dChan - Q Origins Project Archive

TimeAnon here.

Haven't posted this kind of thing for a long time, but this article in the WSJ today just makes the fuckery so obvious.

Yup, the traditional signs of the Zodiac come from Ptolemy or maybe a little before. For all intents and purposes the traditional dates for astrology derive from calculations made around the time of the birth of Christ. We were at the beginning of the Age of Pisces then. An astronomical age lasts about 2160 years so we should be entering the Age of Aquarius in another 150 years give or take.

BUT…we aren't. We're still stuck in the Age of Pisces with at least another 500 or 600 years to go according to the boundaries set by Ptolemy. This is NOT the dawning of the Age of Aquarius.

So how does the University of Illinois scientist who made the chart to show you your "actual" sign do it? He moved all of the boundaries around. He made Pisces really big and Aquarius really small. The chart compares apples and oranges. It is NOT what Ptolemy created in his system, which was a strict division into 30 degree arcs.

Why not show things the way they should be and compare apples/apples? Because then anyone who can do basic math would see that the calendar is off. Hint: the dark ages between late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages weren't "dark", they just weren't there.

But does the scientist know what he did and how his chart is deceptive? Well, he did have a lecture series in Astronomy named after him at PARKLAND college.