Zodiac Sign Boundaries

[Guest guest]

At 10:20 AM 5/22/03 -0000, Jesse Milligan wrote:

 

Hello Jesse,

 

>>With regards to the lives of people, the things with the most power to

influence are the natus, progressions, and luminary returns--none of which

rely on any zodiac to be accurate. You could use the tropical zodiac if

you wanted; all you would have to do is correct for precession and progress

at the proper sidereal-day-per-sidereal-year rate.

 

Yes, of course this is true.

 

>>The signs of the zodiac are useful for only two things: the flavoring

that the signs give to planets contained within, and the timing of the

cardinal luminary ingresses,

 

Because the two most common modern sidereal zodiacs are so close together,

the ingesses really need to be tested in both. That is, if you want to make

a real case for one zodiac or the other. Also the tropical cardinal points

may have just as much significance (in the sidereal zodiac). I've just been

studying some Edgar Cayce readings on horoscopes of people he said were

born 'on the cusp.' The great majority of these were near the Tropical

cardinal ingress charts, but NOT other Tropical signs. Which means that

according to Cayce the cardinal points were important but not necessarily

the Tropical signs as such.

 

>>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.

 

>>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.

 

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'Old' does not necessarily mean outdated or inaccurate.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

 

>> This new work, ASTRAL SCIENCES IN MESOPOTAMIA in no way supports Fagan's

>> claim. Rather ASTRAL SCIENCES makes clear that the ancient Babylonian

>> zodiac was a rather hazy matter, at least within a degree or two.

>

>Not surprising. How would ancient Babylonians measure ecliptic longitude

with any accuracy?

 

Yes, that's the point of the research.

 

>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.

 

>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 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.

 

>Since I have not seen or replicated Donald Bradley's research, I tend to

regard it as more of a pointer than a proven fact

 

Yes, this would be true, a pointer only.

 

>>--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.

 

> " 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. 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.

 

Sincerely,

Therese