What is your Sun/Horoscope Sign?

I am a Sagittarius but have some scorpio traits

so is the earth slowing? or just rotating on an altered plane? what i mean to ask is this a sign of some great timult on earth scientificly?

gemini so i thought, guess im a taurus now..which is wierd i have a car named that.

[edit on 20-9-2008 by mastermind77]

picses. you might want to cross reference with the supposed 13th sign Ophiuchus . it resides at the galactic cross which goes into its 26,000 year position in 2012.

there are 13 moons and there should be 13 months becuase that equals a perfect year with no need for leap year. "they" changed it to mess up our natural rhythyms.

reply to post by schrodingers dog


Hey, birthday-sharer, Schrodingers Dog Hope you had a good day this year.

I'm a Virgo, the year of the Rat, and Mayan sun sign "Storm" or Cauac. Of the descriptions I've read of the three, Cauac is the closest to who I am in real life.

Wing_nut, my better half, is a Scorpio. I can never remember his Chinese or Mayan signs. (Can't Remember Stuff syndrome strikes again! LOL) It must be okay despite the predictors that say we shouldn't be a good pair; we've been together a long time now.

I'm pisces, probably why I feel like a fish out of water. I share the same birthday with Bruce Willis.

Imaginative and sensitive - Yes, I'm always day dreaming and probably overly sensitive. Occasionally I'll come back down to Earth.

Compassionate and kind - I'm into buddhism, need I say more.

Selfless and unworldly - I'm forever dreamiing of a better world. The rest of the time, I wish I was living on any planet but this one.

Intuitive and sympathetic - I pick most things up quite easily without giving it much thought. I'm sympathetic, but it all depends on the situation. I can't stand people who make mountains out of mole hills. If you have serious problems, I'll listen and lend a helping hand.

On the dark side.... Yikes... do I have a dark side....is that Darth Vader I hear calling.

Escapist and idealistic - Yep that's me, always wanting to be somewhere else, probably because this planet doesn't live up to my expectations.

Secretive and vague - Not really. I try to be honest and sincere, but some things are nobody's business but my own.

Weak-willed and easily led - I'm very quiet and kind of shy, so yes you could say I'm weak willed in some situations, but I'm definitely not easily led, as I follow no one. I see myself as a shepherd, not a sheep.

I guess I don't qualify for the dark side......

Double Gemini
Sun and Moon 8th House

ZG

well i only know my sun sign. how do i figure out the rest?

heres all my info lol if anyone knows how:

june 23rd 1988 7:22 a.m.

Originally posted by Seekingmyself
well i only know my sun sign. how do i figure out the rest?

heres all my info lol if anyone knows how:

june 23rd 1988 7:22 a.m.

Cancer Sun, Libra Moon, Cancer Ascendant

reply to post by Trams

i'm ophichius(spelling?)
born dec 9; and even though i do not know how to spell my sign correctly i have above average I.Q... but not crazy high or anything. And i'm curious as to why you wanted to know those 3 things. also, i should add that i did not read all 200 and 90 something other posts, maybe that means my sign is lazy. We should find out how many of a certain sign actually read all the posts.(and by "we" i mean you or someone else, i probably won't get around to it)

reply to post by special

you might be ophichius. depends on when u were born in december...while we are talking about signs, why can't anyone tell me why we can't start doing horoscopes for my sign. i like reading them, but now that i know that that most people are not the sign they thought they were, it gets me thinking.

reply to post by Enigma Publius


Even when considering the 13th sign, I am still a Cancer myself

reply to post by Seekingmyself


Yeah i'll help you out. Where were you born though?

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by Enigma Publius

 

Even when considering the 13th sign, I am still a Cancer myself

lucky you! it doesn't change ALL signs when factoring in which constellation we are actually in. but seriously, why can't i look in the paper and read my horoscope? if it's a known fact that the dates are wrong as according to where things actually are because of the tilt of the earth or where the sun is, then why can't we make horoscopes according to that? makes no sense to me at all.

Originally posted by Enigma Publius

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by Enigma Publius

 

but seriously, why can't i look in the paper and read my horoscope? if it's a known fact that the dates are wrong as according to where things actually are because of the tilt of the earth or where the sun is, then why can't we make horoscopes according to that? makes no sense to me at all.

This was already explained, here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

And also in the other, older thread ("Your astrological profile").

reply to post by Enigma Publius


Because every single person, even people that don't care about astrology, knows what their astrological sign is (even if it's wrong). It would take a loud voice to change that perception.

You would have to influence many publications, you know?

Does anyone know of a website that creates birth/natal charts in accordance with all 13?

Also, are we absolutely sure on the validity of there being 13?

I haven't looked into this myself, other then reading that one site that was posted earlier.

Out of curiosity, I did my birth chart yesterday according to the 13-sign, uneven-spacing "real galactic" zodiac. I can't find it now, but I used a cool little online app where you put in your birth date, time, and time zone and it generates a star chart with the planets and constellations labeled. Then you just find each planet and which sign it's nearest to get your whole chart.

My "traditional" birth chart is, in my opinion, almost frighteningly accurate. Not just sun/moon/rising, but a lot of the places where there are contradictory influences in my chart are areas of life where I have a hard time finding balance.

I did not recognize myself in the new 13-sign chart.

There are three basic differences between the traditional and the "galactic":

1) the new sign. I have to say it looks to me like the sun passes mostly between Pisces and Ophiucus -- most of Ophiucus lies above the path the sun takes and most of Pisces lies below it, whereas the other signs are all more or less centered on the Sun's path. I'd be more inclined to believe that Ophiucus-Scorpio is one compound sign somehow, just going by the star chart.

2) the signs are not distributed evenly. Okay, he has a point here. Traditional astrology breaks up the year into 12 pretty much even points and then assigns each one to a constellation. But in the star chart, some zodiac constellations are wider than others. The breaks between the signs are approximately the same, but not as perfectly even as the traditional zodiac has it.

3) the new "galactic" zodiac is about a month off the "traditional" or "tropical" zodiac, because the traditional one is based on where the stars were a couple thousand years ago. This seems like the most powerful argument for the new zodiac to me, but all I can say is, the old one described me and the new one doesn't.

I'll try to find the star chart application again and post it if I do.

EDIT: got it www.fourmilab.ch...

[edit on 9/21/08 by americandingbat]

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
Also, are we absolutely sure on the validity of there being 13?

I haven't looked into this myself, other then reading that one site that was posted earlier.

Validity? It's astrology.

There are very few astrologers who recognize it and even know about it. It may never gain ground but before Uranus, Neptune, Pluto were discovered Scorpio, Aquarius, and Pisces had different ruling planets. There is a split in astrology between traditionalists and modernists to use the new planets. Vedic astrology does not consider Pluto. So it is debatable down to the astrologer. This even newer Ophe-something sign isn't widely recognized. Maybe one day, but there is no Official Astrology Council to decide these things.

Originally posted by americandingbat

3) the new "galactic" zodiac is about a month off the "traditional" or "tropical" zodiac, because the traditional one is based on where the stars were a couple thousand years ago. This seems like the most powerful argument for the new zodiac to me, but all I can say is, the old one described me and the new one doesn't.

I'll try to find the star chart application again and post it if I do.

I wish I knew how they come to these conclusions but I always assumed that observations were made over long periods of time about the similarities between people in certain birth times and astrological profiling was more about observation than mysticism. That and coupled with any other myths/things