Mars

[Guest guest]

<<One could say that the " preliminary " operation is described by the

applicative conjunction of the Sun. The exact conjunction with the

U.S. " War " Mars will be tomorrow at about 15h GMT.>>

 

Here I meant " opposition " instead of conjunction.

 

Juan

[Guest guest]

Juan,

 

What are we going to do with you? So much time spent on charts that

are not only a historical footnote, but have nothing to do with

declaring war, and a " rectified " chart at that -- and one that

conveniently has the cardinal points on the angles.

 

Besides, if you do up the noon chart for the first-ever war

declaration by the President of the United States of America, which

is June 19, 1812, @ Washington DC, you will find:

 

ASC: 6*15' Virgo

Sol: 6*02' Gemini

Lun: 6*58' Libra

 

Compare to your:

 

Mars U.S. war resolution = 5,48 Virgo.

Neptune Pearl Harbor attack = 5,47 Virgo

Mars WTC attack 9/11/2001 = 6,41 Sagittarius

 

Also in the 1812 chart:

 

Mars: 17*29' Gemini

 

Bush's " go " order on March 19, 2003, 19:12 hrs Washington DC:

 

MC: 17*18' Gemini

 

Then, you most wisely state:

 

> (The Kingdon of Iraq, as used by Noel Tyl), we find:

>

> Pluto Iraqi nation = 15,58 Gemini

> Mars right now = 15,20 Sagittarius

 

Which also coincides with Gearge H. W. Bush signing Public Law 102-1,

on January 14, 1991 (again, noon)

 

Luna: 15*26' Saggit

Uranus: 15*56' Saggit

 

But, then you revert back to " Boyd " :

 

> Saddam came to power 17 July 1969, the " Baathist Coup " chart:

>

> Mars Baathist coup = 22,54 Gemini

> U.S. Boyd " War " Sun = 22,40 Gemini

> G.W. Bush Moon = 22,43 Virgo

 

which seems to suggest that Bush's nature is averse to war?

 

The point of peace, JU/VE, of " Boyd " is 26 Gem, and when Bush Sr.

signed PL 102-1, Pluto was trining this point @ 25*19' Libra. This

alone would seem to deflate the theory.

 

This whole obsession with the chart for an olive branch that Boyd has

misnamed a " war chart " and everyone else has followed is simply

getting out of hand, and not even the astrology stands up. There are

countless numbers of quality astrologers who have disproven Boyd time

and time again.

 

 

Best,

- Ed K

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

, jar@e... wrote:

> In the past (21 Oct 2002) I mentioned a very striking " coincidence "

> regarding the U.S. " War " (Boyd) Mars:

>

> Mars U.S. Boyd chart = 5,47 Virgo (sidereal, rising)

>

> and when president Bush signed the war resolution by Congress (Oct

16 2002,

> 11:32:11 a.m. EDT):

>

> Mars U.S. war resolution = 5,48 Virgo.

>

> (see my compilation in

> http://www.expreso.co.cr/centaurs/posts/mundane/iraq.html )

>

> In my " Notes on the U.S. Boyd 'War' Chart " in my site you will also

find:

>

> Neptune Pearl Harbor attack = 5,47 Virgo

>

> Note the orb in both cases. (There is also, within the 1-degree

orb: Mars

> WTC attack 9/11/2001 = 6,41 Sagittarius)

>

> Today, I note that at the time of the " beheading " attack aimed at

killing

> Saddam Hussein, officially called " preliminary " to the full-blown

invasion

> of Iraq (March 20 2003 02:30 a.m. GMT):

>

> Sun preliminary bombing = 4,17 Pisces

>

> As I am writing this, the terrestrial operation or invasion by land

from

> Kuwait is underway

>

> Sun full-blown invasion = 5,00 Pisces

>

> One could say that the " preliminary " operation is described by the

> applicative conjunction of the Sun. The exact conjunction with the

U.S.

> " War " Mars will be tomorrow at about 15h GMT.

>

> I note also that, if we forget about Saddam Hussein's regime and

> concentrate on the people of Iraq or Iraq as a nation (The Kingdon

of Iraq,

> as used by Noel Tyl), we find:

>

> Pluto Iraqi nation = 15,58 Gemini

> Mars right now = 15,20 Sagittarius

>

> [ref.: my compilation of posts on Ira above for the data.]

>

> Saddam came to power 17 July 1969, the " Baathist Coup " chart:

>

> Mars Baathist coup = 22,54 Gemini

> U.S. Boyd " War " Sun = 22,40 Gemini

> G.W. Bush Moon = 22,43 Virgo

>

> Juan

[Guest guest]

>What are we going to do with you? So much time spent on charts that are

>not only a historical footnote, but have nothing to do with declaring war,

 

To Ed and to Alfonso Osorio:

 

One clarification to Ed first: I have never said that it has to do with

" declaring war " , don't put words in my mouth. In my post I mentioned only

the zodiacal position of the Sun and of Mars, which are not affected

significantly by any rectification, so don't bring that argument here please.

 

As far as I am concerned, one has to be blind and deaf not to recognize the

significance of the " Declaration to Take Up Arms " , and one has to be a fool

to dismiss the work of so many brilliant astrologers. If you don't want to

see something, you will never see it even if it hits you in the face.

 

You can read in my site the arguments with which I dismiss the attacks

aimed at disqualifying its importance, so if you disagree with one or

several of them, please have the courtesy of being specific and keep the

patronizing and pontification to some other place where it is appreciated.

 

As expected, yesterday the transiting Sun (conjunct Mercury) glorified the

U.S. " war " Mars throughout the world thanks to the massive and extensive

coverage by the media. To me, this tends to confirm 1-) that this war

" incarnates " the national Mars, and 2-) that the Boyd chart is very

significant in cases of war.

 

(and no, Alfonso, no one is as foolish as to draw conclusions from 2 cases

alone. If you feel the need to criticize my methodology, please read at

least some of my " Notes on Methodology " in my site first).

 

For those who are interested, I want to point out 2 facts about the

" Declaration To Take Up Arms " :

 

The first fact is that the date of this event (July 6) is also the date of

birth of George W. Bush. The second fact is that, as is evident for anyone

who reads the text (I assume), there is a remarkable similarity between its

language and the language used by George W. Bush after the 9/11 event that

has been the absolute axis of his presidential image.

 

These 2 facts establish a strong affinity between G.W. Bush and the U.S.

Boyd chart.

 

The main part of the text with my commentaries can be found here at the url

I gave in my last message.

 

Juan

[Guest guest]

Hi Juan,

 

, jar@e... wrote:

 

> One clarification to Ed first: I have never said that it has to do

with

> " declaring war " , don't put words in my mouth.

 

How can you NOT? It is a " declaration " and has to do with war!

 

 

 

 

In my post I mentioned only

> the zodiacal position of the Sun and of Mars, which are not

affected

> significantly by any rectification, so don't bring that argument

here please.

 

So, there's not much to the whole thing other than some coincidences.

 

 

 

 

 

> As far as I am concerned, one has to be blind and deaf not to

recognize the

> significance of the " Declaration to Take Up Arms " , and one has to

be a fool

> to dismiss the work of so many brilliant astrologers.

 

Come on, Juan, you know darn well that there are far more top notch

astrologers who balk and roll their eyes when the name " Boyd " comes

up. I can count on my hands the number of astrologers who care to

mess with Boyd that are also knowledeable historians. The rest of

the Boyd adherents are clueless, but trusting. IMO, of course, which

means little around here!

 

 

 

 

> If you don't want to

> see something, you will never see it even if it hits you in the

face.

>

> You can read in my site the arguments with which I dismiss the

attacks

> aimed at disqualifying its importance, so if you disagree with one

or

> several of them, please have the courtesy of being specific and

keep the

> patronizing and pontification to some other place where it is

appreciated.

 

The first is your comparison the the Mexican document, which is again

apples and oranges. There are other arguments that are devastating,

but Alfonso and myself and others are weary of rehashing this

territory for the millionth time.

 

 

 

> As expected, yesterday the transiting Sun (conjunct Mercury)

glorified the

> U.S. " war " Mars throughout the world thanks to the massive and

extensive

> coverage by the media. To me, this tends to confirm 1-) that this

war

> " incarnates " the national Mars, and 2-) that the Boyd chart is very

> significant in cases of war.

 

Point 2 is perhaps the most viable, but most that claim this never

try to disprove their own arguments, and just see what they want to

see. We can find connexions with any chart. My friend from

childhood has Mars at 29* Pisces. Maybe I should use his chart to

predict the war?

 

 

 

 

 

> (and no, Alfonso, no one is as foolish as to draw conclusions from

2 cases

> alone. If you feel the need to criticize my methodology, please

read at

> least some of my " Notes on Methodology " in my site first).

>

> For those who are interested, I want to point out 2 facts about the

> " Declaration To Take Up Arms " :

>

> The first fact is that the date of this event (July 6) is also the

date of

> birth of George W. Bush.

 

This should be irrelevant to a siderealist who ignores precession!

Then again, Bush will go down in history as an abject failure much

like the Declaration of Causes and Necessities....

 

 

 

 

> The second fact is that, as is evident for anyone

> who reads the text (I assume), there is a remarkable similarity

between its

> language and the language used by George W. Bush after the 9/11

event that

> has been the absolute axis of his presidential image.

 

I did notice a similarity in that goofy speech he gave on TV, the

famous " 48 hrs " speech. Too bad Bush was lying, while the DC & N was

an honest attempt by a British loyalist to defuse hostilities.

Apples and Oranges as far as Bush's goals versus the goals of the

author of the DC & N.

 

I hope you will be answering my other comments as well. I only wish

we disagreed about more!!

 

Best regards,

Ed K

 

" Drop some love bombs! "

[Guest guest]

>How can you NOT? It is a " declaration " and has to do with war!

 

It has to do with war. It is not a declaration of war.

 

 

>So, there's not much to the whole thing other than some coincidences.

 

How much is " some " to you? And what in astrology is not " coincidence " ?

Astrology always works based on " coincidences " .

 

 

>Come on, Juan, you know darn well that there are far more top notch

>astrologers who balk and roll their eyes when the name " Boyd " comes up.

 

If I see that something is red, it is red to me, no matter how many " top

notch " (?) individuals say it is yellow.

 

 

>I can count on my hands the number of astrologers who care to mess with

>Boyd that are also knowledeable historians.

 

I wrote about the historical perspective in the material mentioned. Won't

deal with it again.

 

 

>The rest of the Boyd adherents are clueless, but trusting. IMO, of

>course, which means little around here!

 

To be part of the few and not of the majority... that's high honor, thanks!

 

 

>The first is your comparison the Mexican document, which is again apples

>and oranges.

 

I mention no Mexican document, Ed. I mention the use of a national chart

based on an event that is several years before the true independence, and

which, like the 1775 Declaration, is a cry of protest and a cry of war. So

I disagree with you that it's apples and oranges.

 

 

>There are other arguments that are devastating, but Alfonso and myself and

>others are weary of rehashing this

>territory for the millionth time.

 

So am I, Ed. I am tired of having to listen to disqualifications based on

the assumption that because you cannot see the significance of something,

then there is no significance at all. How silly. I have explained my

criteria of significance in the material referred to, and have explained

what I think is wrong with the rigidity represented by your way of

thinking. You disagree. Fine. We agree that we disagree.

 

 

>To me, this tends to confirm 1-) that this war " incarnates " the national

>Mars, and 2-) that the Boyd chart is very significant in cases of war.

>Point 2 is perhaps the most viable, but most that claim this never try to

>disprove their own arguments, and just see what they want to see.

 

Who doesn't? Do you really think that human beings don't " just see what

they want to see " ? Do you think scientists don't do this?

 

 

>We can find connexions with any chart. My friend from childhood has Mars

>at 29* Pisces. Maybe I should use his chart to predict the war?

 

Why not? And to pretend that the Boyd chart is just " any chart " without

meaning is too far away from reality, it is what I called being blind and deaf.

 

 

>The first fact is that the date of this event (July 6) is also the date of

>birth of George W. Bush.

>This should be irrelevant to a siderealist who ignores precession!

 

I am a siderealist and it is not irrelevant to me. How great it is that

others cannot dictate what should be relevant or irrelevant to others!

 

 

>Then again, Bush will go down in history as an abject failure

 

Now we agree on something. You are putting it mildly... so to keep it mild,

I would change " failure " for " figure " .

 

 

>I hope you will be answering my other comments as well.

 

I'm sorry I don't know what other comments you are referring to.

 

 

>I only wish we disagreed about more!!

 

I am sure we can find many more disagreements if we try hard.

 

 

> " Drop some love bombs! "

 

" Bomb yourself "

 

Juan

[Guest guest]

Hi again Juan,

 

, jar@e... wrote:

>

> >How can you NOT? It is a " declaration " and has to do with war!

>

> It has to do with war. It is not a declaration of war.

 

So, it is thus a document of rationale for war. Hardly a crucial

moment in history. You do realize it was written by a Crown loyalist

who escaped to Canada and never joined the Revolution, don't you?

 

 

 

> >So, there's not much to the whole thing other than some

coincidences.

>

> How much is " some " to you? And what in astrology is

not " coincidence " ?

> Astrology always works based on " coincidences " .

 

Well, here we're getting into arguments about how many angels can

dance on the head of a pin. And, Gaquelin is rolling in his grave.

 

How then, do you explain that the Treaty of Paris, signed on

September 3, 1783, can have Mars square to the " Boyd " sun?

 

 

 

> >Come on, Juan, you know darn well that there are far more top

notch

> >astrologers who balk and roll their eyes when the name " Boyd "

comes up.

>

> If I see that something is red, it is red to me, no matter how

many " top

> notch " (?) individuals say it is yellow.

 

Including red-herrings? By top notch I mean the likes of Campion,

Tyl, and others who know better.

 

 

 

 

> >I can count on my hands the number of astrologers who care to mess

with

> >Boyd that are also knowledeable historians.

>

> I wrote about the historical perspective in the material mentioned.

Won't

> deal with it again.

 

I don't expect you to. I know you have bigger fish to fry. But, for

once, I would love to see you and others put up some info on

a " control group " of other charts that have far more reasonable

arguments for the USA's warlike moments. I have offered two such

charts. One is the date that the Continental Congress declared

itself in a state of hostility -- May 15, 1775. The other is for the

first official Declaration of War by a President -- June 19, 1812.

There are others, but both of these are viable in terms of reason as

well as useful.

 

 

 

> To be part of the few and not of the majority... that's high honor,

thanks!

 

That's great in the Peace Movement, but not in peer review.

I see that the NCGR newsletter this month has a huge section on

this " Boyd " chart, which I have yet to read. Looks like you are back

in the majority, with the wookie wiccans from Oz.

 

 

 

 

 

> >The first is your comparison the Mexican document, which is again

apples

> >and oranges.

>

> I mention no Mexican document, Ed.

 

My mistake. I was thinking of this:

 

>>> COMMENT: These words have been used to make the preposterous

accusation that the advocates of the Boyd chart had not read this

document all through. I don't see the trouble. The significance of

this moment is similar to " The Cry of Dolores " chart of Mexico, which

is used effectively by Mexican astrologers as a national chart even

if the real independence came years later. <<<

 

Which you explain as:

 

 

> I mention the use of a national chart

> based on an event that is several years

> before the true independence, and

> which, like the 1775 Declaration,

> is a cry of protest and a cry of war. So

> I disagree with you that it's apples and oranges.

 

Do you know how many cries of protest/war happened in the years from

1761 through 1776? Why is the " Boyd " moment of choice the best one?

 

 

 

 

/////////

 

> I have explained my

> criteria of significance in the material referred to, and have

explained

> what I think is wrong with the rigidity represented by your way of

> thinking. You disagree. Fine. We agree that we disagree.

 

Touche.

 

 

 

> Who doesn't? Do you really think that human beings don't " just see

what

> they want to see " ? Do you think scientists don't do this?

 

Science has done its best to remove that pratfall of human nature

from good empricism and study.

 

 

 

>

>

> >We can find connexions with any chart. My friend from childhood

has Mars

> >at 29* Pisces. Maybe I should use his chart to predict the war?

>

> Why not?

 

Well, there's not much point in continuing with this, is there? I

don't get it, though, how you can be so persnickety about ephemerides

and epochs and sidereal measures on one hand, and then on the other

to throw caution to the wind with the faulty and illogical arguments

for " Boyd. "

 

 

 

 

 

> And to pretend that the Boyd chart is just " any chart " without

> meaning is too far away from reality, it is what I called being

blind and deaf.

 

I agree with that.

 

 

 

 

 

> >The first fact is that the date of this event (July 6) is also the

date of

> >birth of George W. Bush.

> >This should be irrelevant to a siderealist who ignores precession!

>

> I am a siderealist and it is not irrelevant to me. How great it is

that

> others cannot dictate what should be relevant or irrelevant to

others!

 

So, it's relevant becuase.....? Bush's date of birth is indeed 9

Metonic cycles from the Boyd chart, and thus why you have noticed

both moons in the same place. This could explain why we are seeing

so many coincidences.

 

 

 

 

> >Then again, Bush will go down in history as an abject failure

>

> Now we agree on something. You are putting it mildly... so to keep

it mild,

> I would change " failure " for " figure " .

 

What is an " abject figure " ?

 

 

 

 

> >I hope you will be answering my other comments as well.

>

> I'm sorry I don't know what other comments you are referring to.

 

The ones from a few posts ago. Seeing as " Boyd " is logically

unsound, it behooves us to try other charts to test our conclusions.

That is the kind of objectivity that Boyd lacked when she wrote her

book.

 

 

 

> > " Drop some love bombs! "

>

> " Bomb yourself "

 

lol, are you feeling frustrated? Or, do I have to drop some common

sense bombs on you?

 

 

------

[Guest guest]

>One is the date that the Continental Congress declared itself in a state

>of hostility -- May 15, 1775. The other is for the first official

>Declaration of War by a President -- June 19, 1812. There are others, but

>both of these are viable in terms of reason as well as useful.

 

Thank you for providing dates that seem more reasonable and useful to you.

 

You may define your criteria of what is reasonable, and work according to

it. I have defined mine, and they are available for anyone to read them. I

don't think your rationality and logic in dismissing the importance of the

Boyd chart is wrong; I just don't share it. But to pretend that others

must follow my criteria alone, and that yours is wrong, is neither

reasonable nor useful. I think it's wrong to try to disqualify the work of

others because they follow different criteria.

 

Which brings me to your question:

 

>What is an " abject figure " ?

 

by " figure " I meant international or historical figure, or personage

(someone of standing, as in Spanish). I also meant " figure " to suggest

" appearance " or " image " , your " stamp " .

 

Juan

[Guest guest]

Hello Sujit,

 

If it is on MEP, then yes to some extent. Such a Mars takes one to distant

places or foreign lands for searching successin one's professional ventures.

This is not a good placement for relationship.

 

Best wishes,

 

 

 

 

-

" Sujit " <sujit68

 

Thursday, November 09, 2006 10:00 AM

Mars

 

 

> Dear Professor & list,

>

> Does a functional benefic Mars ( lord of 2nd & 9th) in the 12th give

> protection against losses.

>

> Thank you

> Sujit

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Thank you Professor

 

Regards

Sujit

 

-

siha

Thursday, November 09, 2006 12:05 PM

Re: Mars

 

 

 

Hello Sujit,

 

If it is on MEP, then yes to some extent. Such a Mars takes one to distant

places or foreign lands for searching successin one's professional ventures.

This is not a good placement for relationship.

 

Best wishes,

 

 

-

" Sujit " <sujit68

Thursday, November 09, 2006 10:00 AM

Mars

 

> Dear Professor & list,

>

> Does a functional benefic Mars ( lord of 2nd & 9th) in the 12th give

> protection against losses.

>

> Thank you

> Sujit

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Sir,

WHEN WILL MARS COME IN CAPRICORN AT 28 DEGREE.

REGARDS,

AAMIR

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dear Aamir,

Mars will be at 28 Deg in Capricorn on Feb 13, 2011 at 3:05 am IST.

 

Regards,

 

Ravi.

 

, Aamir Qadeem <rustampk wrote:

>

> Dear Sir,

> WHEN WILL MARS COME IN CAPRICORN AT 28 DEGREE.

> REGARDS,

> AAMIR

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Thanks alot sir for this great favour.

 

On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 9:29 PM, sbt_ravi <sbt_ravi wrote:

 

>

>

> Dear Aamir,

> Mars will be at 28 Deg in Capricorn on Feb 13, 2011 at 3:05 am IST.

>

> Regards,

>

> Ravi.

>

>

> <%40>,

> Aamir Qadeem <rustampk wrote:

> >

> > Dear Sir,

> > WHEN WILL MARS COME IN CAPRICORN AT 28 DEGREE.

> > REGARDS,

> > AAMIR

> >

> >

> >