Answer to Mark Hochman July 11, 1988 On March 25, 1988 you wrote an article called +quot;S

---
Master Index Current Directory Index Go to SkepticTank Go to Human Rights activist Keith Henson Go to Scientology cult

Skeptic Tank!

Answer to Mark Hochman July 11, 1988 On March 25, 1988 you wrote an article called "SIDEREAL.TXT" and submitted it to the BBS Intervision among others (since there was no copyright notice attached I have included it on my BBS Astro-Net). The intent of this article was to propound the conviction that Sidereal astrology "works" and Tropical astrology doesn't. Everyone must be allowed to express their opinion. Still, you mentioned several opinions as FACT, without modifiers, insisting that they be taken as an "authoritarian's" wise, sage wisdom, to be swallowed by those who might wish to benefit by it. You said that Tropical Astrology was to blame for your inconsistent results, but you did not provide the reader examples of what constitutes satisfactory results and what does not. If it was simple "Sun Sign" astrology no argument made could be valid. But the opinion you expressed as fact, where I feel was not appropriate, was [to paraphrase] "few astrologers are aware of the 'problem' [my quotes], and those that do will not admit they made a mistake." You said that these astrologers had an interest to keep "the mistake" quiet and not tell their clients, least the client "know" all the tropical astrology bull shit that came before wasn't valid. You also expressed the opinion that few astrologers are even interested in astronomy. First, I haven't found any astrologers who are not aware of the Precision of the Equinox. Yet they use the Tropical Zodiac with good results at times and excellent results at others (the Guaquelin "Mars Effect" and "Plus Zones" were discovered using the Tropical Zodiac, which tends to invalidate the argument that they used the wrong Zodiac!). A great many astrologers are keenly interested in astronomy. Better tools allow them to perform better, and provide better service to their clients. One of the few times Astrologer and Astronomer "fought" side-by-side was against the light pollution that threatens to close Mt. Pallomar above San Diego-- the observatory got substantial support from those astrologers (as a group) who wish to keep the observatory open. The point is that many, many astrologers are interested in astronomy. Sidereal Astrology is great for PREDICTING gold and silver futures, which is pretty remarkable. The Tropical Zodiac can't come close in it's predictive ability. Still, you said that Sidereal astrology matches what's up in the sky, and tropical astrology doesn't. This isn't true. The constellations are not each 30 degrees wide. So using your logic Sidereal astrology, to be the ONLY valid Zodiac, should have overlapping signs, Scorpio being some 65 degrees, with a nice large gap between Pisces and Aquarius, etc. Since these are your rules, why does the Sidereal Zodiac still have 30 degrees to a sign? I am not saying, and cannot say, that Sidereal is not valid. Unlike you, however, I am saying that the Tropical and Sidereal Zodiacs are both valid. You blame the Tropical Zodiac for poor results while I would blame the astrologer. David Rice Astro-Net (1:103/503.0)

---

E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank