THANK YOU for information that was, for most, sorely needed. Personally I am a little shocked by the numbers of people taken in by this story. I had thought anyone who made a basic study of astrology would have learned of this sidereal system long ago, as I did back when I learned to calculate a chart as a teenager. However, the masses apparently get their information from the Associated Press, Fox News, and the Minneapolis Star, none of which seem to have proper astrologers on staff.

And even though Tropical and Sidereal differ, neither is actually using the constellations per se. Constellations are not the same thing as zoidia, or what most call zodiac signs. Zoidia are 12 (and only 12!), chosen, equal-length segments of space encircling the Earth. Tropical is tied to the seasons via the Equinoxes and Solstices, but even Sidereal only uses the constellations as a reference point for the beginning of their zodiac. Their signs are still an equal 30 degrees each. Constellations on the other hand are uneven and overlap themselves.

So many of those who try to debunk astrology have little to no understanding of the subject, and their arguments only show their ignorance. Most of us do know at least a little bit of astronomy. For a popular example, we know full well the Sun doesn't revolve around the Earth, but astrology is a symbolic language and is thus concerned with how things appear from our perspective here on Earth. If we were born on Mars, that would be the center of the chart.

Many of the other points used to debunk astrology can be dismissed in the same manner. Most of us aren't claiming the "stars" "make" anything happen, but rather that there is a synchronistic, symbolic correspondence: as above, so below and such.

Problem is, now you have some amateur astrologers who don't know any better actually using Ophiuchus to try and make themselves seem more credible to the scientists somehow. LOL And then they mislead others on down the line… Anyone using Ophiuchus as a zoidia has either misunderstood or been misinformed as to what a zodiac sign actually is.

Man, you'd think the hardcore skeptic crowd would find a new broken record to play. I'm not terribly surprised that no one bothered to do any fact checking before going viral with this old tune though; I suppose this is what passes for journalism these days. If you think the media screwed *this* up, just imagine what they do with stories of dire import.

This is a prime example of what happens when you let amateurs like astronomers try to explain esoteric concepts.

What's weird about this story is that it really is old news. The stuff about Ophiucus has been around since at least the 1990s, along with the rest. Well, maybe this time those who are truly interested in astrology and/or who consider themselves to be occultists to any degree will finally learn the basics of the theory of the tropical zodiac, which are really pretty simple.

As both a witch and an astrologer, I've been dismayed by the number of witches who balk at learning anything other than their Sun sign because (as they claim) "I'm not good at math." Well, I'm not either; but happily, some smart people got together a few years ago and invented this nifty thing called a computer, and it does calculations for you, allowing you to concentrate on the sexy personality stuff. And, all joking aside, allowing you to use this profound tool for greater self-awareness.

I recall a long-ago article by Isaac Asimov — could be as long ago as the 1960s — mentioning that some planets wander into Ophiuchus from time to time.

As a Witch and a skeptic, I have other reasons for not learning about astrology… though I do not mean to disrespect your own judgment on the matter. But it did seem worth mentioning that math-phobia is not the only reason some of us avoid astrology.

This idea may be older than the '90s, as I have a book I purchased in the early '70s ( http://www.amazon.com/Astrology-14-Your-New-Sign/… ), Astrology 14 that pretty much indicated similar data and that there were 2 additional signs, Ophiuchus and Cetai (a whale constellation). I am a Witch *and* an Astrologer, in my tradition working by the planets movements is considered important for certain spell 's timing, etc.
It is interesting for me to note, in the book "14" many signs are shifted 'slightly' to accomodate the extra signs, but

I still remain a Scorpio!

-best, Oberon

Never be surprised by the numbers of people who get confused by a half assed news story.

Somewhere Queen Cleolanta is laughing her head off, Rocky Jones is hopelessly confused and Professor Newton is shocked beyond words to express himself . Fortunately for me my sign is unaffected. I'm still a Screwball.

Yea, I went and looked up Gemini, and no, I do NOT know that person……….I am happily cursed to be a Cancer.

And how memes bloom like algae in stop-motion.

Well shit! I was happy to discover that I was an Aries, not a Taurus as I had believed for all these years. You mean I have to go back to being a Taurus? The Taurus thing's been done by me for 35 years! I wanted to rock the Aries thing! Jason wtf? Take this story down. I want to be an Aries now.

Personally, I'd be devastated to find out I wasn't a Pisces but then again we Pisces are easily devastated.

Indeed, I've come to understand that about the two fish people. They say Taureans like me are very stubborn, but in a clear demonstration of why you can't trust astrology very much, I'm not stubborn, and I'll tell anyone that who tries to ram that Taurean stereotype down my throat, which people often do.

Let me see if I'm understanding this correctly.

This "science," which claims that we are all affected by the stars, doesn't actually care where the actual stars and constellations they use, and claim affect us, are and when they're in the sky above? The stars and constellations that supposedly affect us don't actually matter?

I don't mind it as a symbol system for trying to understand oneself, but make up your minds! Either the planets, stars, and constellations matter, or they don't. Saying they do, but don't really because the reality of the sky inconveniently no longer matches up is trying to have your cake and eat it too.

What then is the point?

No, you're not.

The zodiac is based on the Sun and the Earth. The plane of the Earth's orbit around the Sun is divided into sectors. It is the sectors that matter in astrology, not the constellations for which they were named (think of it like September, which is the ninth month of our calendar year even though the name means seventh month. The name doesn't matter, and neither does the constellation that once coincided with that particular sector of orbit), and what is supposed to effect you is the position of bodies *within our solar system* relative to you on Earth.

You could call them by the clock if you want: Saturn at 12 o'clock, Mars at 4:30…. The names don't matter. The stars that lent the names don't matter. The *relative position* of the planets, the Sun, and the Moon, as well as the rotation of the Earth are what matter in astrology.

The "stars" bit that people talk about with astrology probably comes from the fact that the planets were once thought to be "wandering stars".

Actually, my working theory is that this Minnesota Planetarium Society decided to release this "breaking news" in order to drum up interest in their society – it says right on the front page of their website that they're raising funds to build a planetarium and space discovery center – maybe they thought that they might garner some donations from this story…

And they say Aries are bossy and bitchy. Anyone who knows me knows that's.. completely untrue. Yes. Totally false.

I hope Parke Kunkle, a science teacher Minnesota Community and Technical College, is enjoying his 15 minutes.
The news sources who promoted this absurd half-cooked story have completely lost my respect.

Well, it's not the first time someone's triumphantly debunked something by pointing out how it's not something it wasn't in the first place.

And I'm still a Leo.

A deeply social-phobic Leo, to boot.

Thanks Cat. I was beginning to think I was the only Pagan out there that finds references to "proper professional astrologers" who have the theory right and horrible "amateur astronomers" who can't get their facts straight darned amusing.

Sorry y'all, honestly no offense intended, but…sheesh. The difference between the two zodiacs is mildly interesting, but I'll stick with real science, thanks.

As an astrologer, I've been handling this whole thing for the last few days by thinking of it as a "teaching moment" and I see that many in even the Pagan community are still stuck in the world view that the astronomers have. A really good web page, by a well respected astrologer (and lawyer) who teaches classical astrology is: http://www.renaissanceastrology.com/zodiacworldvi…
If you go there, you will learn about the 3 zodiacs and how world view differs and has an impact on the zodiac of choice.
-Alan Salmi
p.s. If you talk with knowledgeable astrologers, you will find that they usually will talk about the Hermetic maxim: As Above, So Below and NOT a cause/effect relationship between the stars/planets, etc. and human affairs. In fact, one branch of astrology casts a chart for the time a questipn is asked and gets that answer from that, very similar in a way to a Tarot reading, except that because of the mechanics of the chart, answers can, in the right hands, be very accurate (Such as the class Horary reading by Alphee Lavoie who answered "Where's Grandpa's Will?" with: in the attic, behind a hollow panel in a metal box!)

I'm actually the exact same way. Astrology seems like a crock for me simply because it is so vague. I also find this business of astronomy vs. astrology completely ridiculous. The fields are completely different.

astronomy – the scientific study of the individual celestial bodies (excluding the earth) and of the universe as a whole.

astrology – the study that assumes and attempts to interpret the influence of the heavenly bodies on human affairs.

Astrology is, if anything, an application of astronomy. There is no astronomy/astrology debate.

Frankly, it's a commonly-spread misunderstanding that astrology is premised on a notion that some force actually comes from the stars and planets that shapes destiny in some causal way.

(unsurprisingly-enough, as that's exactly how some astrologers speak when selling their services: would-be-debunkers like to set astrology up against the most mystified-possible points of view: they're actually the prime promoters of the idea that astrology posits some actual hidden force exerted on people, then go a-ha when it of course doesn't work that way. If you're speaking the language of astrology, it's sometimes easiest to *speak* of things that way, but you have to know that you're still the one who has to examine everything and apply it to human affairs and all. )

But how astrology really works is as an elaborate way to chart *time:* a very elaborate clock with a large body of anecdotal wisdom about how the hands relate. As such, it doesn't as much matter how the clock-face is labeled, it's just got to be as consistently-calibrated to what the anecdotal wisdom has built up around those cycles. As above, so below, as someone said, …of course, if a planet had been in, say, in a different orbit or place in the sky than has been observed, that body of observation would mean that planet's been taken to chart something *else.*

Debunkery and a lot of materialist-scientists like to see (and portray) astrology as a primitive and flawed version of itself, not unlike the way some treat the idea of magic or anything like that: too often they'd rather say, 'You think you're throwing D&D spells around' than figure out what it means on the terms of those who actually practice, and see what can be learned from that.

There's more to you than your Sun-sign placement, you know.