So, the "could have been distorted" thing is typically used to get false prophets "off the hook", as it were, so if something they predict doesn't come to pass, they can just claim their prediction had been altered.  People didn't stand all day for years in a 100-person-deep line if there wasn't something to Irlmaier.  He's made predictions that were docuмented, like eerily mentioning what sounds like smart phones (colorful cigarette boxes that people keep staring at) and during WW3 a bomb that's droppped off the coast of England that'll submerge a large part of the country (look up Russia's Tsunami bomb), and then he talked about a huge wave of these white unmanned air ships flying by the 10s of thousands over Europe to drop some small payload (before anyone had dreamt of unmanned drones).

BTW, he speaks of these drones that drop the green/yelllow powder as rising up out of the hot sands, and then flying OVER where he lived in Austria, but that people shouldn't be afraid, and they would drop the weapon north of them, starting with Prague and going up to the North Sea.  So a line OVER Austria from some Hot Sands could very well be from Tunisia.

Do you deny the deny the possibility even for one instant that the devil could have made every single one of these predictions that you speak of and if so on what grounds do you deny that possibility?

Russia said today that it's wrong to speak about a "cancellation" ... so still worth keeping an eye on this one.

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/kremlin-wrong-talk-about-cancellation-putin-trump-summit-agencies-report-2025-10-26/

That might be sublte diplo-speak signalling that they migh be open to some concessions that would allow the discussiosn to move forward/

In Germany, those who knew Alois claimed he was never wrong.

Yes, many direct witnesses have been interviewed, since it wasn't ALL that long ago when he was still live, and some of his predicitions have been docuмented as having been made beforehand, since they had been published somewhere and could be dated.  There's one controversial docuмent out there that appears to have mentioned something about 9/11, but since it came out after 9/11 (by some years), there's controversy about whether it was genuine, or even if genuine, the part about 9/11 interpolated into it.  But despite one or two cases like that, many of them can be verified.

I find this one about the short-notice peace conference in Budapest coming after everyone calling out "Shalom!" (Trump's so-called "Eternal Peace"), since it was obtained by a direct witness to Irlmaier and published many years ago -- very intriguing.  There's a discrepancy where one individual who interviewed this same "witness to Irlmaier" said "Bucharest", and the other "Budapest", but that actually speaks to the veracity of this source more than if they had been consistent, since you can't accuse one of just copying from the other.

To me this clearly suggests someone having relied on a hand-written note, a primary source, since all you have to do to transform Budapest into Bucharest is, in cursive script, leave the "d" slightly open (unclosed at the top), and then leave your "p" slightly open without a strong dip beneath the line for the vertical stroke, which I could probably replicate right now ... so that some slightly-sloppy cursive script could easily account for that discrepancy.

Message was posted to the wrong thread.