Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum

JimK

Born in a cusp.

Sorry for the "second Leo", of course it should be Libra between Virgo and Scorpio.

ken_j wrote:Born in a cusp.

Interesting that you would say that. In the 'real' world of astrology, there are no cusps because the sun was in one sign or the other, not between. Cusps are actually the range of transit dates possible, but an accurate chart based on actual date, time, and place of birth will fix the sun in a particular sign.

BTW, I have a Grand Trine in my chart, supposedly very rare ... plus IIRC I have two other planets in Pisces, making me sort-of a "hyper-Pisces" ...

Sounds fishy to me...

I'm a dragon... too bad I can't find that picture of the end of a road with a stop sign at the exact end!

doctorwho wrote: ... In the 'real' world of astrology, there are no cusps because the sun was in one sign or the other, not between. Cusps are actually the range of transit dates possible, but an accurate chart based on actual date, time, and place of birth will fix the sun in a particular sign.

Link to an accurate chart?

A link would be cool, I'm between Virgo and Libra.

All I can say is there may be some truth to it all… I mean for each and every one of us the stars and planets are at a unique position at the time of our births, probably never to be seen again. But what amuses me is that supposedly similar mathematical data is used to come up with the ‘scopes; and yet two different astrologers can come up with some very different things. My attitude has always been – pick the one you like the best and go with that.

doctorwho wrote:In the 'real' world of astrology...

I like giving astrology buffs the wrong sign, letting them tell me the whole "oh of course, that fits you because of X and Y, and..." then telling them the right one.

- Scott

ram wrote:All I can say is there may be some truth to it all… I mean for each and every one of us the stars and planets are at a unique position at the time of our births, probably never to be seen again. But what amuses me is that supposedly similar mathematical data is used to come up with the ‘scopes; and yet two different astrologers can come up with some very different things. My attitude has always been – pick the one you like the best and go with that.

I didn't intend for this thread to be more than a poll... but so it goes!.

There are actually scientifically provable correlations between some traits and planetary ascpects (planet in a specific house). I won't go into too much detail here, but there was a French astronomer by the name of Michael Gauquelin (if I remember the name correctly) who, as a member of the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims Of the Paranormal (CSICOP), an international organization of "scientific" debunkers, was assigned the task of debunking astrology by choosing a trait (IIRC, it was sports/athleticism or something to do with sports) which supposedly was associated with a planetary aspect (IIRC, Mars was involved, as this was called "the Mars effect" in the original article I read it in) and showing by statistics that the correlation was no better than chance. Michael picked a representative sample of people, both sports-oriented and the general population, with sufficient numbers to have the statistics be valid. He cast the charts of the people in the samples (having learned how to do this correctly) and then checked the trait against the aspect. To his total surprise, there was a statistically significant positive correlation between the trait and the aspect, far greater than just random. Thinking he inadvertently skewed the sample in favor of athletes, he did another random sample, making sure it was general population and not athletes, and cast those people's charts. Again, same result, positive correlation!

Michael reported his findings, and the powers-that-be in CSICOP were appalled. They had someone else repeat the work, and this researcher found the same correlation (!), to their dismay. Things then got ugly. Rather than publish the truth (something positive about something paranormal), the powers-that-be first doctored the statistics by removing all of the athletes (no longer a random sample, scientifically and morally WRONG), and reworked the data until they got what they wanted to show, no correlation. They prepared to publish that version (these are supposed to be highly respected scientists and the like ...) , but somebody in the rank-and-file of CSICOP blew the whistle on that scheme, and CSICOP wound up with major egg on its face. Unfortunately, CSICOP chose to crucify Michael (who did nothing but perform valid scientific research and report the actual results), and his funding dried up through the coercion of CSICOP on the various grant agencies, and CSICOP exerted pressure on any academic institution or business venture not to hire him. The whole matter weighed too heavily on Michael, and it took its ultimate toil when he committed suicide.

My own personal view is more akin to a Taoist (and a quantum physicist) view: there can exist connections between things that cannot be seen. I will not say that there are none simply because I don't see them.

Hmm, The Astrological Implications of Quantum Entanglement...
Sounds like something that needs one of those government research grants...

cheyenne wrote:What no love for Libra's?

Exactly what I was thinking!

Yeah, well, I'm a Libra, too, who is a skeptic on this subject.

Except...about 20 years ago I dated Teresa, born in London, 4/17/XX at 5 am. She was fun, attractive, quirky and, I thought, unique. We were together about a year, and both moved on.

Five years later, I met my wife, Dalia, who it turned out was born 4/17/XX (same year as Teresa), at 5 am, several thousand miles from London, (in Brasil).

Although the two look nothing alike, they could have been separated at birth.