False Prophets, misleaders, hopesalesmen

December 17, 2002

Thank you very much to Theresa and Andrew. You have helped me to deal with a

lot of the debates and arguements I have been working out in my head. If you

don't mind I am going to forward those 2 e-mails to my club.

Andrew Lynn <skinbags 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!! 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.

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. 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. 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.

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 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. 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.

Andrew

" 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:

/

December 17, 2002

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. 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 ///

December 17, 2002

, 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 ///

>

December 17, 2002

, " 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

December 17, 2002

skinbags writes:

> >>>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!! ...

The lords of > Tropical zodiac have too much to lose in admitting they are

> wrong or the sidereal zodiac is the correct one. ...

*******And what gives you the idea of that they are wrong and have been

misleading people? I don't think it's really necessary to have such emotional

commitment to sidereal astrology as to regard everyone using tropical

astrology as the devil or as deceiving people. Quite simply, it works. Your

system may work also-- -- -- I have yet to see a demonstration of it working,

but I've heard people say that they have had very good interpretations of

their horoscopes from Vedic astrologers -- -- -- but the demonization of your

opponents is not a good sign of understanding. I've used tropical astrology

and solar arc progressions for 25 years now, and seen them work incredibly

well; and even people just using the 12 tropical zodiac Sun signs as a guide

for intuition can very quickly began recognizing their characteristics in

people. I don't think it's necessary to deny the reality of western tropical

astrology in order to also have sidereal astrology, and it certainly isn't

necessary to demonize other astrologers, or to assert that you and you only

are correct about everything. And if you disagree with particular

interpretations of Robert Hand or Robert Schmidt in their work of translating

ancient astrological texts, it isn't necessary to denigrate all that they've

done.

> >>>>>>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. <<

Starman

http://www.DrStarman.net

December 17, 2002

sher_e_khan writes:

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

> TROPICAL ASTROLOGY IS INVALID, FRAUDULENT AND BOGUS.

*******Any astrologers who have to condemn all other astrologers, or entire

schools of them, in this fashion, clearly have very little confidence in

themselves as astrologers. Anyone who really knows a subject has no

irrational, emotional need to condemn everyone else's interpretations as

wrong in order to build up his own.

Saying tropical astrology is 'invalid' is really the equivalent of saying

there are no solstices and equinoxes. Tropical astrology is saying that

people born in the first 30 days after the sun begins to increase at the

vernal equinox have some similar characteristics, even though a different

constellation may be hidden by the sun at that time every 2000 years. Why

should this be considered invalid? The plants all begin to grow in this

first month of spring regardless of what constellation is there.

As the other fellow posted, there are different frames of reference

involved. One of my teachers said, for instance, that sidereal astrology

describes what is known as the astral body, while tropical astrology

describes what is called the etheric body of life forces. In other words,

they describe different aspects of the total human being. I can imagine no

reason not to do both. I certainly have no reason to condemn one or another

approach to astrology. In my experience, only astronomers do so, and they of

course condemn them all.

Starman

http://www.DrStarman.net

December 17, 2002

In a message dated 12/17/2002 7:43:38 AM Central Standard Time,

crumpo writes:

> 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

>

okay you win . . . it's all b.s. and anyone who argues with me is crazy. ///

wing

December 17, 2002

In a message dated 12/17/2002 8:09:40 AM Central Standard Time,

crumpo writes:

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

>

people have been giving money to charlatans for thousands of years. and since

it's all b.s. who cares.

December 17, 2002

In a message dated 12/17/2002 10:18:58 AM Central Standard Time,

sher_e_khan writes:

>

> 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.

>

ditto. chriswing

December 17, 2002

In a message dated 12/17/2002 12:24:03 PM Central Standard Time,

sher_e_khan writes:

> 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

very good response! /// wing

December 17, 2002

In a message dated 12/17/2002 2:21:17 PM Central Standard Time,

DRStarman2001 writes:

> Any astrologers who have to condemn all other astrologers, or entire

> schools of them, in this fashion, clearly have very little confidence in

> themselves as astrologers

oh yeah, that's ME! I almost forgot who i was for a moment. I have NOOO

confidence in myself as an astrologer. actually, i have " not much "

confidence in myself as an arguer, so i'll have to bone up on my venus

(7Scorp) ascendant. Ah if only it were " really " (tropical Sagittarius) --

i'd fly right thru this thing. /// wing

December 17, 2002

In a message dated 12/17/2002 3:59:19 PM Central Standard Time,

crumpo writes:

> That one knows one's self proves that

> sidereal astrology is valid?? How charming!

it helps. and i'm not charming in the least. /// wing

December 17, 2002

In a message dated 12/17/2002 4:14:12 PM Central Standard Time,

eastwest writes:

> But the actual stars have meanings too

yes i know . . . i oversimplify out of laziness. ///chris

December 17, 2002

Hi Andrew,

At 02:17 PM 12/17/02 +1100, you wrote:

>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!!

I don't know Liz Green except from her books, which I haven't read in a

long, long time. But I have some faith in Rob Hand. I think if we presented

him with some kind of irrefutable proof for the sidereal zodiac he'd come

around. He already uses sidereal return charts (but with Tropical planets!!).

I had an interesting experience a few years ago. I was working on one of my

projects supporting the sidereal zodiac and suddenly out of the blue I

heard Rob Hand's voice loudly and enthusiastically lecturing on the

sidereal zodiac. Precognition? Wishful thinking? Whatever, I'm waiting and

watching.

>As a Vedic

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

>clearly.

So are you talking about house lords here? Have you set down in writing

your examples?

>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.

Yes, I'm sometimes embarrassed to say that I'm an astrologer.

>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.

I'm very interested in how you do this. If I send you my birth information

(privately) would you be willing to say a few things about my chart?

Personally I need the person there in front of me to know WHAT to zero in

on when reading the chart. I'm mostly into research because that's where

the need is.

>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.

No, I don't think so. Rob Hand is going on the basis of the recent

translations from the Greek. When you put these side-by-side with the

Indian texts it's pretty obvious that many of the accepted great words of

the Indian 'sages,' are actually poor translations from the Greek (or

Arabic). The Indian writings come across as rather disjointed compared to

the more ordered Hellenistic and Arabic minds.

I've studied this a LOT too. I remember the very moment when my Indian

house of cards came crashing down in the face of the Hellenistic evidence.

It was like losing a long-time lover. I went into shock. There was no

horoscopic astrology in Vedic times, only omen readings and maybe the lunar

mansions used for omen readings. 'Vedic' is the term given to Indian

astrology by K. N. Rao in 1992 during his first visit to the U.S. Before

that it was (more accurately) Hindu or Indian astrology. The Indian

astrologers themselves have complained in Raman's magazine about the use of

the term 'Vedic' for today's Indian astrology.

I have a lot of articles that have been published (but which I would like

to modify somewhat). Many in the computer, but not yet ready for the

internet. Have to work on the HTML. Thanks for the offer re: your site!

Our site is ready to go. I just have to HTML the articles. I'll check your

web site. You can link our site when the articles are on-line.

I often feel like launching a full scale war on

>people like Jonathan Canier and his cronies

Yes, but hardly anyone would listen. What we CAN do is provide some very

hard evidence for the sidereal zodiac and good astrology. This is more

difficult than it seems. I hope to have some material on our web site.

Nice to see your post, Andrew.

Terese

December 17, 2002

Yo...GameBoy...

You're too young to go " Rock Solid " with your

knowledge quotient...

There is truth in tropical.... and yo " could "

appreciate it, value it, and recogize it for what it

is.

I've been a siderealist longer than yo have been

alive... Creating walls to differing opinions creates

a disadvantage to your intellectual development.

And another thing...bury that race card!

> Your

> premiss have racial as well as political undertones.

That stuff is poison!

If you have ever had a " reading " by a

sensitive(psychic) you'll understand that geometric

charting(Sidereal or Tropical) is unnecessary.

jivio

ps: i got game too, dog.

--- The Game <sher_e_khan wrote:

>

> 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:

> /

>

December 17, 2002

sher_e_khan writes:>

> To me there was never a need to give more credibility to one form of

> astrology and discredit another but if any sidereal astrologer enters a

> discussion with a tropicalist, sooner than later the room turns emotional.

*******To say that this is just something inevitable, is like saying there's

no possibility of an 'ecumenical council', with representatives of Judaism,

Catholicism etc., being able to talk to each other. But there are such

things. All it takes is a little goodwill and tolerance. In fact, the

absence of such is a sure prescription for lack of communication, as with our

modern times where the adherents of some belief systems think that the way to

communicate is to drive planes into other people's buildings. ;->

>>>> Quite simply, it works. Your

> system may work also-- -- -- I have yet to see a demonstration of it

> working,

>

> At this point in the e-mail you took a turn. You expressed doubt and

> attempted to insinuate by adding " I have yet to see a demonstration of it

> working " ...

*******That's quite remarkable that you read into my words above any

expression of doubt. I live in the United States, not India, and sidereal

astrologers are rarely encountered. I first read Cyril Fagan 25 years ago,

but in all this time have only had a few vedic astrologers online do general

interpretations for me, with results that certainly weren't impressive. And I

heard from one friend about a vedic astrologer on a radio call-in show who

did his chart and impressed him quite a lot. That's all. Where on the other

hand, I can go every day to discussion lists like this for regular astrology

where people are interpreting others' charts on the spot, not to mention chat

rooms, and I've seen lots of results. [i could also add that the few times

people claiming to be sidereal " astrologers " have shown up there, my

experience has been that they just rant and rave at everyone else about how

wrong they all are, calling them all fools-- -- -- but seldom attempt to

simply practice their art, so I haven't had the opportunity to see it produce

many results. I hope to see some. ]

>>I think I read 2 emails from people that are willing to give you just that

performance.

*******Sorry, I must have missed those; I saw no such thing.

> >>>I could go on with this and site opinions from psychatrists concerning

> the nature of why you have seen the results in Tropical calculations but

> I'm not. Franly some people have weak egos and will believe anyone that

> speaks with a tone of authority.

*******Not sure what that's in response to; but of course, if you want to

argue that a person has " convinced themselves " that tropical astrology works

for them when it actually doesn't and they are just the victim of

self-fulfilling prophecies and/or psychological deception, that's a two-edged

sword, since any skeptic could argue the exact same thing about how your

sidereal astrology allegedly works-- -- --or any other system of divination,

for that matter. So it would seem to me that the relevance to choosing one

system or another would appear to be zero. Someone who wants to take that

position can APPEAR to debunk anything. But actually, the skeptic who stands

apart from taking up actual practice and regards it all as something that

weak-minded people are convincing themselves is true, will never see any

astrology work, because he's unwilling to see anything that invalidates he is

already-existing belief system. Look at what the official Skeptics did to

Michel Gauquelin, for instance.

Dr. Starman

>

> skinbags writes:

> >>>>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!! ...

> The lords of >Tropical zodiac have too much to lose in admitting they are

> >wrong or the sidereal zodiac is the correct one. ...

> DRStarman2001 wrote:

> *******And what gives you the idea of that they are wrong and have been

> misleading people? I don't think it's really necessary to have such

> emotional

> commitment to sidereal astrology as to regard everyone using tropical

> astrology as the devil or as deceiving people. Quite simply, it works.

> Your

> system may work also-- -- -- I have yet to see a demonstration of it

> working,

> but I've heard people say that they have had very good interpretations of

> their horoscopes from Vedic astrologers -- -- -- but the demonization of

> your

> opponents is not a good sign of understanding. I've used tropical astrology

>

> and solar arc progressions for 25 years now, and seen them work incredibly

> well; and even people just using the 12 tropical zodiac Sun signs as a

> guide

> for intuition can very quickly began recognizing their characteristics in

> people. I don't think it's necessary to deny the reality of western

> tropical

> astrology in order to also have sidereal astrology, and it certainly isn't

> necessary to demonize other astrologers, or to assert that you and you only

>

> are correct about everything. And if you disagree with particular

> interpretations of Robert Hand or Robert Schmidt in their work of

> translating

> ancient astrological texts, it isn't necessary to denigrate all that

> they've

> done.

>

> >>>>>>>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... <<

>

December 17, 2002

I would like to say that I find DRStarguy's comments to be almost

exactly what I would say -- mostly the parts about how all

astrologies can co-exist without canceling each other out. Such

either-or arguments that Mr. Game has tried to foist upon us are

straw-man diversions that have no logical basis.

I find this screed below to be absolutely useless in any way, and it

rather belies some other lack of temprament that has disallowed the

writer to investigate the validity or invalidity of my post. It is

also impolite and full of ad-hominems, but this is no way is a good

substitue for the lack of substance within. It is also unfortunate

that you don't care where the discussion is leading, but this doesn't

really surprise me given your lack of historical knowledge about the

topic.

Yes, indeed, the oldest star chart known to man is Egyptian, but it

is not an astrological chart. Current scholarship shows most easily

that astrology as the study of planetary cycles has its origins well

east of the Sinai. When it comes to the divinatory and horoscopic 12-

sign astrology that is the foundation of Western and Vedic astrology,

this most definitely came via the Greeks who became aware of the

Babylonian system (and revamped it) around the time of Aristotle or

before. This system was imported to Alexandria, where it was

championed by the likes of Ptolemy, and why we find 12-signed zodiacs

at places like Denderah, which are *not* of early antiquity.

I believe that Dover has re-published Gleadow's " Origin of the

Zodiac " for $12.95. It is a most valuable investment for any

astrologer.

- Ed K

, The Game

<sher_e_khan> wrote:

>

> 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.

December 17, 2002

, The Game

<sher_e_khan> wrote:

>> Once again you go with this idea that the Greeks gave astrology to

the Egyptians. Your premiss have racial as well as political

undertones.

Hi again,

For now I will kindly ask you to apologize to me for making this

untoward statement that is again the fallacy of ad hominem.

- Ed K

December 17, 2002

, " Ed Kohout <crumpo@e...> "

<crumpo@e...> wrote:

>

> I would like to say that I find DRStarguy's comments to be almost

> exactly what I would say -- mostly the parts about how all

> astrologies can co-exist without canceling each other out. Such

> either-or arguments that Mr. Game has tried to foist upon us are

> straw-man diversions that have no logical basis.

Woops, I should have said " false dilemma " rather than straw man.

- Ed K

..

December 17, 2002

, cpwing44@a... wrote:

> In a message dated 12/17/2002 12:24:03 PM Central Standard Time,

> sher_e_khan writes:

>

> > 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

>

> very good response! /// wing

Good response to what?? That one knows one's self proves that

sidereal astrology is valid?? How charming!

December 17, 2002

At 04:44 AM 12/17/02 EST, Christ Wing wrote:

>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.

The problem with this argument, Chris, is that the actual constellations

don't line up with the 30 degree sidereal signs. My Sun is in the middle of

sidereal Libra, but it's squarely in the feet of the constellation of the

virgin. Right now Pluto isn't in the constellation of Scorpio. It's in

Ophiuchus, right between the legs. And look at all the sex scandals that

are being unearthed in chruch and state. The SIGN of Scorpio=sex, but the

position of Pluto in Ophiuchus tells us what part of the body is in the

news now, the genitals. The ancients used the signs and stars together.

Does everyone out there have a good plantarium program?? If not, owning one

should be a requirement to be an astrologer. A terrific little program is

STARRY NIGHT BACKYARD, Version 3.x. (NOT version 4, which is more expensive

and takes a very fast computer). Version 3 is available for $49 on Amazon.

com. Buy it now. You can type in any birth data and see exactly where the

planets were in relation to the constellations. You can also watch the

north or south pole areas in winter or summer and see for yourself that no

quadrant house system will work there. In winter the Sun bobs around the

horizon, mostly below, and in summer the sun never sets. Of course the

program does tons of other stuff too. The program is TERRIFIC!

>further on, i learned that the rulerships, falls

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

And this is generally true....But the actual stars have meanings too. The

Virgo (constellation) part of sidereal Libra is quite different from the

Libra (scales) part of the sign.

Terese

December 17, 2002

To me there was never a need to give more credibility to one form of astrology

and discredit another but if any sidereal astrologer enters a discussion with a

tropicalist, sooner than later the room turns emotional. There is no religious

fantaticism going on with me for one. I recognize certain undertones and minute

premisses that enter into certain arguments. I recognize an almost political

ulterior motive. It is only human to react emtionally when someone changes the

mood. There is a big difference between making an inductive discussion which

leaves room for other veiwpoints and a deductive argument that trys to establish

validity to a particular institution of views. Mathematics is not my specialty.

I only listen when the members of the room discuss returns and computations. I

am a good writer. I am also excellent when it comes to writing a logical essay

and that is precisely what I will stick with.

Quite simply, it works. Your

system may work also-- -- -- I have yet to see a demonstration of it working,

At this point in the e-mail you took a turn. You expressed doubt and attempted

to insinuate by adding " I have yet to see a demonstration of it working " I

think I read 2 emails from people that are willing to give you just that

performance. I could go on with this and site opinions from psychatrists

concerning the nature of why you have seen the results in Tropical calculations

but I'm not. Franly some people have weak egos and will believe anyone that

speaks with a tone of authority.

DRStarman2001 wrote:skinbags writes: