False Prophets, misleaders, hopesalesmen

[Guest guest]

Wow, you sound a lot like a " plant " put in by a tropical astrology group.

First of all you have to be joking to believe that the Egyptians had no idea

about astrology or that they got it from the Greeks. That sounds like a blatent

lie with undertones of something else I care not to mention. I find most of us

that converted to sidereal astrology arguing the same points over as a new head

replaces the old on the " Tropical hydra "

This reads like a good illustration of what Andrew Lynn said

I see alot of this as Tropical Astrology propaganda with Hand trying to

hijack parts of traditional Vedic astrology and give their origins to either

the Greeks or others who used the Tropical zodiac

 

Your time would be best spent documenting your own personality traits in an

attempt to figure out Ophiuchus then trying to convince Chris that he is a

Capricorn.

 

I feel like I am turning into Magneto because I have heard these arguments

before and I don't too much care where they are leading.

 

 

 

 

 

" Ed Kohout <crumpo " <crumpo wrote:--- In

, cpwing44@a... wrote:

> In a message dated 12/16/2002 9:41:25 PM Central Standard Time,

> sher_e_khan writes:

>

>

> > more

> > > accurate zodiac out there

>

> i was born January 4 1944. if there had been a total eclipse of the

sun on

> that day, and if the right equipment was at hand, even the casual

observer

> would have seen the sun amidst the stars of sagittarius . . . not

capricorn.

> when i learned this simple fact, some 40 years ago, i dropped

tropical

> astrology like a hot potato.

 

Hi Chris,

 

What about someone who is born in early December, when the Sun is in

Ophiuchus -- should he simply drop astrology altogether as there is

no corresponding sign in astrology? Does astrology simply not count

for this individual?

 

I had noticed that this last week, when the Sun had moved conjunct to

the theta star of Ophiuchus, that Bush announced his Anthrax

innoculation scheme (of which H+HS secretary Tommy Thompson has

refused to participate, and has warned other officials to not partake

in!!), Kissinger and Cardinal Law resigned, and Trent Lott tried to

avoid being politically assissinated.

 

The tropicalists were not lying to you when they said that your sun

was in Capricorn. It is true that the term for the segment of the

ecliptic from 270* to 300* was derived from the constellation of the

goat, but that constellation had been seen as all kinds of different

shapes and sizes in early history. There is still disagreement

amongst scholars as to what stars belonged to Aquarius or Capricorn

at different times and locales in history. For you to say with

impunity that your sun is indeed and without doubt in the

constellation of Sagittarius is easier given that you are within the

four or five degree swath of stars that has most always been

associated with the Archer, but go forward ten days, and the

certainty is not so certain.

 

Tropical divisions of the sky have replaced sidereal in all major

measuring schemes. NASA and all other astronomies use right

ascension to measure the sky, as it is the most accurate means.

 

The ancients did much the same thing, and really had no idea of

an " ecliptic. " It was much easier to observe that the heavens

rotated on a pole in the north, and from there measured the sky via

the equator of that pole. The early egyptians had no concept of a

zodiac, and when they did obtain such concepts, it came from Greek

and Mesopotamian sources, and thus Dendrah, which is dated to about

the time of Ptolemy.

 

As for sidereal whole signs, that too is a bit presumptuous. No

constellation was ever considered to be exactly 1/12th of the

complete circle of the sky until the Greeks forced the issue for

mathematical purposes. This too is the origin of what is now

called " vedic " astrology. The fact that any sidereal fiducial must

be expressed by it's ayanamsa seems to suggest that the sidereal is

of a subordinate nature to the tropical, no?

 

Zodiac signs are not what astrology is anchored upon, but only what

the measurment system offers us. Astrology's origins are with

planetary motion, and any claim that the signs themselves were the

governing forces of how to read the chart is without historical merit.

 

Yet, this does not mean that sidereal astrology is somehow invalid.

I say that one can slice and dice the orb of heaven however one

likes, as long as it makes sense from the mathematical standpoint.

The ecliptical plane is very steady against the backdrop of the sky,

and any fiducial point can serve as a " 0 Aries " as long as one keeps

it there, and observes how the planets move about it.

 

- Ed K

 

 

 

 

 

 

further on, i learned that the rulerships, falls

> and detriments were the best way to interpret the sidereal signs.

it is too

> simple for the " expert " tropicalist to understand this tenent.

good luck.

> it's tough arguing . . . and i stayed away from being " public " with

sidereal

> astrology for many many years because i got tired of arguing with

otherwise

> bright and sensitive individuals. //// chris wing /// austin

texas ///

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

If Andrew didn't say it enough then I will be the one to say it. TROPICAL

ASTROLOGY IS INVALID, FRAUDULENT AND BOGUS.

All you have done is add some questionable premiss to an argument that was 100

times more logical than yours. Once again you go with this idea that the Greeks

gave astrology to the Egyptians. Your premiss have racial as well as political

undertones.

In studying chemistry we made our calculations with a plus or minus value at the

end of the equation. This means that it could be incorrect by that numeric

value. All equations have a degree of uncertainty but one thing that I know for

sure is myself. And I love to hear a tropical astrologer try to tell me who I

am.

 

" Ed Kohout <crumpo " <crumpo wrote:--- In

, " Andrew Lynn "

<skinbags@o...> wrote:

>

>

>

> > Hello Therese

> >

> > Thanks very much for your comments, but in my experience, it's

almost

> > impossible to convince Tropical zodiac people that there's a

better or

> more

> > accurate zodiac out there.

>

> I think this is basically due to the fact that when you have been

preaching

> something as the gospel truth or correct system for so long, it is

very hard

> to then say you were mistaken and there is actually a more correct

system.

> People like Liz Greene and Robert Hand's whole life is tied to

their belief

> the tropical zodiac is valid and if not, they have been misleading

not only

> themselves, but the paying customer for over 20 years!!

 

Andrew,

 

This, sir, is patent nonsense. Not that I think Rob Hand is some

great sage, but to say that one system is " more correct " than another

implies that both are correct on some level, to which opinion may

make the difference (Chevy vs. Ford, perhaps) Or, are you saying

that one system is simply more useful? In any event, to suggest that

the tropical zodiac is somehow a fraud is without logic.

 

Your sidereal zodiac ala Fagan did not exist until 1947, when he

published his book, and set his own 0* Aries point at a precessed

position relative to the new moon of 786 BC when no such 12-sign

zodiac existed, let alone the ability to measure the ecliptical

plane. This is why so many different zodiacs had so many different

0* Aries points, depending upon what part of Eurasia you lived.

 

And, I don't see what is wrong with asking for money.

 

 

 

> As a Vedic

> astrologer I myself am only interested in what works and what works

very

> clearly. Intellectual abstractions are fine for learning but in

practice I

> want clear and precise results and not the psuedo psycho criptic

crap I see

> in my daily newspaper from Jonathan Canier. Is it wonder astrology

is a joke

> to most people.

 

Your Vedic astrology is mostly taken from the Greek astrology of the

early first millennium. It can claim no great antiquity.

 

 

 

 

>

>

> All the arguments come down to nothing. I've

> > decided that the best way is to first define what makes each sign

THAT

> > sign, and then demonstrate using actual horoscopes that a

particular sign

> > is indeed THAT sign we're talking about. Tropical astrologers

probably

> > still won't pay attention, but at least our cards will be on the

table.

> I'm

> > working on a web site to deal with some of these questions. I'll

post the

> > URL here when the site is up and running.

>

> You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make him drink it. The

lords of

> Tropical zodiac have too much to lose in admitting they are wrong

or the

> sidereal zodiac is the correct one.

 

Ahh, here you say " correct " as to imply that the tropical is

incorrect, and not simply " more correct. " I think for you to make

such a claim without backing it up, you should first use the 19

constellations of the Babylonians that were on the lunar path, and

from there see why the Pleiades were not a part of the Bull.

 

 

 

> To me the proof is totally in the

> results. I use the Krishnamurti system which gives stunning results

when

> used with a correct birthtime. My proof is when I meet a person I

have never

> known previously and within a few hours of looking at their chart I

can

> define their life very accurately. What is written in old books has

little

> meaning to me unless I can see the principals working very clearly

> consistently.

>

>

>

> > The latest writings on ancient astrology (like Robert Hand's

booklets) do

> a

> > very good job of explaining the history of the zodiac.

>

>

> I see alot of this as Tropical Astrology propaganda with Hand

trying to

> hijack parts of traditional Vedic astrology and give their origins

to either

> the Greeks or others who used the Tropical zodiac. Most of it as

best is

> speculation.

 

This is simply incorrect. Gleadow's " Origin of the Zodiac " devotes

an entire chapter [p. 137 ff] that you should read. Hand was barely

a gleam in his father's eye when scholarship was proving that the

Alexandrian schools were the origins of the Vedic.

 

 

 

He would be better off spending his time on researching

> horoscopes with both Tropical and sidereal calculations and then he

would

> clearly see which one works well. People like Richard Houck were

honest

> enough to admit their research led them to dismiss the tropical

zodiac

> calculations. Its a pity the others get so much credibility without

> producing the results in practical application.

 

So, here we are simply name-dropping, like saying that " my dad can

beat up your dad, " and claiming that somehow Houck is so much more

adept at astrology than the rest of us?

 

 

 

> If you have any articles on this I can post them on my website at

> www.members.optusnet.com.au/skinbags as many people are interested

in the

> problem of the " two " zodiacs. If you have anything of interest you

can share

> or anyone else has, please forward your articles to me at

> skinbags@o... I often feel like launching a full scale war on

> people like Jonathan Canier and his cronies who fill the daily

papers with

> their Sun sign bullshit. All serious minded astrologers should be

concerned

> at the damage these hopesalesmen do to our art.

 

On this I agree, as the newspaper astrology stuff is to formal

astrology like Eminem or Brittney Spears is to Steely Dan and Rush.

 

 

 

 

I have at many times fought

> a lone battle against these people by sending emails asking them

for a

> reading on my chart to see if they have any real skill. Never ever

have got

> a reply of course.

 

Never did you offer to pay!! ;-)

 

Very best,

Ed K

 

 

 

 

" How can Pluto be in Sagittarius when it's so close to Antares? " -----

 

Post message:

Subscribe: -

Un: -

List owner: -owner

 

Shortcut URL to this page:

/