Zodiac Sign Boundaries

[Guest guest]

, Therese Hamilton <eastwest@s...>

wrote:

> >>The positions of the cardinal ingress points has been demonstrated

> scientifically for all to see (although I'll be the first to admit that the

> research hasn't been terribly extensive);

>

> This is an important point because research has become much more stringent

> since Bradley's time. It all needs to be done over again to be convincing.

 

How exactly has statistics changed in the past 60 years? Remember Bradley's

study wasn't of the experimental variety so fraught with problems; it was pure

statistical analysis. And remember that independent statisticians reviewed

Bradley's analysis process and found no problems.

 

> >>and Bradley's fairly extensive research on weather and natural disasters

> would seem to be pretty convincing for demonstrating the position of the

> zodiac's cardinal points...

>

> I'd say, not really, especially in view of today's dramatic weather shifts

> and conditions. Again, you'd have to start all over again to produce

> anything convincing. I asked on this list, but neither you nor anyone else

> pointed me to Bradley's original work. We need to test zodiacs (sidereal

> ingresses and the Tropical cardinal ingresses) in terms of modern day

> research.

 

What dramatic weather shifts and conditions? Global warming has been very

minor. El Nino and La Nina happened a century ago too and their effects would

have been included in Bradley's weather data. Also, climate changes wouldn't

affect things like earthquakes and volcanic eruptions anyway.

 

> >> In an

> >> earlier post Ken Bowser cited Epping, Strassmaier, Kugler and

> >> Schaumberger's work as the references for this claim. But their work was

> >> published around the turn of the 20th century!!

> >

> >'Old' does not necessarily mean outdated or inaccurate.

>

> Of course it means 'outdated' if newer research negates the older research!!

 

You haven't shown anything that does.

 

> >Nowadays, through the use of mathematics and physics, we have the

> technology to be much more precise about the location of everything, and we

> should rely on that instead of ancient approximations.

>

> Yes, we have a great opportunity for zodiac research, but no one is doing it.

 

Instead of complaining that nobody is doing it, why don't you get to work and

start doing it yourself? That's been my basic point throughout this whole

conversation: if you're so skeptical of Donald Bradley's work, then try to

disprove (or verify) it. Nobody wins if all we get is complaints about how

such-and-such research was done 40 years ago, etc.

 

> >Any interesting information you have is certainly welcomed by me, Therese.

> Can you point me to the post you reference here?

>

> The posts were on this list, but unfortunately I printed them out without

> the dates. Sometime in April, I think. If you can't find them, I'll try to

> find them and re-post them. Please let me know. I did not post the entire

> star list from AS.

 

I looked through your posts from this April and didn't see anything of that

sort.

 

> >>I don't think the comparison here is fair. I don't see anybody blindly

> accepting what they hear--far from it, most people are here because they

> questioned what they thought was true. I also don't see anyone appealing

> to authority; just to the fact that the zodiac as Fagan and Bradley have

> defined it is highly effective in practice, is verified at least at a

> rudimentary level by statistical studies--and that no other zodiac matches

> those two criteria.

>

> " No other zodiac matches these two criteria? " I'm not clear on what you

> mean, because other modern zodiacs would have been verified by the same

> statistical studies (planets in relation to the angles), and the modern

> sidereal zodiacs are all highly effective in practice.

 

I was referring to the Capricorn/Cancer solar/lunar ingress charts and their

correlation with unusually-heavy rainfall, tornadoes, earthquakes, floods, etc.

The difference between the Fagan-Allen and Lahiri ayanamsas is 53 arcminutes.

That's about 22 hours' worth of solar motion--which means the moon position

would be about 15 degrees separated and the angles would be very different.

 

> >>--but in my experience it does work and describe things better than

> other zodiacs,

>

> Better than what other zodiacs?? There is only the Tropical and another

> very close to Fagan-Bradley zodiac (Lahiri/Krishnamurti), which would give

> exactly the same results as F/B.

 

See above about ingress timing. Also, the flavoring the signs give to the

planets (and especially the luminaries) would be different. Highly different

in the case of tropical vs. sidereal, but also between Fagan-Bradley and

Lahiri.

 

> > " Getting back to basics " may in fact be a good idea, but it may also be a

> waste of time. If you have any reason to suspect that our

> currently-accepted zodiacal positioning is wrong, please tell us.

>

> Jesse, I didn't say anything was " wrong! " I only pointed out that modern

> research seems to say that Babylonian zodiacal boundaries were somewhat

> fuzzy and not as fixed as modern siderealists believe.

 

Who believes that ancient Babylonians knew precisely where everything was in

the sky? I sure never assumed that. Also, what reason is there to *care* that

they didn't know the exact starting point of the zodiac to the arcsecond? Like

I tried to explain in my last post, finding and measuring the ecliptic visually

is nigh-impossible work; it's understandable that people would come up with

different answers since they didn't have very precise tools.

 

> I already posted the

> data on that topic from MA. The zodiac boundary question rages on and on in

> India, no where near to being settled.

 

Yes, they keep quoting differing holy books instead of doing research on the

question or looking at past research.

 

 

Jesse M.

[Guest guest]

At 09:03 AM 5/24/03 -0000, Jesse M. wrote:

 

>How exactly has statistics changed in the past 60 years? Remember

Bradley's study wasn't of the experimental variety so fraught with

problems; it was pure statistical analysis. And remember that independent

statisticians reviewed Bradley's analysis process and found no problems.

 

Jesse, did you read the article that Jack posted? (The letter from Ken

Irving) That says it all, the problems with Bradley's research and how it

can be questioned by professionals. That is a very interesting article!

Every siderealist should have a copy.

 

>What dramatic weather shifts and conditions?

 

Are you serious?? Do you read the daily newspaper?? The weather is weird

almost everywhere in the world, with much more severe flooding or draught

or whatever. It's all been in the news over and over again. Broken records

everywhere.

 

>> Of course it means 'outdated' if newer research negates the older

research!!

>

>You haven't shown anything that does.

 

Yes, I posted data from MESOPOTAMIAN ASTROLOGY. I will be happy to post it

again.

 

>> Yes, we have a great opportunity for zodiac research, but no one is

doing it.

>

>Instead of complaining that nobody is doing it, why don't you get to work

and start doing it yourself?

 

Good idea! I shall try to get to work. But as I said, good reserach is a

group effort. Who on this list would like to contribute to some really good

research? Also we need a professional who knows statistics.

 

>I looked through your posts from this April and didn't see anything of

that sort.

 

I will post them in the next day or so.

 

>I was referring to the Capricorn/Cancer solar/lunar ingress charts and

their correlation with unusually-heavy rainfall, tornadoes, earthquakes,

floods, etc. The difference between the Fagan-Allen and Lahiri ayanamsas

is 53 arcminutes. That's about 22 hours' worth of solar motion--which

means the moon position would be about 15 degrees separated and the angles

would be very different.

 

Yes, and who has compared the two??

 

>Yes, they keep quoting differing holy books instead of doing research on

the question or looking at past research.

 

You know what, Jesse? I don't like arguing with you. You don't sound like a

nice person at all, and you're not all that logical, though you think you

are. Arguing or discussing with Ed Kohout is a lot more fun!!

 

I will repost the data from MEOPOTAMIAN ASTROLOGY and also a new post on

the Aldebaran/Antares axis and calendars and lunar mansions. My apologies

to list members for repeating posts. And sorry I have my personal

complaints with Jesse here. That is going off track and not staying

strictly with astrological concepts.

 

Therese

[Guest guest]

, Therese Hamilton <eastwest@s...>

wrote:

> >How exactly has statistics changed in the past 60 years? Remember

> Bradley's study wasn't of the experimental variety so fraught with

> problems; it was pure statistical analysis. And remember that independent

> statisticians reviewed Bradley's analysis process and found no problems.

>

> Jesse, did you read the article that Jack posted? (The letter from Ken

> Irving) That says it all, the problems with Bradley's research and how it

> can be questioned by professionals. That is a very interesting article!

> Every siderealist should have a copy.

 

I did. I have now read it three times. Have you read it very closely? The

criticisms mentioned are:

 

* Bradley did his research assuming that cardinal ingresses 'work' in the first

place. Hardly unreasonable for an astrologer. Also, he stated that he tried

his data points with the tropical zodiac and a couple other configurations, and

came up with no meaningful results.

* His later work involving correlation between groups of people (professional

groups, alcoholics, etc.) and astrological signs was spotty.

* In an astrological setting, he didn't have the benefit of peer review, but

rather an audience impressed by graphs.

* Bradley was self-taught in mathematics.

 

Each one a crushing blow to the integrity of his ayanamsa-rectifying work, I'm

sure.

 

 

> >> Of course it means 'outdated' if newer research negates the older

> research!!

> >

> >You haven't shown anything that does.

>

> Yes, I posted data from MESOPOTAMIAN ASTROLOGY. I will be happy to post it

> again.

 

Thank you. The argument here, however, is whether there is serious reason to

believe the Fagan-Bradley ayanamsa to be incorrect. Ancient star position

measurements are interesting, but not really relevant to what works -now-.

 

 

> >I was referring to the Capricorn/Cancer solar/lunar ingress charts and

> their correlation with unusually-heavy rainfall, tornadoes, earthquakes,

> floods, etc. The difference between the Fagan-Allen and Lahiri ayanamsas

> is 53 arcminutes. That's about 22 hours' worth of solar motion--which

> means the moon position would be about 15 degrees separated and the angles

> would be very different.

>

> Yes, and who has compared the two??

 

Bradley! He didn't do a direct comparison, but as has been pointed out several

times, solar and lunar ingresses at any but the correct time produce

unmeaningful results and no correlation with events.

 

 

> >Yes, they keep quoting differing holy books instead of doing research on

> the question or looking at past research.

>

> You know what, Jesse? I don't like arguing with you. You don't sound like a

> nice person at all, and you're not all that logical, though you think you

> are. Arguing or discussing with Ed Kohout is a lot more fun!!

 

I remind you that you have yet to point out a specific logical error to back up

your slur. Also, my apologies for not peppering my arguments with smileys or

whatever to " sound like a nice person " .

 

Now, I would have just said we're having a failure to communicate instead of

making personal attacks, but since you opened...

 

You seem to have a problem stating why you think what you do, or even what you

think. You're quite slippery; always implying, trying not to say anything

concrete so as not to be proven wrong. However, you're certainly good at

fomenting baseless doubt through your implications, and foiling any attempt to

reach common ground so that the conversation--and the list--can move forward.

 

It would be far more constructive for us all to actually discuss astrology,

using whatever ayanamsa we favor, than to post ancient star position

calculations and pretend that they show or cast doubt on anything. IF this

list ever reaches that point (which I doubt), you'll probably find me downright

pleasant.

 

The last word is yours; I will not continue this conversation.

 

 

Jesse

[Guest guest]

, Therese Hamilton

<eastwest@s...> wrote:

 

> >What dramatic weather shifts and conditions?

>

> Are you serious?? Do you read the daily newspaper?? The weather is

weird

> almost everywhere in the world, with much more severe flooding or

draught

> or whatever. It's all been in the news over and over again. Broken

records

> everywhere.

 

As a sidebar, there was an article posted recently about the Mayans

and their possible observace of the Sun's 208-year internal cycle of

brightness. This is believed to have caused droughts at times of

peak intensity, though I have no idea when that is.

 

 

>

> >> Of course it means 'outdated' if newer research negates the older

> research!!

> >

> >You haven't shown anything that does.

>

> Yes, I posted data from MESOPOTAMIAN ASTROLOGY. I will be happy to

post it

> again.

>

> >> Yes, we have a great opportunity for zodiac research, but no one

is

> doing it.

> >

> >Instead of complaining that nobody is doing it, why don't you get

to work

> and start doing it yourself?

>

> Good idea! I shall try to get to work. But as I said, good reserach

is a

> group effort. Who on this list would like to contribute to some

really good

> research? Also we need a professional who knows statistics.

 

 

Ahh, yes. There is complaining, and then there is complaining about

complaining. I don't know which is worse. Too bad we can't have

theoretical discussions about things on a without the " do

your own research " clause being invoked. As if we can all just drop

everything and do three years of research to justify some Internet

mail!

 

 

 

 

>

> >I looked through your posts from this April and didn't see

anything of

> that sort.

>

> I will post them in the next day or so.

>

> >I was referring to the Capricorn/Cancer solar/lunar ingress charts

and

> their correlation with unusually-heavy rainfall, tornadoes,

earthquakes,

> floods, etc. The difference between the Fagan-Allen and Lahiri

ayanamsas

> is 53 arcminutes. That's about 22 hours' worth of solar motion--

which

> means the moon position would be about 15 degrees separated and the

angles

> would be very different.

>

> Yes, and who has compared the two??

 

Weather patterns seem (to ne) to be the worst possible data set for

research.

 

 

 

>

> >Yes, they keep quoting differing holy books instead of doing

research on

> the question or looking at past research.

>

> You know what, Jesse? I don't like arguing with you. You don't

sound like a

> nice person at all, and you're not all that logical, though you

think you

> are. Arguing or discussing with Ed Kohout is a lot more fun!!

 

 

I'm flattered.

 

 

 

>

> I will repost the data from MEOPOTAMIAN ASTROLOGY and also a new

post on

> the Aldebaran/Antares axis and calendars and lunar mansions. My

apologies

> to list members for repeating posts. And sorry I have my personal

> complaints with Jesse here. That is going off track and not staying

> strictly with astrological concepts.

 

Complaints, complaints, complaints.

 

hehe

 

- Ed

 

 

>

> Therese