Guest guest Posted November 9, 2004 Report Share Posted November 9, 2004 Bert, In my opinion, John Frawley, the author of the post you copied, showed brilliant insight. I have one comment on: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >* Kerry did not lose; he failed to win >* Bush did not win; he avoided losing. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ In retrospect the only people dumber than Democrats who belived they had a chance of the machine generated election numbers coming out in their favor (and this includes Yours Truly) are the little Republican voters who actually believe that Bush 'won' the election. O.K. that was my second and hopefully final commentary on the election. Please see: http://onlinejournal.com/evoting/110504Chin/110504chin.html ....for the uncontested final word. Therese ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ At 08:18 AM 11/9/04 -0800, Bert wrote: > >This forwarded from the political Astrology list. Any comments? :-) > >--------- ------- >A NOTE ON PREDICTION There are various reasons for the failure of predictions from the natal chart. One, of course, is the use of bizarre techniques (no, the US election did not hinge on the movements of Sedna, as I have seen claimed!) or errors in the use of sound techniques. One is the inability to see beyond the astrologer's wishful thinking. Another is the failure to think clearly about what the charts need to show in order for a prediction to be made. That is my point here. >I am referring here to predictions from the natal charts; I am not >referring to predictions made by anyone in particular; I have not >looked at the nativities of Bush & Kerry myself, and so do not know >what is or isn't there. > >Although the election was a race between B & K, which Bush won and >Kerry lost, so far as the unfolding of their lives is concerned, and >hence so far as what their birthcharts will show, >* Kerry did not lose; he failed to win >* Bush did not win; he avoided losing. > >Unless Kerry runs again and wins, this will be the most successful >day of his life. Coming within a state of being US president is some >achievement. A few months ago hardly anyone had heard of him; now he >was on every TV in the world. We should expect to see some powerful >positive testimonies in his chart. > >For Bush, the situation has remained as it was. He was president >already: we should not expect to find testimonies of triumph in his >chart. As long as there are no powerful testimonies of defeat (or of >him moving house), he will stay in office. > >It is not necessary even to look at Kerry's chart if Bush's does not >show defeat. No matter how glorious might be the testimonies in >Kerry's, if Bush is still in office Kerry will not become president - >any more than glorious testimonies in six months' time will make him >president. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 11, 2004 Report Share Posted November 11, 2004 At 05:00 PM 11/10/04 -0500, Chris wrote: > >>[Therese:] John hadn't even seen the charts. I doubt that he made any >> prediction at all. He was making a very important point which had passed >> almost all of us by: If W's chart doesn't show a loss, he stays in office. > >[Chris:] I disagree. He was engaged in a competition with Kerry. Does he win or >lose? Sure he's not relocating but that too ought to be clearly observable >to an astrologer. Chris, in your opinion, what then showed the 'win,' aside from stations? More importantly, what showed the loss in the K/E charts? (Since you don't like John Frawley's analysis of the 'win/loss' scenario.) Based on evidence all over the internet, there was not a clear win, but a win thwarted by machines which resulted in a pseudo victory. In retrospect this is clearly shown by the Uranus quincunx (which I previously totally ignored) to MC/Venus/Jupiter for K/E. With this election as with Election 2000, we can't talk about a win and loss. Rather, the question is, " Who will be inaugurated in January? " It is (in my opinion) extremely simplistic to pretend this election was a clear win-loss election-as-usual. I've printed out and studied many pages of graphs, numbers, statistics. observations and opinions from various sites. The astrology paints a clear picture of the oddities of this election. Therese Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 11, 2004 Report Share Posted November 11, 2004 Dear Therese and Ed Do you think Kerry will contest the results? I believe he has until the 12th. Won't there be votes counted then? Thought I heard something like that on election night c Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 11, 2004 Report Share Posted November 11, 2004 Cynthia, Kerry's brother is working on this. Ohio's Green Party is seeking contributions to meet the $113,000 required to do a recount on Ohio's voting which cost $10 per 11,000 precincts. They may announce tomorrow. Dark*Star _________________________________ cynthianovak wrote: > Dear Therese and Ed > > Do you think Kerry will contest the results? I believe he has until the > 12th. Won't there be votes counted then? Thought I heard something like > that on election night > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 11, 2004 Report Share Posted November 11, 2004 Dark*Star, do you have a web address for this? At 09:49 PM 11/10/04 -0800, you wrote: >>Kerry's brother is working on this. Ohio's Green Party is seeking contributions to meet the $113,000 required to do a recount on Ohio's voting which cost $10 per 11,000 precincts. They may announce tomorrow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 11, 2004 Report Share Posted November 11, 2004 No, on the news this afternoon on a Pacifica station. But I sense that Amy Goodman may have announced this also from NY. Therese Hamilton wrote: > Dark*Star, do you have a web address for this? > > At 09:49 PM 11/10/04 -0800, you wrote: > > >>Kerry's brother is working on this. Ohio's Green Party is seeking > contributions > to meet the $113,000 required to do a recount on Ohio's voting which cost $10 > per 11,000 precincts. They may announce tomorrow. > > > " How can Pluto be in Sagittarius when it's so close to Antares? " ----- > > Post message: > Subscribe: - > Un: - > List owner: -owner > > Shortcut URL to this page: > / > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 11, 2004 Report Share Posted November 11, 2004 Therese, - " Therese Hamilton " <eastwest Wednesday, November 10, 2004 11:07 PM Re: On prediction ~ from John Frawley > > At 05:00 PM 11/10/04 -0500, Chris wrote: > > > >>[Therese:] John hadn't even seen the charts. I doubt that he made any > >> prediction at all. He was making a very important point which had passed > >> almost all of us by: If W's chart doesn't show a loss, he stays in office. > > > >[Chris:] I disagree. He was engaged in a competition with Kerry. Does he > win or > >lose? Sure he's not relocating but that too ought to be clearly observable > >to an astrologer. > > Chris, in your opinion, what then showed the 'win,' aside from stations? > More importantly, what showed the loss in the K/E charts? (Since you don't > like John Frawley's analysis of the 'win/loss' scenario.) There are many factors working co-dependently. The progressed stations were the most powerful single factors IMO. Also Tr Mars aspecting Bush's MC, the tr Saturn station return given that Saturn is a 1st house planet and is powerfully placed in his D10 chart of career and status, tr Jupiter was exactly parallel Bush's Moon, etc etc. > > Based on evidence all over the internet, there was not a clear win, but a > win thwarted by machines which resulted in a pseudo victory. In retrospect > this is clearly shown by the Uranus quincunx (which I previously totally > ignored) to MC/Venus/Jupiter for K/E. With this election as with Election > 2000, we can't talk about a win and loss. Rather, the question is, " Who > will be inaugurated in January? " It's the same question ultimately since the two events are related. So if it's the inauguration, then why didn't more astrologers focus on this then? I think many did, but they just didn't get it right. They were using wrong assumptions about transits, progressions, dashas, whatever. So now they retreat to some John Frawley foggy netherworld where black is white and white is black or perhaps that everything is just shades of grey. Sorry, but that's just embarrassing from a logical perspective. If you believe in all that, then you shouldn't be predicting election outcomes. > > It is (in my opinion) extremely simplistic to pretend this election was a > clear win-loss election-as-usual. I've printed out and studied many pages > of graphs, numbers, statistics. observations and opinions from various > sites. The astrology paints a clear picture of the oddities of this election. I think it was pretty clear. Bush was declared the winner the next day. Sure there are disputes and odditites but I think that is more about the character of the election than the final result. Chris > > Therese > > > > > " How can Pluto be in Sagittarius when it's so close to Antares? " ----- > > Post message: > Subscribe: - > Un: - > List owner: -owner > > Shortcut URL to this page: > / > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 11, 2004 Report Share Posted November 11, 2004 , " Christopher Kevill " <christopher.kevill@s...> wrote: > I think many did, but they just didn't get it right. They were using wrong > assumptions about transits, progressions, dashas, whatever. So now they > retreat to some John Frawley foggy netherworld where black is white and > white is black or perhaps that everything is just shades of grey. Sorry, > but that's just embarrassing from a logical perspective. If you believe in > all that, then you shouldn't be predicting election outcomes. I presume you refer to the sentiment that: * Kerry did not lose; he failed to win. * Bush did not win; he avoided losing. Philosophical casuistry, i.e., a distinction without a difference. Political elections are competitive events with winners and losers. There is no need to invoke some obscure medieval rule (read: fudge factor) in order to rationalize a failed prediction after the fact. Your point is well taken. Andrew Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 12, 2004 Report Share Posted November 12, 2004 Here's my take on John Frawley whoever he is. I think he didn't have the nerve to make an election prediction. I'll admit that last November I stood up in front of a group with another Vedic astrologer and predicted Bush. The crowd gasped. Then I predicted Bush and clients started getting pretty upset with me. I July, Kerry's chart had great aspects and I started to think that it could go his way, but the inauguration chart was so bad, he'd have to get elected then have a heart attack or something. You see, I let the emotion of the folks around me sway the interpretation. Then, I kept saying that W's chart was stronger but I didn't know. I knew in Nov. 2003 but not in Oct 2004. I suspect that this type of emotion was experienced by many astrologers. For Ol' JF I think he's full of it. With all the charts badied about for the contenders, it's realloy hard for me to believe that he didn't look at the charts and thenmiraculously appeared on the mountain top to tell all the foolish children how we went arwy. Sounds like he needs a Uranus transit or maybe saturn to bring him down to earth. As for Tyl, I'll cut the guy some slack. As I recall he's supposed to have an ego the size of Montana. It's got to be humbling to have it out in print. c Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.