Guest guest Posted January 22, 2005 Report Share Posted January 22, 2005 Hello everyone, > Steven Stuckey wrote: > >Cheney: " So help me God " / " Congratulations " --11:50:10 EST > >Bush: " So help me God " /Congratulations " --11:56:53 EST " j c " wrote: > cheney 11:53:13 am est was dc > bush 11:56:54 am esr was dc Member of another french list, one of them, Marie-Christine Sclifet (a jyotish practioner and teacher) wrote there: «So, the vice president Dick Cheney began is his prestation of oath at 11h49'34 " and finished it at 11h50'14 " ». «GW Bush, for him, began his prestation of oath at 11h56'30 " (16h56'30 " GMT) and finished it at 11h56'55 " ». Bush's time is then correct. However, how can we explain this difference with Cheney's time? May we have a typo? Also, which time, on an astrological level, is the most important; and what does the time of oath mean for mundane astrology? -- Best regards - François Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 22, 2005 Report Share Posted January 22, 2005 Jyestha wrote: > > Bush's time is then correct. However, how can we explain this > difference > with Cheney's time? May we have a typo? Also, which time, on an > astrological > level, is the most important; and what does the time of oath mean for > mundane astrology? Hi Francois, I have seen two additional astrologers record of Cheney's time as 11:50 and 11:50:11. The national anthem was sung just after his oath was administered and would have taken at least several minutes to complete before Bush took the oath. It makes sense that Cheney finished the oath at 11:50 rather than 11:53. In my own recording of this, I had no distractions and noted the time from an atomic clock that links to satellite. I only recorded the seconds to be as accurate as possible in this, but am personally quite happy with the times rounded off to minutes. The Presidents oath time is usually taken as a natus for the next four years in office. Cheney's time would only be important (IMO) in case Bush failed to complete his term of office and Cheney stepped in. Best, Steve Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 25, 2005 Report Share Posted January 25, 2005 Steve One of the interesting features of the oath chart being a little early is that Venus now makes the closest angle to the Ascendant rather than Neptune. This drains off some of the maleficence from the chart. Neptune is still very close to squaring it from the 10th but now Venus is trining it from the 9th. Maybe love will find a way into this administration after all! Chris --- Steven Stuckey <shastrakara wrote: > > > Jyestha wrote: > > > > > Bush's time is then correct. However, how can we explain this > > difference > > with Cheney's time? May we have a typo? Also, which time, on an > > astrological > > level, is the most important; and what does the time of oath mean for > > mundane astrology? > > Hi Francois, > > I have seen two additional astrologers record of Cheney's time as 11:50 > and 11:50:11. > The national anthem was sung just after his oath was administered and > would have taken at least several minutes to complete before Bush took > the oath. It makes sense that Cheney finished the oath at 11:50 rather > than 11:53. > In my own recording of this, I had no distractions and noted the time > from an atomic clock that links to satellite. I only recorded the > seconds to be as accurate as possible in this, but am personally quite > happy with the times rounded off to minutes. > The Presidents oath time is usually taken as a natus for the next four > years in office. > Cheney's time would only be important (IMO) in case Bush failed to > complete his term of office and Cheney stepped in. > > Best, > > Steve > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 28, 2005 Report Share Posted January 28, 2005 Dear Chris I think you and I have been sipping the same punch lately: smiles That Venus also governs Taurus and there is that sweet exalted Moon in Rohini no less. Do you read the Moon as the People in this chart as you would in the chart of a nation? I was looking at it and wonder if it means that the people will be more resptecful of him than originally it appears. Or, if the Moon is the perceptions, perhaps it means that the administration believes there is more money flowing in the land than there is. I don't know and am just musing. That Venus certainly offers some grace and hopefully peace. c -- In , Christopher Kevill <ckevill> wrote: > Steve > > One of the interesting features of the oath chart being a little early is > that Venus now makes the closest angle to the Ascendant rather than > Neptune. This drains off some of the maleficence from the chart. Neptune > is still very close to squaring it from the 10th but now Venus is trining > it from the 9th. > > Maybe love will find a way into this administration after all! > > Chris > > > --- Steven Stuckey <shastrakara@s...> wrote: > > > > > > > Jyestha wrote: > > > > > > > > Bush's time is then correct. However, how can we explain this > > > difference > > > with Cheney's time? May we have a typo? Also, which time, on an > > > astrological > > > level, is the most important; and what does the time of oath mean for > > > mundane astrology? > > > > Hi Francois, > > > > I have seen two additional astrologers record of Cheney's time as 11:50 > > and 11:50:11. > > The national anthem was sung just after his oath was administered and > > would have taken at least several minutes to complete before Bush took > > the oath. It makes sense that Cheney finished the oath at 11:50 rather > > than 11:53. > > In my own recording of this, I had no distractions and noted the time > > from an atomic clock that links to satellite. I only recorded the > > seconds to be as accurate as possible in this, but am personally quite > > happy with the times rounded off to minutes. > > The Presidents oath time is usually taken as a natus for the next four > > years in office. > > Cheney's time would only be important (IMO) in case Bush failed to > > complete his term of office and Cheney stepped in. > > > > Best, > > > > Steve > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 28, 2005 Report Share Posted January 28, 2005 Dear Cynthia, Yes, I would interpret the Moon as the people and hence of popularity. Perhaps the Venus strength in the 9th means better relations with other countries (I can see Jacques Chirac dancing with Laura Bush now) and an improvement of the US image abroad. Chris --- cynthia novak <cynthianovak wrote: > > Dear Chris > > I think you and I have been sipping the same punch lately: smiles > > That Venus also governs Taurus and there is that sweet exalted Moon > in Rohini no less. > > Do you read the Moon as the People in this chart as you would in the > chart of a nation? I was looking at it and wonder if it means that > the people will be more resptecful of him than originally it appears. > > Or, if the Moon is the perceptions, perhaps it means that the > administration believes there is more money flowing in the land than > there is. I don't know and am just musing. That Venus certainly > offers some grace and hopefully peace. > > c > -- In , Christopher Kevill > <ckevill> wrote: > > Steve > > > > One of the interesting features of the oath chart being a little > early is > > that Venus now makes the closest angle to the Ascendant rather than > > Neptune. This drains off some of the maleficence from the chart. > Neptune > > is still very close to squaring it from the 10th but now Venus is > trining > > it from the 9th. > > > > Maybe love will find a way into this administration after all! > > > > Chris > > > > > > --- Steven Stuckey <shastrakara@s...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Jyestha wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Bush's time is then correct. However, how can we explain this > > > > difference > > > > with Cheney's time? May we have a typo? Also, which time, on an > > > > astrological > > > > level, is the most important; and what does the time of oath > mean for > > > > mundane astrology? > > > > > > Hi Francois, > > > > > > I have seen two additional astrologers record of Cheney's time as > 11:50 > > > and 11:50:11. > > > The national anthem was sung just after his oath was administered > and > > > would have taken at least several minutes to complete before Bush > took > > > the oath. It makes sense that Cheney finished the oath at 11:50 > rather > > > than 11:53. > > > In my own recording of this, I had no distractions and noted the > time > > > from an atomic clock that links to satellite. I only recorded the > > > seconds to be as accurate as possible in this, but am personally > quite > > > happy with the times rounded off to minutes. > > > The Presidents oath time is usually taken as a natus for the next > four > > > years in office. > > > Cheney's time would only be important (IMO) in case Bush failed to > > > complete his term of office and Cheney stepped in. > > > > > > Best, > > > > > > Steve > > > > > > > > > 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.