The truth about Gauquelin findings

[Guest guest]

Dear List Members:

 

In a previous posting I had mentioned that Gauquelin's researches

had not proved none of the assumptions of traditional and tropical

astrology, contrary to what Ed Kohout had stated previously and also

still dares to affirm in his below posting.

 

To end this sterile discussion I had decided to quote, i.e, to

repeat Gauqeulin's own words, not only with the intention of prove

again the validity of my statements, but mainly to inform to those

all of you that still had not read his books, but what is worst,

continue to give credibility and importance to the tropical zodiac:

 

In his book " The truth about astrology " , Gauquelin states in a

chapter intitled: The Horoscope falls down " the following concepts:

 

" When I started my statistical control of astrological laws, I

turned naturally to the zodiac.(the tropical was the only he

knew).But the results have been completely disappointing,in terms

both of the influence of the zodiac on professional success and of

zodiacal heredity,... . My observations ,published in 1955, attracted

criticism of the astrologers.The burden of their complaint was that

they could not accept the NEGATIVE VERDICT (my capital letters) of

statistics on the absence of zodiacal influences. "

 

In page 129 he adds: " the results which came out of the computer

were completely unfavourable to astrological tradition " .

 

 

" This inquiry into character traits and the signs of the zodiac

ended in total failure for the astrology of the signs of the zodiac "

 

 

In page 139 he wrote: " over the years I have tested astrologers at

their own request " .... " and I have to admit that astrologers

regularly fail those tests " .

 

 

On page 149 he quotes the words of Anthony Standen, whom in his

opinion has summed up the paradoxical situation in which Gauquelin

had put himself, when he asks to himself:

" But assuming that his claims are true has Gauquelin really proved

astrology?. If you mean ordinary conventional astrology, Gauquelin

has utterly and COMPLETELY DISPROVED it " .

 

 

 

But what it really makes me smile is when some list members had

stated here that Gauquelin proved the angularity effect.

 

 

These sort of statements what prove is that, as always, many list-

members like to talk and to debate about topics about which they have

not an iota of information.

 

On page 116 Gauquelin asks to himself: " How, then, does the

astrological meaning of the 12 houses compare with the laws of

planetary intensity " (The effect he found according to diurnal

motion). " Are there points of contact between the horoscope and my

observations, which might confirm the interpretations made by

astrologers? "

 

 

Then he follows to explain that according to traditional astrology,

most astrologers attribute a particular role and significance to the

4 angles.

And on page 119 he concludes that " the aspects of destiny ruled by

each of the cadent houses, which are MY ZONES of GEATEST INTENSITY,

have NOTHING IN COMMON with my own observations " .

On page 120 he concludes: " There would seem to be only one

conclusion.... under the traditional form employed by the

practitioner for predictions, the division into houses inevitably

leads to major errors " .

 

 

And I will make the last quotation as a gift to Jen, to remind her

of my advise to prescind of that sun-sign terminology, so in vogue in

tropical astrology.

 

In the studies done for the symbolism of the sun, Gauquelin

concluded that " the worst results were for the sun itself, although

tradition gives enormous importance to it. " Astrologers credit the

sun with influences on personality which it simply does not have " .

(Please re-read this Jen)

 

 

 

Who was right? Ed or mI? This confirms one more that he does not

have a minimun formation on astrology. He ignores bluntly tropical,

sidereal and hindu. But what it mesmerizes me is the importance, some

of you give still to him, trying to respond daily to all the

incongruences he dares to write, thanks to the passivity indifference

of the list owner.

 

 

Alfonso Osorio

 

 

 

, " Ed Kohout " <crumpo@e...>

wrote:

> ---

>

> Wow, because his study showed that the most reliable parts of the

> chart are the angles. You should re-read his books, and learn

> something about why cardinal points are of great importance.

>

>

>

> >

> >

>

>

>

> A.O words:

> >

> > And finally, let me ratify to all you that a lot of tests had

been

> > done by using the tropical signs and different domifications and

> none

> > have shown positive results.

>

> I could care less about domifications in any zodiac, and for the

> reasons you specify.

>

>

>

>

> Not even the psychological attributes

> > given theoretically prove to work and least of all the possibilty

> to

> > advance an event with the use of the tropical zodiac.

> >

> > It is incredible that you being a journalist, you don't take the

> > minimum time to investigate before you dare to make an statement.

I

> > am not a journalist but before I dare to emit an opinion I make

> > intensive and extensive inquiries.

>

>ED: Oh, please, get off of your pathetic high horse and stop

> grandstanding. You are just upset because I have proven you to be

> wrong time and time again, and you can't get over it.

>

> Go do your Vedic and have a life of bliss, i could really care less

> what you think of me or anyone else.

>

> -