|The "12 signs" Zodiac as a "magnetic belt" around the Earth|
I am quite fed up with the 13 signs “thing”, that is resurfacing every now and then on the media...I have been publishing articles over the last 25 years explaining why the zodiacal signs are 12 and why they cannot be 13 (or 14, 19, 27 or any other number, for that matter). I just realized though that all this explaining has been of little avail, because ever since the 13 signs controversy made again - for the umpteenth time - the greek front news, the “thing” resuscitated and frantically started chasing and nagging me! In the beginning I thought it would be better not to touch this issue, so that it eventually deflates and dies quietly - as in every previous case. But it seems that this time things are more serious, Astrology is receiving a -based largely on ignorance - "double whammy" hit and it is imperative for us Astrologers to intervene!
Fortunately or unfortunately, most of the people in my neighbourhood know that I am into Astrology...So, in the last few days I cannot get out of my house and go strolling or shopping without somebody coming over to me, confiding me his/her confusion over the “thing”. Yesterday I went to buy a magazine from my local kiosque, when the kiosque guy (Stavro) told me: “You know Mr. Thomas I am not a Leo anymore, I am actually a Cancer !”. “Stavro that's nonsense, you shouldn't pay attention to this stuff...” my answer was. “NASA ain't nonsense Mr. Thomas” Stavro emphatically told me. “Trust me it is in this case” I told him and I went away with the magazine in my hands but with a sensation of incompleteness in my head.
Stavro was like the 100th perplexed about his sign person that I met this week. NASA had told him that he is not anymore the sign he knew he was. I told him that that's nonsense. But ultimately, it was NASA's reliability against mine. And I am obviously loosing there big time...How on earth can I explain to an average person (with no astronomical background), in just a couple of minutes that NASA is wrong?
Apart from being an astrologer I am an amateur astronomer as well. I have several astronomy books in my bookshelves. And I have noticed that many of them are mentioning and even extensively elucidating the pivotal difference between a zodiacal sign and a constellation! Take for example the book “Astronomy” by James B. Keler (“Harpers Collins College” publisher - you may see its frontcover above). In page 52 of this book the author - who is a professor of astronomy - is stating:
It would be logical to assume that if we are provided with such a degree of clarification over the sign/ constellation distinction in some popular astronomy book then this would be common knowledge to all the astronomers, a sort of a freshman's syllabus to them. But apparently it is not! To our utter astonishment even the prestigious NASA astronomers seem to ignore the most obvious and fundamental distinction between a zodiacal sign and a constellation (a distinction that apart from its astrological signification has an inherent astronomical value as well)! And lo and behold the all mighty NASA is now proclaiming that "the signs have shifted" and that "a new “sign” (Ophiuchus, which in reality is a constellation) has to be added in the zodiac"! Thus, according to NASA the zodiacal signs should be 13 from now on and not 12! But we know very well that NASA is talking about constellations and not signs and thus what it is proclaiming is not true at all!
Think for a moment: how good an astronomer may be when s/he is not possessing even that elementary level of astronomical knowledge pertaining to his/her own freshman's syllabus? You see, it sounds absolutely preposterous for a prestigious astronomer not to be aware of the fundamental sign/constellation distinction! And ultimately, there is no doubt that when we come down to the 13th sign's controversy it is the astronomers the ones that have been utterly discredited, not the Astrologers!
Please dear astronomers try to be more scientific next time!
Thomas D. Gazis