posted September 28, 2016 10:07 PM            

http://www.linda-goodman.com/ubb/Forum24/HTML/236308.html

http://www.linda-goodman.com/ubb/Forum24/HTML/236328.html

As for the thing, it's not new; it's been out for a year (actually it's been out for a lot longer than that) and it's a load of crap because NASA is dipping into a subject they have no real knowledge about. Tropical/Western astrology isn't based on the constellations; it's based on the seasons and equinoxes and explains the 23 degree shift between the tropical and sidereal astrological systems.

If NASA was actually going to do more research on the subject, I wouldn't be as disappointed with them as I am right now.

posted September 28, 2016 11:10 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Electro DGX:
....and it's a load of crap because NASA is dipping into a subject they have no real knowledge about. Tropical/Western astrology isn't based on the constellations; it's based on the seasons and equinoxes and explains the 23 degree shift between the tropical and sidereal astrological systems.

If NASA was actually going to do more research on the subject, I wouldn't be as disappointed with them as I am right now.

---

posted September 29, 2016 01:35 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by DopGang:
If constellations made the signs then it would be quite coincidental that they all ended up 30 degrees exactly.

---

posted September 29, 2016 02:25 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ceridwen:
You know what`s really strange and funny to me?
The first time I read the thread title I actually was reading: "So we are no longer our Original Sin?"

Nope, we ainīt.

---

Ahahaha. Aquarius, that's my sin. Too much aloofment

posted September 29, 2016 02:58 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Randall:
I'm surprised these idiots actually put a rover on Mars. Or did they?

---

posted September 29, 2016 05:14 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by soren:
a lot can be gained from this. the constellations are no where near being exactly beside each other, exactly 30 degrees long each. yet that is what people 2000 years ago considered them as as we can see that from the dates that they believed a sign began in. I think they themselves must have known it wasn't the exact constelation.

---

Here's what I'm thinking and I fully admit. I'm far from expert so it's important to keep that in mind. (That I'm not claiming to be, not that anyone would believe it. )

Our solar system is moving through space very rapidly. So are other stars. But it's like when you're driving down the road and see a tree in the distance. It seems to take a lot longer to pass by than the grass at the side of the road.

Anyway, point is, on a chart, very very slowly many of us know (including you I'm quite sure) that the fixed stars will move on the chart.
There are certain prominent stars located near the ends of signs. Such as Taurus, Gemini, Leo, I think Virgo and probably others.
My uneducated theory is that they (those that conceived astrology) used those points as reference to mark off where a sign ended and where another began. Here's where it trails off into Vedic vs Tropical.
I'm sure that many of us who know some things about Astrology are aware of this.
We call them "Fixed" points, but they're not really fixed, they move. That's where I personally think the big difference is between the two systems. One has adjusted for that movement and one has not which in my opinion has left it to inaccuracy.

The important thing that I'm trying to convey here is that if my thinking is correct, the constellations were used as a tool to mark the sky in the same way that you might mark the wall to say, "Ok, a stud/brace is right here. So X-amount of inches over is another". Not that way EXACTLY, but I think that's what it was used for. Reference points.
There are many, many constellations out there and I think many are used simply as markers for location of beginnings/endings of signs, not to represent the signs themselves.
So Leo for example. They knew that each time they saw that constellation, there was Leo. Not that the constellation WAS Leo. It represented where Leo was in the sky.
I'm rambling, aren't I?
Sorry about that.

So this new constellation that they found. At most, it could be used as a marker to help with accuracy with where Sag is. Though with today's modern technology, we don't really need it. At least I don't think so.

I don't know. So often I say things and they're not clearly understood for one reason or another. (I struggle a lot to even find a way to get my thoughts out.)

posted September 29, 2016 05:26 PM            

"In 1995, Walter Berg introduced his 13-sign zodiac, which has the additional sign of Ophiuchus. Berg's system was well received in Japan after having his book translated by radio host Mizui Kumi (水井久美 in 1996."

So I havnt done much research but this is saying that the older generations didn't even use Ophiuchus. Just a recent thing.

Another one (more research): (from wiki)
"The idea appears to have originated in 1970 with Stephen Schmidt's suggestion of a 14-sign zodiac (also including Cetus as a sign). A 13-sign zodiac has been suggested by Walter Berg and by Mark Yazaki in 1995, a suggestion that achieved some popularity in Japan, where Ophiuchus is known as Hebitsukai-Za (へびつかい座?, "The Serpent Bearer")."

posted September 29, 2016 05:38 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by soren:
nah

---

posted September 29, 2016 05:48 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by DopGang:
So Leo for example. They knew that each time they saw that constellation, there was Leo. Not that the constellation WAS Leo. It represented where Leo was in the sky.

---

posted September 29, 2016 05:53 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by DopGang:

So this new constellation that they found. At most, it could be used as a marker to help with accuracy with where Sag is. Though with today's modern technology, we don't really need it. At least I don't think so.

---