It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Your Astrological Sign May Not Be What You Think It Is

page: 2
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in


posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 04:13 PM
reply to post by jca2005

Yes, apparently Ophiuchus was removed by someone in the Catholic Church ages ago for two reasons: 13 signs was unlucky, and when they chose one to ditch, the picked the Serpent Bearer for suitably dogmatic reasons.

reply to post by St Udio

Well don't forget that there are 13 lunar cycles in a year, not 12.

posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 04:28 PM
Quite a coincidence.
My chinese sign is "Snake".
And I was born at 1:00 am 11 dec, which makes me a Ophiuchus aka Snake carrier, lol.

Snake Snake carrier, see the connection?

Normally I'm a Sagittarius though.

posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 04:34 PM
The problem I've always had with astrology is that it would make way more sense to have it based on the date you were conceived rather than the date you were born.

That is when your life force entered your body. And it can never be altered into a different zodiac sign like your date of birth could through your mother having a Caesarian, or scheduling a "planned birth".

So, a Leo might in reality be someone that was conceived in November (did I get that right?) instead of someone born in August ...

[edit on 12/11/2007 by centurion1211]

posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 04:35 PM
reply to post by yeahright

Dude! OMG Jeebus! I've lost my Virgonity to become a Leo, too! And you know what's freaky? That story you told happens to me quite often, too! We must be long lost Geminids!

posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 04:41 PM
Im a LEO and I fit it to a "T"

I dont buy into horoscopes though...bunch of phony bologna IMO.

And someone once told me that you could fit any sign's trait. But for me, that isnt true....for me.

posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 04:43 PM
reply to post by centurion1211

That makes sense.

I was conceived in Dec and born on my "due" date....right on time. LOL For whatever that is worth

posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 04:44 PM

Originally posted by centurion1211
The problem I've always had with astrology is that it would make way more sense to have it based on the date you were conceived rather than the date you were born.

That's what I always thought, too.

And in REALITY, it may very well be based on just that.

If you read one of my previous posts in this thread, you will see what I mean.

posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 05:31 PM
im still an aquarius even with the new birthday dates
but yeah im not surprised because i am such an aquarius haha

posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 06:04 PM
The scientific data exists to suggests that; any correlation between personality and star sign may not have anything to do with the "stars" whatsoever.

It suggests that there is a quartly cycle of the Sun's magnetic field may indeed effect the level of thier DNA.

So that suggests that in 'days of old', when it was noticed that people were of a 'certain nature' when born under a certain sign, it wasn't to do with the sign; but what the suns magnetic field was doing at the time.

please ask if you want this "scientific evidence" that i speak of, its currently in a book im reading, and would have to reproduce some of the data here, and take PHOTOS of the diagrams/graphs involved.

I'd love to spread the info, it would take a few hours to do, so like i said...ask if your interested

[edit on 11-12-2007 by Anomic of Nihilism]

Edits for spelling...its late, and im tired, please forgive me

[edit on 11-12-2007 by Anomic of Nihilism]

posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 10:40 PM

Originally posted by Anomic of Nihilism
please ask if you want this "scientific evidence" that i speak of, its currently in a book im reading, and would have to reproduce some of the data here, and take PHOTOS of the diagrams/graphs involved.

I'd love to know more about this book you are talking about.

posted on Dec, 12 2007 @ 03:50 AM
This is based on the sidereal zodiac not the tropical zodiac which is more common. Lolz for yolz. I'm actually the 15th hidden side of the zodiac, the Gopher. But really, I'm an Aquarius and it fits me perfectly. I used to be so obsessed with politics and progressivism. Now I just don't give a #. But I'm still aloof and off in my head like any good Aquarius.

posted on Dec, 12 2007 @ 04:31 AM
Yes I am 2 an Aquarius. Born Feb 4th
. The description fits me well as well. Just not the horoscopes... I wonder if there are any real accurate ones out there. But I doubt it.

posted on Dec, 12 2007 @ 08:40 PM
reply to post by jca2005


It really desearves alot more research than this book gives it.

I will reproduce what is written; here on this thread, although i may not have time untill Monday.

But for now i shall write the details of the book i am speaking of.

there book is called The Mayan Prophecies, and the researchers name is Maurice M. Cotterell.

The Scientific research of which i speak isn't his (although some is), but certainly dersearves a further look


posted on Dec, 12 2007 @ 09:34 PM
I see this thread has dropped to the bottom of "Recent Posts". I'll try to resurrect this (really cool) thread with the following:

I'm not saying I believe in astrology, and I'm not saying I don't.

But -- anyone who dismisses astrology as stupid or childish is just plain ignorant about astrology.

There is a HUGE amount of theory behind astrology, describing how things interrelate in highly complex and philosophical ways. Four elements, three modes yield 4 X 3 = 12 different signs. (There is no possibility that there were EVER thirteen signs, and anyone who claims this has no understanding of the basis of astrology, and has not researched astrology in the slightest.)

Each transition between signs signifies a state change. The various planets interact with the element and mode changes to signify complex relationships. The planets are markers, like the hands of the clock, and have no cause-effect relationship, such as thru gravitational forces or other natural phenomenon. It is just a sophisticated way of keeping time.

The day you were born is a highly significant event in your life, and is simply another marker -- a starting point.


Years ago -- I believe it was 1979 -- I saw a short classified advertisement in a science fiction magazine (I think it was "Galaxy", now out of print.) The classified advertisement was something like below:

"Mathematical Proof of Astrology. Send One Dollar"

There was an address, listed as part of the advertisement. My expectations were very low. Curious (because I was studying math in college) I sent my dollar.

What I received for this dollar was about a 50 page, carefully typed thesis, written around 1910 by some dude from San Francisco, including a very poignant forward by some old lady lamenting that she had spent her entire life mourning the death of her mathematician lover and fiancee, who had died young, and how this rare manuscript was the most important thing in his short life, and she wanted to pass it on to the rest of the world before she also left this earth. Wow! That was worth a dollar by itself!

I was struck by the incomprehensibility of this document, in which he detailed an algorithm, and a mechanical device, called (and I am not sure about this) "a syncronetic clock". I don’t recall it had much to do with astrology, but I remember how it stated that, by proving that this device worked, it would be easy to map the device’s functionality to other forms of divination.

I could barely make sense of it. I think I still have it somewhere in my storage shed. But I recall that it dealt very heavily with something called "discrete frequency domain transforms", and defined some transform called a "Synchronetic transform" which was kind of like a Z-transform, as far as I remember.

It was way, way dense. I will publish parts of it on ATS if I can locate my copy.

posted on Dec, 12 2007 @ 10:18 PM
Black Division I liked your last reply. I believe what you are saying. But I just don't know how they make up horoscopes, I would like more information on that part. That is the only thing about astrology I do not believe. However I think if we dig deeper into astrology I wonder if it can help lead to some kind of contacts with Extra-Terrestrial's, or give more information about them.

By the way help me flag my post if you like, so we can help look some more information up on this subject.

[edit on 12-12-2007 by jca2005]

posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 06:40 AM
there are 13 months in the aztec/mayan culture, and i have always associated with snakes, having my birthday on December 6th now puts me in the sign of Ophiuchus, the snake bearer,

posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 07:04 AM
Me being a Scorpio and my birthday being November 16th would turn me into a Libra according to your thread. I checked the characteristics of a Libra just for fun and there is no way I could be one. Sure a few of the traits match, but it says Libras are very gullible. Trust me I'm the furthest from gullible you could possibly get.

posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 07:51 AM
what are the traits for ophiuchus, a mixture of scorpio and saggitarius?

posted on Jan, 13 2008 @ 05:08 PM
No offense to all of the Aquarians, but I refuse to go Aquarius. I fit the Pisces descriptions 100%. I have no Aquarian traits at all.

I look at daily horoscope from time to time, and I rarely have any thing come true. However, when I turned 30, four years ago, I read my horoscope on my birthday (Mar 1st). It said that I would stop a "very destructive habit" by the 4th. Upon reading that I decided to quit smoking. I had been telling myself I would quit by the time I turned 30, so I took the horoscope as a "sign" that I should keep to my plan. I have been smoke free since. I know that is nothing more than positive reinforcement, but it was indeed positive! So horoscopes do hold some significance for me.

The love readings NEVER come true!

posted on Jan, 13 2008 @ 05:15 PM

Source Of Article
But before you ask or answer that question, consider this: your zodiac sign corresponds to the position of the sun relative to constellations as they appeared over 2200 years ago!

Astrologers are aware of this and keep it the same (i.e. base it on the ancient sky) by convention.

top topics

<< 1    3  4 >>

log in