NASA Introducing NEW Zodiac Sign - Ophiuchus

Does this mean that NASA is endorsing astrology? I thought it was a silly superstition used for entertainment purposes and completely unscientific. Does NASA now have a department of astrology with a head astrologer? I thought they had an attitude about the difference between astronomy and astrology, so why give astrology props? IMO NASA is getting too far out there on the fringe by bringing this BS up.

I'll just leave this here...

www.snopes.com...

a reply to: Argentbenign

As a professional astrologist..
...

What does it need to be a professional astrologist? I mean, there certainly has to be some established grades or schooling system. Or do you just use the word "professional" because it´s your profession

Then there is this:
Barnum Effect

Another story like Nibiru...

a reply to: verschickter

Depends where you live, there are different requirements by the community. In EU is enough to be taught in any of the dozen variants of astrology, by acknowledged astrologist or a representative of a group. I had my time with a respected teacher from the Russian traditional astrology schooling system, yet I had to advance by myself after that, as astrology taught today is on damn low level. As in most mystic systems, who lived up to our days, astrology is aimed to hide the occult ways on which is built on, thus we have like dozen or more variants of pseudo-astrology today. So, a grade, or diploma, given by somebody, does not guarantee that the practitioner have any brains in his head. I personally does not advertise myself with the schooling I had, it would be like trying to sell Ferrari backing it up with guarantee based on farming experience. I use the word professional for the reason I have brains my my skull, the only thing that can make you decent astrologist. Hope that explain it all. Also, you are welcome to ask me if you need anything in the realm of what I can deliver.

a reply to: boncho

Fox News always manages to find a new low to sink to. NASA is not in charge of defining constellation boundaries, that is the IAU and it is a closed book now. NASA posted a brief history of astrology on a page aimed at children, and explained the difference between the sidereal and tropical zodiacs. Ophiuchus is a constellation that is on the sidereal zodiac. The sidereal zodiac uses the actual constellations lying on the Sun's path through the sky, and those constellations are uneven. The tropical zodiac uses twelve constellations of thirty degrees each. (This ties in with 24 hour days, 60 minute hours and so forth. Apparently the Nibblers had six fingers on each hand. ;P)

Because the Earth wobbles on its axis over long periods of time, the sidereal zodiac and the tropical zodiac fall out of sync, hence "the Age of Aquarius," when the the Sun will be in Aquarius on the vernal equinox instead of Aries. As Phage pointed out, some astrologers, particularly in Asia, have always used the sidereal zodiac. In Indo-Arabian astrology the "lunar houses" are used; these are twenty eight constellations corresponding to the days of a lunar month.

Anyway:

Link to the NASA page that started the rumor:

spaceplace.nasa.gov...

Link to an astrologer critiquing sidereal astrology:

www.astro.com...

Link to a popular astrological website telling you what your alleged qualities are if you were born under Ophiuhcus:

www.findyourfate.com...

Link to a Western astrologer who uses sidereal astrology:

westernsiderealastrology.wordpress.com...

More about Indian astrology:

en.wikipedia.org...

Really, Boncho, you seem to be losing it lately.

a reply to: MichiganSwampBuck

Does this mean that NASA is endorsing astrology?

No, absolutely not. Never believe anything Fox News says.

a reply to: Argentbenign
I appreciate your post but what gives you the feedback? How do you know you are a good astrologist? Do you believe in self determined lifes or in fate/destiny? What is the communities stance on the mechanisms behind astology is it on a spiritual level or science?

a reply to: verschickter

about your first point:
It is very hard to determine what part of astrology is a real deal and what is not. When you start make the difference between the two, you're good. I specialize in horary deviation and ma-haru cyclical interpretation. Natal astrology is what you hear most often, the so called "tell me who I am" reading, which is very tough job to be done correctly, due to the complexity of the charts. There are literally hundreds contradicting aspects one should pay attention to. You have to be a chess grand master to to it 100% correct. Yet most astrologers don't tell you this, while taking your money...

about your other point:
-things are not determined
-waysare determined

about your third point:
-traditional astrology is more like religion than science. Yet even 50% of the practitioners have no idea about the core principles there.
-modern variants of astrology are becoming more scientific oriented, however they are also resting on traditional astrology roots, trying to "mix" water with lead.
-there is third weave of astrology, which I call the Ass-troll-orgy. It is basically all new-age stuff you might imagine, intertwined with traditional astrological believes.

The Illuminati was created, not by Adam Weishaupt but by people controlling him,t

a reply to: boncho

Name the one's who controlled Adam Weishaupt and show the proof
Proof meaning hard evidence rather than theory, rumour or heresay

a reply to: boncho

What I will respond with, is: "You are not accounting for The Matrix Effect

Correct.
I ignore appeals to superstition.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: boncho

What I will respond with, is: "You are not accounting for The Matrix Effect

Correct.
I ignore appeals to superstition.

I think it's called social sciences...or something. Behavioural science. That might be it. Here's some goob-globbing-bobbulating you love so much...

Behavioral Sciences and the Mass Media Frederick T.C. Yu Editor
Althusser, L. 1971. Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses. In Lenin and Philosophy and Other Essays, ed. L. Althusser. London.
Altheide, D L. 1985. Media Power. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Altschull, J.H. 1984. Agents of Power: The Role of the News Media in Human Affairs.
New York: Longman.
Atwood, L.E., S.J. Bullion, and S.M. Murphy, eds. 1982. International Perspectives
on News. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
Bagdikian, B.H. 1983. The Media Monopoly. Boston: Beacon Press. Barker, M. 1981. The New Racism. London: Junction Books.
Billig, M. 1982. Ideology and Social Psychology. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Billig, M.1991. Ideology and Opinions. London: Sage.
Billig, M., S. Condor, D. Edwards, M. Gane, D. Middleton, and A. Radley. 1988. Ideological Dilemmas. London: Sage.
Bonnafous, S. 1991. L immigration prise aux mots [Immigration taken by its words]. Paris: Editions Kime.
Boyd-Barrett, O.1980. The International News Agencies. London: Sage/Constable. Bradac, J.J. 1989. Message Effects in Communication Science. London: Sage. Bruhn Jensen, K., and N.W. Jankowski, eds. 1991. A Handbook of Qualitative
Methodologies for Mass Communication Research. London: Routledge. Bryant, J., and D. Zillmann, eds. 1986. Perspectives on Media Effects. Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Chomsky, N. 1987. On Power and Ideology: The Managua Lectures. Boston: South
End Press.
Chomsky, N. 1992. Deterring Democracy. London: Vintage.
Clegg, S.R. 1989. Frameworks of Power. London: Sage.
Cohen, S., and J. Young, eds. 1981. The Manufacture of News. Deviance, Social
Problems and the Mass Media, 2nd ed. London: Constable and Beverly Hills:
Sage.
Creedon, P.J., ed. 1989. Women in Mass Communication. Challenging Gender Values.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Dovidio, J.F., and S.L. Gaertner, eds. 1986. Prejudice, Discrimination, and Racism.
New York: Academic Press.
Ebel, M., and P. Fiala. 1983. Sous le consensus, la xenophobie [Under the consensus,
the xenophobia]. Lausanne: Institut de sciences politiques, Memoires et doc-
uments 16.
Eiser, J.R., and J. van der Pligt. 1988. Attitudes and Decisions. London: Routledge. Essed, P.J.M. 1991. Understanding Everyday Racism. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Farr, R.M., and S. Moscovici, eds. 1984. Social Representations. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Fiske, S.T., and S.E. Taylor. 1991. Social Cognition. 2nd ed. New York: McGraw
Hill.
Fowler, R. 1991. Language in the News. Discourse and Ideology in the Press. London:
Routledge.
Gans, H. 1979. Deciding What s News. New York: Pantheon Books.
Gilroy, P. 1987. There Ain t No Black in the Union Jack. London: Hutchinson. Glasgow University Media Group. 1976. Bad News. London: Routledge & Kegan
Paul.
Glasgow University Media Group. 1980. More Bad News. London: Routledge &
Kegan Paul.
Glasgow University Media Group. 1982. Really Ban News. London: Routledge &
Kegan Paul.
Golding, P., and G. Murdock. 1979. Ideology and the Mass Media: The
Question of Determination. In Ideology and Cultural Production, eds. M. Barrett, P. Corrigan, A. Kuhn, and J.Wolff. London: Croom Helm.
Golding, P., G. Murdock, and P. Schlesinger. 1986. Communicating Politics. Leicester: Leicester University Press.
Graber, D.A. 1988. Processing the News, 2nd ed. New York: Longman. Greenberg B.S. and W. Gantz, eds. 1993. Desert Storm and the Mass Media.
Cresskill: Hampton Press.
Gunter, B. 1987. Poor Reception: Misunderstanding and Forgetting Broadcast News.
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Günther, R. 1988. Women Against the Nation : Representations of Greenham
Common in the British Press. In The Nature of the Right. A Feminist
Analysis of Order Patterns, ed. G. Seidel. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Hackett, R.A. and Y. Zhao. 1994. Challenging a master narrative: Peace protest and opinion/editorial discourse in the U.S. press during the Gulf War.
Discourse & Society, 5(4), 509-541.
Hall, S., D. Hobson, A. Lowe, and P. Willis, eds. 1980. Culture, Media, Language.
London: Hutchinson.
Hamelink, C.J. 1983a. Cultural Autonomy in Global Communications. New York:
Longman.
Hamelink, C.J. 1983b. Finance and Information. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Hartmann, P., and C. Husband. 1974. Racism and the Mass Media. London: Davis-
Poynter.
Herman, E.S., and N. Chomsky. 1988. Manufacturing Consent. The Political
Economy of the Mass Media. New York: Pantheon Books.
Hollingsworth, M. 1986. The Press and Political Dissent. London: Pluto.
Indra, D.M. 1979. Ethnicity, Social Stratification and Opinion Formatíon: An Analysis
of Ethnie Portrayal in the Vaneouver Press, (1905)-(1976). Ph.D. Diss. Simon
Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia.
Iyengar, S., and D.R. Kinder. 1987. News That Matters. Television and American
Opinion. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Iyengar, S., and A. Simon. 1993. News Coverage of the Gulf Crisis and Public-
Opinion: A Study of Agenda-Setting, Priming, and Framing.
Communication Research, 20(3), 365-383.
Johnson-Laird, P.N. 1983. Mental Models. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Kellner, D. 1992. The Persian Gulf TV War. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Klapper, J.T. 1960. The Effects of Mass Communication. New York: Free Press. Kress, G. 1983. Linguistic and Ideological Transformations in News Reporting.
In Language, Image, Media, eds. H. Davis and P. Walton. Oxford: Blackwell. Larrain, J. 1979. The Concept of Ideology. London: Hutchinson.
Liehter, S.R., S. Rothman, and L. Lichter. 1990. The Media Elite. America s New
Powerbrokers. New York: Hastings House.
Liebes, T., and E. Katz. 1990. The Export of Meaning: Cross-cultural Readings of
Dallas. New York: Oxford University Press.
Livingstone, S.M. 1990. Making Sense of Television: the Psychology of Audience
Interpretation. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Lukes, S., ed. 1986. Power. Oxford: Blackwell.
MacKuen, M., and S. Coombs. 1981. More Than News: Media Power in Public
Affairs. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

originally posted by: artistpoet

The Illuminati was created, not by Adam Weishaupt but by people controlling him,t

a reply to: boncho

Name the one's who controlled Adam Weishaupt and show the proof
Proof meaning hard evidence rather than theory, rumour or heresay

Go here:


Hint: It's in Europe. Go get 'em (answers) Rainman.

a reply to: boncho

Just say instead of playing silly games

a reply to: SgtHamsandwich

second this

a reply to: DJW001

Fox News always manages to find a new low to sink to.

Well, there's Fox News and then there is Kylee Wierks who interpreted the NASA kids page as "revealing" something. I guess for her, it did. For others it was a kids page showing that astronomy has nothing to do with astrology. She seems to have missed the point.

fox59.com...

Really, Boncho, you seem to be losing it lately.

He's been learning from the best.

A bit of fact + a lot of goobledegook + videos + large pics = pure awesomisitude.

He hasn't been working on varying fonts and colors so much though. Needs another course.

a reply to: boncho

To me it seems that they get a kick out of bragging about their secret hidden knowledge in plain site. Most people are too preoccupied with trivial distractions to notice and these sick buggers know it.

They also know that those who speak out about it will be ridiculed. They are laughing their asses off at us.

Ty for posting this thread as I would have not found out about this most likely.

I hate to speculate but this gives me the feeling that they are aware something big is going to happen soon.

And this is how they will commemorate it.

a reply to: boncho

This part of the article cracked me up:

3,000 years ago, astronomers didn’t totally understand how the Earth, sun, and stars moved. They also didn’t realize how vast the universe is.

Lol...we're still learning from them. Funny how they make us sound so primitive, we had the cosmos mapped, maybe with some outside help

a reply to: DigitalVigilante420
No. We had some stars located. From our point of view. Then.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: DigitalVigilante420
No. We had some stars located. From our point of view. Then.

You were there?

That's pretty cool man