Allan Webber at Marino Rocks May 2016

Reality Check on enigmas in Nostradamus' Prophecies.
© Allan Webber 2016

"How long that time in which I have several times predicted long before each [event ] happened, and their particular regions too, attributing all as being made factual by divine inspiration"...1555 Cesar Preface (PCE1)
  Michel de Nostredame

There is no substantial scientifically credible evidence that any person alive today can really see the future.

My belief in the truth of the above statement underpins my dilemma since my writings are all about Michel de Nostredame, the prophet called Nostradamus. I am torn by the absurdity within my enterprise since I have always known it can't be true but my discoveries have produced enigmas which makes me question their existence as products of chance alone.

My project has at its best a very achievable aim which is to remove some of the mystery about Nostradamus' aims by stripping his deliberately obscurant devices and uncovering what his writings were meant to say.

At a second level I can piece together his claims and test whether they show the man was a fraud or genuinely believed what he wrote. In this field I can produce a credible case for his claims being genuine however there is, in the more important of them, no means to show they are true.

Then there is my claim that the solution to his secrets lies in that which is presented in the prophecies and the papers that accompany them. These claims take several forms with some, such as his use of anagrams and ciphers that link his papers and the prophecies, being readily accepted as feasible possibilities.

But my claim that these anagrams relate to modern terms and language can only have feasibility if the central claims of Nostradamus being able to see the future are true and if this is the case then these extended claims for the anagrams are not only feasible but essential expectations.

I can find no evidence in Nostradamus' writings that tells me to look for such material which suggests that it arises not from his conscious mind but as an integral part of the thought process by which his quatrains transferred from his brain to the paper.

What this would imply is that Nostradamus didn't consciously incorporate the anagrams and that their inclusion is a by-product of the subliminal process by which his prophecies were generated and converted into words. This mental link between eternity and man is the process Nostradamus describes in his Preface of 1555 as detailed in an earlier chapter. Yet my work is the only evidence I know  that suggests writing is not just the product of the writer but of external influences accessible by the subconscious mind of some individuals.

The anagrams I find are not imaginary or tricks of selection. They are not created from easily made adjustments to the written words nor are they common, small, simple terms that can be easily rationalised away. And they are not a product of slippery analysis which amends letters on a random or biased basis; they are reproducible by any person using a rigid program for analysis. And many occur in complex sequences with words related to each other as well as to the line and verse of text in which they occur.  They are sufficiently complex and interesting in their occurrence and placement as to deserve our respectful interest.

The existence of highly complex anagram sequences related to the written text does exist yet Nostradamus lays no claims to having done this. From my perspective the anagrams therefore represent an experiment in the nature of time since they either tell us about the ordered nature of random patterning throughout the universe or about hidden properties in the mind that only become apparent in the art, formulations and writings of those with special attributes.  These aspects are worthy of investigation and to that cause my published works are directed.

I believe I could have made no better choice than Nostradamus for my study since his own words tell us he used a process that touches upon modern science and it was his conviction that he was subject to its influence. 

But it is these anagrams that create my greatest dilemmas since I can present the earlier levels without conflict over their scientific merit but not the later evidence which I can only present knowing it threatens my credibility. Of course I can resolve that dilemma by eliminating these particular findings but this distorts my greater belief that research cannot pick and choose what it considers to be relevant. And more than that although they are not the major means of establishing the meaning of any single verse their disciplined use does expose links that unite verses into a continuous stream.

I believe there is a great deal of worth in my researches and presentation of Nostradamus' material but because of the dilemmas I have outlined the reader must be prepared to recognise the differences between the levels in order to see Nostradamus' puzzle in its clearest light.

The extent to which my findings are free of bias is determined by the rules I place upon the usage of the anagrams and their sequences.

Firstly there is no certainty, only diminished uncertainty.

What uncertainty exists is diminished by my:

  • preferring sequences of adjacent whole anagrams,

  • requiring the anagrams to be interconnected to each other by their meaning or sense,

  • expecting the resultant words and message to develop Nostradamus' text for that line or verse,

  • finding key anagrams that have low recurrence elsewhere,

  • accepting that Nostradamus' text is meaningful and that words and spelling are purposefully chosen,

  • using the interwoven consistency across and between all the verses in Nostradamus' Prophecies,

  • relying on Nostradamus' use of a past, present and future framework to give his code strength.

In the presence of these [divine powers] the three times comprise eternity because the revolution that causes them is the past, present and future...1555 Cesar Preface (PCE5)

The question may well be asked How do I reconcile my work with my view that no person alive today can see into the future? My answer would be that this problematic conflict is not unique with the dilemma probably arising from facts unknown at this time. This is part of science's history and my dilemma is much like that experienced in research into the properties of the sun before the phenomenon of nuclear reactions was known and understood.

PREVIOUS
 
HOME
 
NEXT



WEBSITE

free web stats