Another reason why SYZYGY sucked
Gil
Cyronwode
jealous SMOKING bitch. (Smoking has been an effective symbol of evil for
most of the series; they blew that off in one brief monet, which was
REALLY DUMB.) I did not like Mulder as a "horny beast" or his DRINKING or
how cluelessly pushy he was toward yet another woman, especially right on
the heels of his eaqually obsessed (but very, very funny) play for Bambi.
I did not like the verbal negativity these formerly mutually supportive
people expressed toward each other. I used to think "The List" was my
least favourite episode. Now "Syzygy" is. In fact, if i see another one
like it, i will lose my enthusiasm for the show.
But all that pales before the sheer STUPIDITY of the scenes with the
astrologer.
I am an astrologer myself and here's what i heard:
The astrologer said that Mercury, Jupiter, and Uranus would be conjunct
"in the house of Aquarius."
IMPOSSIBLE: There is no such things as a "house" of Acquarius. A "house"
is the division of the sky into fixed realms that measure time. The houses
are NUMBERED, not listed by zodiacal time. That is, the FIRST HOUSE runs
from around dawn to about two hours after dawn. The SECOND house runs for
about the next two hours. Then comes the THIRD HOUSe, which lasts about
until noon. And so forth. A syzygy, stellium, or multiple conjunction such
as that described would travel through ALL TWELVE HOUSES in the course of
24 hours. It would be closest to exact at one particular moment in time,
but because the earth is a sphere, that time may be right after dawn, in
the FIRST HOUSE in one area, but it would be in the SIXTH HOUSE, right
after sunset, in another part of the world.
What she SHOULD have said: The triple conjunction would take oplace in the
SIGN of Aquarius. Aquarius is a zodiacal sign. In fact, Mercury, Jupiter
and Uranus WILL be conjunct in Aquarius -- but not when she said.
She said this would ahppen on "January 12th." WRONG.
The syzygy will take place on FEBRUARY 12th, 1996, in 5 degrees Aquarius.
She said the syzygy would have an effect on people born in 1979 because
they would have an opposition to their birth chart (that is, to the
position that a planet occupied at their birth). An opposition means that
two planets are 180 degrees apart in the sky, "opposite" each other. The
sign opposite Aquarius is Leo, and Jupiter, part of the 1996 syzygy, was
indeed in Leo in 1979 -- and so the astrologer was correct -- and as it
happens, a person born January 21st, 1979 would have Jupiter opposed to
the 1996 syzygy (and they'd also have their natal Sun and Mars conjunct
the 1996 syzygy), which is pretty strong.
But the astrologer ALSO said this opposition would "create a grand cross"
-- a pattern where four planets are located 90 degrees apart in space, so
that if you drew a line from each pant to the earth, it would look like an
equal-armed cross. UNTRUE. A comosite of charts for the two dates would
create a pattern consisting of THREE of the four points needed to make the
grand cross -- because the Moon was in early Scorpio on January 21st,
1979, and Scorpio is 90 degrees from Aquarius AND from Leo. In order to
form a grand cross, there would have had to have been a planet in early
Taurus on January 12th, 1979 -- or on February 12th 1996. And there was no
planet in that position on either date.
(Note to astrologers: Jupiter went retrograde in 1979 so there is a second
opposition date, but no t-square on that date, much less a grand cross.)
By now a few of you are completely confused or wondering "so what?" --
well, regardless of what you think about the reliability of astrology as a
predictor of events, you have to admit that it is based on mathematical
principles and celestial mechanics -- the same conditions that govern
astronomy. With computer-generated astrology and astronomy calculation
programs available for every commputer (i use Io Edition for the Mac, from
Time Cycles Research) there is NO EXCUSE to get this simple stuff so
terribly wrong. I checked out the above in under 10 minutes. Any
astrologer could have done the same.
Yeah, i know...chalk it up to the "Coriolis Effect," right?
Right.
(Or to Mercury retrograde right now, when the episode aired :-)
Anyway, "Syzygy" was a really badly written and ill-conceived episode, for
a lot more reasons than that they got the astrology wrong -- but they did
that TOO, and i think it sucks.
catherine yronwode
cyro...@aol.com
alt.lucky.w -- the newsgroup of synchronicity, amulets, and talismans
sustag-p...@ces.ncsu.edu -- e-mail list for the sacred landscape
http://sunSITE.unc.edu/london/The_Sacred_Landscape.html
Naren Larson
: I did not like the rewrite of Scully as a hostile, rude, unprofessional,
: Right.
You madam, do not get it. Perhaps, if you were to watch the episode again,
this time considering the possibilty that it is a FARCE than it may make
a sort of sense to you.
Or perhaps it wouldn't.
Look, i apologize for the innacuracies that chalk up in the X-Files; many
a time have i been seriously insulted by the total ineptitude that the
writers display, but i do at least TRY to overlook them. Consider that this
show manages to do one Hell of a lot more than any other on the air at present.
It at least TRIES to use scientific ideas (or parascientific ideas such as
yours), and often it handles them well.
But no doubt this means next to nothing to you. I won't go on; it would be an
excercise in futility and i really do have better things to do...For instance,
cleaning the cat box out.
Go away.
chandra.
Craig Bickley
> I am an astrologer myself and here's what i heard:
>
> She said the syzygy would have an effect on people born in 1979 because
> they would have an opposition to their birth chart (that is, to the
> position that a planet occupied at their birth). An opposition means that
> two planets are 180 degrees apart in the sky, "opposite" each other. The
> sign opposite Aquarius is Leo, and Jupiter, part of the 1996 syzygy, was
> indeed in Leo in 1979 -- and so the astrologer was correct -- and as it
> happens, a person born January 21st, 1979 would have Jupiter opposed to
> the 1996 syzygy (and they'd also have their natal Sun and Mars conjunct
> the 1996 syzygy), which is pretty strong.
>
> But the astrologer ALSO said this opposition would "create a grand cross"
> -- a pattern where four planets are located 90 degrees apart in space, so
> that if you drew a line from each pant to the earth, it would look like an
> equal-armed cross. UNTRUE. A comosite of charts for the two dates would
> create a pattern consisting of THREE of the four points needed to make the
> grand cross -- because the Moon was in early Scorpio on January 21st,
> 1979, and Scorpio is 90 degrees from Aquarius AND from Leo. In order to
> form a grand cross, there would have had to have been a planet in early
> Taurus on January 12th, 1979 -- or on February 12th 1996. And there was no
> planet in that position on either date.
>
> (Note to astrologers: Jupiter went retrograde in 1979 so there is a second
> opposition date, but no t-square on that date, much less a grand cross.)
Is there any tangible proof that astrology means anything at all? I
always thought of it as Hocus Pocus used to dupe people out of money and
fill space in newspapers. I thought the show was ironic because it
referred to Satan doing everything and being the killer, yet then pointed
the finger at astrology which in itself is Satanic. So was the astrology
just supposed to be a cover-up for Satan's activities, and was the school
principal right about Satan being the cause after all?
I thought the astrology angle was a cheap excuse to let Duchovny and
Anderson play out of character for a change. I didn't like this episode,
but I disagree that the episode is going downhill. Could someone also
provide reasons why they didn't like "The List"? This is one of my
favorite episodes, and I thought it was suspenseful and thoroughly
entertaining. Just Curious.
--
Craig L. Bickley
Moore Hall 115
(409)847-6557
Fightin Texas Aggie Class of 1998 A-A-A-A-A-A-A
ZENITH9
about it you can probable debunk just about every show !!!! Who cares???
enjoy the show !!!
Matt <DARK ONE> Mezynski
>> they would have an opposition to their birth chart (that is, to the
>> position that a planet occupied at their birth). An opposition means that
>> two planets are 180 degrees apart in the sky, "opposite" each other. The
>> sign opposite Aquarius is Leo, and Jupiter, part of the 1996 syzygy, was
>> indeed in Leo in 1979 -- and so the astrologer was correct -- and as it
>> happens, a person born January 21st, 1979 would have Jupiter opposed to
>> the 1996 syzygy (and they'd also have their natal Sun and Mars conjunct
>> the 1996 syzygy), which is pretty strong.
>>
>> But the astrologer ALSO said this opposition would "create a grand cross"
>> -- a pattern where four planets are located 90 degrees apart in space, so
>> that if you drew a line from each pant to the earth, it would look like an
>> equal-armed cross. UNTRUE. A comosite of charts for the two dates would
>> create a pattern consisting of THREE of the four points needed to make the
>> grand cross -- because the Moon was in early Scorpio on January 21st,
>> 1979, and Scorpio is 90 degrees from Aquarius AND from Leo. In order to
>> form a grand cross, there would have had to have been a planet in early
>> Taurus on January 12th, 1979 -- or on February 12th 1996. And there was no
>> planet in that position on either date.
>>
>> (Note to astrologers: Jupiter went retrograde in 1979 so there is a second
>> opposition date, but no t-square on that date, much less a grand cross.)
>
>always thought of it as Hocus Pocus used to dupe people out of money and
>fill space in newspapers. I thought the show was ironic because it
>referred to Satan doing everything and being the killer, yet then pointed
>the finger at astrology which in itself is Satanic. So was the astrology
>just supposed to be a cover-up for Satan's activities, and was the school
>principal right about Satan being the cause after all?
> I thought the astrology angle was a cheap excuse to let Duchovny and
>Anderson play out of character for a change. I didn't like this episode,
>but I disagree that the episode is going downhill. Could someone also
>provide reasons why they didn't like "The List"? This is one of my
>favorite episodes, and I thought it was suspenseful and thoroughly
>entertaining. Just Curious.
I'm sure to get flamed for this...but oh well...my believes aside (don't
tell me I'll be going to hell or whatever, I don't care what you think) we
don't need fanatic Christians walking in talking about how Satanic
astrology or whatever is. Wether it's a money scheme or not, I don't
know, but Satanic??? If you're refering to some part of the Bible that
says it is Satanic, I could point you to at least 10 which will tell you
that the X-Files itself is Satanic, hell even the Internet, and TV in
general...I know you won't take my advice, but try logging on the CoS
(Church of Satan) homepage, I don't know the URL of hand, but that'll at
least let you know a little of your own beliefs. As for Satan being
responsible for the killings etc., whatever...it started out with the
whole cult sacrafices thing (which unless you're stupid is completely
outrages), then gave a paranormal type of explanation for the whole thing
(which is what the X-files is all about). Satan had nothing to do with
it, but then of course anyone could link anything to anything... You
remind me of the School Principal in SYZYGY "I know it was Satan, yes
Satan did it" blah blah blah, just sensless blabering, give it up already,
preach somewhere else, please!!!
Karen L Green
> I thought the show was ironic because it
> referred to Satan doing everything and being the killer, yet then pointed
> the finger at astrology which in itself is Satanic.
WHOA!! Astrology is Satanic? Where do you get that??
Astrology just happened to be one of the Seven Liberal Arts, part of
every school's curriculum from Antiquity through the Middle Ages. It was
taught in medieval universities where the teachers were often men of the
church.
You may not like it, but it's DEFINITELY not "Satanic".
Karen
RLAB...@kentvm.kent.edu
cha...@crl.com (Naren Larson) writes:
>
>: IMPOSSIBLE: There is no such things as a "house" of Acquarius. A "house"
>: is the division of the sky into fixed realms that measure time. The houses
>: are NUMBERED, not listed by zodiacal time. That is, the FIRST HOUSE runs
>: from around dawn to about two hours after dawn. The SECOND house runs for
I saw? (It's called "corny astrology") Slight correction here--the
first house is about 2 hours *before* dawn, the second two hours before
that, etc. Each planet enters the 12th house immediately after rising.
>
>: She said this would ahppen on "January 12th." WRONG.
>
>: The syzygy will take place on FEBRUARY 12th, 1996, in 5 degrees Aquarius.
>: But the astrologer ALSO said this opposition would "create a grand cross"
I thought the biggest inconsistency was when the astrologer said that
this stellium happened every 84 years. All three planets were within
one degree in 1974, and will be again in 2028. There have been many
such stelliums in the past 84 years (at least 5 or 6).
I agree that for me at least, these inconsistencies made it harder to
enjoy the episode. Considering one of the points of the show is
openness to "extreme possibilities," you would think they'd have
enough respect for the subject matter to not screw it up. Nobody
expects a tv show to be perfect, but CC has shown that he is capable
of writing more carefully.
--Ron
Naren Larson
: In article <4ed0fi$n...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, cyro...@aol.com (Cyronwode) says:
: >[More about astrology than you ever wanted to know]
: >
[HACK]
: And they didn't even bother to check the technical aspects of that story
: line? It's now offical. That episode sucked in every way possible.
: I hated it even more because I find the idea of large objects in the sky
: determining my destiny to be a load of crap. (Man, I'm going to get flamed
: by the astrologers out there) :(
Well, since you've made yourself a target, i'll make myself a cotarget:
Anyone who disagrees with me (that astrology is no more accurate than say,
a coin toss) is free to tell me so...I own stock in ACME Asbestos...
chandra
: Mike Caldwell
: The opinions stated in this post may not be those of anyone sane.
Mike Caldwell
>[More about astrology than you ever wanted to know]
>
>a lot more reasons than that they got the astrology wrong -- but they did
>that TOO, and i think it sucks.
>
>
line? It's now offical. That episode sucked in every way possible.
I hated it even more because I find the idea of large objects in the sky
determining my destiny to be a load of crap. (Man, I'm going to get flamed
by the astrologers out there) :(
Mike Caldwell
Alan MacDonald
: Mike Caldwell (rcal...@direct.ca) wrote:
: : In article <4ed0fi$n...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, cyro...@aol.com (Cyronwode) says:
: : >[More about astrology than you ever wanted to know]
: [HACK]
: : And they didn't even bother to check the technical aspects of that story
: : line? It's now offical. That episode sucked in every way possible.
: : I hated it even more because I find the idea of large objects in the sky
: : determining my destiny to be a load of crap. (Man, I'm going to get flamed
: : by the astrologers out there) :(
: Well, since you've made yourself a target, i'll make myself a cotarget:
: Anyone who disagrees with me (that astrology is no more accurate than say,
: a coin toss) is free to tell me so...I own stock in ACME Asbestos...
: chandra
: : Mike Caldwell
: : The opinions stated in this post may not be those of anyone sane.
Sure it's crap. It's fiction. You find the idea of a coccoon-spinning
freak who can squeeze himself through a mail slot more believable?
--
David Ross
all about how the astrologer was wrong in her explanations of the
astorlogical events taking place. True, perhaps, but she was under the
same influence of whatever cosmological event was taking place as
everyone else, and was actiing just as out of character as everyone
else. So it WAS in character for her to be incorrect.