William & Kate are the TWO WITNESSES and Prince George THE CHRIST RETURNED.

Fapomet

Olivet
reply to post by Fapomet

 

You don't prove anything but thank you to participate to the arguments presented. It's so good to have someone to talk to seriously sometimes.

However, I have three remarks.

1) The second line is obviously a figure of speech. I didn't know I would have to explain it once more as it is so obvious. We can say: From the sky there will come 13 cycles. The word cycles is implicit. 'From the heaven / sky' can be said as 'from the cycles of the sky'. A great king of terror' can be said as Thirteen (see below why). The sentence is therefore:

From the cycles of the sky there will come 13. Or, in the proper terms:

13 cycles will come from the sky.

What is funny is that this inversion makes us think about how the English people speak compared to the French...announcing the ANGLOIS (English) anagram. The actual English translation doesn't correspond to the English inversion of the French sentence from a French perspective.


2) The death scares the vast majority of people on this planet. You cannot deny it, unless you don't know the human beings. Of course, the process of death is also the REBIRTH. This is more esoteric and even USEFUL TO ECHO THE RESURRECTION OF THE THIRD LINE. But the point is that I didn't really need to used HADES / DEATH / 13 to make my point for THE NUMBER 13 ITSELF SUFFICES TO EVOKE THE FEAR. I guess I don't have to explain it why for I already did it. We just need this number 13 to talk about what is from the sky.


3) The tarot is from the 14th century in France (Nostradamus' country). It appeared PUBLICLY in the 18th century, like I already explained it too. But you certainly weren't here at that moment when I also said that Nostradamus used the tarot symbolism in secret circles, i.e. in mystic schools like the Mystic Temple and the Rose+Croix, and others even more secret. So, the Major Arcana cards were perfectly known by these initiates like Nostradamus. But they remained secret for a very long time...otherwise these schools wouldn't have been secret.

So, your garantee doesn't mean anything for me for I know exactly why Nostradamus used the year 1999, 7 months as a reference to the 13 years to add. The reason was also explained here:

The future father of the male child born in JULY 2013 was also the father of a male child born in JULY 1999, having the first name of the future father!

But this, you cannot know. I would be too much chatty if I had to explain it to you why. But I don't need to insult you to tell you how uninformed you are.

edit on 3-10-2013 by Olivet because: (no reason given)

Right....You're the one claiming that the prince of England is Christ reincarnated, and I'm the uninformed one?

No, I am claiming that Prince George WILL BE Christ Returned. And yes, you are uninformed.

And Nostradamus's involvement with secret occult sects was so secret that only you somehow know about his involvement with them...

Have you ever been in a secret society? Have you the least idea of what is conveyed in a secret organisation? I do.

I suggest you put the proverbial shovel down, and walk away while you can. Even though, at this point, I don't think you can reclaim dignity.

I suggest you to wait a little bit more before saying anything about dignity.

Christ isn't real, there is no second coming.

And you know this how?

Nostradamus never claimed to be a prophet.

We don't need Nostradamus having claimed to be a prophet to know he was one. His centuries and his two letters (epistle to King HENRYC SECONDUS and to CESAR) speak for himself. Speaking of the epistle to King Henryc, you would be interested by the part where he talks about the 48th degree of transmigration of the 'Holy Spirit' to fight the antichrist. Look at where this 48th lattitude is, to pinpoint a French city where this 'Holy Spirit' will come to abduct two people, the future Two Witnesses, parents of the future Christ.

Not one of his predictions have ever been proven to come true, except of course by "retroactive clairvoyance" haha. Meaning only after significant events happen, can people attribute them to selective passages. Your attempt is no different.

You put the cart before the horse. It is because Nostradamus quatrains are too obscure - due to his voluntary will to hide preciously intels - that people find the correlations between them and the facts after they occured!

By the way, I didn't do the same thing because of this DATED quatrain X-72 (therefore a little bit easier than the other quatrains) since I claimed two months before the birth of Prince George that Nostradamus talked about the SON of Prince William, WHEN EVERYONE WAS CONVINCED THAT HIS CHILD WOULD BE A GIRL DUE TO WORLDWIDE GOSSIPS! See how wrong you are.

If you're going to make multiple outstanding claims in one post, i.e. Christ's existence and reincarnation into the Prince of England, and the supposed accurate predictions of an "un-prophet", I suggest you provide a little evidence of either before asserting your insane claims.

I think you didn't read the thread. I didn't wait for you to make a multiple claim in the OP in four parts, enriched by hundreds of posts. If you're convinced that Jesus, or Christ, didn't exist. Good for you. I think you can leave this thread. I am not here to convince you that the earth is round.

Again, you put the cart before the horse. Unlike the topic on GLP where I claimed an event to come BEFORE it came (birth of a royal SON through Nostradamus quatrain X-72 and private intels), I based this thread on the FACT that the birth of Prince George matched the prophecies of Nostradamus and John in the Book of Revelations (Rev 12) AFTER the birth.

I compared the facts to the prophecies after the birth because, unlike the Nostradamus interpretation, I discovered John's description AFTER the birth of Prince George for I wanted to know what his Gospels really said about the return of Christ. That's why I opened this thread (august 16th).

Not only Christ must come in the 'clouds' (ET ships) according to Act 1 and Matthew 24, but he also must come as a male child in Revelations 12! BINGO, I had the confirmation of what I was told by the 'Holy Spirit'. Not only the Scriptures proved me right, but the timing was perfect compared to mine.

From that point, for the sake of the logic and thanks to private intels I got (that people don't know), I added the claim that Prince George, and his parents, will be abducted by benevolent ETs, aka, the angels, to come back as Christ returned and the Two Witnesses. We are now at the point when this event is very close.

That's why I constantly said that people need to wait to see how true is John's Book of Revelations, already partially proving Christ's existence (for Jesus-Christ talked to him in his visions), thanks to the birth of Prince George (matching John's description of the conditions of his birth (storm in London, EQ, Star of David in the sky, etc.) and the Red Dragon / first Beast / second Beast).

reply to post by Olivet


(Facepalms)

Chamberf=6
Hi OP you are as incorrect as your last (only other) thread.

You are as rational as your two year hiding on Reunion Island then calling it an alien abduction to try to make it an "event".

You're getting old poor Chamberf=6! You constantly repeat the same old words that I already addressed. Repeat after me: MISSING DATA IN 2012. Say it again, MISSING DATA IN 2012. You can even say it a third time.

No, the 'alien' abduction occured in France before I left it by plane! There were two steps:

1) an abduction in the night of 11/12 March 2004.

2) a travel by plane just AFTER it.

I wasn't hiding in the Reunion Island. I was protecting myself. I didn't want to make it an event AT ALL.

The uninformed debunkers / media (Radio RIM in France) made it an 'event' while I was specifically asking my girlfriend NOT to be in touch with any media. This radio station, after having hacked her email address, even used / twisted my email to my girlfriend, saying I didn't want her to make any leak, to say that I pretended to have been abducted, when, in 'reality', according to them, I was in the Reunion Island, where I, indeed, traveled to, but not in an ET ship, like they infered / claimed I told my girlfriend, but by plane.

In a nutshell, they put a lie in my mouth when it is them who invented it!

THEY ARE LIARS. AND YOU ARE CONVEYING LIES. So, you don't worth much.

I already gave a long list of links from my blog (see my signature) talking about this 'event' pages ago. It means that YOU ARE A REAL TROLL / SHILL to come back here with this point again, hoping I forgot the page in question, which is OFF-TOPIC.

You have a pretend girlfriend ?

Does she pretend to go along with your real obsession ?

Don't reply ... I am just pretending ...

Tylerdurden1

Jahari
If by chance christ is really coming back the chances he choose two people from a bloodline of self appointed royals is slim to none. Don't really seem really jesus like to me. Maybe the guy that mops up urine at the homeless shelter but two royals....I don't buy it! But who the hell am I? I pray to allah, budda and jesus...just to cover all bases.

Actually thats exactly what I would do. Doing that he has money, therfore he can reach the masses. Imagine, a poor person claiming to be crist, he would be scoffed at more than the person who has money and power.

Just a thought.

You are right. What happened 2,000 years ago cannot be reproduced now for the conditions of the civilization have dramatically changed. The difference between the riches and the poors was not very big at that time (except if you were a slave, which is not the case of Jesus).

Being a poor person today, not only is not enough, but it is even counter-productive to face the actual evil PTB. By the way, Jesus wasn't poor. I showed it pages ago when I explained that both of his parents were royal heirs of King David (Joseph was even a rich 'carpenter'), and that God promised COMFORT to his heirs.

Timely
You have a pretend girlfriend ?

Does she pretend to go along with your real obsession ?

Don't reply ... I am just pretending ...

Why are you here to say such stupid things? Like you told me: get a life! Pretend to go fishing, or whatever you want to do in the real life you pretend to know. Don't reply, I am just obsessively tracking the hypocrites?

Note: we, my girlfriend and I, are still together since 10 years, sharing the same views of the future...the same destiny!

I admit to not having read all the pages on this thread but I do question one thing and that is The King of the Angles - we have a royal family that is from German extraction. We also know through Tony Robinson's research that the real bloodline king of England is actually living in Australia and isn't interested in the Crown - although I think he holds a title such as a Baron (if my memory serves me). So this means that the bloodline which is surely what the prophesies and predictions are about is wrong. What I have read though is quite fascinating.

reply to post by Olivet


I am saying stupid things in response to your stupid things.

When is it going to happen ? ( George Christ's revelation )
Will you admit you have wasted everyones time and quietly go away ? Or will you keep changing the dates?

You appear to be on ATS to promote your own weird blog thingy only.

Your only interaction with this community is defending your two strange threads, nothing more.
( you have not posted to any other thread but your own )

Therefore you are not a contributory part of this community - just some dude on a soapbox banging his own drum; dictating to the rest of us. ( those that could be bothered ).

A few have tried patiently to have a serious dialogue with you - all have failed due to your compulsion with
a twisted convoluted mish mash of seemingly manic ET / religious nonsense.

Can we have an actual time of reference - as in a real time / date ?

I'll mark it down and come back then. See ya ...

reply to post by AngryCymraeg


IF one submits to the torture of reading many of the OP's posts . . .

face palms become habitual, reflexive and virtually automatic.

It is one way to exercise one's arms, however.

And there is SOME amusement in the exercise . . . if one is terminally bored otherwise.


LOL.

Chamberf=6
You are as rational as your two year hiding on Reunion Island then calling it an alien abduction to try to make it an "event".

As a reminder, I post here what I already posted:


My disappearance in 2004, and HERE in English.

In French:

HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE.

Shiloh7
I admit to not having read all the pages on this thread but I do question one thing and that is The King of the Angles - we have a royal family that is from German extraction. We also know through Tony Robinson's research that the real bloodline king of England is actually living in Australia and isn't interested in the Crown - although I think he holds a title such as a Baron (if my memory serves me). So this means that the bloodline which is surely what the prophesies and predictions are about is wrong. What I have read though is quite fascinating.

That's a very good post. Thank you and bravo. You raise a very specific and interesting question. What constitute the legimacy of the royal bloodline? From what perspective do we have to see this question?

From a pure genealogy perspective, we all know that there were bastards in any given bloodline. We often find this in EVERY FAMILY ONCE IN TIME AT LEAST. Does that make us illegitimate of our 'official' ancestors?

In the case of the British royal family, Tony Robinson made a point. Edward IV seemed to be illegitimate to the throne due to a gap of five weeks when his supposed father wasn't here when he was conceived. But there is a big IF.

First of all, here is the ancestry chart of the current British royal family.

Here is a short version of the story:

In order to understand it all, you’ve got to go back to the time of King Edward IV, who ruled England during the contentious period of the Wars of the Roses. Many historians now believe that Edward was illegitimate, and if that’s true, then, according to the strict rules of succession, he should never have been king. That one mistake in the mid-15th century would also mean that every single monarch who came after Edward – up to the present day Queen Elizabeth II – was following an incorrect bloodline to the throne. In other words, none of them should have ever been kings or queens.

So how does Mike Hastings, or, should we say, Michael I, fit into all this?

If Edward IV was illegitimate, then the crown should have gone to his younger brother George, the Duke of Clarence, who was a direct ancestor of modern-day Mike Hastings. This tangled family history was uncovered during the research for a fascinating documentary, Britain’s Real Monarch, which aired on Britain’s Channel 4 in 2004. The documentary, presented by actor Tony Robinson, traced the crown’s alternate lineage – the path it would have followed if, instead of going to Edward, it had gone to his brother George and then followed the strict rules of succession.

Here is a good summary of the details of the story.

Now let us examine the validity of the claim of the present Queen of England to the throne. This is most easily done by inspection of the family tree of Henry II given at channel 4.

Here we see that Queen Elizabeth II traces her descent back through Victoria (reigned 1837-1901), James I (reigned 1603-1624) and Henry VIII (reigned 1509-1547) to Henry´s father, Henry VII (reigned 1485-1509).

Henry VII was descended from John of Gaunt (lived 1340-1399) who was descended from Henry II.

Unfortunately for the legitimacy of Henry VII´s claim to the throne, his descent from John of Gaunt was by way of the latter´s mistress (later wife) Katherine through her son John Beaufort.

Since John Beaufort was born out of wedlock, this descent could not be used to legitimate Henry VII´s claim to the throne (though John and the other three children of John of Gaunt and Katherine, all born out of wedlock, were legitimized retrospectively by an act of parliament in 1397).

In order to support the claims of Henry VII´s future offspring and descendants (and for the purpose of ending the civil war between the Houses of York and Lancaster), in 1486, Henry married Elizabeth of York, daughter of Edward IV, who claimed to be descended from Edward III (the father of John of Gaunt) and thus from Henry II.

It is from the union of Henry VII and Elizabeth that all modern kings and queens of England are descended. But if Edward IV was illegitimate then none of his descendants (and thus none of Henry VII´s descendants) had or have a valid claim to the throne of England. Edward IV´s mother, Cecily Neville (herself descended, via Katherine, from Edward III) was married to Richard, Duke of York. On the Channel 4 website we read:

According to Dominic Mancini, an Italian visitor to London in 1464, Cecily ´fell into a frenzy´ at news of the marriage of her eldest surviving son Edward IV to Elizabeth Woodville and, in her rage, made the astounding accusation that he was a bastard, adding that she would be prepared to testify before a public enquiry that this was indeed the case.

At the time of Edward´s birth it was rumored that his natural father was an English archer. In fact Edward was tall and (unlike his younger brother Richard III) did not resemble his father in physical appearance. Although later known for her piety as well as her pride, it is rumoured that, in the summer of 1441, she [Cecily] had an affair with an English archer named Blaybourne based in the Rouen garrison in Normandy while her husband was elsewhere in France fighting.

The future Edward IV is said to have been the result of this liaison. According to documents discovered by Dr Michael Jones in Rouen Cathedral there was a 5-week period when Richard was 100 miles away from his wife, leading a military campaign against the French, during which Henry was conceived, so Richard could not have been Henry´s father, and so Henry´s parents were not married at the time of his birth.

Moreover, only one of Henry´s parents (Cecily) was descended from Edward III and Henry II, and that line of descent was illegitimate (it was again via the union of John of Gaunt with Katharine). Thus Henry IV had no legitimate claim to the English throne, and so none of his descendants, including the present Queen of England, have had either.

First, being born out of wedlock doesn't make you out of the bloodline, but out of the religious conventions.

Second, a difference of five weeks doesn't make us sure someone is a bastard for birth day can be well before the supposed date. Many babies come at 8 or even 7 months, instead of 9.

Third, the legimization of John through an act of Parliament, even retrospectively, can be regarded as an act of God for the peace was at stake.

Four, the accusations of an angry woman are not necessarily true.

I could multiply the arguments but it doesn't help the fact that from God's perspective this is the whole history that must be considered. The continuity through at least one of the parents seems to be what God calls a bloodline. This is his perspective (remember his promise to King David). Who are we to discuss his perspective?

reply to post by Shiloh7


The prophecies regard the facts related to a given situation. The actual British royal family is therefore considered as legitimate from God's perspective, and then his prophets gave us what God decided what has to be!

reply to post by Olivet


So it's October 4th. What major happening(s) regarding your "facts" and theories are proven today?

Or are the dates going to be moved back again?

reply to post by AngryCymraeg


Haha, thank you...I don't even have to say anything.
The more this guy talks, the more level headed people will see how completely toys-in-the-attic-crazy he is.

Timely
reply to post by Olivet

 

I am saying stupid things in response to your stupid things.

No! Your stupid thing was about my girlfriend. I didn't talk about yours, if any.

When is it going to happen ? ( George Christ's revelation )

I said it: in October.

Will you admit you have wasted everyones time and quietly go away ? Or will you keep changing the dates?

I never changed dates in this thread. I gave a period of time. When I gave dates, it was contextual. And I was right...three times...for three dates.

You appear to be on ATS to promote your own weird blog thingy only.

Your only interaction with this community is defending your two strange threads, nothing more.
( you have not posted to any other thread but your own )

You're wrong. You are the one, with Chamberf=6, who spoke about my first thread. I didn't. I don't promote my blog either. I mentioned it each time I had to answer properly to someone.

Therefore you are not a contributory part of this community - just some dude on a soapbox banging his own drum; dictating to the rest of us. ( those that could be bothered ).

I am focused on this thread. I am entitled to answer to anyone posting here and to make any addition I see fit.

A few have tried patiently to have a serious dialogue with you - all have failed due to your compulsion with a twisted convoluted mish mash of seemingly manic ET / religious nonsense.

Each time someone had a serious dialogue with me I answered with detailed arguments. You're just upset because I showed to everyone your true personality. There is any non-sense in what I wrote. This is a theory based on facts, supported by my own intels.

Can we have an actual time of reference - as in a real time / date ?

Why would I give you any date if:

1) my claim is non-sense?
2) none can know the date and the hour of the Christ Return?

I'll mark it down and come back then. See ya ...

I said it above: October.

BO XIAN
reply to post by AngryCymraeg

 

IF one submits to the torture of reading many of the OP's posts . . .

face palms become habitual, reflexive and virtually automatic.

It is one way to exercise one's arms, however.

And there is SOME amusement in the exercise . . . if one is terminally bored otherwise.


LOL.

That's funny, I thought exactly the same when reading your thread about the 'end of the world on October 1st'.

Chamberf=6
reply to post by Olivet

 

So it's October 4th. What major happening(s) regarding your "facts" and theories are proven today?

Or are the dates going to be moved back again?

No dates have been moved back in this thread. Why do you say 'again'? If you speak about my first thread, I already answered to you: MISSING DATA IN 2012.

October 4th is not finished yet. In addition, William, Kate and George are moving to Kensington Palace right now!

Don't count on me to give you details that could be used to counter the ET intervention. You're not alone to read this thread.

Wait a minute! I just spotted something! Today's the 4th, so if I take that number add it to tomorrow's date, then multiply it by the number of Earth days that Venus takes to orbit around the sun (224.7 if you have to ask) and then I divide by Pi, which is the wholiest, sorry holiest, number in mathematics then I get... give me a second here.... carry the one.... WOW! I get diddly/squat!
Right. So what's happening here again?

I have two questions for the op:

1. What are your credentials for making your claims? What degrees or experience do you have that makes your claims valid? Connecting dots does not constitute a valid credential, I want to know what your background is that tells me that you're someone that I should even pay attention to.

2. Do you have any sources that are not referenced to your own personal blog? Like credible sources? Peer reviewed materials?

Please, if you can't provide either one of these, you're wasting everyone's time who's reading this thread - unless of course they're reading it for the pure amusement of watching you make a fool of yourself with your claims.

reply to post by Shugo


I'm afraid that the OP has neither the credentials or the proof.