The Zodiac Killer by AnthonyT

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

The Zodiac Killer

POSTED BY: ANTHONYT
UPDATED: Monday, January 17, 2011 04:45
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 2213
PAGE 1 of 1

Friday, January 14, 2011 3:09 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

I do not consider myself a superstitious man. A caveat to that must be laid out. I call myself a Christian (a bad one, by all expert accounts) and many will doubtless see that as superstitious or mythical.

Anyhow, the sidereal (sp?) zodiac recently got adjusted, and some people are no longer the sign they once were.

This is only theoretically important if you observe that zodiac. I have learned that my meager exposure to the zodiac has been via Tropical zodiac philosophy, which remains unchanged.

In any event, during the reporting of this event, I briefly thought that my astrological sign had changed. Taurus was dead in me, murdered by an astrological adjustment. I was now Aries. (I think. That's the ram, right?)

There is absolutely no reason that I should have been disturbed by this, even had it been the case. And yet, I was disturbed. I've been identifying myself as a Taurus to people since I was a boy. I claimed not to care or believe in astrology my whole life. Yet, when I thought my sign had changed, I became a bit upset.

Did anyone else feel this way (if you were duped as I was into thinking anything had happened at all)? Does anyone have any idea why I care? The idea that I cared persists in disturbing me. It signals that I am not nearly as rational as I hoped.

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 14, 2011 3:15 PM

LILI

Doing it backwards. Walking up the downslide.

From what I understand, the zodiac hasn't actually undergone any official adjustment. There's been debate for years about whether it should, but it never has. Yahoo had an article up on it, and there was a quote along the lines of the zodiac being developed as a way to track the seasons. While the location of the sun from our perspective has subtly changed, the seasons really haven't. The time of year you were born has not changed, so do not be distressed, you may still identify with that stolid bull if you chose to identify.

Facts are stubborn things.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 14, 2011 5:23 PM

BYTEMITE

This came as no surprise to me, I've known since I was six the zodiac was off because of earth axis wobble, and I'm not exaggerating on the age because I was very into astronomy back then. I even had a conversation about this with someone from these boards December 30th.

The thing about the zodiac and astrology, I'm not even sure it matters. The horoscopes and signs are always just vague enough they could be true for anyone; that's what makes them effective. As such, it's only useful as a source of personal insight anyway.

As for you caring about it, it's not that you ever believed it, but that you're surprised you were wrong and don't want it to change because people get attached to little bits of self-identity like that. It'd be like if you suddenly found out that you're not Blood type A, but Blood type O (which are actually used as a zodiac-like personality prediction system in parts of Asia).

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 14, 2011 6:47 PM

THEHAPPYTRADER

Huh, I guess I'm not a Gemini anymore. A friend whom I was... I guess you can loosely describe it as dating, is really into that stuff and said it was obvious I was a Gemini, which apparently meant we would never work out on account of her being an Aries, but could have a lot of fun together, which we kinda did. Now I'm apparently a Taurus. Have I become less creative/versatile and more reliable or something?

Nah, if I were to believe in that ridiculous notion that the zodiac had anything to do with my personality, I'd assume I've taken traits from both. Still, it can be an interesting diversion.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 14, 2011 7:00 PM

BYTEMITE

Gemini are supposedly energetic and athletic, Taurus are supposed to be artsy.

Oxen to the romans and greeks weren't considered dumb or uncreative, they were considered wise.

They're >_> also supposed to be sensual, because Taurus represents Zeus-as-a-Bull carrying off Europa.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 15, 2011 8:11 AM

FREMDFIRMA

*snorts derisively and digs in his hooves*

You know, they can move it all they like, it ain't gonna change the fact that I am, in damn near every way, your completely stereotypical Taurus iron-headed, jack-ass stubborn, combination of hedonist and bulldozer.

Move all the planets in the world if ya like, imma stay right freakin here, hmmph!

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 15, 2011 8:17 AM

BYTEMITE

Seems like a bunch of us are either Aries, Taurus, or Gemini. Maybe there's a tendency for kids to be born in the spring and early summer.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 15, 2011 8:26 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Well, yanno, nine months - weather gets cold, folk tend to snuggle, and snuggling leads to humping, especially what with naught else to do, right ?

All part of the cycle of life anyways, the natural rythyms of the world, and when better to have a child than during the planting and harvest season when food is more plentiful and the weather is more gentle ?

Our own internal cycles, our natural rythyms, they make this rather inevitable, really.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 15, 2011 8:33 AM

PHOENIXROSE

You think you know--what's to come, what you are. You haven't even begun.

Quote:
Move all the planets in the world if ya like, imma stay right freakin here, hmmph!

That is the most Taurus thing I've ever heard.

Lisa is correct, though, no official change has happened. Astrology is about the turning of the seasons, so it's followed the seasons for years and years now, rather than what they originally marked the seasons by. Talk to any astrologer (I know a couple) and they will tell you that. They'll also tell you that they're not adding a sign and not adjusting the signs. The system developed was to track the seasons, the solstices and equinoxes, and that's what it's really about more than which constellations the sun appears to be in at the time. The winter solstice, for example, marks the beginning of Capricorn. That used to be because that was when the sun entered Capricorn, but that's just what they used to mark it at the time and it's more about the length of the days than anything.
I was actually born just a few hours shy of the official winter solstice, and hence the official entering of Capricorn, making me a cuspy Sagittarius. Under the proposed 'new' setup, I remain a Sagittarius, though who knows what would happen to all the other planets in my chart.

I do not need the written code of a spiritual belief to act like a decent human being.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 15, 2011 8:41 AM

BYTEMITE

Wouldn't they be conceived in summer though?

Maybe it's more seeing other nature cycles gets people in the mood. Spring and summer are the flowering months. Then there's birds, pretty sure horses and cattle too. Not deer, they're in the autumn.

Also, most marriages take place in summer.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 15, 2011 10:24 AM

WHOZIT

Um.....1972

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 15, 2011 10:27 AM

BYTEMITE

I'm not sure year is involved in the western zodiac, maybe it is if you're really deep into the horoscopes and figuring out planets in houses or somesuch.

Chinese Zodiac uses years though. For 1972, that would be a boar. Willful, bit stubborn, love of food and pleasure, tendency to take people at face value, but with a fighter streak that likes to stand up for causes.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 15, 2011 10:27 AM

HKCAVALIER

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

I do not consider myself a superstitious man. A caveat to that must be laid out. I call myself a Christian (a bad one, by all expert accounts) and many will doubtless see that as superstitious or mythical.

Anyhow, the sidereal (sp?) zodiac recently got adjusted, and some people are no longer the sign they once were.

This is only theoretically important if you observe that zodiac. I have learned that my meager exposure to the zodiac has been via Tropical zodiac philosophy, which remains unchanged.

In any event, during the reporting of this event, I briefly thought that my astrological sign had changed. Taurus was dead in me, murdered by an astrological adjustment. I was now Aries. (I think. That's the ram, right?)

There is absolutely no reason that I should have been disturbed by this, even had it been the case. And yet, I was disturbed. I've been identifying myself as a Taurus to people since I was a boy. I claimed not to care or believe in astrology my whole life. Yet, when I thought my sign had changed, I became a bit upset.

Did anyone else feel this way (if you were duped as I was into thinking anything had happened at all)? Does anyone have any idea why I care? The idea that I cared persists in disturbing me. It signals that I am not nearly as rational as I hoped.

--Anthony

I love what the Zodiac says about the importance of each person born. Not that the planetary position determines your nature like some gadget on an assembly line, but that the significance of a birth ripples out in all directions in space/time and the meaning of these ripples can be read by the location of the stars at that singular moment when you came into the world. (On a side note--this is the RWED after all--I find it interesting that no one has ever spoken of someone's Zodiacal sign being determined at "conception." Seems all astrologers are pro-choice!)

Anthony, you read squarely as a Taurus to me, right down to your claiming not to care, or believe and yet feeling wounded at the prospect of change. Aries, a fire sign, would have colored his reaction with a good deal more fury or never said a word about such an effing stupid bunch of bullshit like g.d. astrology--which is for fags! (Hey, you think maybe Kaneman might be an Aries?).

Is it really irrational to study patterns? Is every rhythm, every confluence pure chaos and happenstance just because we can't account for it with Newtonian physics???

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 15, 2011 10:36 AM

BYTEMITE

When you're talking about the human mind, personality, interactions, and etc., there's no physics that make any kinda sense there.

Short version: we're all nuts and largely unpredictable. Slightly longer version: every part of human life conforms to some idea of symbolism and archetypes. And that's where the zodiac is useful, and why predictions can seem uncanny. There's nothing mystical about it, but neither is it entirely a true reflection of reality. Rather, it depends on the subjective, of both the person giving the reading, and the one receiving it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 15, 2011 11:30 AM

WHOZIT

Where they died on the map, there's your clue.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 15, 2011 11:32 AM

CANTTAKESKY

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Seems like a bunch of us are either Aries, Taurus, or Gemini. Maybe there's a tendency for kids to be born in the spring and early summer.

I'm a Libra.

Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 15, 2011 12:11 PM

THEHAPPYTRADER

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Gemini are supposedly energetic and athletic, Taurus are supposed to be artsy.

Oxen to the romans and greeks weren't considered dumb or uncreative, they were considered wise.

They're >_> also supposed to be sensual, because Taurus represents Zeus-as-a-Bull carrying off Europa.

Huh, guess I was Taurus all along, lol, though I've always been energetic and was the fastest runner in my fraternity. Of course, it was a music fraternity, so that might not be saying much. "I'm the best athlete in the school band" "Yeah, but your in the band not as impressice"

My g/f is still Pisces, but now that I'm Taurus I suppose that would make more sense. Not that I believe in Synastry but these tradition/cultural type things are interesting and fun. Some one who knows of this stuff, what are Pisces generally though to be like? I'm curious to how close that is to my g/f's personality.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 15, 2011 1:07 PM

HKCAVALIER

Frick and frack, I just posted a reply and it never showed up!!! Reconstruction incoming:

Quote:
Originally posted by TheHappyTrader:
Some one who knows of this stuff, what are Pisces generally though to be like? I'm curious to how close that is to my g/f's personality.

The study of astrology goes way beyond what we call the "sun signs." To get an accurate picture of a person's Zodiacal sitch you need to "get their chart done."

But as far as it goes, Pisces tends to be a dreamer. It's a rare Pisces who balances her check book every time she writes a check (very rare). Just as your goldfish will eat as much fish food as you put in the bowl, Pisces has trouble saying "when." Pisces tends to put getting enough sleep at the very bottom of her to-do list and has a tendency to drink to excess if at all. A lot of Pisces are drunks or ex-drunks. Incidentally, if Pisces can manage her sleep schedule, she should have exceptional health for the rest of her days.

Pisces is often artistic, though much of her effort will be in the amateur realm (being a dreamer, she always has many more ideas than she ever realizes without a lot of earth AND fire to balance out her chart, or a particularly supportive partner). Being a water sign, Pisces is usually deep in her feelings, but she may be singularly inarticulate about them. It is said that a Pisces' most natural mode of expression is pantomime, Pisces' secret wish to never ever have to talk. Paradoxically perhaps (but not to the Pisces), Pisces' proximity to Aquarius can make her chatty--often on "loopy" and otherwise oddly deep subjects, not so much in terms of "smalltalk."

Pisces is very in-touch with the child, which tends to translate as being "very good" with kids, or perfectly wretched and competitive around them. If the latter, she will feel terrible about herself.

Pisces has a tendency to obsess over the happiness of her partner and not be at peace until her partner is happy. She will definitely put her partner's satisfaction before her own, because her partner's satisfaction is felt by her as if it were her own. It's said Pisces is "ruled by the feet," so foot rubs and new shoes--crazy socks!--will be particularly dear to your beloved.

I could go on and on, but with just the sun sign to go on, I think I'll leave it at that. How'd I do?

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 15, 2011 1:35 PM

KANEMAN

How do i find out if i am still a scorpio? Where is the new zodiac....my shit is not working.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 15, 2011 4:40 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Bah, Taurus, (Chinese) Metal-Dog, ISTP, whatever you *want* to call it, comes right down to the real of things, essentially...

THIS

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 15, 2011 6:01 PM

THEHAPPYTRADER

Quote:
I could go on and on, but with just the sun sign to go on, I think I'll leave it at that. How'd I do?

HKCavalier

Shiny. My g/f is here right now, she agrees very much with what you said on happiness and dreamer, and agrees slightly on the artsy part. She's a former music major who got smart and switched majors, unlike myself, so that good be coloring her art judgment.

She also says she wishes she didn't have to talk so much, but I often think she talks to little ('specially on long boring car rides).

We were doing some catching up since I saw her last week, talked about news and talked the horoscope thing, which lead me back to this forum cause I could not find much on the signs (not that I looked especially hard). Your post was very convenient, thanks!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 16, 2011 3:21 AM

CANTTAKESKY

Quote:
Originally posted by TheHappyTrader:
Your post was very convenient, thanks!

It's not all fair, cause HK's psychic. Some of that may not be from the sun sign at all.

Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 16, 2011 3:36 AM

CANTTAKESKY

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
... there's no physics that make any kinda sense there.

I don't believe in astrology.

But I have a very, very intelligent friend that I respect a lot who does. Surprised the hell out of me. Why would someone who smart and educated believe in superstition?

She has her reasons. Some of which are alluded to in this thread, esp at the beginning:

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=2294

But it's beyond that. There patterns in the universe that science has no clue about yet. Myths and lore that have endured thousands of years started from small glimpses of these patterns. It doesn't mean astrology as it is today is predictive, but its roots very well may have tapped into deeper universal truths we are not looking at any more.

ETA: Just found this speech, which is also intriguing.

http://technovate.org/web/articles/astrologyandphysics.html

I'm keeping an open mind.

Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 16, 2011 5:13 AM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...

I feel your disappointment Anthony. Checking the new dates I'm no longer on the cusp - my birthday used to put me on the day shared by Taurus and Gemini - I had 2 signs! Made me feel extra special. Now I'm just lousy Taurus. Guess I'll have to settle with having my next birthday fall on judgement day - f-ack!
http://www.ebiblefellowship.com/may21/

The New Zodiac Signs Chart 2011 is given below:
Capricorn January 20- to February 16
Aquarius February 16 to March 11
Pisces March 11 to April 18.
Aries April 18 to May 13
Taurus May 13 to June 21.
Gemini June 21 to July 20
Cancer July 20 to August 10
Leo August 10 to September 16
Virgo September 16 to October 30
Libra October 30 to November 23
Scorpio November 23 to November 29
Ophiuchus November 29 to December 17
Sagittarius December 17 to January 20

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 16, 2011 5:30 AM

CANTTAKESKY

Quote:
Originally posted by pizmobeach:
The New Zodiac Signs Chart 2011 is given below:

I'm not really sure what is going on. But it looks like these "new" zodiac dates have always been there. They've just been known and practiced as sidereal astrology, as opposed to tropical astrology.

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Sidereal_astrology

Did astrologer just decide collectively to do away with tropical dates and go with the sidereal ones?

Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 16, 2011 7:26 AM

BYTEMITE

CTS: This is where I am and what I think too. Astrology, myth, and religion are reflections on the human mind and condition. In this, people can find some personal truths in all of them.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 16, 2011 7:31 AM

KANEMAN

Yeah. This is bullshit. I've been scorpio my whole life ...now libra. What the fuck is that? Not that any of that shit makes any sense anyway, but still. I've read scorpio shit from time to time and it was actually quite accurate. What now I've got to find out Libra's traits? So, what does this say to all those who swore by this shit before the change? If shit was not even assigned right? lol.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 16, 2011 7:33 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello Sky,

Quite right. I think that observation was lost somewhere.

From my first post:

Quote:

Anyhow, the sidereal (sp?) zodiac recently got adjusted, and some people are no longer the sign they once were.

This is only theoretically important if you observe that zodiac. I have learned that my meager exposure to the zodiac has been via Tropical zodiac philosophy, which remains unchanged.

But my main concern was why I should care at all. (even if it had changed.) There have been some good answers about that.

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 16, 2011 11:51 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

I suppose I had a negative reaction to it when I heard it, too. I've always been a Libra, and kind of liked the "balance" thing, especially 'cuz that's how I think and I have many traits which reflect it (NOT necessarily a good thing, I might say!). I don't want to be the "virgin". Yuck.

For me, as well, when I read Linda Goodman's Sun Signs (anyone remember that?), Libra was me to a "T", and it pretty much has been in anything I've read. I don't read horoscopes, and I assume they ARE general enough to fit anyone one way or another. But it was a tiny bummer; I intend to go on ignoring it. I'm a Libra.

And I absolutely fucking GUARANTEE Kane isn't. There's definitely not anything balanced about him.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 16, 2011 3:00 PM

DREAMTROVE

Byte

Brilliant

Flowers. The perfect calendar. Civilization followed stars because the people had moved, and knew nothing of flowers of where they had come from, and men cant tell one flower from another by smell, and stars became the civilized calendar.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 16, 2011 4:22 PM

BYTEMITE

This is assuming that a spring and summer birth are the most evolutionary advantageous, as they correspond with the growing season and available food, which also corresponds with births in herd animal populations.

A birth in spring would require conception in late spring or summer. Late summer conception would result in births in early summer. I assume the growing season is the common factor either way. There might be some advantage to a late summer conception, if there's limited food and food storage during winter, then both males and females are going to be more well-fed and have more energy later in the growing season, which would help the female get the pregnancy through the winter months.

As a side note, May Day used to correspond to Beltane. Some modern practice of some pagan religions believe in a high Beltane, where a May Lady and May Lord reenact a holy union. Beltane is also an inspiration for some of the traditions on Easter, which is rife with fertility symbolism.

Certain aspects, traditions and celebrations are common among a number of festivals, across many different cultures.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 17, 2011 4:45 AM

DREAMTROVE

Yes, but thats a pretty easy assumption to make. Also, it's worth noting that these are Europeans, and so theres another major factor: winter. The older the child is when the first winter strikes, especially in a stone age culture, the better the babies chances are.

Couple realities of evolution, one being that any major evolution that takes place in any location is likely to stick, so I'm ignoring the African genesis for the moment, because, while I agree with the idea that we share a common ancestor in bonobo, three million years ago, we also share a common ancestor in prosimian 40 million years ago, and cro magnon 50,000 years ago.

The other being that it only takes a 1% survival advantage for a trait to take over the population in 20 generations, and that non-survival traits tend to be lost in drift over 15 generations.

Pretty easy to figure this stuff out anyway given 2^15 genes.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER

POST DATE