Don't be so naive. If you think he predicted all that stuff from watching TV shows about it, you should also read the disclaimer "this is only one view of how his words could be taken" that accompany the show. That goes for books or anything else you've read about him. If you've actually seen the words that was used in his predictions of all these specific events,
they are all so vague they could mean anything. Look up your source to where "He only made 1 mistake so far." Think about it, one mistake? Look at any one of the predictions he's actually made, and see how vague his words are - you have to analyze the numerous other things that his prediction could also be associated with. Here's just one
feeble example: Had the Y2K bug caused a lot of fires (let's say we weren't as prepared, and it caused some malfunctions, and shit happened), we could have used his words to show he predicted this would happen in 1999. But he didn't predict it, because it didn't happen. Nothing happened in 1999. But the TV shows
would have shown that he did. They would have changed the words around so that it matched reality. You have to actually read his predictions,
in his own words, to understand what I'm talking about. Not the views of TV shows, and how they depict his words. If you're going to believe them, you might as well believe the fox show that states we never made it to the moon. Of course the TV show isn't going to show the other side of the story, it would go against the whole purpose of the show to begin with. Remember the disclaimers: "this is only one view of how his words could be taken" The predictions have never been stated as fact.
You may think I'm just saying shit, but let's just think, look at the quote:
"
In the City of God there will be a great thunder, Two brothers torn apart by Chaos, while the fortress endures, the great leader will succumb, The third big war will begin when the big city is burning"
- Nostradamus 1654
"big city is burning" - doesn't all war have fire?
"the great leader will succumb" - every fight has leaders
"Two brothers torn apart by Chaos" - chaos is war, and it takes two to fight. (As for brothers? Many nations/people/tribes have fougt each other, but at one point have been friends/allies.)
The rest of the quote could mean anything, whatever the specifics of the fight happen to be about.
The point: It would actually be difficult to name situations that do
not fit the above, rather than find ones that do. They almost all do.
Perhaps I exaggerate, but do you see my point?
[This message has been edited by Juge (edited 09-11-2001).]