Answer to Mark Hochman July 11, 1988 On March 25, 1988 you wrote an article called +quot;S
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
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
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
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
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.
E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank