this point of view to attack Nostradamus because if one reads into this that– Nosrtradamus was a charlatan – of coerce this is a skeptic's view or his agenda. The extreme 12 seconds will be used - which is a point of view.

The question is if all weight of legitimacy is on Videl’s accusations, then if he is disputed like shown above, should we still claim his attacks as facts and not misjudgments or POVs?

The Nostradamus accusation of not correcting for locality is also cited by Videl. Many problems to Videl’s claims could come as POVs. Certainly there is a New Moon and a proper sextile from Saturn to Leo here and the date is also correct and the house system utilized. The question remains will PL keep saying that everything Videl said is spot on the mark without verifying it? If PL takes the extreme version of 12 seconds of arc then this becomes plausible and he and Videl are correct and Nostradamus is wrong.

Lets look at another accusation and more translation by Peter – correct me if I’m wrong please.

"Look, Michel, I ask you whether you aren't an even greater ignoramus and ass than I say? The full moon that you mention in your Presages for January 1557 -- you say that the moon is at 37 degrees and 46 minutes of Cancer. What ARE you talking about, you great idiot -- the sun in Aquarius and the moon opposite it in Cancer? Who on earth told you that Cancer was opposite Aquarius? Would even anybody who had never seen an astrology book drop a bigger clanger than yours? Aren't you a great ninny if you don't understand that Leo is opposite Aquarius, and not Cancer?... – see link I

At 37 degrees one runs into seven degrees and forty-six minuets of Leo – Leo is opposite of Aquarius. Why couldn’t Videl figure this out?

However, I have to agree with Videl that this was not the standard practice, but a coy wordplay on degrees and signs. (-A 03:09, 14 January 2006 (UTC))

(-A .1.) As far as 'astrophile' or star-lover goes Peter Lemesurier is correct, but in Judicial Astrology, one level is to use stars in charts on the angles. Nostradamus's own words say that he was a Judicial Astrologer so why not just include this. If not are you or anyone denying him the ability to employ such a version on Astrology. If so, state your case. (-A 03:38, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

(-A 03:11, 15 January 2006 (UTC))

---

redact: (-A 05:29, 24 January 2006 (UTC))

Users who DO NOT endorse this summary: I do not endorse this and if this helps the Nostradamus argument, because he has some good points I might add, then sorry to the others if these things offend you. I want him to stay on.

This below comes from this page. http://cura.free.fr/xxv/22brinda.html in which PL didn’t cite AT ALL on [12:08], 19 January 2006 (UTC). Seems to me he should be considered banned for the rest of his life also, or for a better explanation, It seems he wants to ban for Life Theo for doing a similar thing, and we think that he should be held to the same standards.

“This is a mistranslation. In fact, if you had bothered to read the sentence in context, you would have seen that it says: Ces pratiques révèlent un piètre technicien de l'astrologie, un piètre mathematicus. Certes Nostradamus pouvait être pressé ou n'accorder qu'une valeur relative à la précision mathématique, mais l'examen minutieux des passages où il combine ses sources montre qu'il saisit mal les concepts astronomiques et même celui des échelles de temps – or 'These practices reveal a lousy astrological technician, a lousy mathematicus. Granted, Nostradamus might have been in a hurry or have attached only relative importance to mathematical precision, but a detailed examination of those passages in which he combines his sources shows that he had a poor grasp of astronomical concepts and even of temporal scale.':” - PL 12:08, 19 January 2006 (UTC).

Here is a direct link to PL's post using someone else’s work without citing it.

In addition I withheld other paragraphs’ that PL used more of the same and didn't cite at all noting lack of space (See link now). (-A 03:40, 24 January 2006 (UTC))

---