Guest guest Posted May 5, 2003 Report Share Posted May 5, 2003 , Therese Hamilton <eastwest@s...> wrote: > At 12:06 PM 5/4/03 -0000, Ed wrote: > >Now, I have ONE question for y'all: > > > >What makes one sidereal zodiac better than another? If any of you > >are worth your salt, you can explain to me how all of these > >different " sidereal " zodiacs can be equally useful and valid. > > The whole idea of the sidereal zodiac is that the planets are fixed in > relation to the stars for measurement over time. Hi Therese, You mean to say, " The whole idea of *a* sidereal zodiac is that the planets are fixed in relation to the stars for measurement over time. " Still, the only reason you can offer is that precession is taken into account. Ed, if you compute your > own sun within the sidereal framework, you'll find that it has 'moved' in > the Tropical zodiac by half a degree or so. I'm aware of that. Did you know that if you compute your own sun in the tropical framework, you'll find that it has " moved " in the Sidereal Zodiac by about 50 minutes? Six of one, half a dozen of the other. This makes a BIG difference in > computing the angles of solar and lunar return charts and an astronomical > difference in transits to the horoscopes of cities over hundreds or > thousands of years. Yes, but, so what? Both seem to have validity and show influence. > No one has yet shown a reason why one sidereal zodiac is better than > another. Glad you admit that! However, the current sidereal zodiacs that are used and discussed > in the west today are less than a degree apart. That makes them essentially > identical Hold it hold it, above you said that that half a degree of my Sun was huge, and here you say it's irrelevant. One thing I have learned in life, though, is that speeding is only illegal if you are caught by the cops. until someone can show WHY one is better than the other when it's > less than a degree away from the other zodiacs. > > There are only two zodiacs considered in the west: Fagan/Bradley and > Lahiri/Krishnamurti. The West is the only valid hemisphere? Tsk~ It's rather fascinating that Bradley adjusted Fagan's > initial zodiac by about 6 minutes based on his research. And that being about the accuracy of our ephemerides that are extrapolated to 3000 years ago. Persnickety, no doubt, and quite maddening. Though, Bradley, ignorant of proper motion, simply assigned Aldebaran to 15* Taurus; this point is, when the Sun transits it in the trop zod, the first day of summer in the Pagan traditions. The Indian > Krishnamurti adjusted the Lahiri zodiac by the same 6 minutes based on his > own very different research. Obviously we must be on to something here!! Yes, a coincidence, most likely. > > The only other primary sidereal zodiac, Raman's, is used by a minority in > India. It was the old zodiac used before the government research which > isolated Spica as the fiducial star. This zodiac seems to be a corruption > that was adopted in India when there was mass confusion about the zodiac's > starting point a few hundred years A.D. It seems to be the same zodiac that > was 'frozen' and adopted by early Arabic astrologers. It has no obvious > fiducial star and is probably a slightly 'off' Tropical zodiac frozen in > the early centuries. That's interesting! > I've seen many articles in Indian magazines where astrologers who have > experimented with zodiacs discard the Raman zodiac because the varga > (harmonic) charts are wrong. So even Indians themselves through their own > research are discarding a bogus zodiac. Hrm, but Raman, the greatest of all, heralded it? Nevertheless, Raman and Co. (Raman > Publications and The Astrological Magazine) adhere strictly to this zodiac > because it's 'traditional.' It's revered because the illustrious Dr. B.V. > Raman used it in his work. > > >And, then, maybe you can tell me why the Babylonians changed their > >zodiac's fiducial a few times over the centuries. > > There is no evidence that the Babylonians changed their zodiac's fiducial. Yes, there is. Referred to as " system A " and " system B. " Then, we have the later Sassanian zodiac that has become famous of late with the Baghdad chart, and then there are the myriad of zodiacs used in Italy, Turkey, Afghanistan, and not to mention the different calendars. > There is indeed evidence (which I posted here a few weeks ago from the > Pingree/Hunger book) that they were a bit vague about sign cusp and star > positions within a degree or so. Yeah, precision was only as good as their astrolabes and other viewing conditions. Inaccuracies are present even in ephemerides of the Royal Observatory centuries after it was operational. > > I've never seen any evidence for the exact 15 degree Aldebaran/Antares > positions in the zodiac. Ken Bowser promised to give us something on this, > but hasn't replied yet. It is the fact in the Fagan/Becker zodiac. Best, Ed K > > Therese Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 5, 2003 Report Share Posted May 5, 2003 At 03:28 AM 5/5/03 -0000, Ed wrote: > , Therese Hamilton > >Hi Therese, > >You mean to say, " The whole idea of *a* sidereal zodiac is that the >planets are fixed in relation to the stars for measurement over time. " Yes, 'a' if you like it that way. > >Still, the only reason you can offer is that precession is taken into >account. But precession is the ALL important difference. >I'm aware of that. Did you know that if you compute your own sun in >the tropical framework, you'll find that it has " moved " in the >Sidereal Zodiac by about 50 minutes? Sigh....has it moved that far already? Soon to be 60 minutes, a whole degree. (Said sadly) >This makes a BIG difference in >> computing the angles of solar and lunar return charts and an astronomical >> difference in transits to the horoscopes of cities over hundreds or thousands of years. > >Yes, but, so what? Both seem to have validity and show influence. So what?!! What about Diana's death chart and Mr. Rogers and all the other thousands of return charts. I think a good statistical study of planets near the angles in return charts would take care of the precession debate. I doubt that the Tropical zodiac would have the constancy of the sidereal framework. I should start this project. Take the dates of death from the Rodden database and set up all the Tropical and Sidereal solar returns. Simple and out front. Planets on the angles. >> No one has yet shown a reason why one sidereal zodiac is better than >> another. > >Glad you admit that! It doesn't really matter unless an astrologer uses the harmonic charts. Then a precise zodiac makes a difference. >Hold it hold it, above you said that that half a degree of my Sun was >huge, and here you say it's irrelevant. Half a degree will make quite a difference in the angles when computing return charts. However, it makes no difference which sidereal zodiac you use as long as the planets are not precessed. You can take any sidereal zodiac you want for Diana's death, and the planets will be exactly the same distance from the angles. The degrees will be different, but that is irrelevant according to western methodology. >The West is the only valid hemisphere? Tsk~ If you'd spent time in India as I have you're realize that the Indian personality is highly emotional, warm, friendly, outgoing and almost entirely without logic. >The Indian Krishnamurti adjusted the Lahiri zodiac by the same 6 minutes based >on his own very different research. Obviously we must be on to something >here!! >Yes, a coincidence, most likely. Maybe and maybe not. >Hrm, but Raman, the greatest of all, heralded it [a bogus zodiac]? There was no other zodiac in India when he learned astrology from his grandfather. And Indians are nothing else if not traditional. To his credit in his last years Raman formed a research organization and as far as I know he didn't make predictions or do readings anymore. >Yes, there is. Referred to as " system A " and " system B. " Then, we >have the later Sassanian zodiac that has become famous of late with >the Baghdad chart, and then there are the myriad of zodiacs used in >Italy, Turkey, Afghanistan, and not to mention the different >calendars. Oh, yes, this is all later than the dates I thought you were talking about. Mass zodiac confusion, definitely, happened during this later time. Mars transit today, Ed? Love, Therese Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 5, 2003 Report Share Posted May 5, 2003 , " Ed Kohout " <crumpo@e...> wrote: > And that being about the accuracy of our ephemerides that are > extrapolated to 3000 years ago. Persnickety, no doubt, and quite > maddening. Though, Bradley, ignorant of proper motion, simply > assigned Aldebaran to 15* Taurus; this point is, when the Sun > transits it in the trop zod, the first day of summer in the Pagan > traditions. The study in question was done by Garth Allen, if I'm not mistaken. (Not that I have a good memory for names...) It's true that at the present time, we don't know the true fiducial of the sidereal zodiac, so all we can do until we discover it is approximate it by measuring against the stars. Proper motion is not that great however, and the positions we observe now are extremely close to the positions recorded thousands of years ago, so it seems unlikely that the zodiac is moving very fast. Since Allen's correction is for the epoch 1950.0, we would seem to have some time before it moves significantly, whatever it is. Jesse M. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 6, 2003 Report Share Posted May 6, 2003 At 01:22 PM 5/5/03 -0000, Jesse M. wrote: > >It's true that at the present time, we don't know the true fiducial of the sidereal zodiac, so all we can do until we discover it is approximate it by measuring against the stars. I think any honest sidereal astrologer would have to agree with this statement. T. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 6, 2003 Report Share Posted May 6, 2003 I don't know about the " Honest " sidereal astrologers but the sidereal astrology I'm familiar with has a number of fiducial stars. The initial point of this " sidereal " zodiac is 35 degrees from the Pleiades, 45 degrees from Aldebaran, 125 degrees from Regulus and 179 degrees from Spica. jivio --- Therese Hamilton <eastwest wrote: > At 01:22 PM 5/5/03 -0000, Jesse M. wrote: > > > >It's true that at the present time, we don't know > the true fiducial of the > sidereal zodiac, so all we can do until we discover > it is approximate it by > measuring against the stars. > > I think any honest sidereal astrologer would have to > agree with this > statement. > > T. > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 6, 2003 Report Share Posted May 6, 2003 , Therese Hamilton <eastwest@s...> wrote: > > But precession is the ALL important difference. Then why not simply precession-correct your tropical return charts? > > > So what?!! What about Diana's death chart and Mr. Rogers and all the other > thousands of return charts. I think a good statistical study of planets > near the angles in return charts would take care of the precession debate. I fear you would be correct. > I doubt that the Tropical zodiac would have the constancy of the sidereal > framework. I should start this project. Take the dates of death from the > Rodden database and set up all the Tropical and Sidereal solar returns. > Simple and out front. Planets on the angles. > > >> No one has yet shown a reason why one sidereal zodiac is better than > >> another. > > > >Glad you admit that! > > It doesn't really matter unless an astrologer uses the harmonic charts. > Then a precise zodiac makes a difference. Ahh, and majickally the Fagan/Becker zod will reign supreme. > > >Hold it hold it, above you said that that half a degree of my Sun was > >huge, and here you say it's irrelevant. > > Half a degree will make quite a difference in the angles when computing > return charts. However, it makes no difference which sidereal zodiac you > use as long as the planets are not precessed. You can take any sidereal > zodiac you want for Diana's death, and the planets will be exactly the same > distance from the angles. The degrees will be different, but that is > irrelevant according to western methodology. > > >The West is the only valid hemisphere? Tsk~ > > If you'd spent time in India as I have you're realize that the Indian > personality is highly emotional, warm, friendly, outgoing and almost > entirely without logic. So, except for the warm and friendly part, it's just like women in America! lol That was just a joke, not in any way meant to be how I see Therese. > > >The Indian Krishnamurti adjusted the Lahiri zodiac by the same 6 minutes > based > >on his own very different research. Obviously we must be on to something > >here!! > > >Yes, a coincidence, most likely. > > Maybe and maybe not. Without any other evidence, we can only be sure of " maybe. " > > >Hrm, but Raman, the greatest of all, heralded it [a bogus zodiac]? > > There was no other zodiac in India when he learned astrology from his > grandfather. And Indians are nothing else if not traditional. To his credit > in his last years Raman formed a research organization and as far as I know > he didn't make predictions or do readings anymore. The tradition part I can relate to, as that society was antique. > > >Yes, there is. Referred to as " system A " and " system B. " Then, we > >have the later Sassanian zodiac that has become famous of late with > >the Baghdad chart, and then there are the myriad of zodiacs used in > >Italy, Turkey, Afghanistan, and not to mention the different > >calendars. > > Oh, yes, this is all later than the dates I thought you were talking about. > Mass zodiac confusion, definitely, happened during this later time. And, the thousand or so years *before* a 12-signed zodiac appeared are also invalid? > > Mars transit today, Ed? If so, I would be getting laid. ;-) I'm just trying to find the truth. Oh, that's Mars too! I hope you can do a great study; this one has promise. Love to you, Ed K Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 6, 2003 Report Share Posted May 6, 2003 At 03:15 AM 5/6/03 -0000, Ed wrote: >Then why not simply precession-correct your tropical return charts? Because the stupid signs are wrong!! Rob Hand does this, however, precession corrects his Tropical return charts. It's sort of a double standard. Also, the stars keep changing positions over the years, a total nuisance. I can't understand why anyone who works with the stars (such as you and Diana Rosenberg) would even bother with the Tropical zodiac. >I think a good statistical study of >planets near the angles in return charts would take care of the precession >debate. > >I fear you would be correct. It's sad that astrologers care so little about showing evidence for anything that I bet if I asked for someone to help with a project like this, there wouldn't be one single person who would be interested. But it's so easy to complain that no one says anything of worth on the various lists and discussion boards. >Ahh, and majickally the Fagan/Bradley zod will reign supreme. Would not, I've already tested it. >And, the thousand or so years *before* a 12-signed zodiac appeared >are also invalid? Invalid? No. Just what was known prior to the re-discovery of the 12 sign zodiac. More primitive. Civilization has been destroyed many times before. The only 'references' we have are from psychic sources like Edgar Cayce. 'The 12 temples' apparently were known around 10,000 B.C. but then were lost. A little metaphysics here. Sorry. >I hope you can do a great study; this one has promise. I need someone to do the Tropical part. My program won't compute Tropical returns and I can't afford Solar Fire, which is the only other program I'd buy. The program used needs to work with the Rodden AstroDatabase. Maybe I'll ask on the NCGR board if anyone is interested. As if anyone would care. Long sigh.... Here's hoping... Therese Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 7, 2003 Report Share Posted May 7, 2003 , Therese Hamilton <eastwest@s...> wrote: > At 03:15 AM 5/6/03 -0000, Ed wrote: > >Then why not simply precession-correct your tropical return charts? > > Because the stupid signs are wrong!! No, the " signs " are just imaginary boundaries placed in places decided by humans, as I've been saying for as long as I've been on this list. Imaginary things are never right nor wrong. > Rob Hand does this, however, precession > corrects his Tropical return charts. > It's sort of a double standard. No, it's not a double standard. > Also, the stars keep changing positions over the years, a total > nuisance. Ahh, the import of covenience is practical. However, in " sidereal, " those darn cardinal points keep changing positions... a total nuisance. I can't understand why anyone who works with the stars (such as > you and Diana Rosenberg) would even bother with the Tropical zodiac. For a true fixed star referent, one should use the galactic grid. Besides, as I have said many times, NASA uses Right Ascension to plot the stars, and this is a TROPICAL measurement. Why have they not taken your advice?? > >I think a good statistical study of > >planets near the angles in return charts would take care of the precession > >debate. > > > >I fear you would be correct. > > It's sad that astrologers care so little about showing evidence for > anything that I bet if I asked for someone to help with a project like > this, there wouldn't be one single person who would be interested. I agree, but there have been many studies, contrary to what Alfonzo has promulgated on this list. Ever heard of " Jigsaw " ?? But it's > so easy to complain that no one says anything of worth on the various lists > and discussion boards. > > >Ahh, and majickally the Fagan/Bradley zod will reign supreme. > > Would not, I've already tested it. Lahiri then? > > >And, the thousand or so years *before* a 12-signed zodiac appeared > >are also invalid? > > Invalid? No. Just what was known prior to the re-discovery of the 12 sign > zodiac. More primitive. Oh, come now! The 12-signed zodiac did not exist prior to about the 4th Century BC. NO evidence to the contrary exists anywhere. Civilization has been destroyed many times before. > The only 'references' we have are from psychic sources like Edgar Cayce. And, unreliable to the nth degree. > 'The 12 temples' apparently were known around 10,000 B.C. but then were > lost. A little metaphysics here. Sorry. Please, where were they known? - E Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 7, 2003 Report Share Posted May 7, 2003 At 02:41 AM 5/7/03 -0000, Ed wrote: >No, the " signs " are just imaginary boundaries placed in places >decided by humans, as I've been saying for as long as I've been on >this list. Imaginary things are never right nor wrong. It's kind of like trying to prove that God exists. It's a lot easier to say there is no God than to prove that there is a God. I think the answer to the signs might be in history and historical people, a sadly neglected area in my life. Well....if it takes 200 years, I shall try to find a way to show that signs of the zodiac exist in a way that cannot be questioned. First some evidence (via solar returns) for the sidereal framework---only then can the question of signs be tackled. >Ahh, the import of covenience is practical. However, in " sidereal, " >those darn cardinal points keep changing positions... a total >nuisance. It's a lot easier to track the changes of four cardinal points than it is to keep changing the position of several hundred stars along with all the planets. >For a true fixed star referent, one should use the galactic grid. >Besides, as I have said many times, NASA uses Right Ascension to plot >the stars, and this is a TROPICAL measurement. Why have they not >taken your advice?? I don't understand any of that this very well. My simplistic Mercury simply wants to see planets-signs-degrees. I couldn't care less about right ascension because I think the ecliptic is where it's at astrologically. (Mundane astrology is different, but I'm not a mundane astrologer.) >Ever heard of " Jigsaw " ?? I don't think we're ready for statistical studies yet (except maybe for return charts). I understand that Jigsaw has some serious flaws. I have no experience with it. I tried statistics for astrology in the early 90s. My conclusion was that that appraoch to astrology was hopeless except for the very large Gauquelin type studies. And that's not where my interest is. >Lahiri then? (re: harmonic charts) I probably have enough investigative studies in my files to fill several books. What I need is an isolated cabin in the forest for about a year or so. No people. No internet, no phone. Then I might get it all together. >Oh, come now! The 12-signed zodiac did not exist prior to about the >4th Century BC. NO evidence to the contrary exists anywhere. I'm happy that you are so sure that the civilization we have now on the earth is the only one that's been here. That means that this must be your first life. This view I don't share. >> 'The 12 temples' apparently were known around 10,000 B.C. but then >were lost. A little metaphysics here. Sorry. > >Please, where were they known? Egypt in the temples according to Edgar Cayce. I posted this reference with the Cayce reading numbers a few months ago on this site. In love and the past we trust, Therese Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 8, 2003 Report Share Posted May 8, 2003 , Therese Hamilton <eastwest@s...> wrote: > At 02:41 AM 5/7/03 -0000, Ed wrote: > > >No, the " signs " are just imaginary boundaries placed in places > >decided by humans, as I've been saying for as long as I've been on > >this list. Imaginary things are never right nor wrong. > > It's kind of like trying to prove that God exists. Hi Therese, I think this one is a bit different than God. Is ABC any better than CBS because they use a different bandwidth? It's a lot easier to say > there is no God than to prove that there is a God. I think the answer to > the signs might be in history and historical people, a sadly neglected area > in my life. Well....if it takes 200 years, I shall try to find a way to > show that signs of the zodiac exist in a way that cannot be questioned. > > First some evidence (via solar returns) for the sidereal framework-- -only > then can the question of signs be tackled. > > >Ahh, the import of covenience is practical. However, in " sidereal, " > >those darn cardinal points keep changing positions... a total > >nuisance. > > It's a lot easier to track the changes of four cardinal points than it is > to keep changing the position of several hundred stars along with all the > planets. Well, who uses several hundred fixed stars? Most astrology ignores fixed stars all together, and wisely so, as they do not revolve around the Sun. > > >For a true fixed star referent, one should use the galactic grid. > >Besides, as I have said many times, NASA uses Right Ascension to plot > >the stars, and this is a TROPICAL measurement. Why have they not > >taken your advice?? > > I don't understand any of that this very well. My simplistic Mercury simply > wants to see planets-signs-degrees. I couldn't care less about right > ascension because I think the ecliptic is where it's at astrologically. > (Mundane astrology is different, but I'm not a mundane astrologer.) Then you have to avoid using ascendants and midheavens, becuase they are determined by the other spheres. That you don't do mundane astrology is no excuse, and neither is lack of understanding. > > >Ever heard of " Jigsaw " ?? > > I don't think we're ready for statistical studies yet (except maybe for > return charts). I understand that Jigsaw has some serious flaws. I have no > experience with it. I tried statistics for astrology in the early 90s. My > conclusion was that that appraoch to astrology was hopeless except for the > very large Gauquelin type studies. And that's not where my interest is. Then, why bother doing any research at all? I'm not a user of Jigsaw, but it is a program designed for the research you want to do. > > >Lahiri then? (re: harmonic charts) > > I probably have enough investigative studies in my files to fill several > books. What I need is an isolated cabin in the forest for about a year or > so. No people. No internet, no phone. Then I might get it all together. So, it boils down to precession-correction or not. Not zodiacs. Thank you! > > >Oh, come now! The 12-signed zodiac did not exist prior to about the > >4th Century BC. NO evidence to the contrary exists anywhere. > > I'm happy that you are so sure that the civilization we have now on the > earth is the only one that's been here. That means that this must be your > first life. This view I don't share. Talk about a red herring. I don't care if there were 1000 civilizations between T-Rex and G-Bush, there simply is no evidence that they used a 12-sign zodiac. > > >> 'The 12 temples' apparently were known around 10,000 B.C. but then > >were lost. A little metaphysics here. Sorry. > > > >Please, where were they known? > > Egypt in the temples according to Edgar Cayce. I posted this reference with > the Cayce reading numbers a few months ago on this site. Cayce is not a proper reference, unless one is abandoning reality for the akashic records, of which I place no real value. > > In love and the past we trust, You have much love, my friend. It is far more important than all of the astrology!! - Ed k > Therese Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 8, 2003 Report Share Posted May 8, 2003 In a message dated 5/8/2003 3:03:26 PM Central Daylight Time, eastwest writes: > Oh...I thought T-Rex and G-Bush were the same... I knew if i read through enough of this stuff there would be something to be gotten out of it. Thanks for the giggle. /// wing Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 8, 2003 Report Share Posted May 8, 2003 At 04:48 AM 5/8/03 -0000, Ed wrote: >Hi Therese, > >I think this one [one zodiac is better than the other] is a bit different than God. > >Is ABC any better than CBS because they use a different bandwidth? Somehow, Ed, this is missing my point. It's how an attorney would deal with a case he's not any too sure of winning. It's the mathematical placement of the planets over time that is important. >[in regard to moving the cardinal points (sidereal) instead of moving planets and stars (tropical)]: > >Well, who uses several hundred fixed stars? Most astrology ignores >fixed stars all together, and wisely so, as they do not revolve around the Sun. This is begging the point!! *I* use the stars, and I sure don't want to see them changing position every few years. >Then you have to avoid using ascendants and midheavens, becuase they >are determined by the other spheres. I don't use the midheaven to mark off the houses. All I've observed that the M.C. does is mark some minor event when planets transit that point. I believe it's an astrological error to use the M.C. to mark houses. It will be active in return charts, however, but not as a house cusp. As a timer. You can read a chart without the M.C. P.S. The Gauquelin findings with the M.C. are a little different, but the Gauquelins didn't use the MC as a house cusp. Still, for astrologers the Gauquelin findings relating to sectors aren't all that important for astrologers. There are too many exceptions. >Then, why bother doing any research at all? I'm not a user of >Jigsaw, but it is a program designed for the research you want to do. No, I don't think so. Here's what Mark McDonough says about Jigsaw 2.0: " Those people who have used Jigsaw 2.0 control group generator might shy away from repoicating all four data elements...you would get a control group that was an exact replica of your experimental group. " (ADB 3.0 Manual) Maybe this problem has been fixed in later versions of Jigsaw. But my point is that at least *I* am very far from ready to consider large batches of data and control groups. The first task is to find astrological patterns by studying charts. If the same patterns are found in several batches of charts (say 10-15 in each batch), the if someone wants to, they can attempt statistical studies uisng computer programs. >So, it boils down to precession-correction or not. Not zodiacs. >Thank you! Yes!!! That's what it's all about. Trying to find something that correlates with signs of the zodiac is like looking for a needle in a haystack. Even trying to find traits that correlate with planets is difficult because each planet is aspected by other planets which modifies their meaning. > I don't care if there were 1000 >civilizations between T-Rex and G-Bush, there simply is no evidence >that they used a 12-sign zodiac. Oh...I thought T-Rex and G-Bush were the same... There is little or no evidence of those long past civilizations let alone evidence of astrology and a zodiac. >Cayce is not a proper reference, unless one is abandoning reality for >the akashic records, of which I place no real value. You know what, Ed!? If we ever meet fact-to-face, expect to be subjected to a week long intensive in elementary metaphysics!! Cayce's take on the planets is priceless. ***Warning, Will Rogers! Warning!*** Mars-Neptune clash!! Mars: " What I see is what is real. " Neptune: " It's all real, don't you know? Or none of it's real. Life is just a dream, an illusion anyway. " (Indian philosophy) >You have much love, my friend. It is far more important than all of >the astrology!! Such a nice complement after complaining about everything I've said! But I know you're being genuine. How to win a lady's heart. Alfonso, don't turn over in your grave just yet! Love, Therese P.S. There is a zodiac, and it is sidereal. It will just take some time to prove it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 8, 2003 Report Share Posted May 8, 2003 At 04:17 PM 5/8/03 EDT, Chris wrote: >I knew if I read through enough of this stuff there would be something to be >gotten out of it. Thanks for the giggle. /// wing 'Welcome, Chris! Wish you'd post more. Therese Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 9, 2003 Report Share Posted May 9, 2003 Jesse: I enjoyed your most recent post received 7?53 am CDT /// chris wing in austin tx Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 9, 2003 Report Share Posted May 9, 2003 , " Ed Kohout " <crumpo@e...> wrote: > For a true fixed star referent, one should use the galactic grid. > Besides, as I have said many times, NASA uses Right Ascension to plot > the stars, and this is a TROPICAL measurement. Why have they not > taken your advice?? If NASA (and astronomers in general) were to use a sidereal system to measure star positions, they would have to choose some object to be a fiducial--which would have to be defined as having zero proper motion relative to the fiducial (ie itself). All other stars would also have their proper motion defined against this one star, instead of against more local stars to it in the sky, etc. For measuring star positions, we need a reference point that is not one of the stars itself--and while it is imperfect, using Earth's vernal equinox point as a fiducial does allow for correct comparison of the proper motion of stars. > Then you have to avoid using ascendants and midheavens, becuase > they are determined by the other spheres. I'm curious why you seem to think the spheres can't interact. It has been said that radial motion in space defines astrology. Here on Earth we're part of a couple major systems of radial motion: our own planet rotating about its axis (equatorial motion, aka right ascension/declination), and our planet revolving around the Sun in the plane of our solar system (ecliptic motion). The cardinal angles are by definition the points where these two spheres intersect: look due south, find the ecliptic, and measure its longitude and you have determined the midheaven; look due east, find the ecliptic, and measure its longitude and you have found the ascendant. The planets all move along the ecliptic plane, and the zodiacal signs seem from our experience to be ecliptically-derived. Since, as mentioned above, the angles are where the ecliptic plane of the signs and planets intersects with Earth's own plane of rotation, is it any surprise that whatever influences the planets possess are most powerful at or near those points? Jesse Milligan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 10, 2003 Report Share Posted May 10, 2003 , " Zorak " <apocalocust> wrote: > , " Ed Kohout " <crumpo@e...> wrote: > > For a true fixed star referent, one should use the galactic grid. > > Besides, as I have said many times, NASA uses Right Ascension to plot > > the stars, and this is a TROPICAL measurement. Why have they not > > taken your advice?? > > If NASA (and astronomers in general) were to use a sidereal system to measure star positions, they would have to choose some object to be a fiducial--which would have to be defined as having zero proper motion relative to the fiducial (ie itself). All other stars would also have their proper motion defined against this one star, instead of against more local stars to it in the sky, etc. For measuring star positions, we need a reference point that is not one of the stars itself--and while it is imperfect, using Earth's vernal equinox point as a fiducial does allow for correct comparison of the proper motion of stars. Basically, yes. > > Then you have to avoid using ascendants and midheavens, becuase > > they are determined by the other spheres. > > I'm curious why you seem to think the spheres can't interact. I DO think that the spheres interact. My point is that the " siderealist " ignores this fact. It has been said that radial motion in space defines astrology. Here on Earth we're part of a couple major systems of radial motion: our own planet rotating about its axis (equatorial motion, aka right ascension/declination), and our planet revolving around the Sun in the plane of our solar system (ecliptic motion). The cardinal angles are by definition the points where these two spheres intersect: look due south, find the ecliptic, and measure its longitude and you have determined the midheaven; look due east, find the ecliptic, and measure its longitude and you have found the ascendant. > > The planets all move along the ecliptic plane, and the zodiacal signs seem from our experience to be ecliptically-derived. Since, as mentioned above, the angles are where the ecliptic plane of the signs and planets intersects with Earth's own plane of rotation, is it any surprise that whatever influences the planets possess are most powerful at or near those points? No, it is not a surprise. Thank you for your excellent post!! - E > > > Jesse Milligan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 12, 2003 Report Share Posted May 12, 2003 The proof that Pluto is in Sagittarius is that the pederasty of the priests has been found out. R. " How can Pluto be in Sagittarius when it's so close to Antares? " ----- > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 13, 2003 Report Share Posted May 13, 2003 At 11:33 PM 5/11/03 -0700, Richard wrote: >The proof that Pluto is in Sagittarius is that the pederasty of the priests >has been found out. Sagittarius doesn't rule sex, Scorpio does. Sag rules the thighs, the support of the body and of society. Look for major changes in government and religion when Pluto transits sidereal Sagittarius. MAJOR changes. We've been seeing not only sex scandals among the clergy, but also among the politicians and other of the famed. Who can forget poor besieged President Clinton? There has been a tremendous amount of news coverage and more acceptance of homosexuality and bi-sexuality, at least in western countries. And sex is everywhere in the media. You can't even buy a wrench for your workshop without it being advertised by a half-clad beauty. Or a hunky male. Take your pick. The cult of the body beautiful and everything that promises. Violence: (Scorpio and Mars as well). In past decades how often did you hear of children shooting up a school yard or kids killing their parents? The wars go on too, tribes killing tribes. One religious group going after another. Mars. And look at the money scandals, Enron, etc. Providing that the signs mean anything. Also DNA research and discoveries. Scorpio represents the basic building blocks, the seeds of life, as represented by the part of the body it's supposed to rule. There is so much happening at the basic cellular level in science today. Maybe Scorpio doesn't have anything to do with money. That doesn't make much sense, does it? Maybe it was Saturn's transit through sidereal Taurus? It's interesting research, the transit of slow moving planets through the supposed signs of the zodiac. Therese Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 13, 2003 Report Share Posted May 13, 2003 In a message dated 5/13/2003 11:20:56 AM Central Daylight Time, eastwest writes: > At 11:33 PM 5/11/03 -0700, Richard wrote: > > >The proof that Pluto is in Sagittarius is that the pederasty of the > priests > >has been found out. > > Sagittarius doesn't rule sex i think richard's observation has more to do with Sagi being the seat of so much piety. // wing Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 15, 2003 Report Share Posted May 15, 2003 Therese, Our cp wing has got it right--Sag as the piety of the Church. Pluto arrived in the middle of that sign to bring the whole thing to a head...a big head. And you have got it right--that Sag rules the thighs. Especially the young little ones, between which these robed bugger rogues like to poke their penis. Meanwhile in the ***stars*** of Scorpio... --- You really must go bi ~ zodi : : It hurts so good! R. Therese Hamilton wrote: > At 11:33 PM 5/11/03 -0700, Richard wrote: > > >The proof that Pluto is in Sagittarius is that the pederasty of the priests > >has been found out. > > Sagittarius doesn't rule sex, Scorpio does. Sag rules the thighs, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 17, 2003 Report Share Posted May 17, 2003 At 12:08 PM 5/15/03 -0700, Richard wrote: >Our cp wing has got it right--Sag as the piety of the Church. Pluto arrived in >the middle of that sign to bring the whole thing to a head...a big head. Chris was talking about sidereal Sag. I shall stick to my guns. There IS no Tropical Sagittarius! >You really must go bi ~ zodi : : It hurts so good! Sure it does, if you like a large dose of mental confusion! Therese Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 17, 2003 Report Share Posted May 17, 2003 , Richard <erichardg@e...> wrote: > > Therese, > > Our cp wing has got it right--Sag as the piety of the Church. Pluto arrived in > the middle of that sign to bring the whole thing to a head...a big head. And here I thought that big heads were ruled by Leo! > And you have got it right--that Sag rules the thighs. Especially the young > little ones, between which these robed bugger rogues like to poke their penis. > Meanwhile in the ***stars*** of Scorpio... You surely mean Ophiuchus!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > --- > You really must go bi ~ zodi : : It hurts so good! By an bi, I agree! - Ed K Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.